Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Unfortunately, the Internet is largely privately owned. It didn't start off that way, but the collective "we", in our wisdom (and I use that term lightly), decided it was better to sell or, or transfer control, to private interests under the mantra that the private sector can do it better.

Well, some things are certainly done better by the private sector, but one thing it doesn't do well is serve the public good. And here is a case-in-point.

The Internet, and specifically the World Wide Web - these ARE still wide open (except for when/where governments choose to choke parts of it off). And when you buy connection from an ISP, or hosting from a hosting provider (or you spin up your own servers) you are truly working with common carriers in the full sense of the term.

But in the beginning it was like being dropped in the middle of a huge plain.

So the first thing that made it more friendly was search. Google wasn't the first, but they became the best at it. When I was working in the field, I can remember that for one big client we purchased a Google search 'box'. For a 5 figure sum, we got a dedicated yellow Google computer, installed it at the client's web farm, and its only job was to keep indexing the client's sites and provide site visitors with a fast search tool for those sites.

Leaping over other conveniences that Google and other companies have provided, we come to Facebook. Grandma doesn't want to be dropped in the middle of the WWW plain, even if she has a map and a compass. But give her an easily bookmarked starting point, where she gets info from friends and family brought to her (instead of having to search or trawl through several sites), friendly tools for her to put up her own content and to respond to others' content - huge attraction for the non-nerd majority of people. Ditto for all of the other popular platforms for connecting.

You don't have to use FB; you can still do your own blog, manually find and bookmark all the other blogs, news and interest sources etc that you want... but if you just want a painless way to stay in touch with family and friends, FB is a no-brainer*. Likewise, you don't have to use Google search, GMail, Twitter, Instagram, or shop on Amazon, etc etc.

This is the whole "innovation" conundrum; letting private enterprise try whatever they can think of has led to rapid growth and innovation, but has also left the leading companies in monopoly positions, in many areas. So how do we move to a more mature, more commercially competitive, yet also safer Internet?


*Disclaimer - I'm not on Facebook; I have too many timewasters already. But my wife is; she gets any family/friends news of import.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The Internet, and specifically the World Wide Web - these ARE wide open (except for when/where governments choose to choke parts of it off). And when you buy connection from an ISP, or hosting from a hosting provider (or you spin up your own servers) you are truly working with common carriers in the full sense of the term.

I don't know what you mean by "wide open." They are open to those who are granted access, but it's not part of "the commons," as in publicly owned and controlled. Much like the phone system, the Internet is operated as a common carrier, but it's mostly privately owned. And therefore it primarily serves the interests of those who own or control it.

I agree we've seen great innovation over the years in online tools and technology, which is why I don't dismiss the innovation argument for Sec. 230. I wouldn't say all innovation is an improvement in the sense of making lives better. But there's no doubt many of these tools make the Internet more accessible to more people.

In the case of tools like FB and Twitter and the like, part of the "innovation" is to make them more addictive. This kind of innovation we could all do without.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I don't know what you mean by "wide open." They are open to those who are granted access, but it's not part of "the commons," as in publicly owned and controlled.

Wide open in that, once you get access (eg monthly fee for a home connection, buying time at an Internet cafe, free access at a library), there's (currently) no limit or hindrance on what you can look at, seek out, or post. Within legal limits of course, depending on where you are.

In the case of tools like FB and Twitter and the like, part of the "innovation" is to make them more addictive. This kind of innovation we could all do without.

... at what point do you hold people responsible for their own behaviour? The 7-11 is very handy when we need/want to pick up something quickly, but it has racks of pop, chips and candy by the door. So, should we legislate that they remove all that and have fruit instead?

I think that the Internet's current woes are not solely the fault of its commercial pioneers; it's a broader problem if popular parts of the Internet help people be more awful versions of themselves. And there needs to be some social agreement and guidelines around how we want to improve this. I don't know how you think companies could be commercially incentivized, or forced, to fix the evils, especially without law or rules around this.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Maybe a tag system is required, where content gets flagged (automatically or otherwise) by category and other criteria (eg politics, environment, history, and so on) and users can set filters to accept or reject tags as well as people, groups, etc. It would also be possible to rate content by its "truth", but who makes the call? Manual filters still might result in echo chambers, but at least the person chose their chamber.

The problem is this gets dangerously close to censorship. Worse, it can be hidden censorship in the sense that the default setting is likely to screen out "offensive" material but most people will have no clue how "offensive" is defined or how it impacts what they see.

In terms of the common carrier discussion, they are now active participants in crafting the message and should be responsible for what is posted. As private companies, that's their right but not if they claim common carrier status.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wide open in that, once you get access (eg monthly fee for a home connection, buying time at an Internet cafe, free access at a library), there's (currently) no limit or hindrance on what you can look at, seek out, or post. Within legal limits of course, depending on where you are.

Right ... so, not open to everyone. As for lack of hindrance, tell that to the people around the world who were part of the 213 documented cases of the Internet being shut down by their governments.

As this policy brief from the Internet Society states:

Restrictions to Internet access are on the rise globally, with frequent news of government-mandated disruptions of Internet access. Driven largely by political and national security concerns, state-ordered Internet shutdowns have become the “new normal” in many countries.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... at what point do you hold people responsible for their own behaviour? The 7-11 has racks of pop, chips and candy by the door. So, should we legislate that they remove all that and have fruit instead?

Please don't make silly hyperbole arguments LE. The point is, many of these services are made to be addictive. It's integral to their design because these companies make money by keeping people engaged. And one of the best ways they've found to keep people engaged is to create the echo-chambers we now see as so dangerous to social cohesion.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think that the Internet's current woes are not solely the fault of its commercial pioneers; it's a broader problem if opular parts of the Internet help people be more awful versions of themselves. And there needs to be some social agreement and guidelines around how we want to improve this. I don't know how you think companies could be commercially incentivized, or forced, to fix the evils, especially without law or rules around this.

I've never said any of the above. The woes aren't solely the fault of companies like FB or Google, and yes, there does need to be societal agreement on how these things should operate given their power for good, and ill.

You're right about one thing, I don't pretend to have the answers. I'm sure it will be a combination of legal guard rails and financial incentives, and probably other factors.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, that would be the broadcast model. Unfortunately, the Internet is largely privately owned. It didn't start off that way, but the collective "we", in our wisdom (and I use that term lightly), decided it was better to sell or, or transfer control, to private interests under the mantra that the private sector can do it better.

Well, some things are certainly done better by the private sector, but one thing it doesn't do well is serve the public good. And here is a case-in-point.

Actually the broadcast model has largely been supplanted by the cable model (transitioning to the internet model). Both cable and internet tv are pretty much exclusively over private networks.

FB is not much different from the phone company. Except: The phone company doesn't print a phone book that omits the numbers of conservatives, so you can't phone them unless you found the number in some other way. They don't randomly connect you to liberal because they think you would be better talking to them. Or monitor your conversation and if they don't approve, they disconnect you. (feel free to reverse conservative/liberal or replace with dog vs cat...same issue)

That said, the development of the internet in general (not FB in specific) was probably a huge win for the commons. A govt developed system would likely have been locked into a 30yr old spec. It would have been far more expensive as companies wanting to participate would have had to follow detailed govt standards, wait on govt approvals and pay for licensing fees. A lot of the innovation would have fizzled out. Look at the countries that have very domineering govts...they have typically had to adopt new innovations developed in more open countries...often only after their people have found work arounds to get access against the govt rules.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Right ... so, not open to everyone. As for lack of hindrance, tell that to the people around the world who were part of the 213 documented cases of the Internet being shut down by their governments.

C'mon Mike. I've already acknowledged that certain autocratic governments have been filtering, like they do with other aspects of their citizen's life. And like cell phones or taking the bus, the Internet is a part of modern life and people pay for it. This has no bearing on the openness of the Internet itself.

Please don't make silly hyperbole arguments LE. The point is, many of these services are made to be addictive. It's integral to their design because these companies make money by keeping people engaged. And one of the best ways they've found to keep people engaged is to create the echo-chambers we now see as so dangerous to social cohesion.

And you can blame obesity on La-Z-Boy for making chairs that are too comfortable. It's seldom been a crime to give people what they want, healthy or otherwise.

A lot of people have NOT fallen into echo chambers. My FB-using Mom hasn't become an antivaxxer. If you remove the sugar-coating, the studies that point to the echo-chamber tendencies of FB and other social media are in effect saying that the lazy/stupid/more gullible... get stupider. I don't know that any study has shown that this attraction to misinformation is created in people who didn't already have some susceptability or affinity for that sort of thing.

Yes, still a problem, but I think you're putting too much blame on the medium, and not enough on the sources of misinformation.

[Rubicon King]

I take it you missed the summer of love rallies that included the burning, murder, looting and destruction across america. BLM, ANTIFA, etc.. not just one sided partner. they also need to go after the MSM likewise for suppressing facts to create cover for their agenda.

Originally Posted by JPK

This problem is not generational. Watch any video clip of a Trump rally, QAnon meeting, even the Jan. 6 insurrection, and you'll observe idiots of all ages there.

The problem, as CaptTom points out, is the algorithms that social media use to drive engagement. Everyone should watch the documentary "The Social Dilemma." If you think social media is just a street corner for people to express their personal viewpoints, you are sorely mistaken. Social media is an algorithm-driven tool built for the sole purpose of selling advertising by feeding people inflammatory content in order to maximize the time they spend on the platform. As such, they bear a huge responsibility (IMO) for the content they choose to promote to drive engagement (and maximize profit).

[Group9]

I'm pretty sure that the First Amendment, and other free speech ideals, like Voltaire's, were not designed to protect popular speech, that everyone agreed with.

And, before someone reads half my sentence and jumps in without reading the rest, yes, I am a lawyer, and I do recognize the First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities, except as an ideal, that they are free to follow or discard.

That doesn't change the worth of it as a good policy to follow.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

I do recognize the First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities, except as an ideal, that they are free to follow or discard.

... doesn't the Citizens United decision effectively give the same rights, including 1st Amendment, to the "speech" of private entities like corporations?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... doesn't the Citizens United decision effectively give the same rights, including 1st Amendment, to the "speech" of private entities like corporations?

Two separate issues:
- They are protected in expressing their own free speech.
- They do not have to support their employees or system users free speech within their ecosystem.

But if they are claiming to be a common carrier (impartial conduit), they gain certain protections on the presumption that they are not participants in vetting or directing speech that passes thru said conduit. In other words, if they don't support the users ability to maintain free speech, they put their common carrier status at risk. This is the conflict with FB claiming this status. They clearly vet and to a degree provide direction, so it's open to question if they should qualify.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A lot of people have NOT fallen into echo chambers. My FB-using Mom hasn't become an antivaxxer. If you remove the sugar-coating, the studies that point to the echo-chamber tendencies of FB and other social media are in effect saying that the lazy/stupid/more gullible... get stupider. I don't know that any study has shown that this attraction to misinformation is created in people who didn't already have some susceptability or affinity for that sort of thing.

That's quite the claim. Show me these studies. This sounds like the old 'blame the victim' thinking.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes, still a problem, but I think you're putting too much blame on the medium, and not enough on the sources of misinformation.

I haven't said anything about the sources of the information. And I'm NOT placing the entire blame at the foot of FB et al. In fact, I don't really blame them at all in the sense that they are just doing what is best for them, just like all businesses do.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

That's quite the claim. Show me these studies. This sounds like the old 'blame the victim' thinking.

To be clear then, are you convinced that the majority of FB users have been adversely affected (eg polarized, angered, confused, misled) by political or other misinformation sent by the FB algorithms? Can we even assume that a majority of FB users engage in political dialogue?

If I liked a picture of bicycles, and get sent more pictures of bicycles, is this harmful?

I haven't said anything about the sources of the information. And I'm NOT placing the entire blame at the foot of FB et al. In fact, I don't really blame them at all in the sense that they are just doing what is best for them, just like all businesses do.

We agree that algorithms present the user with content it thinks s/he will like. To some... that's a feature, not a bug. Certainly more problematic with misinformation. I'm just hoping that the baby doesn't get tossed with the bathwater.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Rubicon King

I take it you missed the summer of love rallies that included the burning, murder, looting and destruction across america. BLM, ANTIFA, etc.. not just one sided partner. they also need to go after the MSM likewise for suppressing facts to create cover for their agenda.

You're repeating a narrative, growing among conservatives, that equates the deadly siege on the U.S. Capitol, with last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests agaimst racial injustice.
The ex-president called the Capitol rioters “great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”
Over the summer/fall, he called the Black Lives Matters protesters “thugs” and “terrorists”.

When it comes to Black Lives Matter, there’s no credible case for labeling it a terrorist organization. One analysis of the Black Lives Matter protests found that 93 percent were peaceful, and some of the violent incidents at the rallies were simply opportunistic vandalism.
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) analyzed more than 7,750 Black Lives Matter demonstrations in all 50 states and Washington D.C. that took place in the wake of George Floyd’s death between May 26 and August 22.
Their report states that more than 2,400 locations reported peaceful protests, while fewer than 220 reported “violent demonstrations.” Their definition includes anything from “fighting back against police” to vandalism, property destruction looting, road-blocking using barricades, burning tires or other materials.
ACLED also highlights a “violent government response,” in which authorities “use force more often than not” when they are present at protests, and that they “disproportionately used force while intervening in demonstrations associated with the BLM movement, relative to other types of demonstrations.”

The violent label better fits some supporters of antifa, which is short for “anti-fascist”, and is not a group, but rather a loose network of like-minded individuals. Some self-proclaimed members, often anarchists, vandalize property, and many go to rallies to fight with (they would say defend against) white supremacists, and others they label as fascists.
But antifa (in the United States) was not linked to deadly violence until August 29, when self-proclaimed antifa member Michael Reinoehl allegedly shot a right-wing activist, who was a member of Patriot Prayer. Reinoehl claimed he was simply providing “security” at Black Lives Matter protests (on his own initiative, it seems), and said that he shot the Patriot Prayer member in self-defense, believing he and a friend were about to be stabbed. In an interview with Vice, before he was killed by police seeking to arrest him, Reinoehl claimed, “I could have sat there and watched them kill a friend of mine of color. But I wasn’t going to do that.”

Patriot Prayer is a group with a political cause (pro-Trump and anti-left) and it engages in violence. Patriot Prayer has connections to law enforcement and white supremacists, and to the hate group Proud Boys, but insists it rejects racism. Its members often go to rallies, armed, seeking conflict with members of antifa. On Facebook, Patriot Prayer describes itself as “encouraging the country to fight for freedom at a local level using faith in God to guide us in the right direction.”

In the end, it wasn’t “antifa.” It wasn’t Black Lives Matter.
No, it wasn’t any of the boogeymen white conservatives have imagined, exaggerated and bloviated into national threats. Rather, it was a mob of white conservatives themselves, unrestrained by law, unfettered by patriotism, fueled by resentments, racial and otherwise, who stormed the very Capitol Building of the United States. Who broke its windows and fought with police. Who forced representatives and senators to shelter in place. Who brought Congress to a halt.
Can you imagine a scenario where an African-American mob storms the Capitol and the lawn is not littered with bodies and blood?

Yes, I know: The main stream media made this all up - fake news.


“Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020" ~ ACLED
➥ https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/dem...r-summer-2020/

“Man Linked to Killing at a Portland Protest Says He Acted in Self-Defense” ~ VICE
➥ https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8...n-self-defense

“AP finds most arrested in protests aren’t leftist radicals” ~ Associated Press
➥ https://apnews.com/article/virus-out...3818d96c54f748

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

To be clear then, are you convinced that the majority of FB users have been adversely affected (eg polarized, angered, confused, misled) by political misinformation sent by the FB algorithms? Can we even assume that a majority of FB users engage in political dialogue?

If I liked a picture of bicycles, and get sent more pictures of bicycles, is this harmful?

It doesn't have to be the majority. Rarely are high level rights and protections put in place to protect the majority. Their sheer numbers provides effective protection in most cases. It's the minority groups that need protection.

To put it in context, if even 2-3% of the voters in the last election were misled into changing their vote, it could change the results of the election. Actually even less if they are targeting certain swing states.

Let's expound on your bike example except it's a car guy who's into muscle cars and instead of more muscle car photos, the system sends articles and groups vilifying muscle car owners as evil into his feed. It's also targeting known associates with material with encourages them to vilify muscle car owners. And of course since it's all a black box it's almost impossible to prove that this process is ongoing.