4 ms·

I think we actually need more bots discussing politics online. Specifically, we need echo chambers to be replaced by cacophony chambers. The only way to salvag

I think we actually need more bots discussing politics online. Specifically, we need echo chambers to be replaced by cacophony chambers. The only way to salvage democracy is to bring it back offline. Online, it was undermined by troll farms pulling the strings in favor of certain shady factions. It's time for the good guys to get their hands dirty and break the spell. Trolls cannot be silenced, but they can be offset.

Animats 2y ago
> Specifically, we need echo chambers to be replaced by cacophony chambers. That's the objective of modern Russian propaganda. The goal is not to be believed. It is to create confusion and reap inaction.
- friend_Fernando 2y ago
  Yes, but they do so selectively for what's against their interest. The net, filtered result is what's in their interest. That leaves "mutual assured dialogue destruction" as the only option, IMO.
  - Animats 2y ago
    > Yes, but they do so selectively for what's against their interest. Generating division is sufficient. There were Russian attempts to hack both campaigns in the last US election.[1] [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-sanctions-russian-iranian-entities-attempted-election-interference-rcna185880 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-sancti...
    - friend_Fernando 2y ago
      They're usually not filtering pro-left or pro-right. They're filtering pro-Russian-faction within the left and right. This usually means extremists that used to have no hope of winning in the pre-Internet days. These factions are more likely to be beholden to their "troll benefactors" afterwards. But even if they turn out to be ungrateful, the extremism itself is worth pursuing. As you said, confusion and division are useful in their own right. Add other rogue countries to the mix, and you end up with a nasty filter. We should turn it into white noise, or at least drop its SNR.
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    > Yes, but they do so selectively for what's against their interest. The net, filtered result is what's in their interest. Not really. You can go and see the ads Russia placed on Facebook in the 2016 election. They had pro-life and pro-choice ads. They had pro-LGBTQ and anti-LGBTQ ads. They had pro-guns and anti-guns ads.
    - friend_Fernando 2y ago
      I don't think we disagree here, unless you saw some pro-Ukraine 2024 ads. It's not about left and right. To demagogues, ideologies are just tools of the trade.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        In the communist era russian propaganda had a definite ideological position. It was also far more effective. Much of the 60s era progressive politics was a result of russian influence and the west was full of communists before the tankies split off.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  That's the objective of propaganda within russia. For external audiences the objective is to sow chaos.
  - bergen 2y ago
    cacophony = chaos, so a lot of mixed opinions that don't really make sense would achieve just that. I would not expect thought out and stringent discussion from throwing a bunch of bots at every discussion
- herbst 2y ago
  Isn't that the same for any bigger propaganda machine? I don't see the US doing any different than that
panta 2y ago
I have been thinking about these lines for a long time. Humanity would be much better if we went back to pre-social network internet, populated by small human-moderated and vertical forums. We can and should destroy social networks, using their own tactics.
concordDance 2y ago
> Online, it was undermined by troll farms pulling the strings in favor of certain shady factions. No, online it was undermined by selection effects. Where those who care the most about something are most likely to engage or post, leading to endless streams of unrepresentative and extreme views.
- jokethrowaway 2y ago
  It was shaped by censorship! Conservatives and libertarians have been banned for a decade. Since the first Obama social media campaign the internet became very one sided - and people started believing that crap so much, everyone here had to sit through at least one DEI training. I'm against any form of government and centralization of power (which nearly always happens thanks to regulations and laws); I'm not a fan of Musk and conservatives (I'll change my mind after I see with my eyes a significant reduction of the US government) but I'm glad to see a return to balance in online discourse. We had another DEI training at work and I was impressed to read everyone left negative reviews about it. Quite the change in sentiment!
nextworddev 2y ago
You are describing Reddit
finnthehuman 2y ago
>Online, it was undermined by troll farms Meh, the conversation had already been undermined by that point. People discussing politics already ceded the conversation to people who liked fiery arguments. The posting farms were just convenient scapegoats for flameposters to explain why they weren't winning, and try to salvage some reputability.
hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
Considering the state of offline media today, I doubt there is any going back to the real or imagined pre-internet days of media.

Animats 2y ago

> Specifically, we need echo chambers to be replaced by cacophony chambers. That's the objective of modern Russian propaganda. The goal is not to be believed. It is to create confusion and reap inaction.

friend_Fernando 2y ago
Yes, but they do so selectively for what's against their interest. The net, filtered result is what's in their interest. That leaves "mutual assured dialogue destruction" as the only option, IMO.
- Animats 2y ago
  > Yes, but they do so selectively for what's against their interest. Generating division is sufficient. There were Russian attempts to hack both campaigns in the last US election.[1] [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-sanctions-russian-iranian-entities-attempted-election-interference-rcna185880 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-sancti...
  - friend_Fernando 2y ago
    They're usually not filtering pro-left or pro-right. They're filtering pro-Russian-faction within the left and right. This usually means extremists that used to have no hope of winning in the pre-Internet days. These factions are more likely to be beholden to their "troll benefactors" afterwards. But even if they turn out to be ungrateful, the extremism itself is worth pursuing. As you said, confusion and division are useful in their own right. Add other rogue countries to the mix, and you end up with a nasty filter. We should turn it into white noise, or at least drop its SNR.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > Yes, but they do so selectively for what's against their interest. The net, filtered result is what's in their interest. Not really. You can go and see the ads Russia placed on Facebook in the 2016 election. They had pro-life and pro-choice ads. They had pro-LGBTQ and anti-LGBTQ ads. They had pro-guns and anti-guns ads.
  - friend_Fernando 2y ago
    I don't think we disagree here, unless you saw some pro-Ukraine 2024 ads. It's not about left and right. To demagogues, ideologies are just tools of the trade.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      In the communist era russian propaganda had a definite ideological position. It was also far more effective. Much of the 60s era progressive politics was a result of russian influence and the west was full of communists before the tankies split off.
throwaway48476 2y ago
That's the objective of propaganda within russia. For external audiences the objective is to sow chaos.
- bergen 2y ago
  cacophony = chaos, so a lot of mixed opinions that don't really make sense would achieve just that. I would not expect thought out and stringent discussion from throwing a bunch of bots at every discussion
herbst 2y ago
Isn't that the same for any bigger propaganda machine? I don't see the US doing any different than that

panta 2y ago

I have been thinking about these lines for a long time. Humanity would be much better if we went back to pre-social network internet, populated by small human-moderated and vertical forums. We can and should destroy social networks, using their own tactics.

concordDance 2y ago

> Online, it was undermined by troll farms pulling the strings in favor of certain shady factions. No, online it was undermined by selection effects. Where those who care the most about something are most likely to engage or post, leading to endless streams of unrepresentative and extreme views.

jokethrowaway 2y ago
It was shaped by censorship! Conservatives and libertarians have been banned for a decade. Since the first Obama social media campaign the internet became very one sided - and people started believing that crap so much, everyone here had to sit through at least one DEI training. I'm against any form of government and centralization of power (which nearly always happens thanks to regulations and laws); I'm not a fan of Musk and conservatives (I'll change my mind after I see with my eyes a significant reduction of the US government) but I'm glad to see a return to balance in online discourse. We had another DEI training at work and I was impressed to read everyone left negative reviews about it. Quite the change in sentiment!

nextworddev 2y ago

You are describing Reddit

finnthehuman 2y ago

>Online, it was undermined by troll farms Meh, the conversation had already been undermined by that point. People discussing politics already ceded the conversation to people who liked fiery arguments. The posting farms were just convenient scapegoats for flameposters to explain why they weren't winning, and try to salvage some reputability.

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago

Considering the state of offline media today, I doubt there is any going back to the real or imagined pre-internet days of media.