President Obama on controlling and remaking social media (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1516809484546584586?s=20&t=Vnx9lgcXVuzffb_PgoKIOg

From Obama: 

Tomorrow, I'm heading to Stanford to deliver a speech about changes in the way we create and consume information, and the very real threat it poses to democracy.

https://twitter.com/BonillaJL/status/1517286168655806470?s=20&t=YVhKseTwSh8zQSM3FNS5pA

"TV is a tool. The internet is a tool. Social media is a tool. At the end of the day, tools don't control us. We control them. And we can remake them."

This is another interesting angle as we talk about social media and the Internet

I totally get what President Obama is saying here. I do the same with this forum. I do see though how it could go the wrong way.

It's one of those things. Nobody has a problem with controlling things. As long as we agree with the people controlling them. It's an interesting situation.

 

[timschochet]

I don’t particularly like social media at all.  But I’m wary of the government trying to regulate or control it.  Other than that I dont care. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I agree with @timschochet that I don't want government getting involved in social media.  I reserve the right to criticize companies for their moderation decisions, but those decisions should be theirs to make.  

I'll especially support any company that leans toward the "free speech" side of the spectrum.

 

[BladeRunner]

I agree with @timschochet that I don't want government getting involved in social media.  I reserve the right to criticize companies for their moderation decisions, but those decisions should be theirs to make.  

I'll especially support any company that leans toward the "free speech" side of the spectrum.

I also agree, but the left has found a way to get around the Constitution by controlling these corporations which then act as proxies for the government (specifically, Democrats).  When a majority of these companies push what is CLEARLY the same agenda as Democrats, I think something needs to be done.  I'm not sure what, though, but it's patently obvious they are acting as proxies in some, if not a lot, of these companies.

 

[Sea Duck]

https://twitter.com/BonillaJL/status/1517286168655806470?s=20&t=YVhKseTwSh8zQSM3FNS5pA

"TV is a tool. The internet is a tool. Social media is a tool. At the end of the day, tools don't control us. We control them. And we can remake them."

The quote itself is banal, so much so that you can't tell if it was being said as a condemnation or as a rallying cry for free speech.

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

Interesting timing with Elon Musk about to pull a hostile takeover of Twitter.

 

[Juxtatarot]

The quote itself is banal, so much so that you can't tell if it was being said as a condemnation or as a rallying cry for free speech.

Here’s the speech.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The quote itself is banal, so much so that you can't tell if it was being said as a condemnation or as a rallying cry for free speech.

Thanks. Can you elaborate? 

ba·nal /bəˈnäl,bəˈnal/

adjective:  so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.

By that definition, In a climate where free speech online and what is allowed and not allowed is a red hot topic, I don't see how one of the most influential people in the world saying  "Social media is a tool. At the end of the day, tools don't control us. We control them. And we can remake them." is banal.

 

[Juxtatarot]

In theory, I don’t have a problem with government oversight and regulation on social media. It always boils down the specific rule making and its consequences— both intended and unintended.

 

[Summer Wheat]

I don’t particularly like social media at all.  But I’m wary of the government trying to regulate or control it.  Other than that I dont care. 

 Tim you are on here 24-7.   I would have thought you love it.

 

[timschochet]

 Tim you are on here 24-7.   I would have thought you love it.

I don’t really think of this as social media. I suppose it is but it’s a discussion board, where we are all allowed to elaborate our thoughts (I elaborate a LOT!) 

When someone says “social media” I think of Twitter or Instagram where it’s all short messages, simple messages, designed for short attention spans. In terms of politics I think it’s been quite damaging because it’s spurred populist movements with simplistic answers for complex questions. On the other hand, it may be a positive for eventually destroying dictatorships around the world because it advances the free spread of info- that remains to be seen. But in terms of the USA I don’t think it’s been positive at all. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I would definitely call message board forums social media.

It of course is different than Twitter or TikTock but a lot like Facebook in allowing for long form opinion sharing. 

And for sure, some of the "we didn't used to hear these perspectives from outside our bubble 30 years ago but now have the ability to communicate at scale" part is exactly what I'm talking about with a key component of social media. 

 

[Rich Conway]

Thanks. Can you elaborate? 

By that definition, In a climate where free speech online and what is allowed and not allowed is a red hot topic, I don't see how one of the most influential people in the world saying  "Social media is a tool. At the end of the day, tools don't control us. We control them. And we can remake them." is banal.

It's banal in the sense that, without additional context, there's no indication of who "us" and "we" are.  Without additional context, couldn't this very easily be the same thing we read here daily, along the lines of, "the public needs too use social media more responsibly, which will in turn encourage social media to behave more responsibly" or "there's just giving us what we want, we need to change what we want".

Even if "we" refers to government, it requires additional detail to know what "remake" or "control" means.  As is, the statement isn't much more than "social media could and should be better".

 

[timschochet]

I would definitely call message board forums social media.

It of course is different than Twitter or TikTock but a lot like Facebook in allowing for long form opinion sharing. 

And for sure, some of the "we didn't used to hear these perspectives from outside our bubble 30 years ago but now have the ability to communicate at scale" part is exactly what I'm talking about with a key component of social media. 

All right. I didn’t want my statement to be about a definition of social media. So let me change it: 

I don’t like the types of social media that are quick hits, drive by, designed for short attention (eg Twitter, TikTok, Instagram). The other ones (Facebook, this one) I have no problem with. 
 

But I don’t think ANY of them should be regulated. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's banal in the sense that, without additional context, there's no indication of who "us" and "we" are.  Without additional context, couldn't this very easily be the same thing we read here daily, along the lines of, "the public needs too use social media more responsibly, which will in turn encourage social media to behave more responsibly" or "there's just giving us what we want, we need to change what we want".

Even if "we" refers to government, it requires additional detail to know what "remake" or "control" means.  As is, the statement isn't much more than "social media could and should be better".

Thanks.

I'd describe it as not clear then. But not banal.

When one of the powerful people in the world is talking about controlling and remaking the internet and social media, that's far from "boring" for me. Granted, we can always use more context. Maybe he means "control" it ways I'll like. Or maybe not. But still it feels important. Especially from someone like him. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

For the record, by “we” Obama means the American people and their government by proxy.

 

[massraider]

I don't really see how regulation and oversight will fix much.

The social media universe is too massive, and the people invested in spreading hate and misinformation for their own gain are much more invested than anyone regulating anything. People who think there is a demonic cabal of children traffickers fixing elections (and the people who put those lies in their tiny little brains) have more time on their hands and more passion. It's all they care about. 

I like Obama, but he doesn't have any answers here. 

I'd also like to hear more of his speech because I was expecting more talk about control and censorship, which I didn't get from his tweet, or that clip.

Maybe it's Obama's fault for using word 'control' in any sense whatsoever, he should have known people would have twisted his words. That 2nd tweet is a fine example, before you ask for examples.

 

[kwille]

If we're talking about not having SM flat out limit fact based content based on demographics or location then I'm on board. Interesting topic. I decided long ago to not do Facebook, etc. but I understand the massive influence SM platforms have. In the end it comes down to how individuals use it and how much individuals focus on their own self awareness and decision making.

 

[lazyike]

I have concerns how algorithms send you the same information on your social media sites you search on the internet. You end up getting the same biased news and information you are searching. That’s ok if you look at another less biased source or seek to confirm with media sources that are considered reputable. It happens here on this forum where we see some sharing links from the same crazy biased sources. Folks just aren’t that responsible or are not open to other ideas. 
 

Not sure what the answer is as to what the government should do but many are being brainwashed.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I don’t really think of this as social media. I suppose it is but it’s a discussion board, where we are all allowed to elaborate our thoughts (I elaborate a LOT!) 

When someone says “social media” I think of Twitter or Instagram where it’s all short messages, simple messages, designed for short attention spans. In terms of politics I think it’s been quite damaging because it’s spurred populist movements with simplistic answers for complex questions. On the other hand, it may be a positive for eventually destroying dictatorships around the world because it advances the free spread of info- that remains to be seen. But in terms of the USA I don’t think it’s been positive at all. 

It’s ironic that you are having this discussion in this thread that is not about Obama’s speech itself but instead about tweets about his speech.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don’t particularly like social media at all.  But I’m wary of the government trying to regulate or control it.  Other than that I dont care. 

I agree with @timschochet that I don't want government getting involved in social media.  I reserve the right to criticize companies for their moderation decisions, but those decisions should be theirs to make.  

I'll especially support any company that leans toward the "free speech" side of the spectrum.

@timschochet @IvanKaramazov 

I understand that you don't want government involved with what can or can't be posted on platforms.   I know I pimp Tristan Harris' work around here about SM and what it's costing us.   My understanding is that he is for some sort of regulation on the algorithms.   How I take that is he is saying we need to figure out a way to have it so that the business model is not time on sight = $.    We need to find a way to regulate how things are amplified and more likely to be recommended on SM (again, it's because all they care about is time on site, not what is being posted for the most part).  OR at the very least we need more clarity and openness about these algorithms and what they are doing on the platforms.   

Is this something you two think we should do, or do you think this is also too much government in SM? 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I think little enough about SM that IMO it's to the point that it's a public health crisis when we take a long look at our habits and how much it influences us.  

 

[timschochet]

@timschochet @IvanKaramazov 

I understand that you don't want government involved with what can or can't be posted on platforms.   I know I pimp Tristan Harris' work around here about SM and what it's costing us.   My understanding is that he is for some sort of regulation on the algorithms.   How I take that is he is saying we need to figure out a way to have it so that the business model is not time on sight = $.    We need to find a way to regulate how things are amplified and more likely to be recommended on SM (again, it's because all they care about is time on site, not what is being posted for the most part).  OR at the very least we need more clarity and openness about these algorithms and what they are doing on the platforms.   

Is this something you two think we should do, or do you think this is also too much government in SM? 

Well for my part let me make this pretty simple: I don’t understand algorithms. I don’t know how they work except on the most very basic of premises. I’m not a stupid guy (I hope) but the details of this stuff are beyond me. And if it’s beyond me, then I can guarantee it’s way beyond most of the politicians who would be tasked with writing legislation that would regulate them. So I think that’s probably a bad idea. 

 

[Desert_Power]

It’s ironic that you are having this discussion in this thread that is not about Obama’s speech itself but instead about tweets about his speech.

Yep. It is a good example of the negatives of social media. Instead of talking about Obama's speech, we're focused on a quote that a guy from a conservative media organization has spun.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

@timschochet @IvanKaramazov 

I understand that you don't want government involved with what can or can't be posted on platforms.   I know I pimp Tristan Harris' work around here about SM and what it's costing us.   My understanding is that he is for some sort of regulation on the algorithms.   How I take that is he is saying we need to figure out a way to have it so that the business model is not time on sight = $.    We need to find a way to regulate how things are amplified and more likely to be recommended on SM (again, it's because all they care about is time on site, not what is being posted for the most part).  OR at the very least we need more clarity and openness about these algorithms and what they are doing on the platforms.   

Is this something you two think we should do, or do you think this is also too much government in SM? 

Similar response as tim's.  I don't feel like I know enough about this topic to have a firm opinion.  

When I say that I don't want the government involved in SM, I'm thinking about things like content moderation.  Joe should be free to moderate his forum as he sees fit.  Same for YouTube.  For sites that rely on algorithmic moderation, or that feed people content based on algorithms, maybe there's a case to be made for making those public, kind of like how we require food companies to list their ingredients and nutritional information.  I dunno.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

When I say that I don't want the government involved in SM, I'm thinking about things like content moderation.  Joe should be free to moderate his forum as he sees fit.  Same for YouTube.  For sites that rely on algorithmic moderation, or that feed people content based on algorithms, maybe there's a case to be made for making those public, kind of like how we require food companies to list their ingredients and nutritional information.  I dunno.  

Bill Maher talked on this some last night. He said he's for Elon Musk taking over Twitter.

I'm paraphrasing but he said something about "Yes. Twitter is a private business. But it's so big it's practically more like the Public Square".  

This I think is where much of the conflict comes from. And I get it too. 

It feels somehow more ok for me to make the odd rules we have and require people to be civil to each other. We have 20,000 people here.

Twitter has zillions and feels more like "public".

It's interesting. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Here's Maher on Twitter:  https://youtu.be/c40LAOxr5Bs?t=325

"Twitter is the public square now. If you deny someone the right to speak on Twitter, you're basically saying you don't have free speech rights".

"It's not exactly a publication. But it's not exactly a private company either."

 

[Captain Cranks]

Bill Maher talked on this some last night. He said he's for Elon Musk taking over Twitter.

I'm paraphrasing but he said something about "Yes. Twitter is a private business. But it's so big it's practically more like the Public Square".  

This I think is where much of the conflict comes from. And I get it too. 

It feels somehow more ok for me to make the odd rules we have and require people to be civil to each other. We have 20,000 people here.

Twitter has zillions and feels more like "public".

It's interesting. 

I'm no attorney, but it seems if we're boiling this down to rights of people and private businesses, scale shouldn't matter. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm no attorney, but it seems if we're boiling this down to rights of people and private businesses, scale shouldn't matter. 

That's a good point. 

It does though "feel" like scale has an impact. Either way, it's an interesting discussion. 

 

[djmich]

Similar response as tim's.  I don't feel like I know enough about this topic to have a firm opinion.  

When I say that I don't want the government involved in SM, I'm thinking about things like content moderation.  Joe should be free to moderate his forum as he sees fit.  Same for YouTube.  For sites that rely on algorithmic moderation, or that feed people content based on algorithms, maybe there's a case to be made for making those public, kind of like how we require food companies to list their ingredients and nutritional information.  I dunno.  

 Making the algorithms that drive things like amplification and content delivery is like saying we should make public the inner workings of Mike Trouts mind processing a pitch.  It's incredibly complex and dynamic (if we're talking about AI/Machine learning). 

At the same time I'm not sure it will prove anything valuable, the goals are very simple and I'm not sure what people think will be revealed.  Mike Trout wants to hit the ball and Twitter wants to serve you #### you'll click (its economic driven).

IMO moderation I would think would be more rules based, static and more easily sharable.  Its less economic and can become more subject to human bias and politicization.

 

[timschochet]

Here's Maher on Twitter:  https://youtu.be/c40LAOxr5Bs?t=325

"Twitter is the public square now. If you deny someone the right to speak on Twitter, you're basically saying you don't have free speech rights".

"It's not exactly a publication. But it's not exactly a private company either."

I don’t agree with him. Just because something is incredibly popular doesn’t place it in the public square. 
After radio, and then television became incredibly popular, government established the FCC to regulate it. It was a huge mistake, a total waste of money, and it effectively clamped down on free speech and helped paved the way for a lot of repression in this country. But even then you could logically argue that the public owned the airwaves; therefore we had the right to regulate. Here we (the public) doesn’t own any of it. 

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

A few thoughts:

- corporations sometimes seem they are "controlled by the liberals" when what's really going on is If I run a company that is polluting the environment and killing consumers and I'm evading my tax responsibilities, its too my advantage to divert public consciousness to BLM and LBGT and blah blah blah.  

- corporations have to find themselves on the right side of "pc / woke / cancel culture" so they often take positions on topics that have nothing to do with their business.

- today's social media is fertile ground for catfishing, whisper campaigns, and all manner of subterfuge affecting commerce and governmental affairs including elections.

- this started happening before twitter and facebook.  when Ted Turner rolled out news as entertainment the wheel started spinning, with all the consequences we're on about here.

- I agree attempting to regulate this mess is problematic...perhaps the threat of regulation can be enough incentive to develop an effective spectrum of self-policing.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Well for my part let me make this pretty simple: I don’t understand algorithms. I don’t know how they work except on the most very basic of premises. I’m not a stupid guy (I hope) but the details of this stuff are beyond me. And if it’s beyond me, then I can guarantee it’s way beyond most of the politicians who would be tasked with writing legislation that would regulate them. So I think that’s probably a bad idea. 

Similar response as tim's.  I don't feel like I know enough about this topic to have a firm opinion.  

When I say that I don't want the government involved in SM, I'm thinking about things like content moderation.  Joe should be free to moderate his forum as he sees fit.  Same for YouTube.  For sites that rely on algorithmic moderation, or that feed people content based on algorithms, maybe there's a case to be made for making those public, kind of like how we require food companies to list their ingredients and nutritional information.  I dunno.  

Thanks for the responses.   I will jokingly say to tim that I don't think anything would get legislated if we waited until the politicians understood them fully.   

I am torn, because IMO I think it's possible that we as country and society say we've had enough, but to do anything of substance, I think we would have to have government come in and say they need to be regulated or tweaked b/c it would change their business and profits and I doubt any of the main players are going to step up willingly and volunteer to go first.   I wonder as well if that would be for the good or bad.  

I don't think we need to know how to program them or how the code works, it's pretty apparent and well known how the online business model works in these cases - it's basically all advertisement revenue so the platforms, programs, and apps that do the best are the ones that keep you on their site the longest.   We know what has been shown to keep people on the longest - outrage, misinformation, keeping you going down rabbit holes, etc..   To me that is a completely different issue than how they moderate on top of that or what they do or don't allow on their sites and it's the core of the ills of SM.   

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I don't think we need to know how to program them or how the code works, it's pretty apparent and well known how the online business model works in these cases - it's basically all advertisement revenue so the platforms, programs, and apps that do the best are the ones that keep you on their site the longest.   We know what has been shown to keep people on the longest - outrage, misinformation, keeping you going down rabbit holes, etc..   To me that is a completely different issue than how they moderate on top of that or what they do or don't allow on their sites and it's the core of the ills of SM.   

To build on this, you mention and I agree:

1. objective is advertising revenue maximization

2. mechanism is through inflammatory content

3. moderation is a separate topic

to which I would add

4. self-moderation appears problematic (dracula in charge of the blood bank), so this leaves government or third party intervention

5. manipulation by insert the blank (Hillary, Trump, Russians, blah blah blah) is made easy by 2 and absence of 3

Have we reached the point where 4 is not possible as a society because moderates no longer have a voice in government and politics?

 

[bigbottom]

It’s interesting to me. The only time I’m really exposed to all the divisiveness and acrimony is when I’m online. And since I don’t use Twitter and avoid all politics on Facebook, it’s really only when I spend time in the PSF, which appears to be pretty tame by comparison.  The divisiveness is absent in my workplace and makes only an occasional appearance amongst my friend group which runs the gamut from fairly liberal to fairly conservative. So all the handwringing over how divided we are as a society seems to be overblown to me. 

 

[moleculo]

Here's Maher on Twitter:  https://youtu.be/c40LAOxr5Bs?t=325

"Twitter is the public square now. If you deny someone the right to speak on Twitter, you're basically saying you don't have free speech rights".

"It's not exactly a publication. But it's not exactly a private company either."

I dont agree Twitter is a public square.  

A better analogy is the internet is the public square, twitter is nothing more than a stage - a platform people stand upon within the public square.

Now, that platform may be biggest and has the biggest microphones, but it's not the only platform out there, just one of the most popular ones.

If it's too big, call it a monopoly and use anti-trust to break it up. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

To build on this, you mention and I agree:

1. objective is advertising revenue maximization

2. mechanism is through inflammatory content

3. moderation is a separate topic

to which I would add

4. self-moderation appears problematic (dracula in charge of the blood bank), so this leaves government or third party intervention

5. manipulation by insert the blank (Hillary, Trump, Russians, blah blah blah) is made easy by 2 and absence of 3

Have we reached the point where 4 is not possible as a society because moderates no longer have a voice in government and politics?

I had to read that a couple times and I think I am picking up what you are putting down.  

I guess I am not sure if self-moderation is the problem, I think as whole we just let it go too long that now when these huge platforms try to self-moderate in a way they might not have been doing for years, that's what is drawing the ire.   Or if we have 2-3 main players that are huge worldwide and the complaint is that they moderate in a similar way, well that leaves a lot of people pissed off, feeling targeted, and lacking options.  I guess that might be me agreeing that maybe the self moderation solution isn't possible now? 

But like I said, to me the problem is not whether or not a service allows racist posts, anti-vax info, or whatever is being taken down it's that they knowingly have the system set up to push those types of posts more b/c that is what generates the clicks.   Until that is addressed, I think the rest of the debate is fairly meaningless.      Videos on how to self harm are worrisome on their own, but way more so to me is that they are popping up for teens when searching for beauty tips (extreme example to drive my point).   The amplification of the b.s. is the issue.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

It’s interesting to me. The only time I’m really exposed to all the divisiveness and acrimony is when I’m online. And since I don’t use Twitter and avoid all politics on Facebook, it’s really only when I spend time in the PSF, which appears to be pretty tame by comparison.  The divisiveness is absent in my workplace and makes only an occasional appearance amongst my friend group which runs the gamut from fairly liberal to fairly conservative. So all the handwringing over how divided we are as a society seems to be overblown to me. 

I would be confident that is the case for a lot of people if we actually pulled them aside and asked them.   Besides the occasional flare up in corporate settings and school board meetings, I assume most of us experience similar to you on a day to day basis.      I think it's a double whammy of the age old "don't talk about politics and religion" IRL and just the sheer amount of time that people are on their phones or on SM.     

I was at the park yesterday with my kid, and while she was playing with friends I looked around a bit.  Not that I haven't seen it before, but the amount of people scrolling on their phones (a couple while pushing their kid on the swing or "playing" with them) is surprising still.  

 

[BassNBrew]

I dont agree Twitter is a public square.  

A better analogy is the internet is the public square, twitter is nothing more than a stage - a platform people stand upon within the public square.

Now, that platform may be biggest and has the biggest microphones, but it's not the only platform out there, just one of the most popular ones.

If it's too big, call it a monopoly and use anti-trust to break it up. 

And our gov't regulates who can put up that platform and use it in the public square via permit, but they shouldn't be basing the issuing of a permit upon the the speakers politics.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It’s interesting to me. The only time I’m really exposed to all the divisiveness and acrimony is when I’m online. And since I don’t use Twitter and avoid all politics on Facebook, it’s really only when I spend time in the PSF, which appears to be pretty tame by comparison.  The divisiveness is absent in my workplace and makes only an occasional appearance amongst my friend group which runs the gamut from fairly liberal to fairly conservative. So all the handwringing over how divided we are as a society seems to be overblown to me. 

That’s interesting. In my opinion, I’m glad for your situation but I do not think the reality of the division is overblown. 

 

[moleculo]

And our gov't regulates who can put up that platform and use it in the public square via permit, but they shouldn't be basing the issuing of a permit upon the the speakers politics.

You lost me.  How is the gov't permitting (or not permitting) alternate platforms?

 

[The Commish]

I dont agree Twitter is a public square.  

A better analogy is the internet is the public square, twitter is nothing more than a stage - a platform people stand upon within the public square.

Now, that platform may be biggest and has the biggest microphones, but it's not the only platform out there, just one of the most popular ones.

If it's too big, call it a monopoly and use anti-trust to break it up. 

All this has been gone over and over and over in the past.  It's not a public square and "feelings" don't really matter.  It's a private square that the public is allowed to come to if they follow the rules of the square.  I thank MT for correcting me on this in the other thread.  I don't know if you went to either of the conventions in Charlotte GB, but they both had designated areas for designated groups.  If you went to spot A to talk about topic B, they'd ask you to leave and go to spot B for that discussion.  Twitter is really not all that different in that regard.  This notion that it's this place where every single idea and thought are to be treated as if they were equal in every way and anything less is "censorship" is a fantasy.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

It’s interesting to me. The only time I’m really exposed to all the divisiveness and acrimony is when I’m online. And since I don’t use Twitter and avoid all politics on Facebook, it’s really only when I spend time in the PSF, which appears to be pretty tame by comparison.  The divisiveness is absent in my workplace and makes only an occasional appearance amongst my friend group which runs the gamut from fairly liberal to fairly conservative. So all the handwringing over how divided we are as a society seems to be overblown to me. 

confirmation bias?  just because your coworkers and friends are not part of the fringe doesn't mean that you can't turn on the news and see fringe behavior every day, which  effectively everyone agrees is amplified by SM.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

But like I said, to me the problem is not whether or not a service allows racist posts, anti-vax info, or whatever is being taken down it's that they knowingly have the system set up to push those types of posts more b/c that is what generates the clicks.   Until that is addressed, I think the rest of the debate is fairly meaningless.      Videos on how to self harm are worrisome on their own, but way more so to me is that they are popping up for teens when searching for beauty tips (extreme example to drive my point).   The amplification of the b.s. is the issue.  

I don't disagree...but I would say that whether you're trying to police lawlessness in allowed content or wreckless pursuit of profit, the civics exercise boils down to self-regulation, third party regulation, or government regulation, and as a society we appear to have lost the ability to pick one, and have been reduced to villifying the other guy's suggestion...which aligns well with Jefferson's fear of a two party system.

 

[bigbottom]

confirmation bias?  just because your coworkers and friends are not part of the fringe doesn't mean that you can't turn on the news and see fringe behavior every day, which  effectively everyone agrees is amplified by SM.

Sure, to some extent.  But I think that the fringe element is largely that - fringe.  So while there certainly are elements of society that are horribly and acrimoniously divided, I don't think society as a whole is as divided as everyone makes it out to be.  But if you spend a lot of your life consuming SM and cable news, yes, it will certainly seem that way. Of course, that's just my experience.  Are others experiencing all sorts of confrontations and political ugliness IRL?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are others experiencing all sorts of confrontations and political ugliness IRL?

No, but that may be because it is very rare for me to interact with a Trump supporter in real life.

 

[timschochet]

confirmation bias?  just because your coworkers and friends are not part of the fringe doesn't mean that you can't turn on the news and see fringe behavior every day, which  effectively everyone agrees is amplified by SM.

If it’s on the news it’s unusual. 

 

[Stealthycat]

media is used to control people's mindsets/beliefs etc

a very conservative person I know posted non-sense on facebook yesterday and I commented to her it was all fake and she was like " how do you know ? "   With her single post, she could have influenced many people and many people believe things that are not true (this is an example)

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-altered-photos-obama-hillar/fact-checkaltered-photos-of-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-and-condoleezza-rice-with-osama-bin-laden-idUSKCN24W2GG

I mean look at CNN - its full bore anti-Trump right now. IMO they're scared to death of Trump in 2024, and they'll use Trump's potential 2024 run to scare people into voting midterms.

Political parties use media - always and ALWAYS be careful of ingesting information, we all get it wrong more often than we think I think

 

[Da Guru]

It’s interesting to me. The only time I’m really exposed to all the divisiveness and acrimony is when I’m online. And since I don’t use Twitter and avoid all politics on Facebook, it’s really only when I spend time in the PSF, which appears to be pretty tame by comparison.  The divisiveness is absent in my workplace and makes only an occasional appearance amongst my friend group which runs the gamut from fairly liberal to fairly conservative. So all the handwringing over how divided we are as a society seems to be overblown to me. 

Same,  in my day to day life over the last 20 years just to set a time frame I see very little divisiveness.  Also very little hostility among the races.  I work in Detroit a 1-2 days a week too. Actually people have even been kinder.

Of course there will always be an incident blown up and that will always happen.  I worry more about my day to day life and interactions.