Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I've seen some of this genre of research. It's fascinating, but the effect can be measured on both the political right as well as the left. It seems to be dependent on issues which have become core clan issues.

As I recall, research has measured the effect on the right for issues like climate change. But on the left you can see the same effect emerge around issues like nuclear power and even vaccinations.

The takeaway seems to be that once an issue becomes sacralized (core to your clan's beliefs), then better educated people just become better at rationalizing their beliefs and biases.

Scary stuff... and should make all of us question our own views on contentious issues.

Well said Mike.

It has been my experience, even when watching my own behaviours, that confirmation bias when added to the massive amounts of information out there leads us to find an insulated place where everyone agrees with us.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Teaching people to discern the truth... Yes. That would be the best.
But taking no action except to recommend that we teach people is really saying, take no action...
... I recall that in the old days broadcasters were required to air opposing views with equal time. Why not re-impose that rule? Yes, some details to be worked out. Who is a broadcaster/publisher? Whose views do you have to put on next to your own? ...
... Well, I am sure smarter people than I can think of ways to limit the confirmation bias and echo chambers. But I'd like to see people on the left and right arguing about ideas and opposing views instead of simply nodding their heads in the confirmation bias we see as we see now.

The US FCC “Fairness Doctrine”, which was introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance, and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987, and removed the rule that implemented the policy, from the Federal Register, in 2011.

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.
Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views. It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials.

The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

The Fairness Doctrine was, and is, strongly opposed by conservatives and libertarians, who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights, and property rights.

Section 230*, of the Communications Decency Act, is the foundational statute, that protects internet companies from being liable, for content posted by third parties. There is nothing in Section 230 that requires social media companies, and other online sites that host third party content, to be viewpoint neutral.
Today, thanks to the internet, the number of sources from which people can access information is virtually limitless. While there are many legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at today’s internet ecosystem, a lack of opportunity to access a diverse range of information sources and viewpoints is not one of them.

Of course, for all of the many benefits of the contemporary online environment, there is also plenty not to like, including the toxicity, misinformation and disinformation, and the use of the internet for criminal purposes.

It certainly is a complicated problem. I see no simple solution.

* § 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
➥ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...rtI-sec230.pdf

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

It has been my experience, even when watching my own behaviours, that confirmation bias when added to the massive amounts of information out there leads us to find an insulated place where everyone agrees with us.

Exactly. And what I've come to understand from my reading of human behavioural research is we are all susceptible to these effects. We all have blind spots and biases. We can become better aware of them, and in doing so can become better at guarding against them, but none of us are immune.

There are people and organizations that understand how to capitalize on our inherent blind spots. Advertisers and marketers have always known how. Carny barkers, snake oil salespeople, Madame Wanza and her mystical crystal ball are also master manipulators. But so are politicians, governments agencies and all manner of special interest groups (at least the successful ones are).

The advent of algorithm-driven services like Facebook and Google take the power of manipulation to a whole new level. Because of the massive amount of data these sites collect about its users, the algorithms know which buttons to push in order to achieve the goals. These goals can range from selling you more stuff, to radicalizing you into believing your election was stolen.

Civil society must come to terms with these new powerful, and private, entities ... just like we've done in the past.

[GordMay]

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The advent of algorithm-driven services like Facebook and Google take the power of manipulation to a whole new level. Because of the massive amount of data these sites collect about its users, the algorithms know which buttons to push in order to achieve the goals. These goals can range from selling you more stuff, to radicalizing you into believing your election was stolen.

As you've already heard, I think you're correctly predicting the future power of unchecked manipulation, but overstating the current abilities of these systems. Showing me an ad for something that I looked at before is not a huge feat of technology, and I can give you other reasons why Internet ad targeting is still dumb as a bag of hammers. (While I'm typing, the right margin is AGAIN showing me ads that are uninteresting, and unrelated to CF. Futon frames, anyone? Dumb, dumb, dumb) The main reason the Internet is a popular advertising venue is because it's so inexpensive, yet very trackable. Advertisers LOVE feedback. If only they acted upon it...

In particular, I don't believe that one can really make the case that algorithmic targeting was a major factor in pushing the idea that the US election was stolen. It has much more to do with who made or promoted that claim, and what "credible" players either actively backed it, or refused to deny it. When you have major, "respected" politicians and media outlets pushing a story, FB recommendations are just a minor part.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As you've already heard, I think you're correctly predicting the future power of unchecked manipulation, but overstating the current abilities of these systems. Showing me an ad for something that I looked at before is not a huge feat of technology, and I can give you other reasons why Internet ad targeting is still dumb as a bag of hammers. (While I'm typing, the right margin is AGAIN showing me ads that are uninteresting, and unrelated to CF. Futon frames, anyone? Dumb, dumb, dumb) The main reason the Internet is a popular advertising venue is because it's so inexpensive, yet very trackable. Advertisers LOVE feedback. If only they acted upon it...

And I think you're severely downplaying the current power, and very real danger these systems already present. But maybe we have different tolerances. Facebook's own research shows how it can manipulate its users' emotional state. And there are mountains of behavioural psychological research that shows how easy it is to manipulate our behaviours.

I know I don't have to say this (but I will ), citing your personal experience is the worst kind of data in this analysis. As the mountains of psychological research shows, we are all deeply biased.

In particular, I don't believe that one can really make the case that algorithmic targeting was a major factor in pushing the idea that the US election was stolen. It has much more to do with who made or promoted that claim, and what "credible" players either actively backed it, or refused to deny it. When you have major, "respected" politicians and media outlets pushing a story, FB recommendations are just a minor part.

I think TONS of people are making this connection. No, of course it's not a direct link. But what FB's algorithm does is keep feeding you what you want to see. It does this to keep you engaged. It doesn't care if it's cute kittens or Qanon insanity or, in this case, false "Stop the Steal" lies. It's all the same to FB.

This not only creates the echo chambers which reinforce whatever message is being delivered, but it concentrates what used to be thinly spread extremists into a self-reinforcing collective. It's kind of like how geological processes collect minerals into concentrated deposits. Gold is everywhere but at concentrations too small to matter, but apply some heating and water, whalla! A gold mine.

Of course FB doesn't invent these messages, just like the Earth doesn't invent gold. The algorithms don't care what they feed its users. The only goal is to keep their attention.

People who want to manipulate others, be it advertisers or politicians, are using Facebook et al.* because they are the most effective tools. Part of that is their inexpensiveness, but a big part is also the targeted and selective way FB can deliver different messages to different types of people.

*It's not just Facebook.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Of course FB doesn't invent these messages, just like the Earth doesn't invent gold. The algorithms don't care what they feed its users. The only goal is to keep their attention.

Well, first, congratulations on your 10,000th post! I'm humbled to have played a small but essential part of getting you to that lofty goal.

Misinformation is all around, always has been, and didn't ever need the Internet to grow to critical mass. The Internet, including FB, helps of course, but the thing that made "election steal" credible is who was saying it, and who wouldn't refute it.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, first, congratulations on your 10,000th post! I'm humbled to have played a small but essential part of getting you to that lofty goal.

Thanks ... I think .

Actually, I didn't even notice. Damn... that's a lot of wasted time. See what happens when a pandemic kidnaps my boat .

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Misinformation is all around, always has been, and didn't ever need the Internet to grow to critical mass. The Internet, including FB, helps of course, but the thing that made "election steal" credible is who was saying it, and who wouldn't refute it.

Completely agree. That's why I struggle with whether FB and Google and the rest are best seen as part of a continuum, or are they a metaphorical quantum leap. Either way, they wield a power that should not be downplayed. Remember, "the medium is the message."

[DMF Sailing]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Thanks ... I think .

Actually, I didn't even notice. Damn... that's a lot of wasted time. See what happens when a pandemic kidnaps my boat .

Cong...errr...gratulations, Mike! You've reached stars someone here can only gap at in awe

Seriously, though, I'm sorry about your boat, and hope this all abates and you are reunited soon

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Completely agree. That's why I struggle with whether FB and Google and the rest are best seen as part of a continuum, or are they a metaphorical quantum leap. Either way, they wield a power that should not be downplayed. Remember, "the medium is the message."

and the lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DMF Sailing

Seriously, though, I'm sorry about your boat, and hope this all abates and you are reunited soon

I have already predicted that Mike WILL be reunited with their boat this summer, and today I read something that forecast that Canada-US travel will possibly resume around June.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have already predicted that Mike WILL be reunited with their boat this summer, and today I read something that forecast that Canada-US travel will possibly resume around June.

I sure hope you're right LE, but I'm not planning on it. Frankly, I think we're more likely to see the international border open sooner than the Newfoundland one.

But I live in hope .

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Copyright laws have been under constant change since the 1990s. I've been engaged in many political and legal efforts and fights, all the way up to our Supreme Court. Finding the right balance for creators, owners, publishers, networks, aggregators. etc... is a constant struggle.

Not so much legislating from the bench but have the legislature clean it up directly and make it clear.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Speaking as one who has worked in those small town papers, I can say this ain't true. It takes little to contribute. Whether anyone else on the wire service wants your stories is another matter, but most members of services simply dumped all their content into the network.

So dumping useless articles that no one ever picks up qualifies?

I'm sure Google and FB can put a couple guys on generating a few pointless articles that get dumped onto the AP but no one ever picks up.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

In the "good old days", as now, "small town papers" (read 'journalism) do give something back. Information. 'They' call it the fourth estate, and its importance is established in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution (among many other places).

One of the many problems with FB, Google and their ilk is that they manipulate technology and human nature exclusively for their benefit; as O'Reilly states, they "only take".

Except the vast majority of small town papers do local little league stories and obituaries... maybe some legal notices. Nothing wrong with that.

But just like FB and Google, in practice, they "only take" in practice from the new aggregators.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you put a grainy picture of a young royal's chest area on the cover and place your paper near the checkout, of course you will attract customers.

That too is common sense.

I can agree with that and shock factor seems to be the way the big media giants are going.

Of course, it's not really new. "If it bleeds, it leads" is not a new idea. Anyone remember stories of "reefer madness"?

The ultimate problem with the media is limiting freedom of the press from sensationalization, misleading and harmful content without allowing it to be a means of censoring free speech for those in power. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has a good answer.