Isn't a lot of this people's opinions and people's personal beliefs? At least that's how I interpret the claim that article is making. And in this context, isn't it difficult to police disinformation/hate when it's really just what people truly believe?
It's possible I am being contrarian, so let me say that I don't understand this topic very well but that is how I see it.
> A small number of users are responsible for a large proportion of this disinformation, suggesting that curbing their influence could have a significant impact.
Maybe it would be more helpful to show the networks of accounts that perpetuate this kind of disinformation and then call that out directly.
i'm still baffled when folks say things like "It was never hard to find hate and disinformation online, but it’s been much harder to avoid on X (formerly known as Twitter) since Elon Musk bought the platform in July of 2022". i still use twitter. i have to specifically make an effort to find folks like neo nazis and racists. they don't pop up in my feed. they are not recommended to me. i don't see them in the replies to folks i follow. i get the feeling folks who can't seem to get away from hate speech probably consume political/cultural content exclusively.
"And if they won’t? We can make them. We can demand that our lawmakers pass policies that force companies to provide healthy and safe social media spaces where people can interact well and have real conversations." yuck. just say no to a Ministry of Truth.
Prior to Musk Twitter did have mechanisms in place to mitigate some of the worst of disinformation. It wasn't perfect for sure, but it worked better than the "speech absolutist" (which in practice seems to be more about Musks personal preferences) approach.
Do you accept disinformation is a problem? Do you accept online hate is a problem?
If you don't then all this is going to seem unnecessary. But you should just start with that.
If you do - well what do you suggest? A wide range of possible solutions sits under the "Ministry of Truth" pejorative. Some might be fine. Some draconian.
All such articles are pointing out is that things have apparently got much worse on Twitter/X. Which should be in no way surprising.
One of the properties of social media bubbles is that different people see different things. An anecdotal observation that you personally don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Indeed the bubble effect is arguably a large part of the problem.
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadIt's possible I am being contrarian, so let me say that I don't understand this topic very well but that is how I see it.
> A small number of users are responsible for a large proportion of this disinformation, suggesting that curbing their influence could have a significant impact.
Maybe it would be more helpful to show the networks of accounts that perpetuate this kind of disinformation and then call that out directly.
"And if they won’t? We can make them. We can demand that our lawmakers pass policies that force companies to provide healthy and safe social media spaces where people can interact well and have real conversations." yuck. just say no to a Ministry of Truth.
Do you accept disinformation is a problem? Do you accept online hate is a problem? If you don't then all this is going to seem unnecessary. But you should just start with that.
If you do - well what do you suggest? A wide range of possible solutions sits under the "Ministry of Truth" pejorative. Some might be fine. Some draconian.
All such articles are pointing out is that things have apparently got much worse on Twitter/X. Which should be in no way surprising.
One of the properties of social media bubbles is that different people see different things. An anecdotal observation that you personally don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Indeed the bubble effect is arguably a large part of the problem.