SpaceGazelle wrote:I think social media can be saved if it's a paid for subscription. Then the algos hopefully focus on keeping people happy rather than making them angry. It's still algo-contrived behaviour but at this point I'll take anything.
The responsible publisher model is maybe the quickest way out of this but how do you automate this amount of content into law? That goes for the media companies and the enforcers. So little staff, so much stuff.
b0r1s wrote:Regulation is the only way and they actively fear it which is why all big tech companies regularly support, fund and court both the dems and GOP. Then their staff become advisors.
But that is a relatively easy fix compared to (as Brooks mentions) the core issue with the algos. They thrive on conflict and that has led to the population being combative. Even if there is an algo change now it is still going to take years or even decades for that worldwide confrontational attitude to change.
As for freedom of speech. I’ve seen first hand how insidious, particularly on YouTube, far right supporters are playing on a range of celebrities who are decrying woke culture and a lack of freedom of speech. The problem is that the YouTubers who want to reinforce a rhetoric are only taking part of an interview (e.g. Stephen Fry) where the answers around free speech will be more nuanced, or the people being interviewed don’t caveat free speech with the need to be responsible with it or they don’t also make it clear that they are not out to support far right movements in their desire for free speech.
And while that last point shouldn’t need to be pointed out, it clearly does as the far right are actively leveraging the intellectual equity of people who I don’t think are racists or facist, for the own agenda.
SpaceGazelle wrote:There are 2.5 billion FB users. You expect them to send ID to Uncle Sam?
GurtTractor wrote:Hmm. The thing to remember with all this added bureaucracy is that it's all well and good under a benevolent government, but what if things take a sinister turn to something facistic or tyrannical? Your description of having to sign off with ID to make a public post scares the shit out of me to be honest. Like that surely seems like some very dark dystopian shit?
Anonymity is an essential part of much of journalism, so would you propose to have different rules for journalistic establishments? Would that not lead to further entrenchment of said establishments as the only sources of information? I dunno, this seems like a dark path to go down.
GurtTractor wrote:Hmm. The thing to remember with all this added bureaucracy is that it's all well and good under a benevolent government, but what if things take a sinister turn to something facistic or tyrannical? Your description of having to sign off with ID to make a public post scares the shit out of me to be honest. Like that surely seems like some very dark dystopian shit?
Anonymity is an essential part of much of journalism, so would you propose to have different rules for journalistic establishments? Would that not lead to further entrenchment of said establishments as the only sources of information? I dunno, this seems like a dark path to go down.
Yossarian wrote:No, not if they just want to be able to share things with a small group, which is all the vast majority of Facebook users want to do. If you want your posts available publicly to people outside your network, then maybe you have to take an extra step.SpaceGazelle wrote:There are 2.5 billion FB users. You expect them to send ID to Uncle Sam?
Yossarian wrote:or having built up a good standing with previous work.
Yossarian wrote:No, I’m not saying that.
GurtTractor wrote:if you don't loudly proclaim it you might be against the cause, or something.
GurtTractor wrote:@Armitage_Shankburn
I understood the words, just not what they were supposed to mean in relation to Lex Fridman. I now understand your point about triangulation and will remain vigilant about that, thank you. He has spoken openly about whether he should or should not interview certain contraversial people, FWIW.
I certainly don't believe I'm neutral or that anyone I 'follow' is neutral. Seeing through bullshit is an ongoing project that will never be completed, I hope I never feel like I have all the answers.
You are not my enemy, I don't think that. You just don't get to call me out by making general statements out of the blue about some error I may have made like we are all supposed to know what you are talking about without providing context or evidence, without me also calling it as best as I can see it. It didn't have to be this way, you came at me like so many people do to others, casually, on social media and comment sections everywhere. I have done similar before, we all have. My main point is that nothing good will come from this.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!