Post No.: 0988
Furrywisepuppy says:
A couple of likeminded people gossiping and grrriping on the phone can reinforce each other’s vitriolic feelings about whom or what they’re barking and bitching about. This essentially happens on online social media too – but amplified. There’s a collective wisdom of a diverse crowd but online social media tends to silo people into likeminded groups who reinforce each other’s viewpoints. Also, if this kind of content produces the most engagement then the algorithms will favour highlighting to others content that makes people react angrily one way or the other too. Social media platforms will normally promote the messages and content that generate the most views and engagement, such as via trending lists, which means that those kinds of content will spread even further and faster. In this viral way, online social media is worse than offline gatherings.
Posting one’s opinions on social media is cheap, instant and has a global reach hence it’s a hugely appealing medium to share one’s viewpoints. Most users also like receiving ‘likes’ because of the feeling of validation from getting noticed and being agreed with. And it’s much easier to garner at least a few ‘likes’ or reposts by posting extreme or divisive content with a few choice hashtags and maybe targeted mentions and a gif because it reflects the generally ‘leftwing versus rightwing’ political tribal landscape that exists in countries like the USA and UK where there’s democracy but generally only two main political rivals who have a chance of power.
Falsehoods, misinformed beliefs, pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are thus more likely to be seen by others, and in turn believed by others. When unsure of what to believe in, people may rely on what they think most others believe in as a guide, or may trust in sources that appear outwardly credible and authoritative (but the ‘blue ticks’ on X/Twitter mean nothing now – not that before they became paid-for they were reliable indicators of how knowledgeable or trustworthy an account was on a particular discussion topic). Show them that a belief is commonly believed and they may begin to see it as more plausible, even absent of seeing any direct evidence to support it (argumentum ad populum).
When they’re surer of what they believe in, however, almost any source of counterview won’t make them change their minds. This demonstrates how important it is for people to learn what’s factual early on. Confirmation-biased rationalisations and descending down an echo chamber path will commence once someone strongly locks onto taking a particular side.
Nuanced and dispassionately equitable content, meanwhile, sits where relatively few will react to and engage with because it aggravates nobody. Sigh.
Many people love giving retorts or poking holes in other people’s arguments to show how smart they (think they) are. They think it’ll assert their status over whom they’re trying to correct or ‘correct’. Silence is therefore often golden when you don’t receive a response to something you post. But silence isn’t golden to social media platforms – they prefer feverish engagement! Therefore sound arguments don’t tend to get promoted as much as controversial ones that present holes and generate heated to-and-fro debate.
So when views, ‘likes’, followers, reposts and/or comments are the metrics of success – outrage, harassment and misinformation frequently wins. Social media platforms are trying to sort this out but in a ‘but we don’t want to limit our profit maximisation’ kind of way. We as social media users need to get savvier and diversify our news sources, or not rely on social media as a (main) source of our news.
Having lots of ‘likes’ or reposts doesn’t mean that a message is true – it just means that so many people have seen it, then agree with it or want to spread it. Similarly, having lots of followers doesn’t indicate the general trustworthiness or expertise of an account. Honest opinions also aren’t the same things as true facts.
We may not know enough as media consumers to appreciate what’s true, and so may follow what’s false. To figure out what’s true, we need access to firsthand evidence and enough relevant expertise. Absent of these, we may follow what our peers think or what’s popular. But truths and wisdom aren’t democratically determined.
Fake news, dubious life hacks, deceptive quick food recipes, suspect fun facts, questionable advice – these frequently get tons of views and rank highly on search engines and social media recommendations because exaggerated or controversial things can be more easily made to look or sound more spectacular, astonishing, goading, inflammatory and therefore engaging. We’re suggestible and easily provoked. In such a system, fake pays for those who post it or host it. If called out, the content creators may claim that it’s just entertainment rather than education but they often like to intentionally blur that line by not making their motives clear.
And there’s currently a section in US federal law (Section 230) that states that online computer services, like social media services, are not accountable for the third-party content generated by its users i.e. these tech firms aren’t the publishers or speakers of their users’ viewpoints and materials thus with any lies (even political-landscape-shaping lies) expressed on their platforms, they can say ‘it’s not my words so I don’t need to legally do anything about it’. They are de facto media companies but they don’t face the responsibilities and regulations that traditional media companies do.
They also encounter that conflict of interest – they indirectly receive a lot of revenue even from fake/false news on their platforms hence it’s not in their shareholders’ interests to censor such news on these platforms. Thus their stance is to support free speech and no censorship… well unless it doesn’t personally suit them, like when posting publicly-available flight data about the CEO’s ruff whereabouts(!)
Of course, the alternative is that they arbitrate, censor and control the viewpoints expressed on their services, and this could be unpalatable depending on how they do so. Whatever the case, it shows us that it’s still somewhat like the Wild West when it comes to trusting what we find on the Internet.
Changes in laws or other forms of external pressure can lead to internal change. The advertisers – who are the real customers of these platforms as explained in Post No.: 0980 – will have their say, but if something generates many views for their adverts then they face a conflict of interest too. They might leave a social media service that fails to tackle bigoted content for some virtue-signalling PR, but they often quietly return eventually. A platform’s users could leave too, but many are precisely the ones who wish to spread their partisan viewpoints, they may have financial interests tied to their followings, and many are too ingrained to change their daily social media consumption habits.
…Regarding laws and regulations related to the Internet broadly – do we want ‘net neutrality’ (treating all Internet traffic equally without price discrimination) or should free market forces rule? But if there are only a small number of major Internet service providers then there’s not enough competition if they collude. Regulation here may be needed to ironically ensure net freedom against ISP monopolistic control.
Regulating the Internet – if that’s the right way to go – would probably be tough though because, like with tackling tax avoidance, it requires global cooperation. Economic unions like the EU can make it easier, like when it came to GDPR.
The old large TV and print media organisations have been usurped by even larger tech organisations. The latter do at least allow the voices of regular citizens to be directly heard, albeit for better and worse e.g. anyone can now spread their own political ‘post-truth’, religious hate speech, ‘thinspiration’ or other harmful content and uninformed opinions.
The Internet isn’t quite as decentralised as we thought or hoped because just a handful of giant tech corporations dominate. If one dominates a particular kind of service, it creates a problem similar to placing too many eggs in one basket. It’s strong for them but fragile for us – whenever a popular and relied-upon service goes down, even just temporarily, it causes massive disruption to millions of people’s lives and their livelihoods. Similar to the risks when too much power is centralised by a government – monopolies in any industry are detrimental for consumers.
So the Internet, as a network, isn’t centralised, yet only a few giant players hold the vast majority of power in this space nevertheless. The network effect of social media means the big and popular tend to get even more big and popular. Any small or new competitor keeps on getting swallowed up by the existing rich too, leaving only a pawful of truly massive multinational conglomerates. They’re powerful, politically influential and each richer and more populated (in terms of user numbers) than some nations. A controlling stake in a company is equivalent to a dictatorship in a country. Unless there’s some ‘Great Firewall’ that blocks or censors certain websites like in China, Cuba or Iran (yet even these can be circumvented), these online services are virtually geographically borderless too. Information is power, and they hold so much sensitive data on us. And concentrated power can be perilous…
Social media is great for keeping in touch with friends, family and workmates, for finding fun fluffy stuff, breaking news and industry news – but isn’t overall great as one’s sole or primary source of education because of what sorts of content can get promoted and recommended based on their algorithms. Even those who seriously wish to spread sound education on these platforms must play the game of creating clickbait titles and thumbnails (video thumbnails with faces tend to capture more clicks, and even more so when these faces are pulling intense expressions – that’s why so many video thumbnails on YouTube look so similar!) They may also gradually get drawn into concentrating on controversial and divisive content and firmly picking sides on issues because they realise that this generates the most engagement.
The vast majority of users and players won’t develop a social media or videogaming addiction but, like with alcohol, it doesn’t mean that some won’t – thus, like with alcohol, social media, videogaming and internet addictions and disorders do exist hence we do need to be mindful of them. This may be through strict rules regarding use and the genre or kind of content/games being viewed/played? These factors are arguably more important than the amount of time spent on them. So, if you’ve got kids, check out the parental controls in the settings of devices and apps. Parents should be engaged in what their children are up to, and should check on their own habits too e.g. if a parent’s face is glued to a phone when supposedly talking to their children, this sets a bad example to follow. Teach critical thinking and discuss what you hear in the media with them.
Even research from Meta/Facebook themselves found that Instagram increased body-image insecurities, anxiety, depression and suicide ideation in adolescents. The company tried to twist and refute those conclusions though, and could only see such findings as ambiguous and didn’t point to harm(!) Yet even if they believed so, they firstly tried to keep this research quiet, then supplied incomplete and inaccurate information when US Congress and other national parliaments requested it. All the while, they were hoping to launch a photo and video sharing social networking service for under 13s! It’s profits first, welfare last.
An occasional digital, or at least social media, detox may do us good. Some advice from experts in this field – some of whom even invented these technologies and are wary of their dangers – is to turn off all non-pertinent notifications, don’t accept recommendations, and don’t click on what appears like clickbait. Some strictly limit the amount of time their children spend on these apps they helped create, or don’t want their own children ever going on those apps!
Woof!
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
