The age of American unreason

[billvon 2,991]

54 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

in other words, we're no longer the customer, we're the product.

Wendy P.

Or more like a resource to be mined as effectively as possible.  Facebook does this very well, for example.

Side note - I get a kick out of the people who complain that Facebook is censoring them when they post fake info or threaten to kill someone or whatever.  Those people really believe that Facebook is a free and open message platform dedicated to public discourse, instead of a 100% capitalistic moneymaking factory.  Ironically these are often the same people who decry socialism - and then demand the government step in with rules to tell Facebook not to edit or flag their posts.

 

[mbohu 77]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

 

I think cookies played a huge part and when the news services got ahold of that info they force fed us our own beliefs.

I think you're right. Or in more general terms, the problem is that delivery of news isn't a one-way street anymore. Instead of the content just flowing out in one direction, it is now a 2-way street, where feedback is immediately received by the ones who put out the news. One would think that's a good think but in reality it creates all kinds of feedback problems, where the news gets changed based on the response from the audience (usually to achieve a certain purpose: profit and persuasion seem to be the main ones)

The same problem is happening with voting and political messages: The constant polling feedback tempts politicians to constantly adjust their messages (and their politics) to the feedback they are receiving. Again: Ideally, this could be a good thing--but in reality there is no honest, direct uncorrupted message put out anymore.

The question is: Is there a point where information flow should actively be limited to avoid such effects? If it SHOULD, is there any real chance that we will be able to implement such limits?

[airdvr 210]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

in other words, we're no longer the customer, we're the product.

Wendy P.

Exactly

[Coreece 190]

9 minutes ago, mbohu said:

the news gets changed based on the response from the audience (usually to achieve a certain purpose: profit and persuasion seem to be the main ones)

Just as an aside, this is something that has also crept into the church as well, typically seen in those peddling prosperity theology and a few other megachurches.

[mbohu 77]

On 8/26/2020 at 6:48 AM, Phil1111 said:

The Pride of Ignorance. Facebook has the capability to block or identify false memes and the groups that trade in them. The alt-right has brought back into fashion traditional tenets of the reactionary, xenophobic, and often racist far-right, bigotry that drives its thinking. Yet Zuckerberg has refused to act because it assists profits.

This may be controversial, but I really don't think that this is such a simple issue. You are probably right that Zuckerberg's motive is purely profit.

But: Giving a private company the power to decide what is accurate and what is not and to censor posts based on that, is hugely problematic. Yes. I know: FB is not a public forum, legally, and in essence the company already has that power--but there is an argument to be made about keeping algorithms more or less content-neutral (same with Google search algorithms) and not considering anything about truthfulness or even morality (up to a point--of course there will always be some line to be drawn.)

Asking FB to censor posts will likely backfire tremendously. 
It also puts them into an impossible position. Based on what exactly should they censor posts? If everything that is not completely truthful gets censored, not much will be left--and how do they even research what is truthful and what isn't? Will there be any oversight of that? Right now, you can post all kinds of anti-FB and anti-Zuckerberg stuff right on their platform and it will not be censored. At least this is consistent.

Not saying there aren't real problems with the effects of FB and other social media on our society--but I don't think the solution is asking private companies to become arbiters of what is true and what isn't.
I don't have a magical solution, but I wonder if a growing up of our general consciousness (really learning to be discerning and getting wise to manipulation and falsehood) isn't the only way out (and is that ever realistic?...I don't know.) 

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Those people really believe that Facebook is a free and open message platform dedicated to public discourse, instead of a 100% capitalistic moneymaking factory.

Yes, but at this point FB, Twitter, etc. are really becoming more like a utility or a channel for public discourse. They may be privately held but they are the main channels to get your message heard in the social media space. There really are no comparable alternatives. I don't think that's something we can ignore.

[Coreece 190]

14 hours ago, wmw999 said:

One good thing about the smaller number of channels in the past, as well as the smaller number of news sources when we took the paper, was that more people were exposed to the same information.

And if you wanted fake news with sensationalized headlines, you had to buy a copy at the local grocery store checkout lane - and everyone knew it was bullshit, even those buying it. Some were even embarrassed to be seen with it and often tried to hide the fact that they read such garbage.

Now it's just there staring us in the face every morning for free, right next to real news - and people share it loud and proud.

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Coreece

[billvon 2,991]

51 minutes ago, mbohu said:

But: Giving a private company the power to decide what is accurate and what is not and to censor posts based on that, is hugely problematic. Yes. I know: FB is not a public forum, legally, and in essence the company already has that power--but there is an argument to be made about keeping algorithms more or less content-neutral (same with Google search algorithms) and not considering anything about truthfulness or even morality (up to a point--of course there will always be some line to be drawn.)

To me it's pretty straightforward.  Is it private?  Then he can do whatever he wants within the law, and the market can regulate his approach by refusing to participate if his decisions are poor.  Is it public?  Then they can be governed externally as to what content is allowed or not allowed.  (Note that even parades, which are public demonstrations protected by the First Amendment, can be shut down.)

Quote

Asking FB to censor posts will likely backfire tremendously. 
It also puts them into an impossible position. Based on what exactly should they censor posts? If everything that is not completely truthful gets censored, not much will be left--and how do they even research what is truthful and what isn't? Will there be any oversight of that? Right now, you can post all kinds of anti-FB and anti-Zuckerberg stuff right on their platform and it will not be censored. At least this is consistent.

But they are doing that right now.  They are relying on third party fact checkers (Snopes, Politifact, AP Fact Check etc)  They are following their listed Terms of Service and Community Guidelines and seem to get it right most of the time.  They are under no obligation to do so, of course.

Quote

Not saying there aren't real problems with the effects of FB and other social media on our society--but I don't think the solution is asking private companies to become arbiters of what is true and what isn't.

I agree.  The solution is to refuse to post on forums that have poor practices (use of private information / fact checking / censorship / attitude towards pedophilic content etc)

[murps2000 86]

22 minutes ago, billvon said:

To me it's pretty straightforward.  Is it private?  Then he can do whatever he wants within the law, and the market can regulate his approach by refusing to participate if his decisions are poor.  Is it public?  Then they can be governed externally as to what content is allowed or not allowed.  (Note that even parades, which are public demonstrations protected by the First Amendment, can be shut down.)

But they are doing that right now.  They are relying on third party fact checkers (Snopes, Politifact, AP Fact Check etc)  They are following their listed Terms of Service and Community Guidelines and seem to get it right most of the time.  They are under no obligation to do so, of course.

I agree.  The solution is to refuse to post on forums that have poor practices (use of private information / fact checking / censorship / attitude towards pedophilic content etc)

Yeah, as if anyone would do that. FB is the oxycontin of social media and the number one source news source for most of its users. You're not just the product but the number one consumer. Ingenious business model, really. Gotta respect the Zuck for what he has achieved.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

15 hours ago, airdvr said:

 

I think cookies played a huge part and when the news services got ahold of that info they force fed us our own beliefs.

Ok, I see what you mean.

I'm not sure I fully agree with it, but there's a lot of truth in it.

I see it more as 'reinforcing' the beliefs, rather than 'force feeding.'

As I sort of noted in my previous post (I got distracted and didn't fully finish typing out the thought), the echo chambers are largely voluntary. 
People join, say, a car forum. That group is pretty clearly defined (the one I'm part of is more or less older, affluent white guys). While it won't be 100% of one belief, there will be a strong tendency towards one. 
As it dominates, the opposing viewpoints drop away and it just gets stronger.
That is exactly what has happened on the car forum I'm part of.

Take a subject that is politically charged (guns is the best example I can think of) and it will be even more powerful.

Real objectivity is pretty hard. It takes a wide variety of experiences, a reliance on facts over 'feels', a willingness to admit when one is wrong and an equal willingness to learn what is the truth. 

There are a couple folks on here who are pretty good at it, but they are a minority.

Somehow it's not surprising that they are usually ones with 'STEM' backgrounds. 

[billvon 2,991]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I see it more as 'reinforcing' the beliefs, rather than 'force feeding.'

Yeah.  And what's changing is that it's becoming less and less voluntary.  People used to self-select; they'd choose (or block) people or stories or forums or feeds based on their preferences, and create a news bubble around themselves that reinforced their own beliefs.  And people did that, and it was somewhat isolating, but if they were self-aware they'd know that they are doing it.  Nowadays algorithms are doing that.   So someone might really believe whatever is fed them, because it's tailored to reinforce their belief - but from their perspective it's just what the news is showing them.

You see this on Facebook all the time.  People post things like "COVID-19 is a hoax!" and you might ask "how can anyone believe that?"  They believe that because that sort of news is really all they see; Facebook is actively feeding them hoax news stories and blocking (or at least not providing) actual news.  (That's one reason I don't unfriend people there when they get offensive/aggressive - because then I'd end up with a bubble of my own.)

[turtlespeed 220]

18 hours ago, Coreece said:

And if you wanted fake news with sensationalized headlines, you had to buy a copy at the local grocery store checkout lane - and everyone knew it was bullshit, even those buying it. Some were even embarrassed to be seen with it and often tried to hide the fact that they read such garbage.

Now it's just there staring us in the face every morning for free, right next to real news - and people share it loud and proud.

 

Are you talking about the hot sheets?

[Coreece 190]

17 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

19 hours ago, Coreece said:

And if you wanted fake news with sensationalized headlines, you had to buy a copy at the local grocery store checkout lane - and everyone knew it was bullshit, even those buying it. Some were even embarrassed to be seen with it and often tried to hide the fact that they read such garbage.

Now it's just there staring us in the face every morning for free, right next to real news - and people share it loud and proud.

 

Are you talking about the hot sheets?

 

[turtlespeed 220]

 

[kallend 2,027]

15 minutes ago, Coreece said:

 

Love it!

[NewGuy2005 53]

21 hours ago, billvon said:

To me it's pretty straightforward.  Is it private?  Then he can do whatever he wants within the law, and the market can regulate his approach by refusing to participate if his decisions are poor.  Is it public?  Then they can be governed externally as to what content is allowed or not allowed.  (Note that even parades, which are public demonstrations protected by the First Amendment, can be shut down.)

But they are doing that right now.  They are relying on third party fact checkers (Snopes, Politifact, AP Fact Check etc)  They are following their listed Terms of Service and Community Guidelines and seem to get it right most of the time.  They are under no obligation to do so, of course.

I agree.  The solution is to refuse to post on forums that have poor practices (use of private information / fact checking / censorship / attitude towards pedophilic content etc)

Or we can just stop using Facebook.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

15 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Or we can just stop using Facebook.

Hi 2005,

Yup.  I still cannot see why anybody goes there.  To me, you might as well get a subscription to the National Enquirer and other 'cash register magazines.'

Garbage in = garbage out

https://www.nationalenquirer.com/

Jerry Baumchen

[Coreece 190]

 25 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

44 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Or we can just stop using Facebook.

Hi 2005

Perfect! 

 

25 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

44 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Or we can just stop using Facebook.

Hi 2005,

Yup.  I still cannot see why anybody goes there.  To me, you might as well get a subscription to the National Enquirer and other 'cash register magazines.'

I agree, but like I said, if people were literally buying it in the 80s and 90s, how much more now that it is shoved in our face for free?

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Coreece
formatting

[billvon 2,991]

3 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Or we can just stop using Facebook.

Yep.  That's the "capitalist" solution.

[kallend 2,027]

12 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi 2005,

Yup.  I still cannot see why anybody goes there.  To me, you might as well get a subscription to the National Enquirer and other 'cash register magazines.'

Garbage in = garbage out

https://www.nationalenquirer.com/

Jerry Baumchen

When you have a lot of family in a different continent it's a convenient way to stay in touch.

[Coreece 190]

27 minutes ago, kallend said:

When you have a lot of family in a different continent it's a convenient way to stay in touch.

I used FB briefly about 10 years ago or so to keep in touch with family, but it was always done through private chat without airing dirty laundry and spreading silly opinions, fake news and narcissistic display.

[RonD1120 62]

13 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Or we can just stop using Facebook.

Parler

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

13 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi 2005,

Yup.  I still cannot see why anybody goes there.  To me, you might as well get a subscription to the National Enquirer and other 'cash register magazines.'

Garbage in = garbage out

https://www.nationalenquirer.com/

Jerry Baumchen

There is some valid stuff on there.

I have a FB friend who is graphing out the Covid case data that is released every day by WI DHS. While there are news stories about it (and the actual DHS site), nobody else that I know of has done anything like this, where you can see the numbers from day one to today, both daily and rolling averages.

I have skydiver friends across the country. 
I have family on the West Coast.
I'm part of a couple groups for things I'm involved in, including 'experienced jumper' pages for the DZs I jump at.

I have friends that link to legitimate news sources.
Some of it is serious, valid news. Others are just silly. I need both.

You just have to ignore everything that links stupid and fake stuff. Western Journal, Palmer Report, Breitbart, Alternet, that sort of crap.

You just have to be able to discern the difference. And be able to ignore the crap.

[airdvr 210]

49 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You just have to be able to discern the difference. And be able to ignore the crap.

Kind of like watching TV.

[murps2000 86]

17 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Or we can just stop using Facebook.

To actually do that you'd have to never hit the like button on any third party website again.