Hoffman is stating the obvious, but all the same major props for bringing some attention to the issue.
Anger is indeed addictive, and the social media companies will ride that all the way to the bank, every time. And I don't have the sense they particularly care what they leave behind, so long as their stocks move in the right direction.
It's their prerogative I guess, but all the same I wouldn't want them as neighbors.
Without delving into whether the 1st amendment should protect either hate speech or lies, or whether FB's being a middleman is greedy, I'll just relay something notable (by absence). Even though Zuckerberg has a big house a few blocks away, no one ever really sees he or his family around the neighborhood at all, not hopping into local stores, walking in the Mission district next door, etc. So they are not really neighbors at all. This is likely the way it is with other big house collectors ranging from Elon Musk to Oprah Winfrey. They don't hang out with the likes of you or me, so perhaps we shouldn't care if they are "neighbors". I wish they were more like Mr. Rogers, though!
It is not ONLY social media peddling fear and anger to advance their cause and self interest....
While FB & others have learned to profit from it, thugs (both paid and radicalized fools) patrol it looking to attack anything and anybody who does not toe the line they set.
We learned from Cambridge Analytica and the Internet Research Agency how social media can be used by professional propagandists to support and propagate a political agenda. And, since then, the political propagandists have become even more proficient at using it to manipulate public opinion. They are at war and use multiple fronts and means on social media to advance their agenda. FB and Social media are now just one of those fronts.
Meanwhile, the founder of FB says he can't stand what FB has become -- but will do nothing to rein it in. He knows if he does, he will be attacked -- on FB.
Haven’t spent much time on FB lately, but if they are allowing all discussion than that’s a good thing. What you consider news I might consider propaganda and vice-versa. Twitter flat out shuts you down if you don’t agree with their editorial view. Their definition of what’s allowable and what isn’t is a joke.
My mind is always open to new information. It might be right, it might be wrong. It’s up to me to process the information given to me based upon everything that preceded it. Problem today is everybody wants the headline without the story or facts to back it up. Very few are capable of putting any context in to events that happened yesterday let alone 150 years ago.
You are conflating reporting with propaganda and facts with "alternative facts" to the point where truth no longer matters.
We learned in 2016 how that can be used by professional propagandists to effectively undermine our elections and democracy. And, with social media they can target that propaganda with pinpoint accuracy to stir doubt, confusion, suspicion, fear, hatred and anger in groups and sub-groups: "White, working class males concerned about....".
... Our enemies attacked our country with it once. We know they are doing it again this election. Supporting them is supporting an attack on our country and our democracy.
There are some naive innocents who believe it is just innocuous sharing of opinions.
There are some radicalized nuts who use it to further their agendas
... They both call it: "Just sharing opinions" and other means of normalizing and minimizing it.
Exactly. You have “facts” that propaganda changed the election results. Because I don’t believe you and ask you what those facts are specifically, my questions instantly become “alternative facts”, even though I’m not providing any facts, I’m just asking a question.
If I’m really lucky you send me a link to an article that is just as obtuse as “your facts” and includes catch phrases as “some sources say”, or “trusted informants report”, or “those that wish to remain anonymous”. Much like the last 3 years we wasted on report after reported that was later found to be false without those “sources” ever called in to question.
It’s at this point the thinking public says there is no there there and moves on. Thanks for proving my point.
The "facts" are that these disinformation campaigns occurred and have been heavily and thoroughly documented. You'd have to completely obtuse to conclude that these campaigns didn't have any effect on the election, based on the sheer numbers involved.
It is not ONLY social media peddling fear and anger to advance their cause and self interest....
While FB & others have learned to profit from it, thugs (both paid and radicalized fools) patrol it looking to attack anything and anybody who does not toe the line they set.
We learned from Cambridge Analytica and the Internet Research Agency how social media can be used by professional propagandists to support and propagate a political agenda. And, since then, the political propagandists have become even more proficient at using it to manipulate public opinion. They are at war and use multiple fronts and means on social media to advance their agenda. FB and Social media are now just one of those fronts.
Meanwhile, the founder of FB says he can't stand what FB has become -- but will do nothing to rein it in. He knows if he does, he will be attacked -- on FB.
Haven’t spent much time on FB lately, but if they are allowing all discussion than that’s a good thing. What you consider news I might consider propaganda and vice-versa. Twitter flat out shuts you down if you don’t agree with their editorial view. Their definition of what’s allowable and what isn’t is a joke.
My mind is always open to new information. It might be right, it might be wrong. It’s up to me to process the information given to me based upon everything that preceded it. Problem today is everybody wants the headline without the story or facts to back it up. Very few are capable of putting any context in to events that happened yesterday let alone 150 years ago.
You are conflating reporting with propaganda and facts with "alternative facts" to the point where truth no longer matters.
We learned in 2016 how that can be used by professional propagandists to effectively undermine our elections and democracy. And, with social media they can target that propaganda with pinpoint accuracy to stir doubt, confusion, suspicion, fear, hatred and anger in groups and sub-groups: "White, working class males concerned about....".
... Our enemies attacked our country with it once. We know they are doing it again this election. Supporting them is supporting an attack on our country and our democracy.
There are some naive innocents who believe it is just innocuous sharing of opinions.
There are some radicalized nuts who use it to further their agendas
... They both call it: "Just sharing opinions" and other means of normalizing and minimizing it.
Exactly. You have “facts” that propaganda changed the election results. Because I don’t believe you and ask you what those facts are specifically, my questions instantly become “alternative facts”, even though I’m not providing any facts, I’m just asking a question.
If I’m really lucky you send me a link to an article that is just as obtuse as “your facts” and includes catch phrases as “some sources say”, or “trusted informants report”, or “those that wish to remain anonymous”. Much like the last 3 years we wasted on report after reported that was later found to be false without those “sources” ever called in to question.
It’s at this point the thinking public says there is no there there and moves on. Thanks for proving my point.
The source that our elections were attacked in 2016, 2018 and now in 2020? U.S. Intelligence. Every service agrees. There was no and is no controversy. Except in your propaganda filled mind.
That's how Social Media has become a tool of professionals: They use it to fill naive, susceptible heads with their nonsense - and then convince them that it never happened.
Facebook is a medium to express oneself. If that expression is anger, it is not Facebook's fault. What she is suggesting is corporate censorship. She wants to pass final judgement over what someone says based on whether she agrees with it. Heck, I do not agree with a lot of stuff I read on Facebook. It is trash. But I am smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's a slippery slope. Not one I am willing to jump on.
1. Censorship happens all the time. Look at the article itself. The word “pissed” is censored. Anyone complaining about that? I think that’s infantilizing the audience, personally. It’s AI’s right to censor whatever they want, though, because freedom of speech is irrelevant unless we are talking about speech being oppressed by government.
2. Joanna Hoffman said nothing about wanting to be the party passing judgement over what anyone says. Perhaps you’re projecting a preoccupation with authoritarianism, because it’s not present in the article.
3. Most people are not equipped with enough critical thinking skills (nor time, or experience doing research for quality info) to “separate the wheat from the chaff” as you put it. We need far better average education for starters. While we are failing to enact those standards, we need a stopgap for regulating garbage info, and, more specifically, compelling companies to not use it as bait to sell advertising spots.
The whole reason regulation exists is because of cause & effect: abuse happens, and then society deems it important enough to instill regulation to protect itself from more of said abuse. Child labor laws aren’t authoritarianism. Banning the use of myths and lies as bait for advertising is a reasonable response to the harm it does. (HOW to ban it isn’t something I’m going to attempt to investigate here)
You cannot run a society on the notion of zero compulsion until you have created a society of rational and logical beings... and that’s nowhere near to even being on the horizon.
4. “The slippery slope” is a logical fallacy used to push FUD, not logical reasoning. Try a different approach.
All true.
But it is important to realize that we aren't talking about some 400 pound guy lying in his bed posting nonsense.
Our country is being attacked by professionals (both internal and external) using social media to spread propaganda in order to propagate their agenda. And, with today's resources, they can do so with military precision -- to target exactly the right group with exactly the right message using exactly the right tone.
One of those was Russia whose long term agenda was to divide and weaken the U.S. Obviously it worked. That's behind what she was talking about. Or, to put it another way, as Obama put it: "We no longer debate opinions. Now we debate the facts". That's the power of propaganda to twist minds.
Wow - what a breathtakingly ignorant take. Can you imagine anyone making these comments about usenet back in the day?
One thing is certain - her cure would be far worse than the disease. Just give me more and better options to filter out the crap. I don't need some nanny like her doing it for me, thank you very much.
It is not ONLY social media peddling fear and anger to advance their cause and self interest....
Yes, I notice she is totally silent on the main stream media. Talk about the biggest purveyors of fear porn - just look at the dramatization and exaggeration with the virus and now the violent "protests" that are anything but. I have zero problem with legitimate, peaceful protest - it's the core of being an American citizen. As soon as you start destroying someone else's property, that is no longer a protest but a criminal act. Period!
I'll wager she isn't concerned about anger in general - just anger that is counter to her own desired political narratives
GeorgeBMac said: We learned in 2016 how that can be used by professional propagandists to effectively undermine our elections and democracy.
Still hiding behind that tired canard? Maybe, just maybe, Hillary was a shitty candidate? Or did those professional propagandists convince her to flat out ignore certain states and not campaign there? Wow - such power!
Yup, the "professional propagandists" are really to blame here
Give me a break. All this is really about is controlling the message and groupthink. Sadly it's no longer enough for your political enemies to co-exist, they must be erased from existence. Good luck with that.
SpamSandwich said: I don’t buy the “greed” argument. Everyone (yes, every human being who has ever existed) is self-interested. In our capitalistic system this individual self-interest is counterbalanced by the forces of competition in functioning markets. When markets aren’t functioning properly (typically because of overregulation or political interference) then that balance is upset.
Greed isn't 100% negative, either. Greed is a wonderful motivator. For example, it doesn't make sense for corporations to blindly slaughter their customers (through either malice or incompetence) since if they do that then who will buy their products?
The cartoon demonization of Capitalism would be hilarious if there weren't so many people who are actually serious in their ridiculous views.
dysamoria said: we need a stopgap for regulating garbage info
From who? You? No thanks.
Sunlight. Get it all out in the open and let individual users decide. It won't be pretty, but it will be fair. Anything else is a decent into totalitarianism.
Those who chose safety over liberty deserve neither and all that (and yes, it's a deliberate paraphrase for all the pedants waiting in the wings to pounce. The exact words aren't important; rather the sentiment behind them).
Free speech without compassion and accountability is just a shouting match.
And? If you don't like shouting matches then don't participate. Pretty simple.
This desire to control other peoples thoughts and actions - it's breathtakingly frightening for anyone who is any kind of a student of world history. The utter (some would argue deliberate!) failure of our educational system to provide any meaningful historical context to people is just ridiculous. The abject ignorance about the significance of the United Sates, it's founding, how truly unique it was not only at the time but the entirety of human history - how it shaped the western world we now take for granted and seem bound and determined to frivolously discard - and people in here are concerned about propaganda in social media?!?!
The source that our elections were attacked in 2016, 2018 and now in 2020? U.S. Intelligence. Every service agrees. There was no and is no controversy. Except in your propaganda filled mind.
That's how Social Media has become a tool of professionals: They use it to fill naive, susceptible heads with their nonsense - and then convince them that it never happened.
lol - @ the irony in this post. Care to list the main stream media and web sites you source your news on a regular basis from?
One of those was Russia whose long term agenda was to divide and weaken the U.S. Obviously it worked. That's behind what she was talking about. Or, to put it another way, as Obama put it: "We no longer debate opinions. Now we debate the facts". That's the power of propaganda to twist minds.
Oh please - Russia spent less on Facebook ads than any political campaign - and I'm talking local political campaigns, not even presidential level campaigns.
No, the biggest thing Russia did was light on fire a set of talking points and then goaded someone to pick the torch up and start lighting their own house on fire. This time the democrats and media picked the torch up and have been happily running around doing a better job than they could ever have done directly.
And you want to be the saviors of everyone? No thanks! I'd rather have the ugly shouting match than the "politely curated" discussion.
Again no one is forcing anyone to have a discussion or interact. You people don't give a rats ass about the discussion; what's really abhorrent is that some uneducated dolt may dare to have an opinion contrary to what you are absolutely sure is "the truth".
Sounds more like a religious cult than enlightened intellectualism to me, but here we are. Where people utter bullocks like "The science is settled" and nitwits nod their heads in agreement and then double down using it like some battle cry they should get a gold star for instead of being embarrassed to utter such nonsense out loud, let alone in public.
Wow - what a breathtakingly ignorant take. Can you imagine anyone making these comments about usenet back in the day?
One thing is certain - her cure would be far worse than the disease. Just give me more and better options to filter out the crap. I don't need some nanny like her doing it for me, thank you very much.
If you don't think you need a nanny, you probably do.
These are pros using social media to warp your thinking. And, they are very, very good at it. They know where you live, where you work, the names of your kids -- and all of your fears and biases....
GeorgeBMac said: We learned in 2016 how that can be used by professional propagandists to effectively undermine our elections and democracy.
Still hiding behind that tired canard? Maybe, just maybe, Hillary was a shitty candidate? Or did those professional propagandists convince her to flat out ignore certain states and not campaign there? Wow - such power!
Yup, the "professional propagandists" are really to blame here
Give me a break. All this is really about is controlling the message and groupthink. Sadly it's no longer enough for your political enemies to co-exist, they must be erased from existence. Good luck with that.
Tired? The only thing that's tired is the Hillary bashing.
Sorry, but every intelligence service agrees that our country and our elections were attacked by a foreign country in order to install Trump in the White House. And, last month a Republican committee again confirmed that for about the third or fourth time.
But, in your propaganda filled, brain washed head it was all Hillary's fault.
Some are too stupid to understand that.
Some just don't care -- to them it's party before country.
One of those was Russia whose long term agenda was to divide and weaken the U.S. Obviously it worked. That's behind what she was talking about. Or, to put it another way, as Obama put it: "We no longer debate opinions. Now we debate the facts". That's the power of propaganda to twist minds.
Oh please - Russia spent less on Facebook ads than any political campaign - and I'm talking local political campaigns, not even presidential level campaigns.
No, the biggest thing Russia did was light on fire a set of talking points and then goaded someone to pick the torch up and start lighting their own house on fire. This time the democrats and media picked the torch up and have been happily running around doing a better job than they could ever have done directly.
And you want to be the saviors of everyone? No thanks! I'd rather have the ugly shouting match than the "politely curated" discussion.
Again no one is forcing anyone to have a discussion or interact. You people don't give a rats ass about the discussion; what's really abhorrent is that some uneducated dolt may dare to have an opinion contrary to what you are absolutely sure is "the truth".
Sounds more like a religious cult than enlightened intellectualism to me, but here we are. Where people utter bullocks like "The science is settled" and nitwits nod their heads in agreement and then double down using it like some battle cry they should get a gold star for instead of being embarrassed to utter such nonsense out loud, let alone in public.
It is indeed a mad, mad world.
Sounds like you lapped up all the cherry flavored bleach and then licked the bowl.
Comments
or whether FB's being a middleman is greedy, I'll just relay something notable (by absence).
Even though Zuckerberg has a big house a few blocks away, no one ever really sees he
or his family around the neighborhood at all, not hopping into local stores, walking in
the Mission district next door, etc. So they are not really neighbors at all. This is likely
the way it is with other big house collectors ranging from Elon Musk to Oprah Winfrey.
They don't hang out with the likes of you or me, so perhaps we shouldn't care if they are "neighbors".
I wish they were more like Mr. Rogers, though!
https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/ira-political-polarization/
https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/12/The-IRA-Social-Media-and-Political-Polarization.pdf
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf
What exactly was "later found to be false", in your mind?
One thing is certain - her cure would be far worse than the disease. Just give me more and better options to filter out the crap. I don't need some nanny like her doing it for me, thank you very much.
Yes, I notice she is totally silent on the main stream media. Talk about the biggest purveyors of fear porn - just look at the dramatization and exaggeration with the virus and now the violent "protests" that are anything but. I have zero problem with legitimate, peaceful protest - it's the core of being an American citizen. As soon as you start destroying someone else's property, that is no longer a protest but a criminal act. Period!
I'll wager she isn't concerned about anger in general - just anger that is counter to her own desired political narratives
Still hiding behind that tired canard? Maybe, just maybe, Hillary was a shitty candidate? Or did those professional propagandists convince her to flat out ignore certain states and not campaign there? Wow - such power!
Yup, the "professional propagandists" are really to blame here
Give me a break. All this is really about is controlling the message and groupthink. Sadly it's no longer enough for your political enemies to co-exist, they must be erased from existence. Good luck with that.
Greed isn't 100% negative, either. Greed is a wonderful motivator. For example, it doesn't make sense for corporations to blindly slaughter their customers (through either malice or incompetence) since if they do that then who will buy their products?
The cartoon demonization of Capitalism would be hilarious if there weren't so many people who are actually serious in their ridiculous views.
From who? You? No thanks.
Sunlight. Get it all out in the open and let individual users decide. It won't be pretty, but it will be fair. Anything else is a decent into totalitarianism.
Those who chose safety over liberty deserve neither and all that (and yes, it's a deliberate paraphrase for all the pedants waiting in the wings to pounce. The exact words aren't important; rather the sentiment behind them).
And? If you don't like shouting matches then don't participate. Pretty simple.
This desire to control other peoples thoughts and actions - it's breathtakingly frightening for anyone who is any kind of a student of world history. The utter (some would argue deliberate!) failure of our educational system to provide any meaningful historical context to people is just ridiculous. The abject ignorance about the significance of the United Sates, it's founding, how truly unique it was not only at the time but the entirety of human history - how it shaped the western world we now take for granted and seem bound and determined to frivolously discard - and people in here are concerned about propaganda in social media?!?!
Oh please - Russia spent less on Facebook ads than any political campaign - and I'm talking local political campaigns, not even presidential level campaigns.
No, the biggest thing Russia did was light on fire a set of talking points and then goaded someone to pick the torch up and start lighting their own house on fire. This time the democrats and media picked the torch up and have been happily running around doing a better job than they could ever have done directly.
And you want to be the saviors of everyone? No thanks! I'd rather have the ugly shouting match than the "politely curated" discussion.
Again no one is forcing anyone to have a discussion or interact. You people don't give a rats ass about the discussion; what's really abhorrent is that some uneducated dolt may dare to have an opinion contrary to what you are absolutely sure is "the truth".
Sounds more like a religious cult than enlightened intellectualism to me, but here we are. Where people utter bullocks like "The science is settled" and nitwits nod their heads in agreement and then double down using it like some battle cry they should get a gold star for instead of being embarrassed to utter such nonsense out loud, let alone in public.
It is indeed a mad, mad world.
Sounds like you lapped up all the cherry flavored bleach and then licked the bowl.