Internet companies are destroying society

[benjii]

Giving tyrants, idiots and other malignants unnecessary and undesirable reach and amplification, or feeding them pernicious lies and half-truths. These companies rule the Western world. Not governments.

 

Sacha Baron Cohen gave a speech on this. And he is correct:

 

 

Ironically, it is posted on YouTube, of course.

 

You can also read it in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/22/sacha-baron-cohen-facebook-propaganda

[Weston Super Saint]

What if internet companies are actually allowing far easier access to information, information that is then used by people who wouldn't ordinarily have access to it who then go on to improve our world?

[sadoldgit]

What if internet companies are actually allowing far easier access to information, information that is then used by people who wouldn't ordinarily have access to it who then go on to improve our world?

 

That would be wonderful, unfortunately George Orwell was right though.

[Weston Super Saint]

That would be wonderful, unfortunately George Orwell was right though.

 

What? You really don't think that kids in third world countries are not accessing information that they previously had no hope of getting hold and changing their lives for the better as a result?

 

Maybe it's a necessary evil that the tyrants and idiots have a platform in order for the rest of the world to benefit?

[sadoldgit]

What? You really don't think that kids in third world countries are not accessing information that they previously had no hope of getting hold and changing their lives for the better as a result?

 

Maybe it's a necessary evil that the tyrants and idiots have a platform in order for the rest of the world to benefit?

 

If you are happy that these tyrants and idiots have a platform that is your choice. Why do we have to have both? Why can’t we just have the good? Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the Conservatives taking the moral high ground and not feed us bull**** in their campaign for instance?

[hypochondriac]

Who decides who are tyrants and idiots though? I don't want Mark Zuckerberg to be making that judgement on my behalf.

[Manuel]

As I understand it, if something untrue appears on my FB, it'll be becuase one of my "friends" has decided it's worthy of producing or sharing. Just because it appears in a meme or in fancy italics doesn't make it very different from a "friend" down the pub spouting stuff he's heard which may or not be truthful. I have the choice to stay and listen, investigate or talk to someone else. Also one has the option of ignoring people in a similar way. FB I have no concerns about.

 

I don't know if anyone remembers the Independent a few years ago when the comments section was completely unmoderated. A complete sh*tstorm, and I loved it. Very few places where you can speak your mind without having to stick to some sort of rule or agenda. YouTube appears to be one of the last which is what makes it the best and most enjoyable site on the internet these days. I accept you need to be careful of it though.....with YouTube, if you watch a video, more clips of a similar nature will appear on your feed which I could see potentially leading someone down a path they weren't necessarily intending to go.

 

Very rarely I'm not on the side of complete free speech, I'd be happy with fewer regulations, not more.

[benjii]

As I understand it, if something untrue appears on my FB, it'll be becuase one of my "friends" has decided it's worthy of producing or sharing. Just because it appears in a meme or in fancy italics doesn't make it very different from a "friend" down the pub spouting stuff he's heard which may or not be truthful. I have the choice to stay and listen, investigate or talk to someone else. Also one has the option of ignoring people in a similar way. FB I have no concerns about.

 

I don't know if anyone remembers the Independent a few years ago when the comments section was completely unmoderated. A complete sh*tstorm, and I loved it. Very few places where you can speak your mind without having to stick to some sort of rule or agenda. YouTube appears to be one of the last which is what makes it the best and most enjoyable site on the internet these days. I accept you need to be careful of it though.....with YouTube, if you watch a video, more clips of a similar nature will appear on your feed which I could see potentially leading someone down a path they weren't necessarily intending to go.

 

Very rarely I'm not on the side of complete free speech, I'd be happy with fewer regulations, not more.

 

No, your Facebook data is used to target you with things you and your friends did not ask for. It’s more like being in the pub and not being able to talk to your friend because some **** is shouting things at you. But at the same time those same things are being shouted in all pubs.

[Manuel]

I've heard this before, but the only stuff that gets on my screen, other than that which has been reposted are adverts for things, LadBible, football stuff, animals falling over etc. No propaganda at all. I'm guessing you're suggesting that if propaganda appeared and I clicked on it, I'd get more?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The Internet has delivered change and I would conclude on the whole we were better off without it. Apart from making our high street's redundant it has limited face to face interaction between people. It has amplified our children's anxiety and facilitated inescapable 24 hour bullying. Sadly the genie is out of the bottle and you cannot put it back.

[benjii]

I've heard this before, but the only stuff that gets on my screen, other than that which has been reposted are adverts for things, LadBible, football stuff, animals falling over etc. No propaganda at all. I'm guessing you're suggesting that if propaganda appeared and I clicked on it, I'd get more?

 

Yes, I think so. And if you are selected by certain algorithms, someone will be willing to pay so that content appears to you. And don't forget that Facebook also owns Instagram and WhatsApp.

 

Google owns YouTube, Android OS and dozens of native apps, online search monopoly, sponsored adverts, and its parent company is acquiring FitBit.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes, I think so. And if you are selected by certain algorithms, someone will be willing to pay so that content appears to you. And don't forget that Facebook also owns Instagram and WhatsApp.

 

Google owns YouTube, Android OS and dozens of native apps, online search monopoly, sponsored adverts, and its parent company is acquiring FitBit.

I agree with you. There’s a reason that Facebook and the others don’t charge for their ‘service’ and that’s because your behaviour is important to them.’

[Lighthouse]

I don’t really see what the problem with these algorithms is, it’s just targeted advertising. It’s no secret that the ads I see on Facebook are usually from the brand or similar to what I’ve been googling 10 minutes ago. To me it’s no different to going into a cafe, ordering a coffee and being asked if I’d like a pastry or biscuit to go with it.

[shurlock]

I don’t really see what the problem with these algorithms is, it’s just targeted advertising. It’s no secret that the ads I see on Facebook are usually from the brand or similar to what I’ve been googling 10 minutes ago. To me it’s no different to going into a cafe, ordering a coffee and being asked if I’d like a pastry or biscuit to go with it.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/0fbf4d8e-022b-11ea-be59-e49b2a136b8d

[Shroppie]

I don’t really see what the problem with these algorithms is, it’s just targeted advertising. It’s no secret that the ads I see on Facebook are usually from the brand or similar to what I’ve been googling 10 minutes ago. To me it’s no different to going into a cafe, ordering a coffee and being asked if I’d like a pastry or biscuit to go with it.

 

Except that you're promised the pastry has negative calories, each one hand-made by a host of elves and that eating it will deliver Brexit, provide investment of £100bn for the NHS and deliver us from all evil.

 

With 10000 paid-for likes and 500 bot-written supporting comments to prove it's true.

 

Truth is now irrelevant. It's all about repeating lies that will get you what you want by convincing gullible people that they're true. And there is absolutely no penalty for being proved to be lying. And the internet makes this possible.

 

 

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Weston Super Saint]

 

Truth is now irrelevant. It's all about repeating lies that will get you what you want by convincing gullible people that they're true. And there is absolutely no penalty for being proved to be lying. And the internet makes this possible.

 

 

 

Doesn't that describe all people using facebook?

[Shroppie]

Doesn't that describe all people using facebook?

The vast majority, yes.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Ohio Saint]

Everything is subject to change. Change over time is evolution. Nothing is destroyed in the process.

 

Sometimes, the changes seem to suck. Sometimes they feel good. As per the original post, nothing is destroyed, but the sentiment seems to be that this change is unpalatable to some.

 

We need to get over it and adapt. It's just evolution.

[badgerx16]

Skynet in a different form - mind control rather than extermination.

[Lighthouse]

Except that you're promised the pastry has negative calories, each one hand-made by a host of elves and that eating it will deliver Brexit, provide investment of £100bn for the NHS and deliver us from all evil.

 

With 10000 paid-for likes and 500 bot-written supporting comments to prove it's true.

 

Truth is now irrelevant. It's all about repeating lies that will get you what you want by convincing gullible people that they're true. And there is absolutely no penalty for being proved to be lying. And the internet makes this possible.

 

 

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

How is that any different to being in some grotty pub and having to listen to a group blokes going on about how Muslamics and immigrants are giving everyone cancer? People have been perverting the truth and flooding the population with tsunamis on misinformation since the beginning of time. How do you think religion got started thousands of years ago.

 

If anything were better off now because the internet is impossible to suppress. 50 years ago stories like Andrew/Epstein would have been hushed up, swept under the rug and the victims kept quiet. I don’t believe most of the bullsh*t I read on line but as long as I continue to see post for AND against all of our politicians, I’m fairly happy.

[wadesmith]

If you had said at the start of the decade that the bloke who presented The American version of The Apprentice, and another bloke who would occasionally appear on Have I Got News For You, & became London Mayor and hoisted himself in a harness waving a Union Jack in his work shoes, would by the end of the decade be two of the most powerful men in the world, you would have got some funny looks. I don't think it's a complete coincidence that those two things have happened during the first real age of an active social media. I'm not really criticising it. It's more an observation, but I do find it interesting. Ultimately the public have voted for them, and as we are well aware, 'the public get what the public want'

[buctootim]

'the public get what the public want'

 

with Jam on it

[buctootim]

I think what has changed is that at one time there was tight regulation to protect the public against corporate excess and abuse of a dominant position in the market. Now the mega corporations have the whip hand and people have been demoted from citizens to consumers

[benjii]

How is that any different to being in some grotty pub and having to listen to a group blokes going on about how Muslamics and immigrants are giving everyone cancer? People have been perverting the truth and flooding the population with tsunamis on misinformation since the beginning of time. How do you think religion got started thousands of years ago.

 

If anything were better off now because the internet is impossible to suppress. 50 years ago stories like Andrew/Epstein would have been hushed up, swept under the rug and the victims kept quiet. I don’t believe most of the bullsh*t I read on line but as long as I continue to see post for AND against all of our politicians, I’m fairly happy.

 

Because those people don't have reach or legitimacy. They are just ignorant pub bores.

 

Look at the cheap Tory Twitter stunt this week. Parties and organisations with some ostensible credibility use these networks to knowingly spread lies. That's qualitatively different to an ill-informed pub bore talking ****e. If you can't see that then you are probably pretty high up the target list yourself.

[hypochondriac]

If you had said at the start of the decade that the bloke who presented The American version of The Apprentice, and another bloke who would occasionally appear on Have I Got News For You, & became London Mayor and hoisted himself in a harness waving a Union Jack in his work shoes, would by the end of the decade be two of the most powerful men in the world, you would have got some funny looks. I don't think it's a complete coincidence that those two things have happened during the first real age of an active social media. I'm not really criticising it. It's more an observation, but I do find it interesting. Ultimately the public have voted for them, and as we are well aware, 'the public get what the public want'

Is that much different from someone like Reagan being president though? It's more to do with many people having a f*ck you attitude to those in power and others feeling disenfranchisement than the Internet imo.

[ashnats]

The Internet has delivered change and I would conclude on the whole we were better off without it. Apart from making our high street's redundant it has limited face to face interaction between people. It has amplified our children's anxiety and facilitated inescapable 24 hour bullying. Sadly the genie is out of the bottle and you cannot put it back.

 

One of the positive consequences of not tackling climate change will be an eventual loss of the Internet. Maybe your grand kids won't have to worry about it.

 

You could also switch to O2, that has certainly limited my access when on the move.

[Lighthouse]

Because those people don't have reach or legitimacy. They are just ignorant pub bores.

 

Look at the cheap Tory Twitter stunt this week. Parties and organisations with some ostensible credibility use these networks to knowingly spread lies. That's qualitatively different to an ill-informed pub bore talking ****e. If you can't see that then you are probably pretty high up the target list yourself.

 

That's the thing though, we all know what happened. The truth leaked out very quickly and they have now lost credibility over the incident. Same as that edited interview with Keir Starmer. We have much more freedom of information than at any time in history.

 

Is it any coincidence that in the most oppressed countries in the world the internet is either banned or severely government restricted? Let me put it this way, supposing Boris wins a landslide majority and on his first day back in office tells the nation he is going to ban the internet as it spreads hurtful misinformation. Would you support him in that?

[benjii]

That's the thing though, we all know what happened. The truth leaked out very quickly and they have now lost credibility over the incident. Same as that edited interview with Keir Starmer. We have much more freedom of information than at any time in history.

 

Is it any coincidence that in the most oppressed countries in the world the internet is either banned or severely government restricted? Let me put it this way, supposing Boris wins a landslide majority and on his first day back in office tells the nation he is going to ban the internet as it spreads hurtful misinformation. Would you support him in that?

 

Do I want to “ban the internet”?

 

No.

 

Is there a clear and significant threat to societal norms and democratic accountability presented by micro-targeted adverts and huge databases of personal informational being made available on networks capable of functioning as the most immediate, most visible, most voluble propaganda machine in history?

 

Yes.

 

Should attempts be made to do something about it?

 

Yes.

 

Is it too late?

 

Maybe.

 

Is the least that intelligent people can do, to recognise the issue and try to be more cognizant of the risks?

 

Yes.

[sadoldgit]

I agree. I certainly don’t want to see the internet banned but there clearly needs to be a stronger regulation of the spread of lies/misinformation and greater control of abuse on social media.

[hypochondriac]

I agree. I certainly don’t want to see the internet banned but there clearly needs to be a stronger regulation of the spread of lies/misinformation and greater control of abuse on social media.

 

How would you regulate "abuse" on social media? Who decides what is "abuse?" Do we let the government of the day decide? Do we let tech giants like Zuckerberg decide?

[hypochondriac]

I agree. I certainly don’t want to see the internet banned but there clearly needs to be a stronger regulation of the spread of lies/misinformation and greater control of abuse on social media.

 

How would you regulate "abuse" on social media? Who decides what is "abuse?" Do we let the government of the day decide? Do we let tech giants like Zuckerberg decide? Who makes distinctions between lies and misinformation and truth or differences of perspective?

[whelk]

How would you regulate "abuse" on social media? Who decides what is "abuse?" Do we let the government of the day decide? Do we let tech giants like Zuckerberg decide? Who makes distinctions between lies and misinformation and truth or differences of perspective?

 

Quite black and white to see what needs banning in many ways but problem is it will then move into less clear areas and then you have a mess.

[hypochondriac]

Quite black and white to see what needs banning in many ways but problem is it will then move into less clear areas and then you have a mess.

Indeed it's jot something that's easily solved by nice words like "let's regulate social media."

[Lighthouse]

Should attempts be made to do something about it?

 

Yes.

 

I just don't see how and by who. They can't be government appointed or regulated as there's an obvious conflict of interest there. There are thousands of website which will need continuous moderation, every day. It will take thousands of trained, impartial moderators. Who moderates them? With all that power to control the content the entire country has access to, they will literally queues of goons from Trump, Putin, Johnson, Corbyn etc. outside their house, with envelopes full of cash and letters saying, "do this if you want your family to live." What about foreign websites, should they all be banned? What if RT says something derogatory about the Lib Dems? We can't control their content.

 

It's a nice principle but it's just not practical. Pretty much every ban or infraction we give out on this site gets a PM in response saying, "FFS! What have I said wrong, it's just my opinion, how come he is allowed to post XYZ, blah blah blah..." It'll be ten times worse in real life and after 2 months literally everyone in the country will be convinced they are being censored in some way."

 

The internet is just a means to communicate. I think the best we can do is caution and educate children in school about the dangers of misinformation.

[sadoldgit]

Quite black and white to see what needs banning in many ways but problem is it will then move into less clear areas and then you have a mess.

 

Indeed. You could insist on every piece of political party propaganda having to be fact checked by an independent body before release, but how do you control stuff released further down the food chain? There will always be stuff leaking out, I suppose it is then a question of ensuring anything inappropriate is taken down asap. As for abuse, anything that is illegal or that you couldn’t get away with saying to someone’s face should not be there. It’s a big job policing things like Instagram or Facebook. Do you just rely on people reporting abuse or do you police every thread as a responsible operator? I am on three local village FB groups. One is very small and, probably because of that, is easily policed, not that it needs it. The 2 others cover much bigger village areas and some of the abuse that gets thrown around on there is dreadful. The admin seem to let most things go and you have to wonder if bricks get thrown through windows as many of these people seem to live within a few hundred yards of each other. FB never step in. Maybe no one has ever complained but there should be a level of behaviour that becomes unacceptable to set standards and chat groups shut down if they constantly over step the mark. If you provide a social media platform for expression, you must ultimately be responsible for what happens on it.

[Weston Super Saint]

 

Is the least that intelligent people can do, to recognise the issue and try to be more cognizant of the risks?

 

 

I'm under no illusions that that is already the case - I do think there is one important word in your sentence though.....

[hypochondriac]

Indeed. You could insist on every piece of political party propaganda having to be fact checked by an independent body before release, but how do you control stuff released further down the food chain? There will always be stuff leaking out, I suppose it is then a question of ensuring anything inappropriate is taken down asap. As for abuse, anything that is illegal or that you couldn’t get away with saying to someone’s face should not be there. It’s a big job policing things like Instagram or Facebook. Do you just rely on people reporting abuse or do you police every thread as a responsible operator? I am on three local village FB groups. One is very small and, probably because of that, is easily policed, not that it needs it. The 2 others cover much bigger village areas and some of the abuse that gets thrown around on there is dreadful. The admin seem to let most things go and you have to wonder if bricks get thrown through windows as many of these people seem to live within a few hundred yards of each other. FB never step in. Maybe no one has ever complained but there should be a level of behaviour that becomes unacceptable to set standards and chat groups shut down if they constantly over step the mark. If you provide a social media platform for expression, you must ultimately be responsible for what happens on it.

 

How would you choose this independent body? Would it be a national thing? Or international? Would UK Internet laws apply in other countries? What about people using VPNs? Should the first amendment apply to US citizens on twitter? Or should they be forced to apply a hate speech law that doesn't exist in America on all citizens? Who decides what is political party propaganda and just a meme? Given that immediate moderation of content on platforms like Facebook is impossible, presumably you'd favour machine learning? I assume you're also happy with these companies erring on the safe side and allowing algorithms to mass delete anything potentially "offensive" without context even if it has the potential to be offensive? Just some of the many questions this sort of thing throws up.

[benjii]

How would you choose this independent body? Would it be a national thing? Or international? Would UK Internet laws apply in other countries? What about people using VPNs? Should the first amendment apply to US citizens on twitter? Or should they be forced to apply a hate speech law that doesn't exist in America on all citizens? Who decides what is political party propaganda and just a meme? Given that immediate moderation of content on platforms like Facebook is impossible, presumably you'd favour machine learning? I assume you're also happy with these companies erring on the safe side and allowing algorithms to mass delete anything potentially "offensive" without context even if it has the potential to be offensive? Just some of the many questions this sort of thing throws up.

 

All valid questions but lack of ease isn’t an excuse for lack of action or application.

[hypochondriac]

All valid questions but lack of ease isn’t an excuse for lack of action or application.

OK so you've acknowledged its hard. What's the action to take if that's not an excuse? My point is that a workable option doesn't exist and I'd like to explore any ideas that someone has that would actually work without handing masses of power to people I don't trust and without being overly censorious. Just to be clear I don't think anyone will be able to come up with anything and so virtually anyone can shout from the sidelines about their dissatisfaction with social media. Let's also bear in mind that my version of censorship and the likes of someone like soggy will be wildly different. Multiply that by a million and you realise that even agreeing a standard for censorship is virtually impossible.

 

 

I've just listened to sasha above and I struggle with his nazi point in the context of calling for censorship. The nazis loved to censor things they didn't like, surely allowing freedom to criticise ideas would be anathema to 1940s Germany.

Edited 25 November, 2019 by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

Just to be clear I don't think anyone will be able to come up with anything and so virtually anyone can shout from the sidelines about their dissatisfaction with social media.

 

 

There is one simple solution, if you don't like what's on social media, stay off it!!

[whelk]

There is one simple solution, if you don't like what's on social media, stay off it!!

 

Not so simple mate. If you have children they will be on it and exposed to some sh1t you would never want them near.

[Jonnyboy]

OK so you've acknowledged its hard. What's the action to take if that's not an excuse? My point is that a workable option doesn't exist and I'd like to explore any ideas that someone has that would actually work without handing masses of power to people I don't trust and without being overly censorious. Just to be clear I don't think anyone will be able to come up with anything and so virtually anyone can shout from the sidelines about their dissatisfaction with social media. Let's also bear in mind that my version of censorship and the likes of someone like soggy will be wildly different. Multiply that by a million and you realise that even agreeing a standard for censorship is virtually impossible.

 

 

I've just listened to sasha above and I struggle with his nazi point in the context of calling for censorship. The nazis loved to censor things they didn't like, surely allowing freedom to criticise ideas would be anathema to 1940s Germany.

 

There's a difference between individual freedom of speech and systemic/corporate/political abuse using their power and money to embed falsehoods in citizens minds. (see Trump/Tories and examples for repeat a lie often enough).

[hypochondriac]

There's a difference between individual freedom of speech and systemic/corporate/political abuse using their power and money to embed falsehoods in citizens minds. (see Trump/Tories and examples for repeat a lie often enough).

What's your solution Jonnyboy.

[Jonnyboy]

What's your solution Jonnyboy.

 

Independent body sounds about right, works in many other areas of life. Obviously that can't censure the lone nutters but if Aaron Banks is paying Zuckerberg millions of Rubles on targeted Facebook ads advising people that Brussels ordered our babies incubators to be switched off I think that can and should be dealt with swiftly and publically.

[hypochondriac]

Independent body sounds about right, works in many other areas of life. Obviously that can't censure the lone nutters but if Aaron Banks is paying Zuckerberg millions of Rubles on targeted Facebook ads advising people that Brussels ordered our babies incubators to be switched off I think that can and should be dealt with swiftly and publically.

That's one example. Who appoints the independent body? Does it oversee the Internet in the UK or does it have worldwide jurisdiction? At least your realistic about the impossibility of censoring the lone voices.

[aintforever]

That's one example. Who appoints the independent body? Does it oversee the Internet in the UK or does it have worldwide jurisdiction? At least your realistic about the impossibility of censoring the lone voices.

 

Surely it can work in a similar way to how the press or TV is regulated?

[Batman]

Surely it can work in a similar way to how the press or TV is regulated?

 

How do you moderate a live service like Twitter/Facebook, where the social boundaries and laws are wildly different across the USA, let alone the world

Edited 26 November, 2019 by Batman

[hypochondriac]

Surely it can work in a similar way to how the press or TV is regulated?

Except that BBC1 is broadcast and regulated in Britain. How could regulating Facebook work in the same way? If there are more lax laws in America for example what would prevent someone setting up a vpn pretending they are from Florida and then sending out so called "hate speech" to their hearts content.

[hypochondriac]

Surely it can work in a similar way to how the press or TV is regulated?

Additionally, TV and print is relatively easy to control. You aren't dealing with anything like the same volume of content. If you want immediate or extremely quick removal of content deemed hateful as some countries are calling for then inevitably you're calling for machine learning and bots and all the in built bias and lack of context this method provides.

[aintforever]

Additionally, TV and print is relatively easy to control. You aren't dealing with anything like the same volume of content. If you want immediate or extremely quick removal of content deemed hateful as some countries are calling for then inevitably you're calling for machine learning and bots and all the in built bias and lack of context this method provides.

 

These companies make billions and at the forefront of the technology, they should be able to moderate themselves - if they can't they can be blocked like other websites are.