6 ms·

A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and soc

by imiric 2y ago

A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be beneficial to someone. Advertising and propaganda use the same tactics, after all. When these tools are accessible to anyone, including political adversaries, it would be naive to think that they're not being used for information warfare. The Cambridge Analytica leak was just the tip of the iceberg. These companies and agencies are still operating at a global scale, and business is booming. Why adtech companies weren't heavily investigated and regulated after this became public is beyond me. These are matters of national security, which anyone sane would consider more important than any financial or practical value they might have. Banning TikTok was a step in the right direction, but that's far from the only service that needs to be heavily regulated. And even that decision is flip-flopped and very controversial, so the idea of going beyond must be unthinkable. Yet not doing so will lead to the eventual downfall of the US, and the current western hegemony. The instability we're seeing now is just the beginning, and my only hope is that it doesn't escalate to a major global conflict.

Hojojo 2y ago
Honestly, it's crazy that any country allows online media to control the national discourse about politics without having any insight into how the algorithms decide what kind of content is shown to whom and how content is moderated or controlled. Then there's bot/propaganda accounts run by who knows who poisoning any political discussion.
- throw1222212121 2y ago
  "To save the public from propaganda, we must implement national controls on all political media dissemination"
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    More like "let's not have national controls on political media dissemination in the hands of large corporations and hidden from view"
    - euroderf 2y ago
      Or more like "Let's require technical measures to inhibit social media provider lock-in."
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    "everyone is smart enough to not be fooled by a firehose of addictive misinformation" You can tell how smart everyone is by looking at our excellent voter turnout, especially in local elections
- beloch 2y ago
  If you're upset with what Meta does in the U.S., consider that Meta's engagement algorithms played a key roll in driving the Rohingya massacre in Myanmar[1]. "Internal studies dating back to 2012 indicated that Meta knew its algorithms could result in serious real-world harms. In 2016, Meta’s own research clearly acknowledged that “our recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism." They knew there was a problem, but refused to act until Myanmar's government shut them down in 2014. After that, their response was half-hearted, inept, and actually made things worse[2]. Governments should not simply be paying attention to what users publish on Facebook, but also how Facebook's algorithms promote material to its users. Meta has demonstrated they will not take preventative action themselves. Meta needs to be carefully and extensively regulated by the government of any jurisdiction Facebook operates in. It's easy to appreciate concerns that regulating social media could result in state propaganda or censorship. However, regimes likely to do this are probably already using other forms of control anyways. Taking Meta's remorselessly proft-seeking engagement algorithms out of the picture may be the lesser evil by a substantial margin. [1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb... [2]https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/29/rohingya-massacre-facebook-played-a-central-role-in-the-rise-of-the-climate-of-hate_5998555_13.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/29/rohingya...
- imiric 2y ago
  A valid solution is, of course, authoritarian levels of control over all media outlets. This puts countries like China and Russia at an advantage in this case. Since most western citizens would object to this, surely middle ground solutions can be found that would prevent abuse and foreign (and domestic) manipulation, while preserving democracy, free speech and individual freedoms. I'm inclined to believe that democracy and authoritarianism doesn't have to be zero-sum, and that a balance can exist that allows societies to prosper even among hostile actors.
- vasac 2y ago
  And only ten years ago, during the Arab Spring, social networks were praised for their role. Wondering what has changed in the meantime.
  - NikkiA 2y ago
    What has changed is who it affected. Meddling in foreign elections/uprising is the US's MO, but when it's reversed it becomes a problem.
rayiner 2y ago
It’s amusing that the right used to complain about “information warfare”—Marxist infiltration of universities, newspapers, and Hollywood—while now the left does so.
- emchammer 2y ago
  I don't think that it's a left/right thing. There was a link that appeared here yesterday for a book newly released on Project Gutenberg called Masters of Deception. I went to the library to get a hard copy as it was originally published in 1958. I never thought that I would be agreeing with J Edgar Hoover so much. This is no longer just about Communism.
  - jgalt212 2y ago
    I'm starting to think very few things are left / right. People pick a team or tribe and stick with it regardless of what a dispassionate analysis of their team's positions actual mean to one's own conscience, values, objective function, whathaveyou.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  Communism wasn't an authoritarian movement back then, it was anti authoritarian. What is being opposed is authoritarianism. China isn't really communist, and neither was the ussr. It's just a regressive authoritarian regime with different propaganda. Authoritarianism is fundamentally right wing. Freedom for the right wing is fundamentally doublespeak for freedom for the oligarchs to gain power and oppress. Secondarily that freedom to acquire and impose power is granted to racists so the oligarchs have their foot soldiers.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ryoshoe 2y ago
      There's no shortage of governments where the professed ideology fails to line up with its actual policies, just look at the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
DrScientist 2y ago
On the other hand these tools do allow individuals to connect and share. I see it like politics ( at least the way it's managed in the UK ) - democracy means everyone get's to vote, leaflet door to door, politically organise etc. However there are ( in the non-online space ) strict regulations about money not being able to buy a larger voice - political spending is(was) strictly limited. You can't use broadcast media for political ads, apart from the government allocated slots..... The regulations haven't kept up with the digital world - but they need to. Looking at what unfettered money has done to US politics is all the incentive you need. One of the core problems is astroturfing is so easy online - money pretending to be people - in the end, I think the only solution is the loss of anonymity online - anonymity enables sock puppetry and astroturfing. ie if we want to keep people's freedoms online to say what they want ( but within the law ), but at the same time stop money drowning out all voices, then you have to know what's automated and what's real - and people need to be held accountable for what they say or do - that's how the real world works. You don't need authoritarian laws regulating content - social peer pressure is quite effective - after all democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
- freehorse 2y ago
  Blogging platforms also allow people to connect and share, but are prob less profitable. A lot of the role of blogs was taken over by social media, this created larger networks but with a lot of downsides. But these downsides are not inherent to all the online platforms where people can connect and share.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    Blogging is typically unidirectional, like TV or radio. You get to hear what someone says, but unless they turn on comments and actually read them, you don't get to have a conversation.
    - freehorse 2y ago
      In the blogosphere (at least the part I was in) most used to have comments turned on, and at very least pingbacks were definitely common practice . There used to be communities around blogs with similar theme/views and usually blogs had a sidebar with links to other blogs, linking to the newest articles there. People used to write and refer to what others wrote. I assume there must have been also isolated blogs, as there are practically isolated people in social media, but there were definitely also very vibrant communities.

by imiric 2y ago

Hojojo 2y ago

Honestly, it's crazy that any country allows online media to control the national discourse about politics without having any insight into how the algorithms decide what kind of content is shown to whom and how content is moderated or controlled. Then there's bot/propaganda accounts run by who knows who poisoning any political discussion.

throw1222212121 2y ago
"To save the public from propaganda, we must implement national controls on all political media dissemination"
- rcxdude 2y ago
  More like "let's not have national controls on political media dissemination in the hands of large corporations and hidden from view"
  - euroderf 2y ago
    Or more like "Let's require technical measures to inhibit social media provider lock-in."
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  "everyone is smart enough to not be fooled by a firehose of addictive misinformation" You can tell how smart everyone is by looking at our excellent voter turnout, especially in local elections
beloch 2y ago
If you're upset with what Meta does in the U.S., consider that Meta's engagement algorithms played a key roll in driving the Rohingya massacre in Myanmar[1]. "Internal studies dating back to 2012 indicated that Meta knew its algorithms could result in serious real-world harms. In 2016, Meta’s own research clearly acknowledged that “our recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism." They knew there was a problem, but refused to act until Myanmar's government shut them down in 2014. After that, their response was half-hearted, inept, and actually made things worse[2]. Governments should not simply be paying attention to what users publish on Facebook, but also how Facebook's algorithms promote material to its users. Meta has demonstrated they will not take preventative action themselves. Meta needs to be carefully and extensively regulated by the government of any jurisdiction Facebook operates in. It's easy to appreciate concerns that regulating social media could result in state propaganda or censorship. However, regimes likely to do this are probably already using other forms of control anyways. Taking Meta's remorselessly proft-seeking engagement algorithms out of the picture may be the lesser evil by a substantial margin. [1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb... [2]https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/29/rohingya-massacre-facebook-played-a-central-role-in-the-rise-of-the-climate-of-hate_5998555_13.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/29/rohingya...
imiric 2y ago
A valid solution is, of course, authoritarian levels of control over all media outlets. This puts countries like China and Russia at an advantage in this case. Since most western citizens would object to this, surely middle ground solutions can be found that would prevent abuse and foreign (and domestic) manipulation, while preserving democracy, free speech and individual freedoms. I'm inclined to believe that democracy and authoritarianism doesn't have to be zero-sum, and that a balance can exist that allows societies to prosper even among hostile actors.
vasac 2y ago
And only ten years ago, during the Arab Spring, social networks were praised for their role. Wondering what has changed in the meantime.
- NikkiA 2y ago
  What has changed is who it affected. Meddling in foreign elections/uprising is the US's MO, but when it's reversed it becomes a problem.

rayiner 2y ago

It’s amusing that the right used to complain about “information warfare”—Marxist infiltration of universities, newspapers, and Hollywood—while now the left does so.

emchammer 2y ago
I don't think that it's a left/right thing. There was a link that appeared here yesterday for a book newly released on Project Gutenberg called Masters of Deception. I went to the library to get a hard copy as it was originally published in 1958. I never thought that I would be agreeing with J Edgar Hoover so much. This is no longer just about Communism.
- jgalt212 2y ago
  I'm starting to think very few things are left / right. People pick a team or tribe and stick with it regardless of what a dispassionate analysis of their team's positions actual mean to one's own conscience, values, objective function, whathaveyou.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Communism wasn't an authoritarian movement back then, it was anti authoritarian. What is being opposed is authoritarianism. China isn't really communist, and neither was the ussr. It's just a regressive authoritarian regime with different propaganda. Authoritarianism is fundamentally right wing. Freedom for the right wing is fundamentally doublespeak for freedom for the oligarchs to gain power and oppress. Secondarily that freedom to acquire and impose power is granted to racists so the oligarchs have their foot soldiers.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ryoshoe 2y ago
    There's no shortage of governments where the professed ideology fails to line up with its actual policies, just look at the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

DrScientist 2y ago

On the other hand these tools do allow individuals to connect and share. I see it like politics ( at least the way it's managed in the UK ) - democracy means everyone get's to vote, leaflet door to door, politically organise etc. However there are ( in the non-online space ) strict regulations about money not being able to buy a larger voice - political spending is(was) strictly limited. You can't use broadcast media for political ads, apart from the government allocated slots..... The regulations haven't kept up with the digital world - but they need to. Looking at what unfettered money has done to US politics is all the incentive you need. One of the core problems is astroturfing is so easy online - money pretending to be people - in the end, I think the only solution is the loss of anonymity online - anonymity enables sock puppetry and astroturfing. ie if we want to keep people's freedoms online to say what they want ( but within the law ), but at the same time stop money drowning out all voices, then you have to know what's automated and what's real - and people need to be held accountable for what they say or do - that's how the real world works. You don't need authoritarian laws regulating content - social peer pressure is quite effective - after all democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

freehorse 2y ago
Blogging platforms also allow people to connect and share, but are prob less profitable. A lot of the role of blogs was taken over by social media, this created larger networks but with a lot of downsides. But these downsides are not inherent to all the online platforms where people can connect and share.
- Clubber 2y ago
  Blogging is typically unidirectional, like TV or radio. You get to hear what someone says, but unless they turn on comments and actually read them, you don't get to have a conversation.
  - freehorse 2y ago
    In the blogosphere (at least the part I was in) most used to have comments turned on, and at very least pingbacks were definitely common practice . There used to be communities around blogs with similar theme/views and usually blogs had a sidebar with links to other blogs, linking to the newest articles there. People used to write and refer to what others wrote. I assume there must have been also isolated blogs, as there are practically isolated people in social media, but there were definitely also very vibrant communities.