Social media is an outrage machine, not a forum for sharing ideas and getting at the truth
Free speech can’t flourish online — Social media is an outrage machine, not a forum for sharing ideas and getting at the truth::Social media is an outrage machine, not a forum for sharing ideas and getting at the truth
People tend to reflect and post the outrage media they subscribe to, then look for echo chambers to reinforce those views. Reasonable opponents get exhausted and leave - and yes, IMO that’s what makes them reasonable, the ability to understand what they’re up against and quit a battle that cannot be won.
Also IMO the “gentleman’s agreement” we had, in the US at least, that free speech was somewhat honored most places including your job or online decades ago is dead. It’s quite clear that even the government isn’t too keen on the 1st amendment depending on who is in charge, much less corporations who will terminate people for speech conflicting with corporate agendas, and absolutely not petty or controlling forum moderators.
People that yell “muh freedum of speech!1!1!” the loudest are often the ones doing their best to force some hateful subjects or outright lies into other’s faces, then they get upset and claim they’re being attacked or bring up some other victim complex when they get “cancelled.”
Reasonable opponents get exhausted and leave - and yes, IMO that’s what makes them reasonable, the ability to understand what they’re up against and quit a battle that cannot be won.
Sometimes though, it’s not about winning or losing the battle, but just pushing back against the messages that’s trying to shape a harmful narrative. To leave both sides of the argument available for third parties to read and consider.
And for that, every reasonable person should be doing some of that, instead of just bailing. Consider it a civic duty.
I feel you are pointing in the right direction, but you did miss some stuff that is commonly missed. (I am going to preface that all I am doing is presenting facts, corps can burn in hell for my personal opinion)
Freedom of Speech only has a bearing on law, government, and the agents thereof. Corporations in the US are not bound by the Constitution, only the government. Corporations and individuals operating a space where the public are able to act are bound by the laws, but as long as they don’t directly violate any if those law, they can restrict speech as much as they like.
While echo chambers are a major issue, and one we should all be focused on making sure we don’t get trapped in, they are not the largest issue concerning the issue at hand. Humans are more prone to engage with controversial topics, whether that is surging to the protection of something that affirms our biases, or lashing out against things that offend them. Social media platforms only care about so-called “engagement”. Their statistical validity for investors and advertisers are strictly based on sanitized numbers regarding how many users live on their platforms, how often they post, and even more so how often they comment. Polarizing posts see the most commentary, so social media companies are financially incentivized to propagate as much polarizing information as possible, regardless of the content. The advertisers never see what the post info is or how how much hate and vitriol are in the comments, and they don’t care (some are starting to realize). All they want to know is “if I pay you to put my add on peoples posts, how many people will see them?”. It is disgusting, but true. Bad news sells. Tragedy sells. Hate sells. Polarization sells. It makes me long for the days when all we had to worry about being manipulated by marketers with was sex.
I’m thinking that maybe you missed my point, which is exactly what you said.
First point: Free speech only applies to government retaliation, but that’s on thin ice. Like I said. Not sure what needed clarification, maybe my more sarcastic take on it made it less clear.
Second point: The point is that people aren’t really falling into echo chambers and having the lack of awareness to remove themselves from it, the point is they don’t want to leave the safety of their rage-bait fed herd and face criticisms of their narrative and/or worldview. Sure, someone who views a controversial or fringe subject will probably be fed more by algorithms, and the fault not only lies in that algorithm that wants to profit off clicks but the person that actively excludes any factual evidence to the contrary. Nobody thinks they’re the bad guy, and they don’t want to be told so.
Nobody thinks they’re the bad guy, and they don’t want to be told so.
You also should not assume that everyone is the bad guy, either.
And I get you might to push back against what I just said, but take a look at the tone of your comments, they tend to come from a critical point of view that already sees Humanity in a negative light. (No insult is meant.)
Are we not, though? I’m pretty cynical, but even from a pragmatic standpoint we are incredibly destructive despite us telling ourselves how great we are with our technological advancements.
Are we not, though? I’m pretty cynical, but even from a pragmatic standpoint we are incredibly destructive despite us telling ourselves how great we are with our technological advancements.
We’re both, actually. And I would push back on your assertion that you’re holding a pragmatic standpoint.
The fact that you focus on the negatives and do not mention any of the positives bolsters my point…
You also should not assume that everyone is the bad guy, either.
Pornhub comments is where I learned about the existence of and how to make chicken adobo. Shit’s delicious.
This is the most _________ comment I’ve ever read on the Internet.
*Can’t think of the proper word to use for this comment, it’s totally blown my mind. Esoteric? Nope. Non-sequitur? Nope. Has the word actually been invented that describes this comment? It’s power is over 9000!
** I have further questions. Where can one get the recipe for chicken adobo? Also, why when you use voice-to-text does the word “internet” always show up in lower case, when it’s a pronoun that is supposed to be in uppercase?
The recipe I have uses cane sugar vinegar instead of white vinegar, and brown sugar. And since you’re using vinegar, make sure you don’t stir anything with a metal spoon. It gives it a bitter taste.
I’ve kind of been of the opinion for a while that there are maybe a couple different ideas of “free speech”. If you have total “free speech”, right, everyone is allowed to talk and say whatever they want, much like the public square yadda yadda. You won’t get nazis, you’ll get spam, something which is obviously bad to anyone with half a brain (increasingly a smaller and smaller amount of the population). Spam is “free speech”, technically, as, someone is making the most of their ability to scream at the top of their lungs, maximum volume, they’re taking up all of the airwaves as much as is possible, and since these are usually the people with the most resources, it generally falls into the same kind of capitalist maximum usage of a resource in the most efficient way possible, with the minor caveat that nobody sane ever wanted that resource to be used in that way. Everyone needed a little bit of inefficiency in order to grease the wheels of conversation.
Of course, over time, we realize spam becomes less effective than subtly prodding at the collective consciousness, and running a twitter account with snarky remarks. We basically just have to understand here that it’s still spam, it’s just that the distinction has been moved from maximum volume, to bad faith. Which, is something that isn’t necessarily the role of a corporation, just like spam doesn’t necessarily have to be a corporation. Spam can also be people that are just scammers. Instead of selling products, these sorts of spammers and scammers try to win you over, drive the discourse in a different direction, engage in a bad faith manner. It fills the same role as spam being the maximum volume in the amphitheater, drowning out any other communications, but this is more insidious, harder to catch, and doesn’t necessarily come from a place of malice or like, actual bad faith. If you were an alien listening to the airwaves, you might just hear something resembling a regular discussion, with the distinction that maybe you’d be getting a larger percentage of people getting mad and storming off as they talk to what are basically ideological zombies, or maybe robots.
I can get a bad faith discussion out of taking two people that are temporarily mad, or passionate, invested, about the same thing in different ways, and then controlling the debate in a certain kind of way, say, over a text medium where neither side can communicate effectively. And those are people that should’ve been able to relate over a shared passion, ideally. I can get a bad faith discussion out of two people that do not speak the same language, out of two people that can communicate just well enough that what’s being said sounds sensible, but doesn’t actually translate to either side. And of course, I can get a bad faith discussion out of just simple trolling. I mean, that’s what trolling is, at a basic level, just taking a devil’s advocate nonsense stance super seriously, until other people also do that, basically on the premise that you’re someone to talk to. We sort of approach an event horizon with communication, where the closer two people are to actual communication, the more potential for frustration and misunderstanding there is, sort of like the hedgehog’s dilemma. So of course you get bad actors who lean into that, and who propagate that behavior and their own sorts of separate language and thought terminating cliches, in order to basically be spam, without being spam. They create bad faith conversations.
And then, of course, I kind of fear the role that AI might take in the coming years, with all of this. Especially if analog computing hardware starts taking off again and people have easy access to building their own actually sensible chatbots resembling some mid-level internet discourse, instead of stuff that resembles what are really smart toddler might write. Then we’re gonna see this all play out all over again, with the spam, except in a way that’s much harder to detect, and in a way where you don’t have to recruit human labor to do any of it. Dead internet theory, but real, basically. I dunno of a real way to counteract any of this, en masse.
I think the biggest thing is that people, generally, just have to put more thought into why specifically they want to leave a comment. Who are you doing this for? It can’t really be for the person on the other side of the screen, you know, because the miscommunication is going to be inevitable given enough time, there’s nothing you can do to counteract it. I think, inevitably, we all must realize, that the only reason to post online is, because you wanted to.
And so we all become trolls, in a way. But then, as is the ancient wisdom of the trolls, it becomes boring to just inhabit a shallow perspective, to spout nonsense. It’s like playing a game with all the cheats enabled. It’s fun for a while, probably too long actually, if you’re insecure and have a chip on your shoulder, but it’s not fulfilling long term. You can get plenty of people to do this regularly, clock in and clock out, be passionless, play the game with cheats for 3-4 hours with no real investment and then walk away. But if you’re serious, you have to disable the cheats, to start inhabiting perspectives with real depth, you have to start inhabiting worldviews that aren’t your own, but are still fully internally consistent. Ones that just stem from maybe other starting values. Or maybe they are all the same perspective, just given different easily malleable information landscapes. And if that’s the case, then you’re not really trolling anymore. You’re just doing the socrates shit, where socrates invents a fake guy to challenge himself and others. Was that socrates? I dunno, who gives a fuck.
Tl;dr We are/all must become trolls! Memes are the DNA of the soul!
Seriously, you have to be more concise than that. We didn’t purchase one of your novels to read over an afternoon, we’re browsing a comments section of an online form.
Apologies for the implied rudeness, none is meant.
Seriously, you have to be more concise than that. We didn’t purchase one of your novels to read over an afternoon, we’re browsing a comments section of an online form.
“We” who, bro? If you’re not reading the post, don’t read the post, maybe it wasn’t meant for you, if you don’t wanna read it, I dunno. But also, in the words of blaise pascal: if I had more time, I would’ve written a shorter letter. I’m not gonna waste like an extra hour, on top of the thirty minutes I already spent, to try to compress my thoughts as much as possible. If people are interested, they can read it, if they’re not, then they can go read some other dude’s comments.
I couldn’t even get to the article. My screen was immediately blurred on the top half, and the bottom half with a full width pop-up talking about “managing cookies”.
(And yes, I know, but I not using my desktop, I’m using my phone.)
Free speech has nothing to do with corporations? As long as the government doesn’t start a social media platform, the First Amendment has 0 to do with any of them.
Free speech online doesn’t even seem to be a particularly well-defined concept. Those who extol it the loudest are often looking to have the millionth “good faith discussion” about The Bell Curve, or use slurs as “just a joke”, or promote a “dating and lifestyle coaching” business to teenage boys. If all they want is carte-blanche to say absolutely anything without being censored, I guess they only need to spin up a web server of their own, or run a lemmy instance. But what they actually want is to bypass the moderation rules on widely-used platforms and shit on the social contract. It’s the same reason they don’t show pornography, snuff footage, or other damaging content on television.
Is this an issue with… social media, or corporate social media? Mastodon technically is social media and it can potentially have the problems of Facebook or Twitter, or not. Depends on the instance owners control. Even then, however they can’t control every little detail when it’s federated but, that’s a good thing for the freedom of ideas.
If you want my actual opinion, places like Lemy and even Reddit are better for independent voices, because you can go into a dedicated community and get what you want specifically. While places like Mastodon, is more like a timeline of, hey I did this thing, or hey Elon musk did a thing today. Lemy is less like that, but it can also be like that.
Lemy or reddit seems to encourage discusion and Lemy seems to do great at it. The best interaction i’ve seen on an opensource social platform even compared to mastodon, dispite mastodon having more users.
I would have agreed with reddit before but the moderators are killing it the other way. Too much power, zero oversight, and quick to delete or even ban without having knowledge of what they’re supposed to be moderating.
It’s one of the reasons I’m here now, hoping for less of that. And I don’t mean “the vaccines are making my 5G reception weak” type of posts. I mean factual information just getting removed of it doesn’t align with the random moderator of the day when someone inevitably reports it. So much information there is scrubbed that’s accurate and what remains is just an echo chamber of outdated or false information. I don’t know how anyone can solve it other than relinquish control to our robot content moderator overlords.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
People tend to reflect and post the outrage media they subscribe to, then look for echo chambers to reinforce those views. Reasonable opponents get exhausted and leave - and yes, IMO that’s what makes them reasonable, the ability to understand what they’re up against and quit a battle that cannot be won.
Also IMO the “gentleman’s agreement” we had, in the US at least, that free speech was somewhat honored most places including your job or online decades ago is dead. It’s quite clear that even the government isn’t too keen on the 1st amendment depending on who is in charge, much less corporations who will terminate people for speech conflicting with corporate agendas, and absolutely not petty or controlling forum moderators.
People that yell “muh freedum of speech!1!1!” the loudest are often the ones doing their best to force some hateful subjects or outright lies into other’s faces, then they get upset and claim they’re being attacked or bring up some other victim complex when they get “cancelled.”
Sometimes though, it’s not about winning or losing the battle, but just pushing back against the messages that’s trying to shape a harmful narrative. To leave both sides of the argument available for third parties to read and consider.
And for that, every reasonable person should be doing some of that, instead of just bailing. Consider it a civic duty.
I feel you are pointing in the right direction, but you did miss some stuff that is commonly missed. (I am going to preface that all I am doing is presenting facts, corps can burn in hell for my personal opinion)
I’m thinking that maybe you missed my point, which is exactly what you said.
First point: Free speech only applies to government retaliation, but that’s on thin ice. Like I said. Not sure what needed clarification, maybe my more sarcastic take on it made it less clear.
Second point: The point is that people aren’t really falling into echo chambers and having the lack of awareness to remove themselves from it, the point is they don’t want to leave the safety of their rage-bait fed herd and face criticisms of their narrative and/or worldview. Sure, someone who views a controversial or fringe subject will probably be fed more by algorithms, and the fault not only lies in that algorithm that wants to profit off clicks but the person that actively excludes any factual evidence to the contrary. Nobody thinks they’re the bad guy, and they don’t want to be told so.
You also should not assume that everyone is the bad guy, either.
And I get you might to push back against what I just said, but take a look at the tone of your comments, they tend to come from a critical point of view that already sees Humanity in a negative light. (No insult is meant.)
Are we not, though? I’m pretty cynical, but even from a pragmatic standpoint we are incredibly destructive despite us telling ourselves how great we are with our technological advancements.
We’re both, actually. And I would push back on your assertion that you’re holding a pragmatic standpoint.
The fact that you focus on the negatives and do not mention any of the positives bolsters my point…
There is no requirement to mention “both sides”. I did not agree to such a condition, that’s your own criteria to make yourself correct. Have at it.
There is in America. It’s one of the founding parts of the framework of the social fabric of the country.
If you want a proper civilized discussion, head to pornhub. You’re welcum.
Pornhub comments is where I learned about the existence of and how to make chicken adobo. Shit’s delicious.
This is the most _________ comment I’ve ever read on the Internet.
*Can’t think of the proper word to use for this comment, it’s totally blown my mind. Esoteric? Nope. Non-sequitur? Nope. Has the word actually been invented that describes this comment? It’s power is over 9000!
** I have further questions. Where can one get the recipe for chicken adobo? Also, why when you use voice-to-text does the word “internet” always show up in lower case, when it’s a pronoun that is supposed to be in uppercase?
I was gonna type it all out but then I got lazy. Here’s a pretty close approximation from a quick googling.
The recipe I have uses cane sugar vinegar instead of white vinegar, and brown sugar. And since you’re using vinegar, make sure you don’t stir anything with a metal spoon. It gives it a bitter taste.
Nothing makes my day more than clicking on a vid, then seeing some really intelligent shit in the comments.
I’ve kind of been of the opinion for a while that there are maybe a couple different ideas of “free speech”. If you have total “free speech”, right, everyone is allowed to talk and say whatever they want, much like the public square yadda yadda. You won’t get nazis, you’ll get spam, something which is obviously bad to anyone with half a brain (increasingly a smaller and smaller amount of the population). Spam is “free speech”, technically, as, someone is making the most of their ability to scream at the top of their lungs, maximum volume, they’re taking up all of the airwaves as much as is possible, and since these are usually the people with the most resources, it generally falls into the same kind of capitalist maximum usage of a resource in the most efficient way possible, with the minor caveat that nobody sane ever wanted that resource to be used in that way. Everyone needed a little bit of inefficiency in order to grease the wheels of conversation.
Of course, over time, we realize spam becomes less effective than subtly prodding at the collective consciousness, and running a twitter account with snarky remarks. We basically just have to understand here that it’s still spam, it’s just that the distinction has been moved from maximum volume, to bad faith. Which, is something that isn’t necessarily the role of a corporation, just like spam doesn’t necessarily have to be a corporation. Spam can also be people that are just scammers. Instead of selling products, these sorts of spammers and scammers try to win you over, drive the discourse in a different direction, engage in a bad faith manner. It fills the same role as spam being the maximum volume in the amphitheater, drowning out any other communications, but this is more insidious, harder to catch, and doesn’t necessarily come from a place of malice or like, actual bad faith. If you were an alien listening to the airwaves, you might just hear something resembling a regular discussion, with the distinction that maybe you’d be getting a larger percentage of people getting mad and storming off as they talk to what are basically ideological zombies, or maybe robots.
I can get a bad faith discussion out of taking two people that are temporarily mad, or passionate, invested, about the same thing in different ways, and then controlling the debate in a certain kind of way, say, over a text medium where neither side can communicate effectively. And those are people that should’ve been able to relate over a shared passion, ideally. I can get a bad faith discussion out of two people that do not speak the same language, out of two people that can communicate just well enough that what’s being said sounds sensible, but doesn’t actually translate to either side. And of course, I can get a bad faith discussion out of just simple trolling. I mean, that’s what trolling is, at a basic level, just taking a devil’s advocate nonsense stance super seriously, until other people also do that, basically on the premise that you’re someone to talk to. We sort of approach an event horizon with communication, where the closer two people are to actual communication, the more potential for frustration and misunderstanding there is, sort of like the hedgehog’s dilemma. So of course you get bad actors who lean into that, and who propagate that behavior and their own sorts of separate language and thought terminating cliches, in order to basically be spam, without being spam. They create bad faith conversations.
And then, of course, I kind of fear the role that AI might take in the coming years, with all of this. Especially if analog computing hardware starts taking off again and people have easy access to building their own actually sensible chatbots resembling some mid-level internet discourse, instead of stuff that resembles what are really smart toddler might write. Then we’re gonna see this all play out all over again, with the spam, except in a way that’s much harder to detect, and in a way where you don’t have to recruit human labor to do any of it. Dead internet theory, but real, basically. I dunno of a real way to counteract any of this, en masse.
I think the biggest thing is that people, generally, just have to put more thought into why specifically they want to leave a comment. Who are you doing this for? It can’t really be for the person on the other side of the screen, you know, because the miscommunication is going to be inevitable given enough time, there’s nothing you can do to counteract it. I think, inevitably, we all must realize, that the only reason to post online is, because you wanted to.
And so we all become trolls, in a way. But then, as is the ancient wisdom of the trolls, it becomes boring to just inhabit a shallow perspective, to spout nonsense. It’s like playing a game with all the cheats enabled. It’s fun for a while, probably too long actually, if you’re insecure and have a chip on your shoulder, but it’s not fulfilling long term. You can get plenty of people to do this regularly, clock in and clock out, be passionless, play the game with cheats for 3-4 hours with no real investment and then walk away. But if you’re serious, you have to disable the cheats, to start inhabiting perspectives with real depth, you have to start inhabiting worldviews that aren’t your own, but are still fully internally consistent. Ones that just stem from maybe other starting values. Or maybe they are all the same perspective, just given different easily malleable information landscapes. And if that’s the case, then you’re not really trolling anymore. You’re just doing the socrates shit, where socrates invents a fake guy to challenge himself and others. Was that socrates? I dunno, who gives a fuck.
Tl;dr We are/all must become trolls! Memes are the DNA of the soul!
> ChatGPT crits you for 1,000! <
Seriously, you have to be more concise than that. We didn’t purchase one of your novels to read over an afternoon, we’re browsing a comments section of an online form.
Apologies for the implied rudeness, none is meant.
“We” who, bro? If you’re not reading the post, don’t read the post, maybe it wasn’t meant for you, if you don’t wanna read it, I dunno. But also, in the words of blaise pascal: if I had more time, I would’ve written a shorter letter. I’m not gonna waste like an extra hour, on top of the thirty minutes I already spent, to try to compress my thoughts as much as possible. If people are interested, they can read it, if they’re not, then they can go read some other dude’s comments.
Well, “social media” and “online” ain’t the same thing, now are they?
No paywall: https://archive.ph/2023.11.12-212740/https://www.ft.com/content/8fde56b7-2515-441a-9472-30c8aedcc200
Tbh, the article doesn’t really talk about the headline. Just some history and talk about Elon musk and Twitter. Not a convincing argument about social media in general.
I couldn’t even get to the article. My screen was immediately blurred on the top half, and the bottom half with a full width pop-up talking about “managing cookies”.
(And yes, I know, but I not using my desktop, I’m using my phone.)
deleted by creator
Free speech cant flourish under corporate rule
Free speech has nothing to do with corporations? As long as the government doesn’t start a social media platform, the First Amendment has 0 to do with any of them.
Not in this Cyberpunk world
True. I think i mean something different that probably doesn’t even have a term for it.
Free speech online doesn’t even seem to be a particularly well-defined concept. Those who extol it the loudest are often looking to have the millionth “good faith discussion” about The Bell Curve, or use slurs as “just a joke”, or promote a “dating and lifestyle coaching” business to teenage boys. If all they want is carte-blanche to say absolutely anything without being censored, I guess they only need to spin up a web server of their own, or run a lemmy instance. But what they actually want is to bypass the moderation rules on widely-used platforms and shit on the social contract. It’s the same reason they don’t show pornography, snuff footage, or other damaging content on television.
What they seem to want is a right to an audience.
There’s also no algorithm taking the most controversial answer and making it the top most comment ala Facebook.
Is this an issue with… social media, or corporate social media? Mastodon technically is social media and it can potentially have the problems of Facebook or Twitter, or not. Depends on the instance owners control. Even then, however they can’t control every little detail when it’s federated but, that’s a good thing for the freedom of ideas.
If you want my actual opinion, places like Lemy and even Reddit are better for independent voices, because you can go into a dedicated community and get what you want specifically. While places like Mastodon, is more like a timeline of, hey I did this thing, or hey Elon musk did a thing today. Lemy is less like that, but it can also be like that.
Lemy or reddit seems to encourage discusion and Lemy seems to do great at it. The best interaction i’ve seen on an opensource social platform even compared to mastodon, dispite mastodon having more users.
I would have agreed with reddit before but the moderators are killing it the other way. Too much power, zero oversight, and quick to delete or even ban without having knowledge of what they’re supposed to be moderating.
It’s one of the reasons I’m here now, hoping for less of that. And I don’t mean “the vaccines are making my 5G reception weak” type of posts. I mean factual information just getting removed of it doesn’t align with the random moderator of the day when someone inevitably reports it. So much information there is scrubbed that’s accurate and what remains is just an echo chamber of outdated or false information. I don’t know how anyone can solve it other than relinquish control to our robot content moderator overlords.
“Free speech can’t flourish online”
Subscribe to unlock this article
LOL. Truth!
With the truth there is a price to pay?
Used to be slowly changing
That’s not true. People are just talking about what interests them.
deleted by creator
Free speech can’t flourish online, says the paywalled article