One of the ways social media lies to you

[NeuroTypical]

We always hear about bots and boosting algorithms and nefarious deeds, but it can be hard to figure out what that means or how we know it.

 This is a good article on the topic.

https://mrandrewfox.substack.com/p/jackson-hinkle-and-friends?utm_medium=ios
 

Jackson Hinkle and friends - A study in disinformation

ANDREW FOX

[mordorbund]

Quote

So what can we do about it? The only answer is to hold social media companies responsible and financially liable for disinformation purposely spread on their platforms. Germany’s Netz-DG law gives us a model for how this might work.

Wish he had a more defined proposal. How can you tell 1) it's disinformation (as opposed to not-mainstream-but-still-plausible), and 2) "purposely spread"? The algorithm is agnostic as to who's interacting with the post. If 1M users all reply back "that's bogus" the post is promoted because of the engagement. If 1M bots posing as users all reply back "right on, brother" the post is promoted because of the engagement. The closest thing I can think to legislate is to say bots shouldn't be included in the algorithm. The problem there is proving it's a bot. I bet social media sites would love to always know when they're working with bots versus humans, but that's a tough problem to solve when we all echo out "thoughts and prayers" following a sad post.

I am not familiar with the Netz-DG law. Does this address it?

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Wish he had a more defined proposal. How can you tell 1) it's disinformation (as opposed to not-mainstream-but-still-plausible), and 2) "purposely spread"? The algorithm is agnostic as to who's interacting with the post. If 1M users all reply back "that's bogus" the post is promoted because of the engagement. If 1M bots posing as users all reply back "right on, brother" the post is promoted because of the engagement. The closest thing I can think to legislate is to say bots shouldn't be included in the algorithm. The problem there is proving it's a bot. I bet social media sites would love to always know when they're working with bots versus humans, but that's a tough problem to solve when we all echo out "thoughts and prayers" following a sad post.

I am not familiar with the Netz-DG law. Does this address it?

We don't have to.  All we have to do is ensure that social media companies are not censoring.  People will figure things out if everyone is truly free to share their opinions.

Will that result in a lot of people posting false and misleading posts?  Yes, it will.  But there are enough keyboard warriors out there that can refute such things.  Let everyone have a voice, and people will recognize the truth when they hear it.

Beyond the power that social media platforms and governmental bodies wield in the censorship culture, only the fear of cancellation and/or arrest (yes, for free speech) or now, lawfare, keeps people from expressing their opinions.

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We don't have to.  All we have to do is ensure that social media companies are not censoring.  People will figure things out if everyone is truly free to share their opinions.

Will that result in a lot of people posting false and misleading posts?  Yes, it will.  But there are enough keyboard warriors out there that can refute such things.  Let everyone have a voice, and people will recognize the truth when they hear it.

Beyond the power that social media platforms and governmental bodies wield in the censorship culture, only the fear of cancellation and/or arrest (yes, for free speech) or now, lawfare, keeps people from expressing their opinions.

I tend to agree with your take here, but that isn’t what Andrew Fox is asking for. He would like social media to be held accountable — even financially — for what is published on their platforms.

Advocating for the devil, you seem to have a high opinion of the masses and their ability and desire to embrace truth. How many flat-earthers, moon-landing-deniers, Steele dossiers, Obama birthers, or neo-nazis does there need to be before intervention is required?

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

How many flat-earthers, moon-landing-deniers, Steele dossiers, Obama birthers, or neo-nazis does there need to be before intervention is required?

We tolerate those lunatics because the benefits of social media (and don’t kid yourself, TH is social media) outweigh the negatives. I’d never go back in time to when we didn’t have Facebook, X, Tik Tok, etc). 

Social media is like many other things. It can be used for good or bad. It’s best to let adults make their own choices for their families and not rely on mommy and daddy government to do it for them. 

Edited June 19, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

@mordorbund-just so that I’m clear, conspiracy theorists like the ones you describe are my least favorite type of people. For me it‘s a “don’t agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

[zil2]

41 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Steele dossiers

Didn't you just love the '80s?

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I tend to agree with your take here, but that isn’t what Andrew Fox is asking for. He would like social media to be held accountable — even financially — for what is published on their platforms.

I'm trying to puzzle out the "but" in the quote above.

Let me walk you through my line of thinking:

• Andrew asks "So what can we do about it?"  (i.e. how do we stop misinformation online?)
• He suggests that the German Network Enforcement Act is a model for us to follow.
• The law is basically a hate-speech law the the Democrats would druel over.
• My simple answer is that the proper campaign against misinformation is MORE speech.

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Advocating for the devil, you seem to have a high opinion of the masses and their ability and desire to embrace truth. How many flat-earthers, moon-landing-deniers, Steele dossiers, Obama birthers, or neo-nazis does there need to be before intervention is required?

Quite the contrary, I think the masses are pretty ignorant.  But how do we educate the ignorant?  We speak the truth.

I do need to clarify that when I say "more speech" I'm talking about every PERSON having a voice.  But I notice that there are an awful lot of bots and sock puppets out there that are supporting, adding, criticizing points of view.  That is certainly something that needs to stop.  This is like having dead people voting.  Gee, I wonder what political persuasion would support that?

I point out that the founding fathers and the Lord, Himself (the Nephite system of judges) depended upon the voice of the people.  But they need the truth to guide them.  If no one is speaking the truth, the people can't hear it.  And if a time should come where the people will choose error instead of truth, then the Lord will bring His judgment upon us.

At this point, I still have faith that the great majority of people still believe in the truth.  And they want to be guided by it.  They simply know not where to find it.

More speech is the answer.  We need to flood the internet with the truth.  So much truth that anyone looking for it will be able to find it somewhere.  The devil has his ways of multiplying his message.  And he will always put more out there.  We need only put enough of it out there that anyone who is sincerely looking will be able to find it.

They have the greater numbers.  We have the greater probability of acceptance.  Their mission is to drown out the truth.  Our mission is merely to believe and testify of the truth.

*** I would disallow social media platforms from making the decision about what is disinformation.  A court order would be required to disallow a certain post or poster.  If the platform charges a fee for the right to post, then they can kick them off for non-payment.

This is what makes for MORE speech.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I think the masses are pretty ignorant. 

I get what you are saying, and I fear mob justice and pitchforks, but who are any of us to talk about the ignorance of everyone else? If we are so wonderful and brilliant what are we doing here?

It’s a legit question. If we are all much better than the dirty, unwashed, “ignorant” masses we’d be doing other things. 

Edited June 19, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

I’m hardly a man of the people-I’m out of touch with the common man and I’m fine with that. But I’ll bet you that the majority of people out there are just as intelligent, likable, and as moral as we are. 

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

People will figure things out if everyone is truly free to share their opinions.

Carb, I pretty much agree with your solution, but this sentence is provably, demonstrably false.  The problem isn't with everyone sharing their opinions.  The problem is with concerted efforts to alter opinions using disinformation and algorithm warfare.

@LDSGator will have no end of fun with me for putting it this way, but Depeche Mode had it figured out in 1987:

You can't change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
If you change points of view
You may change a vote
And when you change a vote
You may change the world

 

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

have no end of fun with me for putting it this way, but Depeche Mode had it figured out in 1987:

 

Dude, you are awesome. I hope you know all my jests are in good fun.

 

If I ever crossed a line with you I apologize. 

Edited June 19, 2024 by LDSGator

[Carborendum]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The problem is with concerted efforts to alter opinions using disinformation and algorithm warfare.

I believe I addressed this further in the post you quoted.

Edited June 20, 2024 by Carborendum

[estradling75]

We have to remember how the tech overlords running social media platform view us.  We are not some charity case to be educated and raised and trained to make good decisions.  We are a product to be packaged and sold to the highest bidder.  They do this through our engagement.  The more engaged we are the more they can sell us for.  And what do we engage on?   Things we are passionate about.  Positive and Negative.

For example if we are really passionate about politics social media will figure it out and it will start showing you your team being all good and Saintly because you will engage with that. It will also so you the "others" being all evil and villainous because you will also engage with that.  This leads to your social media reinforcing your beliefs.  And if every day all you see our your team being good and the other team being bad you begin to wonder how anyone could think differently on the subject... because the evidence is "overwhelming"  (When really all the information you are getting is being carefully curated to give you what you think you want)

This also leads a person to minimize counter information...  Stories showing one of your guys being evil... Becomes "False News" or justified in "No one is perfect", or "How hypocritical to turn a blind eye to all your teams evil but focus on one person being kind of a jerk",  or the "He is an a** but he is our a**"  (like that is something to be proud of)

 

 

[Traveler]

When it comes to the truth of information the only things worse than an outright lie is to provide what you think you are looking for.

 

The Traveler