How to fix Big Tech and Social Media

[Eddie Teach]

Better to have the cries of oppression be baseless.

[The Brain]

The same concept applies to social media and their algorithms.  Human minds obviously always had vulnerabilities, and human fell pray to manipulators all the time.  That didn't happen frequently enough to outweigh the risks of controlling speech that could zombify people.  However, manipulation of such vulnerabilities has literally become science in the last decade, and now there are ways to create alternative reality for people by microtargeting that doesn't require monopoly of information.  Democracy relies on having sufficient number of people having a sufficient grasp on reality, you can't have debates without having commonly accepted facts.  Maybe it's time to be worried about more than just yelling "fire" in crowded theaters.

The new tools are available to all. The forces of good (however those are defined) can use them to reach exactly those individuals who are in hate echo-chambers with targetted messages. I can't shake the suspicion, however, that they in many cases have nothing to say to them.

[DGuller]

The new tools are available to all. The forces of good (however those are defined) can use them to reach exactly those individuals who are in hate echo-chambers with targetted messages. I can't shake the suspicion, however, that they in many cases have nothing to say to them.

Just because a tool is available to all doesn't mean it's equally effective for all.  If a tool is aiding you in inspiring hate, then it's not very useful to people who want to inspire tolerance.  Unfortunately tolerance does not inspire as strong of an emotional response as hate does, so any tool that appeals to basest of emotions will have a disparate utility to forces of evil.

[The Brain]

The new tools are available to all. The forces of good (however those are defined) can use them to reach exactly those individuals who are in hate echo-chambers with targetted messages. I can't shake the suspicion, however, that they in many cases have nothing to say to them.

Just because a tool is available to all doesn't mean it's equally effective for all.  If a tool is aiding you in inspiring hate, then it's not very useful to people who want to inspire tolerance.  Unfortunately tolerance does not inspire as strong of an emotional response as hate does, so any tool that appeals to basest of emotions will have a disparate utility to forces of evil.

I am not convinced that limiting people's communication is a tool that gives the advantage to tolerance.

[DGuller]

I am not convinced that limiting people's communication is a tool that gives the advantage to tolerance.

Not in any circumstance?

[The Brain]

I am not convinced that limiting people's communication is a tool that gives the advantage to tolerance.

Not in any circumstance?

In most fields you can think up specific scenarios where going against best practice gives a desired outcome.

[Syt]

I love the China's social media platform is Qzone, that what the intranet was cold at at my previous employer.

[Berkut]

I do think that we're in a novel territory here, so precedents and ideals should at least not be uncritically accepted.  Sometimes the technological abilities upset the balance of issues so much that old arguments cannot be recycled. 

For example, when it comes to privacy, some people claim that one has no right to privacy in a public space.  Maybe it made sense in 1950, when a network of CCTV cameras with facial recognition software couldn't essentially map out all your movements, and the only invasion of privacy most people potentially faced was being a person of interest for a PI.  Now that the government could retroactively be that PI on anyone they choose to take interest in, the very debate changes.

The same concept applies to social media and their algorithms.  Human minds obviously always had vulnerabilities, and human fell pray to manipulators all the time.  That didn't happen frequently enough to outweigh the risks of controlling speech that could zombify people.  However, manipulation of such vulnerabilities has literally become science in the last decade, and now there are ways to create alternative reality for people by microtargeting that doesn't require monopoly of information.  Democracy relies on having sufficient number of people having a sufficient grasp on reality, you can't have debates without having commonly accepted facts.  Maybe it's time to be worried about more than just yelling "fire" in crowded theaters.

The thing to realize about this is that the science is still in its infancy.

This is the brick suitcase mobile phone level of this technology. It will get better, and it will get better exponentially fast. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Jacob]

The new tools are available to all. The forces of good (however those are defined) can use them to reach exactly those individuals who are in hate echo-chambers with targetted messages. I can't shake the suspicion, however, that they in many cases have nothing to say to them.

I think the reality of market forces and the lack of controls to prevent monopolies (local or more widespread) means that the new tools are indeed not available to all.

[Berkut]

The same concept applies to social media and their algorithms.  Human minds obviously always had vulnerabilities, and human fell pray to manipulators all the time.  That didn't happen frequently enough to outweigh the risks of controlling speech that could zombify people.  However, manipulation of such vulnerabilities has literally become science in the last decade, and now there are ways to create alternative reality for people by microtargeting that doesn't require monopoly of information.  Democracy relies on having sufficient number of people having a sufficient grasp on reality, you can't have debates without having commonly accepted facts.  Maybe it's time to be worried about more than just yelling "fire" in crowded theaters.

The new tools are available to all. The forces of good (however those are defined) can use them to reach exactly those individuals who are in hate echo-chambers with targetted messages. I can't shake the suspicion, however, that they in many cases have nothing to say to them.

That is like saying the nuclear weapons are available to the good guys as well.

There is nothing about technology or tools that demand that they theoretically be equally useful for both good and bad under any particular set of specific circumstances.

You might be right, but there isn't any reason to assume that you are right absent some very conscious effort by us humans to think hard about those tools, how they are used, and regulate them appropriately so their negative utility is minimized and their positive utility maximized. Just like we do with other dangerous tools. We don't just assume that guns will naturally be equally useful to good and bad actors. We don't assume that cars will be net positive to human society. Rather we structure our laws around how to minimize the negative effects of tools and maximize the positive.

[The Brain]

Looking at the map above I think I'll take my chances with non-state-controlled social media.

[DGuller]

Looking at the map above I think I'll take my chances with non-state-controlled social media.

There may not be a choice in the matter.  It may well be that social media will either be controlled by a state seeking to protect its democracy, or it will be controlled by a state seeking to protect its autocratic rule once it successfully toppled democracy.

[The Brain]

I am fairly pessimistic about the future of democracy. I hope it will somehow weather the current crisis, but it may well be the case that the experiment will come to an end (modern democracy has only existed for a century). Freedom of speech and the rule of law could in theory survive the fall of democracy, but my guess is they will be gone too.

Most major Western countries are still democracies. Ie their peoples decide their fate. I have neither obligation nor inclination to protect peoples of democracies from the effects of their actions. If they want to end democracy it will end. Hopefully with a whimper and not with a bang.

I think freedom of speech is a very important component of a good society. AFAICT the state telling people that they are wrongspeaking or telling them how they should communicate is not the way forward. There are limits to freedom of speech in place, and I think they are sufficient (in Sweden the limits are too strict IMHO). The state telling haters "honey, you're wrongfeeling again" is not the way forward.

I am fully aware that few people are in favor of democracy, freedom of speech, or the rule of law when they go against them. Even if they all go against me I will consider them better than the alternative until I see evidence of a better option. I may well see such evidence at some point in the future, but at present I do not.

Those who have read my crap over the years know that I don't like Communism. Sweden has had a Communist party in parliament for many decades. I think their presence has poisoned Swedish political discourse and has led to worse political outcomes for the country. But I have NEVER been of the opinion that they shouldn't be allowed to freely spew their hateful garbage. Because it is not the way.

[Jacob]

The Brain, what do you think of rules that:

1. Puts some level of limit on the type of lies that can be presented as the truth?

2. Require some level of "fair access" for different perspectives on a market level (i.e. prevent a monopoly or duopoly from pushing specific political viewpoints while freezing out all others)?

3. Provides some set of limits to how private actors can engage with and/ or spend money on elections?

As I understand it democracies have had varying levels of strict laws on those topics at different times and places. From my perspective, it looks like democracy tends to be weaker once those rules get too weak. That is not to say that autocrats and worse can't use similar arguments to stifle free expression and their opposition, but to my eyes that's typically not associated merely with regulation.

[The Brain]

The Brain, what do you think of rules that:

1. Puts some level of limit on the type of lies that can be presented as the truth?

2. Require some level of "fair access" for different perspectives on a market level (i.e. prevent a monopoly or duopoly from pushing specific political viewpoints while freezing out all others)?

3. Provides some set of limits to how private actors can engage with and/ or spend money on elections?

As I understand it democracies have had varying levels of strict laws on those topics at different times and places. From my perspective, it looks like democracy tends to be weaker once those rules get too weak. That is not to say that autocrats and worse can't use similar arguments to stifle free expression and their opposition, but to my eyes that's typically not associated merely with regulation.

1. I don't have a problem with the present situation where there's a bunch of situations where lies are illegal for specific reasons. For instance declared contents of food etc etc etc. As for some kind of general ban on lying I think it's a horrible concept. In the words of Pontius Pilate: "And what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?". Even if you somehow restrict it to harmful lies it would pretty much kill off political and religious communication, among others.

2. I'm fine with them when there is an actual monopoly, for instance back in the day when Sweden had a state monopoly on radio and TV news. In the age of the internet of course there is very rarely an actual monopoly. For instance Facebook isn't even close to having a monopoly on information on the internet.

3. I don't have a problem with the normal limits that exist in modern democracies (my uninformed impression is that there are significant differences in details between different countries). NB I don't even know what they look like in Sweden.