Yes agreed. I tried using Twitter to promote my work but I found Twitter to be even more toxic than Facebook in general and have since quit.
I'd argue that Reddit also does the same thing. On Reddit, you can always find a community that agrees with your radical thinking. Reddit also has a problem with groupthink where the upvoting system heavily rewards popular opinion, even if it's false.
In this day and age, I find that not participating in social networks makes me a happier and less radical person. If I do partake in them, I limit myself to generally harmless hobby and work-related communities.
It's the community moderation that's a problem on Reddit, because any kind of dissenting opinion is immediately wiped out, when it goes against the group think. And the group think is leaning very heavily to the left on Reddit.
The most prominent example is supporters of Donald Trump being forced off-site, but any kind of conservative or right-leaning community or politically incorrect community is being forced out.
I was there for about 10 years, and a few months ago my account got temp-banned because I said a naughty word. So I deleted my account and left the place for good. Some people on the extreme right have congregated elsewhere, but I'm not sure where right-leaning centrists are supposed to go.
> The most prominent example is supporters of Donald Trump being forced off-site, but any kind of conservative or right-leaning community or politically incorrect community is being forced out.
Do you have any concrete examples of this? I won't pretend I'm up to speed on the subject but this just strikes me as incredibly heavily exaggerated.
I just had a look at /r/reclassified and saw that /r/GavinMcInnes has been banned. He's a conservative talkshow host. While I was still around, /r/ClownWorld and /r/CringeAnarchy got banned too. Both were critical of extreme leftwing politics, while being politically incorrent.
/r/SargonOfAkkad is quarantined, meaning it's circling the drain before being banned.
Actually just browsing /r/reclassified sorted by top posts brings up a lot of examples. It's not all political of course, there are literal CP subs getting axed like /r/AgePlayPenpals, but banned subreddits are overwhelmingly either conservative, anti-feminist or edgy or equivalent.
The point of the original article is that almost all right-wing politics is saturated in disinformation. The particular combination of disinformation, racism, and incitement to violence or disruption that characterised the_donald, and their persistent inability to rein it in despite the site admins begging them to, led to them getting banned. It is entirely their own fault. Just as I can work up no sympathy for those with self-inflicted bleach injuries due to being stupid enough to listen to him.
> not sure where right-leaning centrists are supposed to go
Given that's basically Biden's Democrat party, I don't think they're an endangered species just yet.
(There is also a disinformation problem on the left, but nowhere near as prevalent in the mainstream politics and news organisations, and a non-aligned smattering of nonsense such as the anti-5G campaign)
I disagree with you, and I think you're wrong, but I suspect political arguments of this nature are extremely offtopic on HN. If I'm going to make enemies here, I'd like it to be over my intense dislike of JavaScript, Docker and Apple, and not over my political persuasions.
In closing, before anyone puts me in a category I don't belong: I'm not american, and I don't follow or care particularly about american politics.
For some years now I had not visited Twitter. Over the last three days I followed links to Twitter because they got pushed into my way.
Man was I taken aback every single time. The initial tweets referred to me were quite interesting nuggets. But once I started scrolling some distance down I was immediately in a strange land of turf wars between different groups of tin foil hat people. And people promoting their fake COVID views all over.
From that it was just a short step to adding twitter to my blocked hosts file.
I have twitter, facebook, instagram, reddit all blocked. I seem to benefit from a feature in iMessage where Apple will proxy the content to show the preview in-line, but I’m not able to click through to the actual site. This is nice, because people can share funny tweets with me and I can respond to that person only, without getting sucked in.
Facebook is, more accurately, a machine designed to maximise the amount of time you spend on Facebook. It just so happens that the maxima for that is to provoke arguments. That is why the only safe exposure is zero. You can’t beat a machine that is using every single interaction with you against you. Even people who imagine they’re battling disinformation are in reality, just being held in place to be exposed to more ads.
It just doesn't know how to exploit users influence without allowing them to express their individual views, extreme or not.
More to the point, Facebook is designed to maximize how much marketing influence it has over you, which it does both by maximising time and exploiting the existing trust you have in Facebook friends, to convert that into implied endorsements and peer pressure or popularity based groupthink. Or exploit your mental state of engagement to equate content from an ad with content from a friend.
Which I point out, because Facebook is basically working as intended, they're just upset that they've built a machine which (by it's design and very nature) they can't monopolize control of the content of influence, since they rely on amplifing users' influence to express theirs (or their advertiser's).
Like most tools, it inherently just does a job, which is to get you to to influence your friends. Just like real life, friends can be a good influence or a bad one.
Indeed. Two friends conversing on Facebook are misled into believing that they’re talking to each other, whereas in reality they are both having solo conversations with Facebook itself.
But I don’t think Facebook -the algo - really cares about which way it influences it’s captive audience. It just wants more ads to be shown. It’s up to the humans in charge to decide on what those ads are, and they are very bad at it. Or they don’t care either.
We should apply the lessons we're all learning from real world epidemiology against all the harmful memes:
- use masks => use adblock to avoid contaminants
- cleaning => regularly review who you follow. You're allowing them write access to your brain, and there's some evidence that the subconscious hangs on to ideas even if you intellectually know they're not true
- social distancing => mute, block, or defriend superspreaders
- testing => get things checked by a credible authority that's outside the disinfo bubble
- self-isolation => get off Facebook and encourage others to do so, unless you've already managed to disinfect your feed to an adequate extent
The virus merely gains life from spreading. The disinformation is being actively injected by political actors, some of whom (but absolutely not all or even a majority!) are sponsored by hostile governments; and also by profiteers. The "bleach drinking" thing didn't come from nowhere, there's a group out there selling it as "miracle mineral solution". Straight old fashioned toxic snake oil vendors who want your money and don't care about killing you or your family.
This is all fine and good, but we still need some regulation. Most misinformation can indeed be addressed with an individual education and protection based approach as you describe, but this situation is different. Falling for misinformation and propaganda about coronavirus can lead directly to not just your own death, but that of others. You absolutely have the right to kill yourself through ignorance or paranoia, but you do not have the right to kill me or my family with it too.
In the spirit of GP's post, let's try translating the regulations around the ongoing pandemic to the efforts at regulating memetic safety.
- mandatory mask use in public => mandatory use of ad blockers in browsers (could you imagine that?)
- suspension of non-essential business => that would translate to severe restrictions on freedom of communications, so let's not go there (also, on pandemic front, it's getting increasingly problematic, as the consequences to supply chains start to become worrying)
- mandatory social distancing => regulations limiting publishing and bulk communication; in case of information spread, that could do more harm than good
- testing => authorities getting proactively engaged in identifying misinformation; that doesn't translate too well, because what is or isn't a pathogen is clear in a way that doesn't apply to harmful memes
- quarantines => once you get caught spreading bullshit, your social media should become read-only for 14 or more days
Great.. government regulation of information.. all the stazis wet dreams come true.
How about we just go back to teaching critical thinking instead of pretending technical solutions and "authority figures" can solve social problems caused by stupid people?
Fuck it, let's have IQ tests before being allowed to post online! /s
The ridiculous over reaction about any kind of regulation being the equivalent of fascism is exactly how we find ourselves in a situation where people are literally drinking bleach to cure themselves from a "fake" virus.
The problem today is that the disinformation is also coming from official channels. Look at how much effort had to be put into countering a ""sarcastic"" statement from a White House briefing.
Perhaps the only way is to appeal to the enlightened self-interest of the tech companies. Ad spend has collapsed; perhaps they will realise that you can't sell ads if you let misinformation destroy society.
What is most telling is how my entirely reasonable comment is being downvoted, even here where people claim to care about things like freedom of speech and reason. This tendency to turn everything into a "slippery slope" means that critical thinking and reason is dead.
You cannot decide everything by pure reason inside your own head without referring to the work of others, at which point you've made them an authority by deciding that they are credible.
You might be able to determine by critical thinking that bleach isn't a coronavirus cure, but chloroquine? You're going to have to wait for someone to run a trial and then decide if they're a credible authority.
Applying critical thinking to your choice of sources is both easier and more important than applying it to their claims.
Have you gone and verified some physical constants yourself, it are you just accepting authority as to the mass of the electron?
Mainstream media outlets employ people who know the difference between these words; they're editors and journalists, and words and their meanings don't escape them. Because of this, I infer intent when I see these terms conflated. Its "the power of the pen" -- they write the words and hence choose the words. I'm probably wrong about there being intent, though.
Unfortunately, I don't have any solutions to this that don't feel draconian. Mandating the use of words is absurd. I'd like to think that widespread education on the topic would help. But then, that didn't work out too well for "hacker vs. cracker" in the past, and given how many people can't get they're/there/their right, this might not be possible to solve.
Removing the requirement that media outlets make a profit might help? But I have no idea how to get there from here. I'm hoping someone will post a reasonable suggestion I can support and put into practice in my small corner of the world.
People have no business complaining about misinformation while accepting religion. Religions are of course far more dangerous than "5G causes coronavirus". But somehow it's now taboo to criticize religions and feels like we're heading back to the bad old days of blasphemy being a crime.
43 comments
[ 476 ms ] story [ 1950 ms ] threadAnd holy shit. The amount of misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories on Facebook is insane. Facebook is a machine that breeds extremists.
I now understand the #deleteFacebook movement much more where I previously thought it wasn't a big deal.
I'd argue that Reddit also does the same thing. On Reddit, you can always find a community that agrees with your radical thinking. Reddit also has a problem with groupthink where the upvoting system heavily rewards popular opinion, even if it's false.
In this day and age, I find that not participating in social networks makes me a happier and less radical person. If I do partake in them, I limit myself to generally harmless hobby and work-related communities.
Even the news is based on getting anger clicks so it's hard to escape
The most prominent example is supporters of Donald Trump being forced off-site, but any kind of conservative or right-leaning community or politically incorrect community is being forced out.
I was there for about 10 years, and a few months ago my account got temp-banned because I said a naughty word. So I deleted my account and left the place for good. Some people on the extreme right have congregated elsewhere, but I'm not sure where right-leaning centrists are supposed to go.
Do you have any concrete examples of this? I won't pretend I'm up to speed on the subject but this just strikes me as incredibly heavily exaggerated.
/r/SargonOfAkkad is quarantined, meaning it's circling the drain before being banned.
Actually just browsing /r/reclassified sorted by top posts brings up a lot of examples. It's not all political of course, there are literal CP subs getting axed like /r/AgePlayPenpals, but banned subreddits are overwhelmingly either conservative, anti-feminist or edgy or equivalent.
Angela Merkel is a right-leaning centrist where I'm from. I'll leave it at that.
> not sure where right-leaning centrists are supposed to go
Given that's basically Biden's Democrat party, I don't think they're an endangered species just yet.
(There is also a disinformation problem on the left, but nowhere near as prevalent in the mainstream politics and news organisations, and a non-aligned smattering of nonsense such as the anti-5G campaign)
In closing, before anyone puts me in a category I don't belong: I'm not american, and I don't follow or care particularly about american politics.
Then why the f are you commenting on it? Don't comment on things you don't know about, especially the politics of a country not your own.
What was the word?
Man was I taken aback every single time. The initial tweets referred to me were quite interesting nuggets. But once I started scrolling some distance down I was immediately in a strange land of turf wars between different groups of tin foil hat people. And people promoting their fake COVID views all over.
From that it was just a short step to adding twitter to my blocked hosts file.
But as soon as you scroll down, the comments make you want to throw up.
Facebook is, more accurately, a machine designed to maximise the amount of time you spend on Facebook. It just so happens that the maxima for that is to provoke arguments. That is why the only safe exposure is zero. You can’t beat a machine that is using every single interaction with you against you. Even people who imagine they’re battling disinformation are in reality, just being held in place to be exposed to more ads.
It just doesn't know how to exploit users influence without allowing them to express their individual views, extreme or not.
More to the point, Facebook is designed to maximize how much marketing influence it has over you, which it does both by maximising time and exploiting the existing trust you have in Facebook friends, to convert that into implied endorsements and peer pressure or popularity based groupthink. Or exploit your mental state of engagement to equate content from an ad with content from a friend.
Which I point out, because Facebook is basically working as intended, they're just upset that they've built a machine which (by it's design and very nature) they can't monopolize control of the content of influence, since they rely on amplifing users' influence to express theirs (or their advertiser's).
Like most tools, it inherently just does a job, which is to get you to to influence your friends. Just like real life, friends can be a good influence or a bad one.
But I don’t think Facebook -the algo - really cares about which way it influences it’s captive audience. It just wants more ads to be shown. It’s up to the humans in charge to decide on what those ads are, and they are very bad at it. Or they don’t care either.
- use masks => use adblock to avoid contaminants
- cleaning => regularly review who you follow. You're allowing them write access to your brain, and there's some evidence that the subconscious hangs on to ideas even if you intellectually know they're not true
- social distancing => mute, block, or defriend superspreaders
- testing => get things checked by a credible authority that's outside the disinfo bubble
- self-isolation => get off Facebook and encourage others to do so, unless you've already managed to disinfect your feed to an adequate extent
The virus merely gains life from spreading. The disinformation is being actively injected by political actors, some of whom (but absolutely not all or even a majority!) are sponsored by hostile governments; and also by profiteers. The "bleach drinking" thing didn't come from nowhere, there's a group out there selling it as "miracle mineral solution". Straight old fashioned toxic snake oil vendors who want your money and don't care about killing you or your family.
Stay safe.
I probably will be even more thorough in my digital hygiene.
In the spirit of GP's post, let's try translating the regulations around the ongoing pandemic to the efforts at regulating memetic safety.
- mandatory mask use in public => mandatory use of ad blockers in browsers (could you imagine that?)
- suspension of non-essential business => that would translate to severe restrictions on freedom of communications, so let's not go there (also, on pandemic front, it's getting increasingly problematic, as the consequences to supply chains start to become worrying)
- mandatory social distancing => regulations limiting publishing and bulk communication; in case of information spread, that could do more harm than good
- testing => authorities getting proactively engaged in identifying misinformation; that doesn't translate too well, because what is or isn't a pathogen is clear in a way that doesn't apply to harmful memes
- quarantines => once you get caught spreading bullshit, your social media should become read-only for 14 or more days
Just a thought experiment done on the spot.
How about we just go back to teaching critical thinking instead of pretending technical solutions and "authority figures" can solve social problems caused by stupid people?
Fuck it, let's have IQ tests before being allowed to post online! /s
Perhaps the only way is to appeal to the enlightened self-interest of the tech companies. Ad spend has collapsed; perhaps they will realise that you can't sell ads if you let misinformation destroy society.
https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
Who decides what's a credible authority? How about critical thinking instead?
You might be able to determine by critical thinking that bleach isn't a coronavirus cure, but chloroquine? You're going to have to wait for someone to run a trial and then decide if they're a credible authority.
Applying critical thinking to your choice of sources is both easier and more important than applying it to their claims.
Have you gone and verified some physical constants yourself, it are you just accepting authority as to the mass of the electron?
I understand that they've come to mean the same thing, but the latter term makes the intent behind the content these refer to much more clear.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/163857/what-exac...
Unfortunately, I don't have any solutions to this that don't feel draconian. Mandating the use of words is absurd. I'd like to think that widespread education on the topic would help. But then, that didn't work out too well for "hacker vs. cracker" in the past, and given how many people can't get they're/there/their right, this might not be possible to solve.
Removing the requirement that media outlets make a profit might help? But I have no idea how to get there from here. I'm hoping someone will post a reasonable suggestion I can support and put into practice in my small corner of the world.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html