|
Post by pg13 on Sept 28, 2020 17:05:46 GMT
In the context of The Social Dilemma documentary, MJ isn't really a major issue at all. The documentary in the later stages concerns itself with the potential for social media to pose a threat to democracy. It just so happens that politics is the number one area of false news being spread around the world. Not those involving celebrities. If people increasingly find it difficult to discern false information from real, it can create problems in the real world. Including spreading resources to deal with terrorism, emergencies, law enforcement, elections and so on. Arguably, the fabric of society. That is where the real problem lies and where the real fight is also. Hence, cyber warfare WILL become the predominant area of combat in the 21st century. Something we discussed in my Terrorism, Security and Counter-Terrorism course. Wildstyle is right here about taking the MJ fan hat off for this one. MJ is simply a case study that we are all familiar with here, that's why I'm bringing him up. What makes you think though, that although traditional media often lied about MJ, they were generally trustworthy about politics, economy, social issues etc? As far as I see the traditional media is in a crisis of people not trusting them and that crisis is largely their own making. When you watch CNN or MSNBC, or Fox News on the other side they aren't doing journalism. They are doing political activism and propaganda for their preferred side. I remember when CNN covered a wide variety of news, but these days it's just 24/7 "Trump is Hitler" political propaganda. I stopped watching them for news because it's just Trump, Trump, Trump now, as if nothing else exists in this world. They are clearly not a news channel any more. And this same thing is true of newspapers etc. I think it's a convenient excuse to blame social media for the crisis that traditional media is in, without them having to accept accountability for their failure. My issue is not with criticism of social media. Surely it has its many issues and downside. But in a world where you see mainstream media pundits (be it Don Lemon or Tucker Carlson) use inflammatory, divisive and aggressive language against the other side of the political spectrum, I don't think it's fair to just go on about social media as the culprit in why society is breaking down, while ignoring the role of traditional media in it. That's both a Strawman and a spurious correlation. Indeed, misrepresentation on or being selective about a singular, relatively trivial issue doesn't mean that the same is true of more serious issues. While traditional media has had its fair share of misinformation over the years, we can still assert that social media is highly influential in creating distrust towards traditional media. Especially since social media users are much more likely than traditional media consumers to believe in fake news. A study published in Misinformation Review looked at fake news and its consequences in relation to the current coronavirus pandemic. Study co-author Aengus Bridgman stated that "there is good reason to be concerned about the role that the consumption of social media is playing in boosting misperceptions".Here's an excerpt setting out the results: A propensity for believing in false information AND being highly influential in spreading increased distrust in traditional media squarely centres social media in this debate. This is not a surprise given that Facebook alone has 2.7 billion users in 2020. Add in the other social media platforms and it's even clearer it has a longer, bigger and more pervasive sphere of influence than traditional media ever had. Indeed, the argument is increasingly that social media IS a new form of influence and power as asserted by Tristan in "The Social Dilemma". There's no note better to end on than this nugget contained in a 2016 New York Times: More users addicted to and participating on social media platforms equals greater potential for changes at the local, national and global level. Not necessarily for the greater good. This is arguably why the Internet and social media platforms must be regulated by government around the world. Lack of regulation and accountability in the early years was fine because these technologies hadn't yet achieved power in a real sense. Soft power is the current true currency of the world these days. Social media is an increasingly powerful form of power. Not hard power.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 28, 2020 17:39:08 GMT
So how do you suggest the regulation of social media should happen? "Fact checkers" and censors are often biased and partisan themselves. What else are the possibilities?
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Sept 28, 2020 18:12:53 GMT
So how do you suggest the regulation of social media should happen? "Fact checkers" and censors are often biased and partisan themselves. What else are the possibilities? Bias doesn't necessarily mean that what an individual, group or party is claiming is wrong. If this is thought in general, it's a logical fallacy. Increasingly, we are developing ways to discern fake news from real. In fact, algorithms are best at detecting fake news. This article from the Republic of Ireland discusses this, but there are others: www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0125/1025444-how-to-beat-fake-news-with-algorithms/Algorithms can find patterns much faster than human beings will ever be able to. But manual fact checking will also work alongside AI. Problem is that humans tend to be quite resistant to their false beliefs being debunked with plenty of evidence. I've personally found this to be true on everything from pro Scottish independence individuals, pro-IRA terrorist sympathies, Corbynistas and even MJ fans. There is so much out there that algorithms WILL be very much key to getting false information under control. That in turn will allow governments to formulate policies, especially following research. Problem is, research takes a long time to do. By which time, the lie has gone round the world twice while the truth is just limping out of the front door.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 28, 2020 18:41:30 GMT
No, bias doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, but I have seen "fact checking" that was deceptive and and the deception seemed to be motivated by political bias, for example.
Let me be clear: I didn't say bias necessarily means the party is wrong. That's not what my claim was, so that's a strawman. A biased fact checker can of course be 100 right regardless of the bias. But a biased "fact checker" can also weaponize "fact checking" for political reasons (or other agendas) and fact checking being deceptive is a possibility as well. And since we are talking about the solution in tackling fake news here, these possibilities need to be eliminated in what is to be the solution to this problem IMO.
There's also a problem and a dilemma arising somewhere in this debate regarding censorship.
The algorithm thing seems interesting but in the present algorithms often err in moderation as well. Even in simple things that are for humans easy (like being able to make a difference between a sarcastic or humorous comment vs a dead serious one), let alone detecting fake news. Maybe it can be perfected in the future, but we are not yet there.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Sept 28, 2020 21:46:41 GMT
No, bias doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, but I have seen "fact checking" that was deceptive and and the deception seemed to be motivated by political bias, for example. Let me be clear: I didn't say bias necessarily means the party is wrong. That's not what my claim was, so that's a strawman. A biased fact checker can of course be 100 right regardless of the bias. But a biased "fact checker" can also weaponize "fact checking" for political reasons (or other agendas) and fact checking being deceptive is a possibility as well. And since we are talking about the solution in tackling fake news here, these possibilities need to be eliminated in what is to be the solution to this problem IMO. There's also a problem and a dilemma arising somewhere in this debate regarding censorship. The algorithm thing seems interesting but in the present algorithms often err in moderation as well. Even in simple things that are for humans easy (like being able to make a difference between a sarcastic or humorous comment vs a dead serious one), let alone detecting fake news. Maybe it can be perfected in the future, but we are not yet there. No, I didn't construct a Strawman since I never stated or implied you were claiming such. That's why I said "if this is thought in general". Since bias can and does lead to weaponising facts, especially in politics, it becomes more important to be able to verify something from multiple sources. Meaning manual, time intensive research. It's helpful to have something like Snopes which appears to do a good job of being balanced. And these often deal also with claims made by those purporting to be fact checkers. Examples would be those linked to political parties, political movements and the like. Yes, I see the point about dilemma in how to balance freedom of speech with censorship. However, the citizenry already understand there is always a trade off involved. For example, on a daily basis we routinely accept security related trade offs in order to protect against potential terrorist attacks. In this situation, people will have to accept to some degree that not all opinions expressed or information shared is equal or worth the same as another one. This would be one possible trade off. We CAN verify information with evidence from multiple sources, but that usually isn't the central problem. Rather the problem is: 1) how easily false information spreads and it does spread much faster than the truth. 2) how humans have a tendency to strengthen the false information in their minds when it is debunked. This is known as the "backfire effect". This is one of the theories that explains why it's so difficult to eradicate terrorism, for example. So, it becomes more important to stem the flow of false information and to flag it up. At present, we are not quick or efficient enough to do this. Given how nothing else we've created has evolved as exponentially as the processing power of our technology, algorithms to effectively deal with most cases of false information may not be far away. Humans would still need to be used to deal with a minority of more serious cases which an algorithm cannot handle. In summary, I do believe that social media has far surpassed anything else we've ever created as it relates to information. And that does carry with it a realistic threat to democracy as we know it today. Sun Tzu's Art Of War does emphasise that information above all else is most important. That's why his treatise has been adapted for everything from military warfare, the court room, business, entertainment industry, sport and even the field of self-help. This is easily adaptable and relevant to this issue, so I would add that educating teenagers in how to spot false information and the signs would be another good line of defence. Of course, no one method is foolproof which is why multiple ones must be put in place as well as developed.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Sept 28, 2020 22:00:00 GMT
That said, algorithms have also evolved quickly. Here's a summary of the study in the link: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180821112007.htmThese will only become more powerful at detecting fake news and, when it does, any potential risk to the fabric of democratic society will be lessened by it.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,413
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 14, 2020 20:41:56 GMT
Just watching.
Even though I guess we all knew it, its fucking scary.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Oct 14, 2020 20:55:34 GMT
Just watching. Even though I guess we all knew it, its fucking scary. Make sure you go on your phone after you've finished watching and click on the notification on MyMJJForum from my having quoted your post and let us know your thoughts. I promise to like your post for that extra dopamine hit.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Oct 14, 2020 21:48:01 GMT
Just watching. Even though I guess we all knew it, its fucking scary. Make sure you go on your phone after you've finished watching and click on the notification on MyMJJForum from my having quoted your post and let us know your thoughts. I promise to like your post for that extra dopamine hit. I’ve been hitting you guys up on dopamine way too much! Where’s MY hit?!
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Oct 15, 2020 6:47:08 GMT
Make sure you go on your phone after you've finished watching and click on the notification on MyMJJForum from my having quoted your post and let us know your thoughts. I promise to like your post for that extra dopamine hit. I’ve been hitting you guys up on dopamine way too much! Where’s MY hit?! There you go.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 19, 2020 9:59:11 GMT
Just watched Screened Out which focuses more on how excessive exposure to screens is causing problems for people, especially children and teenagers.
It doesn't try to go as far as Social Dilemma by looking at society breaking down.
But it does explore the addictiveness of screens. It's very telling that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates really restricted their kids access to screens.
Most people in Silicon Valley do exactly that. The schools they send their kids to don't have screens. They have a rule where their kids get their first introduction aged 14.
The average today is aged 10.
It talks about how South Korea is the first country to have a serious problem with screen addiction and enacted laws to deal with it.
And how China grades citizens on social media platforms. It can influence the kind of jobs you get, schools your kids go to and so on. This may one day be copied in the West if the problem of screen addiction grows massively.
All in all, well worth a watch.
Screened Out by Jon Hyatt is on Netflix.
|
|