Has social media set back our democracy decades, if not centuries? (1 Viewer)

[adonis]

This is a tough thread for me.   While I agree with the important role that the our democratic institutions - including the press have historically played and how much we are absolutely depending on them to thwart any authoritarian urges of the current administration, I simply cannot get to having obstacles to expressing opinions being removed is a bad thing.  Sure it will be exploited by those I disagree with, but I simply believe in the "free market of ideas" working over time. I guess in many ways I have contradictory positions here, at least in the "establishment" vs "populism" black and white world.  To use words from an article earlier in the week, I ultimately support "power with" ideas and that means tearing down the "power over" hierarchies - even those that have served us well and are being counted on now.  (Like I said - contradictory.)

Do you find an analogy between representative democracy being better than a pure democracy, vs curated public discussions being better than free-for-all public discussions?

What about curated forums vs unmoderated forums online?

Seems to me, that most of the things in the world are better with reasonable levels of moderation or representation by experts or trained folks.

 

[Arodin]

The flaw is not in the concept of moderators, but in the selection of them, and the assumption that they will not impose their own agendas on the information they are letting through the gate.

I can't see any solution here other than a diversity of gatekeepers, and the freedom to consume knowledge from all sources and self-select what I deem reputable.  In that regard, the increasing freedom of people with a variety of viewpoints to have them heard, evaluated and refuted in the open, rather than behind closed doors of an editor's office, is a good thing.  We just need to learn as individuals and society how to be better editors ourselves.

 

[adonis]

I can't see any solution here other than a diversity of gatekeepers, and the freedom to consume knowledge from all sources and self-select what I deem reputable.  In that regard, the increasing freedom of people with a variety of viewpoints to have them heard, evaluated and refuted in the open, rather than behind closed doors of an editor's office, is a good thing.  We just need to learn as individuals and society how to be better editors ourselves.

I'll preface this by again saying i'm not an early america expert, but my memories of the discussions the founding fathers had when setting up this country all dealt with how people are, and not how we would like for them to be.  People are prone to abuses of power, to thinking themselves the exception to rules, to have power corrupt them, to cover things up, to be poorly educated on things but think they know a ton...it's my understanding that our system of checks and balances, and division of power and all of these things were put in place to deal with how people are.

We easily could've ended up with a system where folks hoped people would be better versions of themselves in various aspects...but our founders were wise enough to realize that as generations come and go, by and large, that isn't going to happen...so we have to deal with what is, and not what we wish would be.

For me, what is, is that there are a ton of uneducated and unscrupulous people out there, mixed in with the well meaning ignorant folks, mixed in with folks who know enough to be dangerous, mixed in with folks who have agendas and are good at manipulating people, mixed with tons of other folks.  The way it is is the way humanity has been for centuries.  We're not going to wake up tomorrow or in 50 years with folks better able to edit themselves, or be wiser discerners of information.  

Instead, what I'd hope we could learn from history, is that by and large institutions of some kinds have to be set up to deal with folks as we are, balancing liberty and security as best as we're able.

Perhaps it's time we set up systems in the information age like we had to do when setting up a new government in the new world.  One where we hold many different ideals in tension, but do it for the good of humanity because what we have now is leading us down a pretty bad path.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Do you find an analogy between representative democracy being better than a pure democracy, vs curated public discussions being better than free-for-all public discussions?

What about curated forums vs unmoderated forums online?

Seems to me, that most of the things in the world are better with reasonable levels of moderation or representation by experts or trained folks.

I find both analogies unhelpful and thus irrelevant to the conclusion.    I don't think the moderators here are tasked with thwarting the posting of bad ideas by non experts.  Nor do I think our elected representatives do much to thwart the dumb ideas such as "tax cuts pay for themselves" that keep them in office.  More importantly I think the very social media that was exploited by Trump and company is what is rallying the opposition.  Ultimately I trust this crazy experiment in self governing requires the removal of "gatekeepers" when it comes to information.  Can we trust "we the people" or not?

 

[Arodin]

I'll preface this by again saying i'm not an early america expert, but my memories of the discussions the founding fathers had when setting up this country all dealt with how people are, and not how we would like for them to be.  People are prone to abuses of power, to thinking themselves the exception to rules, to have power corrupt them, to cover things up, to be poorly educated on things but think they know a ton...it's my understanding that our system of checks and balances, and division of power and all of these things were put in place to deal with how people are.

We easily could've ended up with a system where folks hoped people would be better versions of themselves in various aspects...but our founders were wise enough to realize that as generations come and go, by and large, that isn't going to happen...so we have to deal with what is, and not what we wish would be.

For me, what is, is that there are a ton of uneducated and unscrupulous people out there, mixed in with the well meaning ignorant folks, mixed in with folks who know enough to be dangerous, mixed in with folks who have agendas and are good at manipulating people, mixed with tons of other folks.  The way it is is the way humanity has been for centuries.  We're not going to wake up tomorrow or in 50 years with folks better able to edit themselves, or be wiser discerners of information.  

Instead, what I'd hope we could learn from history, is that by and large institutions of some kinds have to be set up to deal with folks as we are, balancing liberty and security as best as we're able.

Perhaps it's time we set up systems in the information age like we had to do when setting up a new government in the new world.  One where we hold many different ideals in tension, but do it for the good of humanity because what we have now is leading us down a pretty bad path.

Our founders didn't set up national media though.  In fact many of them were independent printers and in some cases illegal publishers as well.  I have trouble imagining that they would be fine with 3-5 major corporations serving as the only readily accessible sources of news, and would applaud social media and the internet.  In many ways, America's founders were the social media experts of their day.

 

[adonis]

I find both analogies unhelpful and thus irrelevant to the conclusion.    I don't think the moderators here are tasked with thwarting the posting of bad ideas by non experts.  Nor do I think our elected representatives do much to thwart the dumb ideas such as "tax cuts pay for themselves" that keep them in office.  More importantly I think the very social media that was exploited by Trump and company is what is rallying the opposition.  Ultimately I trust this crazy experiment in self governing requires the removal of "gatekeepers" when it comes to information.  Can we trust "we the people" or not?

I think the answer to that question throughout history is very clearly No.

We the people can be pretty terrible beings absent systems that take our human nature into consideration in how they're constructed.

Why do you limit the removal of "gatekeepers" to information only?  Or, why is it a good idea when it comes to "information" and not a good idea when it comes to american government.

 

[adonis]

Our founders didn't set up national media though.  In fact many of them were independent printers and in some cases illegal publishers as well.  I have trouble imagining that they would be fine with 3-5 major corporations serving as the only readily accessible sources of news, and would applaud social media and the internet.  In many ways, America's founders were the social media experts of their day.

I think what we have today is wholly unlike anything that has existed in the history of the world.  It's a new playing field in terms of the demolition of traditional authority sources, the lack of ability to distinguish for many people fact from fiction, the interference in information distribution by foreign powers, and so on.

Similar things have been done historically, propaganda has always been there, rumors, gossip, lies, etc...but just like before the gutenberg press, there were copies of books....they were just painstakingly done by hand, limiting the spread of information.  Gutenberg made a huge leap in the spread of information, and look at the societal changes caused by that.

Social media has spread information to the ends of the earth, made it instantaneous, and democratized it where anyone can say anything, anywhere on earth, and seconds later millions can read it.  This is something new, even if components of it have always been around.

I'm not sure the only option is a national media.  However, some framework or system of rules for social media or information of any kind should be beneficial, as it's beneficial in almost all areas of our lives to have some moderation in terms of content.  

I imagine there are sources out there that have good information that are completely unmoderated, but I can assure you that for every 1 source of good information that's completely unmoderated there are many multiple more examples of good sources of information that are moderated.

 

[AAABatteries]

My gut reaction is to say you are overreacting, especially with the thread title but to be honest, I don’t really know.  I’ve made a conscious decision to not be on social media.  FBG’s is basically the only online site I participate in.  Maybe I’ve insulated myself from it all but I still feel like you are overstating the impact it has.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think the answer to that question throughout history is very clearly No.

We the people can be pretty terrible beings absent systems that take our human nature into consideration in how they're constructed.

Why do you limit the removal of "gatekeepers" to information only?  Or, why is it a good idea when it comes to "information" and not a good idea when it comes to american government.

I don't see how representative democracy nor a mixed market economy could ever work if "we the people" can't be trusted to figure stuff out.  The institutions of democracy are ultimately just people with all of the flaws you mentioned.  Sure "we the people" might collectively stick our fingers in the electric socket from time to time but it seems that overall that people of today are much better people than anytime in the past and the only real difference is we have the benefit of more information today.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

To use words from an article earlier in the week, I ultimately support "power with" ideas and that means tearing down the "power over" hierarchies

By the way.   Reading Quick Takes: Oprah’s Speech Was About Us, Not Her reminded me of where I saw the article mentioned above:

• 2018 Will Be a Battle of ‘Power With’ Versus ‘Power Over’
  

I think it is true that much of the conservative dislike of Obama is referenced in the article from last week which was that he was attacking the norm that power must be "subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests".  In a zero sum world treating others as equal partners means weakening one's own position.  I think much of the disillusion of Obama voters comes from the Oprah Speech article (better yet the linked Oprah’s Real Message) where they were looking at Obama to be the savior, for Obama to come in and chase out the Romans.  But like the first century Jews and those calling for Oprah to be the next messiah they are all missing point that the solutions comes from empowering "we the people" not from those promising that "I alone can fix this".   Obviously "we" haven't learned that lesson.  

And this all wraps back to your thread in that we shouldn't be looking to "heroic" institutions saving the masses from themselves but ultimately the masses of individuals need to be responsible.   Scary at times - sure, but it is the basis of this entire crazy experiment in self governing (not to mention our theory of market economics).

 

[SinbadTheSailor]

Social Media Is Helping Putin Kill Our Democracy

Robert Hannigan, a former British spy boss, sat down for an interview with the BBC

 

[Niles Standish]

I think actual news media is just as much of a problem as social media.

News networks have learned over the last 20 years that they get a lot more viewers and make a lot more money if they become partisan.  So now we just pick our news channels based on our political leaning.  Now our news tells us over and over that we are right and everything we believe is right.  Social media probably exposes you to more of the other side than TV does (although it's easy enough to dismiss the other side and ignore or ridicule what they say on social media).

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Social media has set back society decades

 

[The Z Machine]

That drives most decisions in Washington these days - not whats best for the citizens, but what is best to keep those in power, still in power.

I posit that this has been the case literally forever throughout human history.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Long WIRED article about Facebook and the 2016 election, I’m only halfway through but it explains a lot.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/

 

[Righetti]

I more or less agree with you.  There have always been conspiracy theorists (to pick one example) out there, but the internet in general and social media in particular gives them a way to find each other and mobilize that would have been impossible 50 years ago.  It also creates intellectual bubbles that allow tribalism to flourish, which is a topic lots of people have written on more fluently that I could.  

That said, the internet is a good thing overall, and social media is not going away any time soon.  It's our institutions that need to adapt to technology, not the other way around.  I've become convinced that the solution involves dialing back majoritarianism.  We need to preserve and strengthen existing anti-majoritarian features of our government (like the Bill of Rights) and resist most efforts to foster majoritarianism.    

I used to see nutjobs at Union Square carry on about 9/11 being an inside job and mostly everybody ignored them likely because they a) knew they were nuts b) didn’t want to be seen in public considering this

now our people in the privacy of their own home and add some anonymity and people become emboldened  

 

[adonis]

"Regulate social media now. The future of democracy is at stake"

Why does it matter? Because this is the information network that now brings most people their news and opinions about politics, about medicine, about the economy. This is also the information network that is fueling polarization, that favors sensational news over constructive news and that has destroyed the business model of local and investigative journalism. The past few days have also brought news of staff layoffs at newspapers around the country, from Arizona to Tennessee to New Jersey.

I have singled out Facebook here because it is the dominant force in social media — like an old-fashioned monopolist, it owns Instagram and WhatsApp, too — but I could write similarly about Google, which is the dominant force in Internet search, or YouTube, which is owned by Google and is the dominant force in the distribution of video content. These companies also operate according to their own rules and algorithms. They decide how data gets collected and who sees it. They decide how political and commercial advertising is regulated and monitored. They even decide what gets censored. The public sphere is shaped by these decisions, but the public has no say.

There is a precedent for this historical moment. In the 1920s and 1930s, democratic governments suddenly found themselves challenged by radio, the new information technology of its time. Radio’s early stars included Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin: The technology could clearly be used to provoke anger and violence. But was there a way to marshal it for the purposes of democracy instead? One answer was the British Broadcasting Corp., the BBC, which was designed from the beginning to reach all parts of the country, to “inform, educate and entertain” and to join people together, not in a single set of opinions but in the kind of single national conversation that made democracy possible. Another set of answers was found in the United States, where journalists accepted a regulatory framework, a set of rules about libel law and a public process that determined who could get a radio license.

The question now is to find the equivalent of licensing and public broadcasting in the world of social media: to find, that is, the regulatory or social or legal measures that will make this technology work for us, for our society and our democracy, and not just for Facebook shareholders. This is not an argument in favor of censorship. It’s an argument in favor of applying to the online world the same kinds of regulations that have been used in other spheres, to set rules on transparency, privacy, data and competition.

We can, for example, regulate Internet advertising, just as we regulate broadcast advertising, insisting that people know when and why they are being shown political ads or, indeed, any ads. We can curb the anonymity of the Internet — recent research shows that the number of fake accounts on Facebook may be far higher than what the company has stated in public — because we have a right to know whether we are interacting with real people or bots. In the longer term, there may be even more profound solutions. What would a public-interest algorithm look like, for example, or a form of social media that favored constructive conversations over polarization?

We could make a start with Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minn.) proposed bill on honesty in advertising. But the debate needs to be deeper; it cannot include another chaotic, amateurish interview with Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg in the Senate. Constantly changing technology will make it difficult, as will lobbying. But we have regulated financial markets, another sphere where the technology changes constantly, the money involved is enormous, everyone is lobbying, and everyone is trying to cheat.

If we don’t do it — if we don’t even try — we will not be able to ensure the integrity of elections or the decency of the public sphere. If we don’t do it, in the long term there won’t even be a public sphere, and there won’t be functional democracies anymore, either.

 

[Max Power]

Put me in the camp of "If main stream media did a better job, this wound be less of an issue".  I get trying to regulate social media to an extent, but who is going to do it?  It shouldn't be on private companies and the government probably won't do a good job. 

This is probably the next "war on drugs"

 

[Max Power]

Curious as to opinions on this... Are there "bots" or people paid by any government to push an agenda online? 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Curious as to opinions on this... Are there "bots" or people paid by any government to push an agenda online? 

Resoundingly yes.

 

[Max Power]

Resoundingly yes.

what is the consensus on the breakout?  Are they "bots"  which maybe I don't understand what a bot is.  Or are they posters paid to argue?  Are there any of those here?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

what is the consensus on the breakout?  Are they "bots"  which maybe I don't understand what a bot is.  Or are they posters paid to argue?  Are there any of those here?

There are bots on Twitter programmed to retweet certain things in order to get stuff to “trend.” There are also humans paid to spread certain messages on Twitter and Facebook.

I don’t think there are any bots on Invision boards like this one.

 

[Max Power]

There are bots on Twitter programmed to retweet certain things in order to get stuff to “trend.” There are also humans paid to spread certain messages on Twitter and Facebook.

I don’t think there are any bots on Invision boards like this one.

I don't disagree with you, I just want to know how to quantify it all.  It seems like the govt can track a lot of that activity after the fact.  After they have an agenda.  Why can't we see it coming?  Do people on facebook really listen to comments from random strangers and apply them to voting?  It wasn't an issues until it was an issue.  Can we prevent this going forward?

I probably agree that there are not bots on this board, as we are small subsection of the internet and it isn't worth the dollars.  I don't know how some posters have the time...

 

[Bonzai]

Adonis, the “idiots” were always out there, in the John Birch society, reading about conspiracy theories in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, talking about the Rockefellers and voting for Lyndon LaRouche. It’s very clear that Social Media has made these people louder, but I doubt it has made them more powerful. 

To me the most significant political event involving social media thus far was during Arab Spring, when the Egyptian government was unable to ruthlessly shut down protests as they might have been able to a few years earlier. Consider me optimistic; I think that social media will do more to combat suppression and dictatorship that private ownership of guns ever could or will. So I mostly see it as a good thing. 

The most significant political event involving social media was Russia engineering the election of Donald Trump. Nothing even comes close.

 

[Max Power]

The most significant political event involving social media was Russia engineering the election of Donald Trump. Nothing even comes close.

But the American people were told this wasn't a possibility.

 

[timschochet]

The most significant political event involving social media was Russia engineering the election of Donald Trump. Nothing even comes close.

Bonzai I’m not convinced that Russian interference changed the result of the election. It might have. 

 

[ShamrockPride]

The most significant political event involving social media was Russia engineering the election of Donald Trump. Nothing even comes close.

$4500 in Facebook ads. Whole lot of "engineering" going on there...

 

[Arodin]

"Regulate social media now. The future of democracy is at stake"

Interesting article, but the comparison of social media to radio is fundamentally flawed in one important respect:  bandwidth.

Radio had to face regulation because one station (or person) broadcasting on a frequency range effectively disallows others to do so, and thus in the absence of licensing of broadcast rights, radio as a communication becomes too chaotic and unreliable to be useful.  There is only so much room in the EM spectrum, and the ability of early transmitters and receivers to stay within a narrow band of it led us to the environment where any given region has only a handful of stations, and their output power is limited, and varies by time of day.

No such necessity exists (within reason) in social media.  It’s become pretty clear that almost everybody can be “online” at once without significant impairment to our ability to speak and hear there.

So while there may very well be overlap between the social benefits and results of regulation in the two spheres, there are still going to be core differences in necessity and methodology.

 

[Bonzai]

$4500 in Facebook ads. Whole lot of "engineering" going on there...

Tens of millions of dollars were spent across multiple platforms.  Millions of people were affected.  Read up.  

Link

Link2

 

[sho nuff]

Tens of millions of dollars were spent across multiple platforms.  Millions of people were affected.  Read up.  

Link

Link2

Some would rather repeat the “few Facebook ads” memes rather than understand the full scope.

 

[adonis]

Interesting article, but the comparison of social media to radio is fundamentally flawed in one important respect:  bandwidth.

Radio had to face regulation because one station (or person) broadcasting on a frequency range effectively disallows others to do so, and thus in the absence of licensing of broadcast rights, radio as a communication becomes too chaotic and unreliable to be useful.  There is only so much room in the EM spectrum, and the ability of early transmitters and receivers to stay within a narrow band of it led us to the environment where any given region has only a handful of stations, and their output power is limited, and varies by time of day.

No such necessity exists (within reason) in social media.  It’s become pretty clear that almost everybody can be “online” at once without significant impairment to our ability to speak and hear there.

So while there may very well be overlap between the social benefits and results of regulation in the two spheres, there are still going to be core differences in necessity and methodology.

Do you have anything to back up the assertion that the radio was regulated because to broadcast on a given frequency prevented others from doing the same?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I thought the conversation between Sam Harris and Jack Dorsey on the most recent Making Sense (née Waking Up) podcast was pretty interesting. Based only on his twitter avatar, I thought Jack would be a bunghole, but he’s actually quite thoughtful.

 

[Arodin]

Do you have anything to back up the assertion that the radio was regulated because to broadcast on a given frequency prevented others from doing the same?

Fair question... my original source was a college econ professor and I never really thought to question his explanation.

A bit of wikiwalking turns up the following though:

Radio Act of 1927:

Prior to 1927, radio was regulated by the United States Department of Commerce.  Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover played a strong role in shaping radio. His powers were limited by federal court decisions, however; in particular, he was not allowed to deny broadcasting licenses to anyone who wanted one. The result was that many people perceived the airwaves to suffer from "chaos," with too many stations trying to be heard on too few frequencies. 

Spectrum Management:

Since the 1930s, spectrum was assigned through administrative licensing. Limited by technology, signal interference was once considered as a major problem of spectrum use. Therefore, exclusive licensing was established to protect licensees' signals.

For a non-open source, consider:

http://www.oswego.edu/~messere/RadioReg.pdf

In 1922, Hoover convened the first of four annual National Radio Conferences designed to elicit voluntary cooperation from broadcasters, radio manufacturers, and interested parties. Attendees realized the inadequacy of the 1912 Act, some calling for better government oversight through more comprehensive legislation. In 1923, a federal appeals court ruled that the Secretary of Commerce did not have the discretionary power to withhold licenses from qualified applicants. As a result, interference on broadcasting channels dramatically increased as the number of stations proliferated; early broadcasting entered a period of chaos without any significant government oversight.

Between 1923 and 1924, Hoover expanded the number of frequencies assigned to broadcasting in an attempt to relieve interference conditions. The Secretary, who endorsed the notion of self-regulation, had some success persuading stations to share frequencies, limit power and split the broadcast day. However, despite Hoover's attempt to facilitate solutions between competing stations and industry interests, a growing dissatisfaction with time allotments and frequencies sharing created problems for Hoover's policy of 'associationalism.' It was becoming apparent to Hoover and the industry that self-regulation could not solve the increasing interference and allocation problems. 

 

[abbottjamesr]

I thought the conversation between Sam Harris and Jack Dorsey on the most recent Making Sense (née Waking Up) podcast was pretty interesting. Based only on his twitter avatar, I thought Jack would be a bunghole, but he’s actually quite thoughtful.

It was a good interview.  I agree with much of what Jack said in that it is important that we maintain the vehicle for global conversations and keep it out in the open where everyone has access.

I don't see social media as this horrible technology that will ruin the world.  Information should be free and information should flow freely.  Technologies that have advanced this premise have certainly had major effects on history.  But I think that @adonis is viewing history through rose colored glasses if he thinks that we were better off with tightly controlled information flows.  

I see two issues with social media currently that limit its usefulness to society.  First is that it is mostly anonymous.  I think this causes many instances of fraud as well as it causes the road rage effect, when people are way more aggressive and just meaner than they would be if they were talking one on one with some one.  Second is that there is no cost to send a message.  There is no deterant to keep people from making bots that continually say the say thing and overwhelming the system with noise.  If social media finds away to correct for these two issues it may be the most powerful communication technology created by man

 

[adonis]

But I think that @adonis is viewing history through rose colored glasses if he thinks that we were better off with tightly controlled information flows.  

That's not my position.

My position is closer to social media posing a new and more serious threat to our democracy due to its lack of regulation, ability to advertise to specific groups of people better than ever before, a lack of control on what information is presented to people, and up until this point a pretty relaxed approach to personal privacy as it pertains to data.  Foreign hostile governments can use this mechanism to pay for fake news, to get information on specific demographics, target them with fake news that serves their agenda, and pay almost no price and face no restrictions.

How is that not a major problem?

That's not even dealing with privacy issues, with the spread of conspiracy theories, true fake news, and a limited group of people making decisions on terms of service that affect millions of users in ways that they have no say in.