7 ms·

OK, so, in the vein of the original thread, can you explain how Facebook would be "sowing discord" or "making people depressed and anxious" in some specific way

OK, so, in the vein of the original thread, can you explain how Facebook would be "sowing discord" or "making people depressed and anxious" in some specific way that isn't just spreading other people's speech (ideally, in a way that is based on some objective metrics like engagement) that is Very Bad and shouldn't be allowed? For example, are you suggesting that Facebook begin censoring information about the climate emergency because it makes people depressed and anxious? Should Facebook make sure that people don't see content they disagree with, because that promotes discord? Or is it the other way around - they shouldn't see content they agree with, because that creates an echo chamber which increases discord when they do encounter other views?

_ink_ 9d ago
There was an experiment (granted its TikTok, but it's basically the same) where they register a new account, pretending to be a teenager and than start scrolling without liking anything. [1] The amount of extremist content that is shown is really worrying. To answer your question, yes they should be highly regulated and forced to moderate what they show to users. Maybe even be liable since it is their decision what they show and not the users. And if their business model is then not working anymore, because it's to expensive to moderate the content, then tough luck. [1] - https://dietagespresse.com/selbstversuch-so-radikalisiert-tiktok-oesterreichische-teenager/ https://dietagespresse.com/selbstversuch-so-radikalisiert-ti... It's in German but you can watch the feeds.
- Amezarak 9d ago
  OK, well, I support liberal democracy and all that entails. So we’re kind of fundamentally at odds here and probably won’t be able to find common ground.
  - ModernMech 9d ago
    Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a healthy democracy to work.
    - Amezarak 9d ago
      Liberal democracy does not mean that the government and other authorities hide information and opinions from people for fear it might make them “anxious and depressed.” I gave you a specific example: should they stop letting people see content relating to the climate emergency because it makes many people anxious and depressed? That is the view of paternalistic authoritarian states whose primary concern is public harmony, not liberalism.
      - _ink_ 9d ago
        Content that speaks the truth, like content about the climate emergency is not the problem, even if people don't want that to be true. The content that are just blatant lies, nowadays even published by elected officials, that they just publish because it is in their own personal and financial interest is.
        Amezarak 9d ago
        Right. So instead, a central authority determines what is true or not and therefore what is allowed to be published. Easy - there’s clearly a neutral arbiter of truth we can all depend on! So the problem was never that the algorithm let people see content that was depressing and anxiety-inducing - that’s okay - but when it does so and it’s not true. How the goalposts move. You’re right back to what authoritarian states say and do, and diametrically opposed to what underpins liberal democracy: the idea that the demos decides what is true and good. That idea has lots of very obvious problems but we decided it was preferable to the other systems, one of which you are now advocating for. In a liberal democracy we all are responsible for persuading the people that lies are lies, not censoring them. If you believe that the Algorithm is just too powerful and you can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas against people lying - well, you don’t believe in liberal democracy. You believe in an ideologically authoritarian state that tells you what’s true or not, and where people are not allowed to make free, (un)informed decisions.
      - ModernMech 9d ago
        We're not talking about the government and authorities, we're talking about Facebook. The government showing people information that makes them anxious and depressed isn't the same as a for-profit entity intentionally tailoring individual feeds to maximize people's specific anxieties and depression because they discovered it generates billions of dollars, allowing their executives to live in opulent luxury floating on mega yachts. That whole thing isn't a part of liberal democracy.
  - _ink_ 9d ago
    That's ok. Thank you for the discussion. But I do wonder, should Russia and China be allowed to use these tools to sow distrust against our Democracy? For me the tolerance paradox formulated by Karl Popper comes to mind and it is a clear no.
    - Amezarak 9d ago
      Why is it this line of reasoning never goes into questioning just who the forces endlessly propagandizing about the need to censor social media are? Is this not sowing distrust in democracy itself? (If you can’t trust your electorate not to believe Chinese propaganda, what does that say about your attitude towards democracy as a system?) Who is doing this and why? That would seem to be very salient since much of the reporting on bot campaigns has since been discredited, with whole organizations confabulating these stories then laundering them through the media to push their desired political outcome. (C.f “new knowledge.”) Foreign propaganda in democracies is as old as democracies themselves. It is by no means anything new; foreign influence campaigns spent enormous sums and labor trying to sway democracies from the very beginning - often very successfully. I don’t see why it’s any different for it to be published on Facebook instead of laundered through print media and rumor mills. At the end of the day you either recognize these problems and appreciate that trusting your electorate/having a liberal democracy is the best option we have compared with the alternatives…or you don’t.
      - berytos_storm 9d ago
        > At the end of the day you either recognize these problems and appreciate that trusting your electorate/having a liberal democracy is the best option we have compared with the alternatives…or you don’t. Many of those democracies are trending illiberal thanks to the useless yet arrogant liberal decrying of “there’s simply nothing else we can do” and championing a rotting status quo.
        Amezarak 9d ago
        They are trending illiberal because of the tension between elites who think ignoring and censoring the popular will on various issues is wise and the voters who see that and think the only solution is a drastic one. Several western countries could kill their more extreme parties overnight simply by enacting a few reforms with immigration and/or affordability.

_ink_ 9d ago

There was an experiment (granted its TikTok, but it's basically the same) where they register a new account, pretending to be a teenager and than start scrolling without liking anything. [1] The amount of extremist content that is shown is really worrying. To answer your question, yes they should be highly regulated and forced to moderate what they show to users. Maybe even be liable since it is their decision what they show and not the users. And if their business model is then not working anymore, because it's to expensive to moderate the content, then tough luck. [1] - https://dietagespresse.com/selbstversuch-so-radikalisiert-tiktok-oesterreichische-teenager/ https://dietagespresse.com/selbstversuch-so-radikalisiert-ti... It's in German but you can watch the feeds.

Amezarak 9d ago
OK, well, I support liberal democracy and all that entails. So we’re kind of fundamentally at odds here and probably won’t be able to find common ground.
- ModernMech 9d ago
  Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a healthy democracy to work.
  - Amezarak 9d ago
    Liberal democracy does not mean that the government and other authorities hide information and opinions from people for fear it might make them “anxious and depressed.” I gave you a specific example: should they stop letting people see content relating to the climate emergency because it makes many people anxious and depressed? That is the view of paternalistic authoritarian states whose primary concern is public harmony, not liberalism.
    - _ink_ 9d ago
      Content that speaks the truth, like content about the climate emergency is not the problem, even if people don't want that to be true. The content that are just blatant lies, nowadays even published by elected officials, that they just publish because it is in their own personal and financial interest is.
      - Amezarak 9d ago
        Right. So instead, a central authority determines what is true or not and therefore what is allowed to be published. Easy - there’s clearly a neutral arbiter of truth we can all depend on! So the problem was never that the algorithm let people see content that was depressing and anxiety-inducing - that’s okay - but when it does so and it’s not true. How the goalposts move. You’re right back to what authoritarian states say and do, and diametrically opposed to what underpins liberal democracy: the idea that the demos decides what is true and good. That idea has lots of very obvious problems but we decided it was preferable to the other systems, one of which you are now advocating for. In a liberal democracy we all are responsible for persuading the people that lies are lies, not censoring them. If you believe that the Algorithm is just too powerful and you can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas against people lying - well, you don’t believe in liberal democracy. You believe in an ideologically authoritarian state that tells you what’s true or not, and where people are not allowed to make free, (un)informed decisions.
    - ModernMech 9d ago
      We're not talking about the government and authorities, we're talking about Facebook. The government showing people information that makes them anxious and depressed isn't the same as a for-profit entity intentionally tailoring individual feeds to maximize people's specific anxieties and depression because they discovered it generates billions of dollars, allowing their executives to live in opulent luxury floating on mega yachts. That whole thing isn't a part of liberal democracy.
- _ink_ 9d ago
  That's ok. Thank you for the discussion. But I do wonder, should Russia and China be allowed to use these tools to sow distrust against our Democracy? For me the tolerance paradox formulated by Karl Popper comes to mind and it is a clear no.
  - Amezarak 9d ago
    Why is it this line of reasoning never goes into questioning just who the forces endlessly propagandizing about the need to censor social media are? Is this not sowing distrust in democracy itself? (If you can’t trust your electorate not to believe Chinese propaganda, what does that say about your attitude towards democracy as a system?) Who is doing this and why? That would seem to be very salient since much of the reporting on bot campaigns has since been discredited, with whole organizations confabulating these stories then laundering them through the media to push their desired political outcome. (C.f “new knowledge.”) Foreign propaganda in democracies is as old as democracies themselves. It is by no means anything new; foreign influence campaigns spent enormous sums and labor trying to sway democracies from the very beginning - often very successfully. I don’t see why it’s any different for it to be published on Facebook instead of laundered through print media and rumor mills. At the end of the day you either recognize these problems and appreciate that trusting your electorate/having a liberal democracy is the best option we have compared with the alternatives…or you don’t.
    - berytos_storm 9d ago
      > At the end of the day you either recognize these problems and appreciate that trusting your electorate/having a liberal democracy is the best option we have compared with the alternatives…or you don’t. Many of those democracies are trending illiberal thanks to the useless yet arrogant liberal decrying of “there’s simply nothing else we can do” and championing a rotting status quo.
      - Amezarak 9d ago
        They are trending illiberal because of the tension between elites who think ignoring and censoring the popular will on various issues is wise and the voters who see that and think the only solution is a drastic one. Several western countries could kill their more extreme parties overnight simply by enacting a few reforms with immigration and/or affordability.