C4 QAnon The Cult Of Conspiracy
- Thread starter Tony L
- Start date
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
WE now have two intersecting worlds: the 'meat' world, which has laws and regulation to moderate behaviour; and the 'cyber' world, which does not. The laws and regulation are designed primarily to prevent or mitigate harm, either to individuals, or to society. It is, I think, naive to believe that the cyber world can continue unchecked, because of the huge harms being done to individuals, and societies. Early attempts at regulation may not approach the ideal, but this doesn't mean there should be no attempt. If not 'now', then 'when'?
Tony L
Administrator
Why do you see the two as being the same thing? If specific people or groups break laws they should face criminal charges. That is no business of a communication platform provider. Don’t confuse the two. Don’t arrest Shure or JBL if a KKK rally used their mic and PA system to incite a lynching.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
But newspapers are subject to laws, as are broadcasters, and telecoms firms that operate in the meat world. Why should an online comms provider not be?
Tony L
Administrator
Go into just about any grotty pub in the UK and you will find some truly offensive racist and homophobic views along with a load of utter bollocks regarding global warming, covid vaccines etc. The simple reality is a noticeable percentage of people really are pigshit ignorant ****wits and hold fundamentally ugly views. They always have. They always will do. You can’t legislate against stupid and it is utterly futile trying.
To my eyes 95% of “internet regulation” talk/hype is just right-wing ‘family values’ type mainstream politicians desperately trying to deflect and offset any responsibility they may feel to a wider electorate off their own desks and onto private internet businesses. Things said on a daily basis in pubs, workplaces, factory canteens etc are open to tabloid sensationalism once posted on Twitter or wherever (even if the underlying sentiment is often the same as much of the gutter press feigning outrage).
We already have remarkably restrictive libel laws and obviously all manner of laws dealing with threats of violence, death/rape threats etc. The police can already prosecute should they wish as-is, but they usually choose not to. This is a unquestionably people thing, not a technology thing. Deal with the people. Maybe we should start by not having such a hateful and divided society and culture!
Nick_G
pfm Member
Problem is, that social media amplifies and spreads conspiracy theories, hatred and division. We do need some sort of regulation. How this would work I don't know, but maybe an independent 'cyber United Nations' perhaps, rather than corrupt and selfish governments who have an agenda.
Also, as I've said before many times, making it a criminal offence for a politician to knowingly lie to or mislead the public in the way Johnson and Trump have, would also be a good start! They need to be held accountable for their actions.
Also, as I've said before many times, making it a criminal offence for a politician to knowingly lie to or mislead the public in the way Johnson and Trump have, would also be a good start! They need to be held accountable for their actions.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
Tony L
Administrator
I missed that one. There is a fundamental difference between writing content and providing a venue for public discussion. Would you hold BT to account if someone plotted a murder using a telephone connected to their network?
If you want to politically or socially censor voices on social media all the tools to do so already exist, e.g. if Yaxley Lennon incites racial hatred then arrest him. If someone sends a rape threat to Dianne Abbott then that is a police matter as-is. It is not the fault of the communications medium/technology.
Same with libel law, e.g. if I say on Twitter that a specific MP or whoever is corrupt and clearly on the take then they can sue me under existing law, just as if The Sun said it. The internet is not a free wild-west as is, it is already a very dangerous place for people like me who host content we don’t write, hence the site AUP and our quite cautious moderation strategy (basically I won’t risk my house and savings for someone else’s viewpoint!).
As I said above a huge amount of this is actually a load of smoke and mirrors from MPs who want to teflon-desk their responsibilities under existing laws onto private businesses who merely provide a platform/venue to all members of society. On one level it is a bait & switch scam, on another yet another excuse to move ever-further towards state authoritarianism. Demonise businesses whilst deflecting blame from the actual thugs.
laughingboy
pfm Member
One major problem with a lot of online platforms is that they do not merely provide a platform/venue for expression. Instead, they surface content that is 'engaging'. Millions see the engaging content, but only a handful see the less engaging stuff: a lie can run halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
On one hand, social media give citizens a voice. On the other, they give people with power even more power. The platforms don't give everyone a turn - it is a free-for-all. The loudest voices win. There is a reason that the audience of Question Time is meant to be representative: we naturally look for social cues to understand whether our views align with the majority. Most social media are dangerously gameable in this respect. You only need a few posters with an extreme view assiduously posting early responses to, say, an MP's account and you can create the impression that this fringe viewpoint is a lot more prevalent than it is. The gaming of algorithmic sorting is corrosive to social discourse.
And the reality isn't an exchange of views between citizens. It is us versus Chinese bot farms like this:
Another major problem is that the platforms use targeted advertising. This is a problem for electorates because it can distort democracy. I'll explain one method. A third of voters don't vote. If you want to win elections, especially in a first-past-the-post system, you only need to mobilise a portion of these disengaged voters to tilt the scales. How do you do this? You find the things that they really care about. So, if your disengaged voter cares intensely about preventing animal cruelty, in the few days before the vote you target your political messaging at preventing animal cruelty. You use Facebook's 'lookalike audiences' to target everyone with similar traits in your target constituency. You motivate disengaged voters to vote. Meanwhile, you attempt to disengage your opponent's non-core voters via similar methods.
This is a long way from the marketplace of ideas (most of us won't see these highly personalised adverts), and it is asymmetric (the voter stands no chance of getting a balanced view). Targeted advertising is dangerous to democracy.
Yes, we need to guard against state authoritarianism, but the business models and technological architecture of social media platforms are ripe for regulation.
On one hand, social media give citizens a voice. On the other, they give people with power even more power. The platforms don't give everyone a turn - it is a free-for-all. The loudest voices win. There is a reason that the audience of Question Time is meant to be representative: we naturally look for social cues to understand whether our views align with the majority. Most social media are dangerously gameable in this respect. You only need a few posters with an extreme view assiduously posting early responses to, say, an MP's account and you can create the impression that this fringe viewpoint is a lot more prevalent than it is. The gaming of algorithmic sorting is corrosive to social discourse.
And the reality isn't an exchange of views between citizens. It is us versus Chinese bot farms like this:
Another major problem is that the platforms use targeted advertising. This is a problem for electorates because it can distort democracy. I'll explain one method. A third of voters don't vote. If you want to win elections, especially in a first-past-the-post system, you only need to mobilise a portion of these disengaged voters to tilt the scales. How do you do this? You find the things that they really care about. So, if your disengaged voter cares intensely about preventing animal cruelty, in the few days before the vote you target your political messaging at preventing animal cruelty. You use Facebook's 'lookalike audiences' to target everyone with similar traits in your target constituency. You motivate disengaged voters to vote. Meanwhile, you attempt to disengage your opponent's non-core voters via similar methods.
This is a long way from the marketplace of ideas (most of us won't see these highly personalised adverts), and it is asymmetric (the voter stands no chance of getting a balanced view). Targeted advertising is dangerous to democracy.
Yes, we need to guard against state authoritarianism, but the business models and technological architecture of social media platforms are ripe for regulation.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Unfortunately, large parts of reality do not behave as you'd wish, but you then take a stance that in practical terms means: "There is nothing we can do to fix the problems caused by the anti-social media."
BTW I used that term to describe what they DO when they do it. The point being that their feedback arrangements lead to the negative consequences and they make no attempt to correct this. They just take the money. They have no real interest in "society", just on revenue.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Oh, and the 'net' has no interest in "society" or "good vs bad" either. Nor do computers or code.
Read "The System" by James Ball.
Read "The System" by James Ball.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
And given witnesses, they can be prosecuted for some of that.
The problem - AS ON anti-social media in bubbles we DON'T SEE - is what can happen out of our sight. That means we can't even challenge it or check it or point out when it is counter-factual. Because of how the anti-social media operate.
MUTTY1
Waste of bandwidth
I took that as the guy taking the piss out of idiots, not being an idiot (or Loon) himself?
Nick_G
pfm Member
Tony L
Administrator
Neither do I. I just view the internet as what it is, and being an IT guy who has been there since the start I know *exactly* what that is. Facebook, Twitter are just a tiny facet of something vastly bigger that thankfully neither you nor I will ever get to dictate or impose our will upon.
We are living through the greatest technological, social and communication revolution humanity has seen to date. Strap in, enjoy the ride, as you will not change anything. Whatever you do don’t try to be the one that wanted to smash up printing presses, attacked automated looms etc. That is never a good look in hindsight.
You need to grasp this is bigger than Ofcom, the Conservative or Labour Party, bigger than England, bigger than the UK, bigger than Europe or America. We are all just individuals at IP locations. A part of something that encompasses the whole globe and is far bigger than any nation state. Good. Hopefully petty nationalism is on the way out. I’m sure it will put up a hell of a fight over this century, many nations descending into fascism etc, but we are certainly experiencing a period of real change and I welcome it.
My hope is it leads somewhere far better than where we are now. I’m sure it will in time as there is nowhere for arbitrary authority to hide any more. Kneel on a neck and the whole world reacts. Ridiculous politicians like Trump, Patel or whatever idiots exist in the Labour Party who try to fight this change will find themselves on the loosing side. All they can do is impose draconian North Korea or China style firewall blocks as what they are trying to control is far bigger than they are and thankfully exists outside of their reach.
I accept where we are and certainly see both the good and bad. This is the next level of human interaction and I am so pleased I am living through it today rather than in previous decades and centuries where outliers and dissenters had no voice, no platform, or were just quietly murdered. This may even be a route to a functioning global democracy given another fifty or hundred years. It is too soon to tell, but we certainly can’t stop it!
Hook
Blackbeard's former bo'sun.
I think both Tony and Jim have both made some excellent points. Lots here to think about.
I agree that, generally speaking, FB can be viewed as just a tool. It can be tailored to individual needs. I don’t personally use FB, but I know many make good use of it. But I wonder how many aren’t really using FB, but instead are being used by it.
Compared to other IT entrepreneurs, my opinion of Zuckerberg is very low. He has no moral compass, and is quite happy to see FB creating political division by fostering outrage. Given how much personal information users volunteer, outrage is a very easy thing for FB to manufacture. Nothing creates increased engagement better than outrage, and engagement is what drives FB revenue.
I agree that, generally speaking, FB can be viewed as just a tool. It can be tailored to individual needs. I don’t personally use FB, but I know many make good use of it. But I wonder how many aren’t really using FB, but instead are being used by it.
Compared to other IT entrepreneurs, my opinion of Zuckerberg is very low. He has no moral compass, and is quite happy to see FB creating political division by fostering outrage. Given how much personal information users volunteer, outrage is a very easy thing for FB to manufacture. Nothing creates increased engagement better than outrage, and engagement is what drives FB revenue.
Tony L
Administrator
I kind of agree to a degree, he’s certainly an odd one, though I can also see that as an advantage as I suspect it distances him from partisan politics, petty tribalism etc, and enables a clearer focus in delivering a communication product that hugely diverse, disparate and conflicting groups right across the whole planet enjoy using and find genuinely useful, even essential. To my mind Facebook’s mistakes are not to fully grasp the extent to which some bad actors abuse the platform (e.g. the Cambridge Analitica thing), though those doors do gradually seem to be being closed with time. Every story of hacks and infiltration damages the brand and I’m sure they grasp this. It must be a simply incomprehensible thing to try and manage. Even pfm can be a total head-wrecker at times, and this isn’t even a drop in the ocean (and I don’t even attempt to be impartial)!
FWIW I don’t view Zuckerberg/Facebook as being good or bad, moral or immoral. He had an interesting idea that developed into a radically new tool and eventually a huge global business. We are all learning from it and adapting to it, just as its primitive AI tries to learn from us and serve up some approximation of what we may want to see or want to buy. Like the wider internet to which it belongs it is an evolving thing. A new highly configurable and personalised approach to global media and communication that is radically different to the fundamentalist preachers of the gutter press or tired groupthink of our local mainstream politics. It will adapt or die, and either outcome is fine. At this particular point in time I think it, Twitter and the rest of them are hugely useful tools. Later on they may not be, so other things will fill their place.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
The general consensus amongst the 'regulate the internet' advocates seems to be: 'It's fine for us, because when using the internet we're sensible, educated people who can spot propaganda, can avoid being manipulated, and can analyse and evaluate conflicting views. But the poor, uneducated masses are being brainwashed and must be protected!'
This, amusingly, was also the sort of argument used against widening the franchise during the 19th century; the fear that the poor, uneducated masses would be too easily swayed by dangerous demagogues and cheap, sensationalist newspapers.
This, amusingly, was also the sort of argument used against widening the franchise during the 19th century; the fear that the poor, uneducated masses would be too easily swayed by dangerous demagogues and cheap, sensationalist newspapers.
MikeMA
pfm Member
...........where on earth did they get that idea from?