Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[JPK]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

If a rule or law exists which will allow the suppression of freedom of expression it will be abused.

The converse is also true:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...7213R320110302

[Lake-Effect]

The US misinformation problem is somewhat unique, and should be attacked at the sources, not via its conduits. Hint - why has so much misinformation been trafficked, endorsed and even generated at the political level? Why has courting fringe groups been deemed (and proven) necessary to win elections?

I think that extreme polarization, partisanship and the favouring of misinformation (aka "catechisms") over truth are inevitable outcomes of a rigidly two-party system.

[jimbunyard]

To oversimplify, clarify and point out why the 'problem' won't be solved, the ultimate cause is money.

Seems obvious to me that if the profitability were taken out of it, across the board, the issue would disappear, no 'algorithms' selecting and making the most egregiously 'popular' (read outrageous) 'recommendations', no a-social media 'businesses', no (or less) manufactured opinions.

Of course, this 'solution' is as idealistic and as unlikely to be implemented as Chotu's education 'solution'; they would certainly work (the average human is neither ineducable nor irredeemiably lazy, and we all have the same basic needs) but affluenza is rampant in first world countries, and will only be cured by necessity.

Leaving out the 'better than the Jones' mentality force-fed to a spoiled narcissitic population by a short-term profit-obssessed, Madison Avenue led government...

A countervailing solution might be to ensure that the conditions that were so nurturing for such mis or dis information to prosper were eradicated. Much like those that spawned the Islamic terrorists of recent ill repute, the current radicalization of more or less normal citizens into white supremist conspiracy theorists is a direct result of the failed economic policies of myopic 'leaders' and distorted political ambition, specifically the neoliberal ones initiated in the 80's by Reagan and Thatcher. A high GDP or a 3% 'growth' rate says nothing at all about the individuals who constitute a country.

[Cheechako]

I think it's a rabbit hole best not gone down. There is just too much undefinable stuff to actually accomplish it's intent. It's just a promoter of lawsuits and will severely limit free speech. Many things are just not black and white.
We dont need government to decide these things "let the buyer beware, let the reader/listener beware"

Will false campaign ads taken out of context be controlled also? That would be nice, but just an example of how difficult it could be.

[GordMay]

The following 2 cases are different, from most proposals to restrict "harmful" content:

India restores 4G mobile internet in disputed region of Kashmir after 18 months
India has ended an 18-month-long ban on high-speed internet service on mobile devices in disputed Kashmir, where opposition to New Delhi has deepened after it revoked the region's semi-autonomy.
A blanket internet ban — the longest in a democracy that rights activists dubbed "digital apartheid" and "collective punishment" — came into effect in August 2019, when India stripped Kashmir of its special status and statehood that gave its residents special rights in land ownership and jobs. The region was also divided into two federally governed territories.
More ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/india-...hmir-1.5904350

Myanmar military junta shuts down internet as tens of thousands protest coup
Monitoring group NetBlocks Internet Observatory reported a "national-scale internet blackout," saying on Twitter that connectivity had fallen to 16 per cent of usual levels.
The junta did not respond to requests for comment. It extended a social media crackdown to Twitter and Instagram after seeking to silence dissent by blocking Facebook , which counts half of the population as users.
The United Nations human rights office said on Twitter that "internet and communication services must be fully restored to ensure freedom of expression and access to information."
More ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/myanma...down-1.5904066

[JPK]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

To oversimplify, clarify and point out why the 'problem' won't be solved, the ultimate cause is money.

Seems obvious to me that if the profitability were taken out of it, across the board, the issue would disappear, no 'algorithms' selecting and making the most egregiously 'popular' (read outrageous) 'recommendations', no a-social media 'businesses', no (or less) manufactured opinions.

I agree with you that the problem is money, but I disagree that this cannot be solved. Currently, social media companies' profits come from the sale of advertising. They are pressured by investors to produce quarter-over-quarter revenue increases, and so they employ ever-more sophisticated algorithms to accomplish this. The possible solutions I've heard discussed cover everything from regulating these companies like utilities to limit profits, to treating the personal user data they collect like a taxable commodity. The more data they collect about people, the more tax they have to pay, so they are disincentivized to hoard every little detail about users' online lives. The solution is complicated for sure, but not unsolvable.

The main point to keep in mind here is a quote I heard a while back. To paraphrase, "if you're not the customer, you're the product." People think of social media as if it's a product they consume, and yet users aren't paying to use Twitter, Instagram, etc. The real customer is advertisers, and the real product is the users' attention span. Think of it this way, and solutions become more evident.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by JPK

The possible solutions I've heard discussed cover everything from regulating these companies like utilities to limit profits, to treating the personal user data they collect like a taxable commodity.

I like both of these options.

Regulated utilities are out of favor in the US right now, and no-one wants to go back to the days of "Ma Bell" and Ernestine the Operator. But I think the pendulum may have swung too far. There are times when a regulated monopoly is a good thing. How many different companies do you want stringing power lines outside your house, or running water and gas pipes under your street?

But we don't have to go that far. Before the internet, we had TV networks. The airwaves were (and are) considered a public asset, and TV broadcasters needed to apply for a license to use them "in the public interest." To maintain their license, they had to prove that they were being fair and impartial. If they offered editorial content, they had to make time available for opposing views. I could see that concept applied to the internet. Abuse your license and it's revoked. Require "station identification" so we know who's responsible for the content. Be held to account for false or misleading information. This wouldn't be a ban on free speech, simply a way to hold media outlets accountable for the consequences of that speech.

I also like the idea of taxing data as an asset. Again, that would never fly in the current tax-averse US political landscape. And there would be jurisdictional issues. Where was the data collected? Where was it stored? Which country's citizen is the subject?

But if a framework could be built, maybe by international treaty, putting a price on data collection would go a long way.

Think of it this way: both users and advertisers are victims of the current system. We all hate incessant ads being blasted at us from every screen. Advertisers struggle to reach potential customers in a way that they can measure the value of. Media outlets are pitting these groups against each other, but also feeling the squeeze from both sides while they try to dance around privacy issues.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by JPK

The main point to keep in mind here is a quote I heard a while back. To paraphrase, "if you're not the customer, you're the product." People think of social media as if it's a product they consume, and yet users aren't paying to use Twitter, Instagram, etc. The real customer is advertisers, and the real product is the users' attention span. Think of it this way, and solutions become more evident.

Agreed, and an excellent explanation for those unclear on what is actually going on when you use these tools.

The problem politicians are trying to solve can't be solved as long as the economic drivers push these companies in the current direction. Tweaks to the law will not do it. Outright conversion to a publisher model will kill them, and some form of nationalization would be unfeasible.

These companies aren't intending to do harm to society. They are driven there by the economics of attention. So adding disincentives in the form of high taxation when you use someone else's personal data will help.



But better still would be to put that power in the hands of the actual owners, and force the Facebook's of the world to pay its suppliers -- its users -- for the use of their private data and their attention. Simply put, the more FB uses, the higher the licensing fee they pay to its users.

Since they already track everyone who uses their tools (which is how they deliver eyeballs to advertisers), this should add no additional infrastructure burden on these companies. They can't claim they can't do it -- they already do.

What it will add is a clear market message that their raw material actually costs something. Instead of making this an externality, it becomes captured as part of the normal economic cycle of the business. The suppliers -- the users -- get paid for providing the raw material by which Facebook and the like make their money.

[Lake-Effect]

I think that the last few posts are maybe moving away from the intent of the FP. Yes there's a whole set of problems to be solved with the harvesting of personal data and the advertising monopolies that exist, but there's only a bit of overlap with the issue of misinformation and harmful information. For example, you can't blame the internet, online advertising, or social media when the misinformation is being transmitted by prominent broadcasters, networks, politicians, or the Oval Office.

Re the personal data issue, I think the EU is on the right track. I've also wondered whether personal data should be like personal banking - people's data are held in "banks", that must adhere to standards of security and accountability, and other businesses can only access and use that data according to a set of rules, and their use is tracked.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Agreed, and an excellent explanation for those unclear on what is actually going on when you use these tools.

The problem politicians are trying to solve can't be solved as long as the economic drivers push these companies in the current direction. Tweaks to the law will not do it. Outright conversion to a publisher model will kill them, and some form of nationalization would be unfeasible.

The problem is the Politicians are Not trying to solve it.. they are selectively choosing the good and the bad to suit their agendas..
Take for example the case of the suspended Republican and compare her posts and statements to some of the extreme Democrat Congress Rep's posts where no action has been taken..
Same holds true in the UK where Conservatives are pilloried and hounded online and in the media while Left Wingers get more or less a free ride.
Liberal Globalism is good for profits.. look how rich the promoters have gotten both private and political..
JMO.. 0.000002 centimes

[JPK]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think that the last few posts are maybe moving away from the intent of the FP. Yes there's a whole set of problems to be solved with the harvesting of personal data and the advertising monopolies that exist, but there's only a bit of overlap with the issue of misinformation and harmful information. For example, you can't blame the internet, online advertising, or social media when the misinformation is being transmitted by prominent broadcasters, networks, politicians, or the Oval Office.
.

They are actually one and the same problem. Inflammatory content (conspiracy theories, extreme political views, etc.) generate MUCH more interest (and therefore clicks, time spent online, etc.) than rational truth-based content. Algorithms, by their very definition, will spot what content generates the most engagement and push that to as many users as possible. The net result is massive propagation of nonsense like QAnon to anyone susceptible to that sort of content, regardless of whether they searched for it or not. Once the "base" has fully bought into this nonsense, politicians and biased news outlets then have to choose between speaking out against the lies and losing the support of the base or perpetuating the lies in their own self-interest. Fox News pushed back on the election lie and saw massive ratings drops as people fled to NewsMax. Liz Cheney stood up against the lies and got censured by her own party. All the while Marjorie Taylor Greene actively supports QAnon and calls the GOP "Trump's party" and gets a standing ovation in Congress.

Don't take my word for it. I hate to repeat myself, and I have no personal financial interest in this documentary but everyone should watch "The Social Dilemma." There are several prominent current and former high-level executives of Twitter, FB, Insta, etc. (for example, the guy that invented the "Like" button at FB) that are all appalled by what social media has turned into and pretty universally agree that they are out of control and bear much of the responsibility for the current polarized political climate.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

... Take for example the case of the suspended Republican and compare her posts and statements to some of the extreme Democrat Congress Rep's posts where no action has been taken...

Perhaps you could cite those specific cases.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The problem is the Politicians are Not trying to solve it.. they are selectively choosing the good and the bad to suit their agendas..
Take for example the case of the suspended Republican and compare her posts and statements to some of the extreme Democrat Congress Rep's posts where no action has been taken..
Same holds true in the UK where Conservatives are pilloried and hounded online and in the media while Left Wingers get more or less a free ride.
Liberal Globalism is good for profits.. look how rich the promoters have gotten both private and political..
JMO.. 0.000002 centimes

Yeah well, I'm not really into a political debate about who is worse. You have your biased view, and I have mine . Besides, it's irrelevant to me and my suggestion.

My solution doesn't try to take sides. It basically changes the economic incentive that currently drives everyone to car crashes and bloody scenes (metaphorically speaking).

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yeah well, I'm not really into a political debate about who is worse. You have your biased view, and I have mine . Besides, it's irrelevant to me and my suggestion.

My solution doesn't try to take sides. It basically changes the economic incentive that currently drives everyone to car crashes and bloody scenes (metaphorically speaking).

No bias here.. could not give a toss either way really as the one is as bad as the other in the US..
My only bias is against those who tell me I cannot do something, I will then go out of my way to do it.. unless it requires intentional harm to others..

https://neonnettle.com/news/14045-ao...twitter-silent

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lim-woman.html

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

No bias here.. could not give a toss either way really as the one is as bad as the other in the US..
My only bias is against those who tell me I cannot do something, I will then go out of my way to do it.. unless it requires intentional harm to others..

The whole point of these calls for social media accountability is because of the harm they are causing others, and to society in general. So I guess this means you're in favour of actions to increase their accountability...?

I find it hard to equate criticisms of the state of Israel with telling outright lies about the US elections, or calling for the death of certain American politicians.