I’m saddened by the harsh reaction so far, which seems based mostly on the first couple of paragraphs of a thoughtful and well-written essay. The discussion of online persuasion being used by both advertisers and spreaders of disinformation, and the many incentives that exist for different parties to accept that “social media” is an all-powerful manipulation machine, is particularly interesting.
I like this in part because the conclusion is strangely optimistic - we have more power than we think, if only we can recognize it.
The first out of the gate on new submissions are the knee-jerk crazies who didn't read the article, and who want to push their agenda instead of thinking about and discussing things.
Comment quality improves over time. As your own comment reassuringly demonstrates.
> the many incentives that exist for different parties
Someone(s) should update the Five Filters models from Manufacturing Consent to account for social medias. Compare the social network media ecosystem to the prior broadcast and print medias.
Here's my stab at it:
The Five Filters are Owners, Advertisers, Sources, Flak, and War.
Owners (social networks) took most of Advertisers' economic power for themselves, flipping that power relationship. With loss of status, Advertisers' power to control dialog and shape opinion largely disappeared.
To reduce costs, prior Owners debased Sources by replacing news with infotainment and drama/comedy with reality TV. The current Owners reduced costs even further by making the audience their own Sources. Trolling, conspiracy, karma, gossip, outrage IS the new content. Genius.
While social media Owners became the biggest economic winners, Flak became the cultural winners, displacing Advertisers. Social media eliminates provenance (authenticity) by laundering (disintermediation) content. Flak now enjoys impunity that Advertisers could only dream of.
For lack of a well defined enemy, War turned us against each other.
--
Two aspects of the rise of social media confuse me.
Why haven't Advertisers revolted? Owners and Flak continues to steal their lunch money, and they just take it.
The battle lines for the free speech haven't been updated for social media. New lines had to be drawn with the advent of broadcast media. (Duh.) No one anticipated the function and impact of algorithmic recommenders. Total game changer. So we should recognize and accept the new reality and update Section 230 accordingly.
Of course, Flak benefits most from this willful blindspot, and is best able to shape the dialog, to better defend their spoils.
Owners will oppose any change by default, because why not? The status quo is pretty terrific.
After reading and listening a lot, I honestly still have no clue if or how Section 230 should be updated.
Best I've come up with is restoring provenance (authenticity). Which then triggers the Freedom Speeches™ advocates, who purposefully misconstrue any constraint or accountability of Owners or Flak as an existential threat to Sources. The faux outrage is all so banal, predictable. As if our society has never had this argument before, ad nauseum, and this iteration is something really special.
>I’m saddened by the harsh reaction so far, which seems based mostly on the first couple of paragraphs of a thoughtful and well-written essay. The discussion of online persuasion being used by both advertisers and spreaders of disinformation, and the many incentives that exist for different parties to accept that “social media” is an all-powerful manipulation machine, is particularly interesting.
I have read more of it that that, and I found it to be lacking in original thinking, and poorly written. As for the effectiveness of persuasion, this has been studied quantitatively for quite some time now, and it can't be hand-waved away.
Persuasion on social media is certainly effective. But I think it’s also worth reflecting on the number of people who would still believe false news stories/conspiracy theories/etc in a hypothetical world without social media, and what techniques we might use in that world to combat the issue.
As for original thinking, I may not be as well-read on these topics as others. Some of the ideas seemed obvious once I read them, but I didn’t think I’d seen them before. Example: “disinformation” becoming a catch-all word for “things I disagree with”.
We don't have to consider a hypothetical world. We can just look at history from before social media. And yes plenty of people believed in conspiracy theories and spread misinformation. Witch trials, the red scare and satanic panic were a thing prior to social media. So was the fake moon landing and alien abductions.
So with social media, the question is whether the problem is magnified significantly, or it's just more visible now.
What seems likely to me is that it’s faster with social media. That maybe every form of social change is faster with the internet. Whatever is going to happen without social media can happen faster than it would have.
It would help if the author refrained from poor framing and abusing the trope of the blithe self-centered American presented as if we were the only ones culpable of such infraction.
Let’s have a 360 review, I’ll taint it by first talking about a bunch of bad stuff everyone has done, but I’ll pin it on you for this review, after I’ve said a bunch of bad stuff, I’ll redeem you a little by offering some hope, how does that sound?
I like this in part because the conclusion is strangely optimistic - we have more power than we think, if only we can recognize it.