6 ms·

It's a shame that this is true for many platforms. Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. The more people watch content the mo

by hx8 2y ago

It's a shame that this is true for many platforms. Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. The more people watch content the more it's shown to other people. Anyone's voice could be amplified in a way that was limited to broadcast networking and printing presses in the past. A million small conversations can occur in such a way that they create a chorus of discussion about public interests. Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
> Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare. The first step to reform would be to persuade legacy media to stop reporting the opinions trending on X/Twitter as "news". Stop reporting it entirely, it's manipulated, at best unverified, rubbish.
- snypher 2y ago
  That would require legacy reporters to get out on the streets and do some reporting.
  - isodev 2y ago
    Can you imagine, holding public servants (a president for example) accountable for their statements… practically unheard of in the last decade…
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Freedom2 2y ago
      Americans have held all their presidents accountable in the way they deem best according to their values.
- cma 2y ago
  It's their legal out against having to research stuff to prevent libel liability. And they can embed social media photos and videos that weren't even from the rights holder to avoid having to clear rights to anything.
llamaimperative 2y ago
This is part of why I think there should exist a popular real-name-only network. It'd go far to prevent these types of attacks on the megaphone.
- ipython 2y ago
  Isn’t that what Facebook is supposed to provide? From anecdotal evidence, people are happy to engage in vitriol online that they would never do face to face, real name or not.
  - TheCleric 2y ago
    Heck I’ve seen some nastiness on LinkedIn with people’s government name and employer right next to it. Real names don’t do much to prevent online assholery.
    - ipython 2y ago
      And to that point LinkedIn makes an active effort (in my experience) to highlight the most extreme political comments (I assume for the same reasons as any other social network- anger is a simple formula to fuel engagement). It insists on sending me push notifications of the most bizarre conspiracy theories, even after I muted the accounts. Super frustrating when all you want is basically an electronic business card catalog.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    1) No, Facebook does not confirm people’s real names 2) This isn’t a solution to vitriol, it’s a solution to inorganic amplification
    - ipython 2y ago
      They absolutely do require confirmation in some cases - https://www.facebook.com/help/1090831264320592 https://www.facebook.com/help/1090831264320592 Of course that’s not foolproof and there are millions of bot accounts by facebooks own admission. But at the scale of billions of active users across the globe I’m not sure what approach could be 100%
idle_zealot 2y ago
> Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. > Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare. It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication. For a brief period we had some social media platforms that made gestures in the direction of free communication. Then the investor capital came rolling in, and they were expected to increase revenue. How do you increase revenue of your free communication platform? You sell the messaging. Call it promotion, advertising, whatever. The only thing of value you have at your disposal are people's eyeball, you're going to sell what they see. You could ask your users to pay for the service... but then 80% of them will flake to a rival service that's still free. If there's a way to marry the profit motive and a truly democratic social media platform then our best and brightest have yet to find it. I suspect it doesn't exist.
- swed420 2y ago
  > It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication. Exactly. It seems the only way to sidestep this growing problem is to create a profit free platform, and view it almost as a utility but is openly owned and controlled by "the people." The vTaiwan and g0v ("gov zero") projects are relevant starter examples for a newer type of distributed governance: https://www.stearthinktank.com/post/deconstructing-binary-civil-society-hacking-g0v https://www.stearthinktank.com/post/deconstructing-binary-ci...
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    That reminds me of the surprising and perverse effects witnessed during the Roman Empire's downward spiral. One of the reforms was going from citizen soldiers who must provide their own gear to government provided weaponry and armor. Despite on its face being more egalitarian this resulted instead in consolidation of personal power and lead to more stratification. Quartermasters became kingmakers, just like how coups were lead by quartermasters in the Napoleonic era as they controlled food and provided payment. There must always be an owner and don't trust "the people" to be anything more than a populist's device to assign legitimacy to their supporters and other dissenters.
gunian 2y ago
I blame the Zuck algorithmic feed ruined it all he was my favorite out of all the feudal barons too :(

by hx8 2y ago

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

> Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare. The first step to reform would be to persuade legacy media to stop reporting the opinions trending on X/Twitter as "news". Stop reporting it entirely, it's manipulated, at best unverified, rubbish.

snypher 2y ago
That would require legacy reporters to get out on the streets and do some reporting.
- isodev 2y ago
  Can you imagine, holding public servants (a president for example) accountable for their statements… practically unheard of in the last decade…
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Freedom2 2y ago
    Americans have held all their presidents accountable in the way they deem best according to their values.
cma 2y ago
It's their legal out against having to research stuff to prevent libel liability. And they can embed social media photos and videos that weren't even from the rights holder to avoid having to clear rights to anything.

llamaimperative 2y ago

This is part of why I think there should exist a popular real-name-only network. It'd go far to prevent these types of attacks on the megaphone.

ipython 2y ago
Isn’t that what Facebook is supposed to provide? From anecdotal evidence, people are happy to engage in vitriol online that they would never do face to face, real name or not.
- TheCleric 2y ago
  Heck I’ve seen some nastiness on LinkedIn with people’s government name and employer right next to it. Real names don’t do much to prevent online assholery.
  - ipython 2y ago
    And to that point LinkedIn makes an active effort (in my experience) to highlight the most extreme political comments (I assume for the same reasons as any other social network- anger is a simple formula to fuel engagement). It insists on sending me push notifications of the most bizarre conspiracy theories, even after I muted the accounts. Super frustrating when all you want is basically an electronic business card catalog.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  1) No, Facebook does not confirm people’s real names 2) This isn’t a solution to vitriol, it’s a solution to inorganic amplification
  - ipython 2y ago
    They absolutely do require confirmation in some cases - https://www.facebook.com/help/1090831264320592 https://www.facebook.com/help/1090831264320592 Of course that’s not foolproof and there are millions of bot accounts by facebooks own admission. But at the scale of billions of active users across the globe I’m not sure what approach could be 100%

idle_zealot 2y ago

> Social media platforms have the potential to be incredibly democratic. > Now it seems like most platforms seem to be thinly veiled psyops hoping to trade quick dopamine for mindshare. It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication. For a brief period we had some social media platforms that made gestures in the direction of free communication. Then the investor capital came rolling in, and they were expected to increase revenue. How do you increase revenue of your free communication platform? You sell the messaging. Call it promotion, advertising, whatever. The only thing of value you have at your disposal are people's eyeball, you're going to sell what they see. You could ask your users to pay for the service... but then 80% of them will flake to a rival service that's still free. If there's a way to marry the profit motive and a truly democratic social media platform then our best and brightest have yet to find it. I suspect it doesn't exist.

swed420 2y ago
> It's a matter of incentives. The profit motive is fundamentally opposed to a low-intervention platform for democratic communication. Exactly. It seems the only way to sidestep this growing problem is to create a profit free platform, and view it almost as a utility but is openly owned and controlled by "the people." The vTaiwan and g0v ("gov zero") projects are relevant starter examples for a newer type of distributed governance: https://www.stearthinktank.com/post/deconstructing-binary-civil-society-hacking-g0v https://www.stearthinktank.com/post/deconstructing-binary-ci...
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  That reminds me of the surprising and perverse effects witnessed during the Roman Empire's downward spiral. One of the reforms was going from citizen soldiers who must provide their own gear to government provided weaponry and armor. Despite on its face being more egalitarian this resulted instead in consolidation of personal power and lead to more stratification. Quartermasters became kingmakers, just like how coups were lead by quartermasters in the Napoleonic era as they controlled food and provided payment. There must always be an owner and don't trust "the people" to be anything more than a populist's device to assign legitimacy to their supporters and other dissenters.

gunian 2y ago

I blame the Zuck algorithmic feed ruined it all he was my favorite out of all the feudal barons too :(