Submitted by HowMyDictates t3_yfztiq in technology
banananailgun t1_iu6irmh wrote
Social media sites don't deal well with hate speech and disinformation because hate speech and disinformation make them lots of money. The truth is just plain boring to a lot of people.
Just one easy example: It's so much more exciting for a lot of people to believe that there is a massive, nationwide (potentially international) conspiracy to steal the election from Trump than to accept the boring, hard truth that he simply lost the election. And think of the content that comes with both expanding and refuting the lie. The 2020 election was a godsend to news and social media because they can keep getting advertising dollars for it without having to discover and market a new story.
snap-erection t1_iu6wmdt wrote
No the 2016 election was the god send, news and social media companies absolutely love Trump for the 24/7 insane news and discussion that comes from every time the guy opens his bitch mouth. And people really think the media has a bias against him. You wish. If they were against him you wouldn't hear about him. Look at the coverage Bernie Sanders got in both 2016 and 2020. Very comparable to that of Ron Paul. When the media really doesn't want a candidate (or even movement) they will straight up black list them. At best there's the occasional pity article that goes like "he's got a movement with some support from (insert most unrelatable people to blue collar Americans) and his policies are nice but here's why it won't work etc".
sup_ty t1_iu9r6nt wrote
They're just going to do what benefits them and gains them more made up power and money.
suarezMiranda t1_iu8gdmg wrote
You have things slightly backward. Whenever people say that they get money from hate speech and disinformation I always think of the underpants gnomes in South Park.
Step 1: Destry civilization. Step 2: ?? Step 3: Profit
It lacks logic, and becomes flat out wrong when you consider that advertisers don’t want their ads beside negative sentiment. All things being equal, if you had two social media networks with similar demographics, they will prefer their ads to be on the one that makes people happier and feel better. This has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with profit and sentiment analysis in marketing
The issue is that people are inherently incapable of freely sharing and consuming information responsibly. They do not check against information that confirms their biases. Echo chambers form on a scale that is not possible to police without a state-sized apparatus. They are betting that ML models will solve this, but I don’t think that will be possible in the foreseeable future. I’m not worried that social media giants are evil and want to destroy the world. What worries me is that they don’t want this, are actually spending colossal sums of money on it, and are failing.
When Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were young they were actually credited with aiding occupy movements and the Arab Spring. One Egyptian activist talked about Facebook specifically as a media where they could spread hope, and that the generations they were fighting against didn’t have the understanding to fight back. Well they developed that understanding somewhere along the way. That is how these platforms are built. That is the inevitable function of their form unless the state claims control and places it under their own moderating apparatus. Whether Zuckerberg is a saint or a lizard has 0 to do with the outcome of this type of technology.
lotusflower64 t1_iu9kfjd wrote
True. Check out the NewsBreak app one day if you have the time. Chock full of all kinds of hate imaginable. They never take anything down.
CrypoFiend t1_iu9qjsf wrote
The governments could use block chain technology for elections. Then within seconds any claim of rigged elections would be defeated.
banananailgun t1_iu9qxfn wrote
The people who believe the 2020 US election was rigged were fine with the outcome of the 2016 election. None of this had anything to do with election integrity, and everything to do with not liking the outcome of the election.
CrypoFiend t1_iua0fbu wrote
Has nothing to do with wanting to improve security, clarity, and misinformation.
Unclear why ypu downvoted me, but I will return the favor.
banananailgun t1_iua11j4 wrote
Because no amount of evidence will make the mob believe that elections in the West are fair. That's why I downvoted you.
We could try your utopian blockchain plan, and hard core Trumpers would still cry foul until he was president again, even if they had to cheat to get him there.
CrypoFiend t1_iuaeocw wrote
That may be true. But it would be the hardest evidence available. Every voter would have a cryptographic key when they register. You could see every invididual vote, see how canidates faired by age, sex, and location. It is basically indisputable.
I do agree that some people will never accept the truth no matter how many facts are presented.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments