That's a lot of words to just say "Allowing bad actors to lie about elections makes us money, while hiring the staff to combat election lies costs us money, and we're too sociopathic to spend money for the good of the country."
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
261 points (90.4% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
2978 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a shitty opinion article that links speculation, anecdotal evidence, and "experts" with no actual studies at all. Whether or not they're doing a good job at it, all of these companies invest heavily in moderation on their platforms, and that investment hasn't been reduced substantially.
Everyone hates social media through elections, it's an easy thing to blame because the loud get louder. This article is punching down early for clicks.
I made a comment the other day saying Lemmy users are just as biased as average people.
Someone said, "how is this article biased."
I am convinced half the user base that was here before Reddit doesn't know they are stuck in a loop of reading and posting articles here that justify their mindset the same as anyone else.
Idk they might be just as biased but they seem more vocal about it.
Lemmy caters particularly well to the doomer crowd, since it presents an alternative to corporate-owned social media. Doomers have a lot of overlap with leftists(or liberals or whatever), and this causes a feedback loop of depression and anxiety. Consider two people; the leftist and the doomer:
-The leftist gets mad about something and posts a few articles
-The doomer sees this and reposts it with a more fatalistic title
-The leftist sees the new post and becomes more outraged, posting massive walls of enraged text in the comments
-The doomer reads the first paragraph and begins wailing about how the world is ending
-This anger spills over into other posts and generally sours the mood for everyone involved
Because the doomer is incapable of viewing anything in a positive light and the leftist lives in a state of perpetual butthurt, they feed into one another and fill everybody's feed with outrage and despair.
Swap the leftist with alt-right and you have 4chan circa 2017. Let it fester for a few years and you have a machine for churning out political extremists.
Just like Musk and the other billionaires wanted.
Delete Facebook, Twitter (x 🙄), insta, and Reddit.
deleted by creator
load more comments
(6 replies)
Why do we want social media companies to be the arbiters of truth anyway...
Because like it or not that is where a lot of people get information these days. If it keeps pushing bulshit, people believe bulshit. For an example, anti-vaxxers didn't use to be so common, until their bulshit was spread all over social media.
I would love for people to be wise enough to verify information in reliable sources and not just believe everything they see, but sadly that's not the world where we live in.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I think we need to pursue a strategy that attempts to discourage the spread of disinformation while avoiding making them the arbiters of truth.
I think social media platforms are like a giant food court. If you do nothing to discourage the spread of germs, your salad bar and buffets are all going to be petri dishes of human pathogens. That doesn't mean that the food court needs to put in hospital-level sterilization measures. It just means that the FDA requires restaurants to use dishwashers that get up to 71 C, and employees are required to wash their hands.
In this case, I think we should experiment. What if platforms were required to let users flag something as disinformation, and share a credible source if they like? Maybe users could see all the flags and upvote or downvote them. The information would still be there, but you'd go to the InfoWars page and it would say, "Hey: You should know that 95% of people say this page posts mostly bullshit."
Something like that. I don't like the role the companies play currently, but disinformation does carry the potential to cause serious harm.
load more comments
(3 replies)
They shouldn't be the arbiters of truth anyway.
Maybe a hot take, but allowing capitalist corporations to decide what is "the truth" was always a terrible idea.
why? you don't consider short term profit gain the most important aspect of our society?
He’s a cancer on the human race as a whole.
Social Media is morons telling each other made up bullshit.
Facebook was the start (though Yahoo and YouTube weren't far behind). All conservatives and the rich have is money, so what's it to them to buy out the company or their CEO? This may end up being a worse propaganda machine than FOX, but time will tell...Haven't been on Reddit but not sure how their algorithm has been doing but their ads were very conservative before I left...
Facebook Hired Joel fucking Kaplan right after he left the Bush White House. Kaplan personally exempted rightwing conspiracy news sites from Facebook's truth standards, while also deprioritizing more overtly left leaning sites.
He personally nixed any change to the Facebook algorithm that would reduce the radicalization pipeline.
Oh, and he also stuffed Facebook management with right-wing yes men.
Thank you. At least someone remembers that Facebook/Meta has been a right winger echo chamber earlier than Musk's version
Best we can do is migrate...I always had this thought (stick with it): a lot of police are conservative, because how many progressive people do you know who want to have that difficult job? It seems true for management to: progressives don't enjoy bossing people around and often enjoy the process of producing/making something. So who is left to fill the void? Conservatives. Worse, it doesn't seem rare that "progressives," turn hyper capitalist or all together conservative - they simply joins the rich club and most of their ideology. Even most politically left politicians only pander to progressive social issues but tend to bend to special interests. It's going to take a major shift to change our power structure and who knows how that will come about...
They know our government effectively has schizophrenia. Trouble is they're fucked in the long run whether it's Jekyll or Hyde.
Well, musk showed he can just shirk duty and take home more money... so why not follow his lead.
What?
Musk might be the number 1 person in the whole world when it comes to losing money this past year.
Oh, I'm hardcore anti musk, but I mean "firing watchdog staff to reduce overhead", not that musk is financially literate.
If musk can fire his watchdog staff, thereby reducing staffing costs, other companies will want to follow suit. Just look at Spez admiring musk.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation, abandoning their most aggressive efforts to police online falsehoods in a trend expected to profoundly affect the 2024 presidential election.
These shifts are a reaction from social media executives to being battered by contentious battles over content and concluding there is “no winning,” said Katie Harbath, former director of public policy at Facebook, where she managed the global elections strategy across the company.
In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, social media companies ramped-up investigative teams to quash foreign influence campaigns and paid thousands of content moderators to debunk viral conspiracies.
Civil rights groups pressured the platforms — including in meetings with Zuckerberg and Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg — to bolster their election policies, arguing the pandemic and popularity of mail-in ballots created an opening for bad actors to confuse voters about the electoral process.
Internal momentum to impose the new rule seemed to plummet after Musk boasted of his plans to turn Twitter into a safe haven for “free speech” — a principle Zuckerberg and some board members had always lauded, one of the people said.
Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who led efforts to build Threads, said earlier this year that the platform would not actively “encourage” politics and “hard news,” because the extra user engagement is not worth the scrutiny.
The original article contains 2,614 words, the summary contains 226 words. Saved 91%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Depressing content. Not on my Friday. Closed after the third paragraph.
Edit: sorry I’m not sure what happened , it worked when I posted. Working link posted below (thanks @chunkMcHorkle)
~~Got paywall on main link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825070213/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/25/political-conspiracies-facebook-youtube-elon-musk/~~
deleted by creator
load more comments
(1 replies)
Moral of the story: it only took one social media site to start being more lax on cersorship for the other ones to follow suit. Maybe this is indicative that spending a lot of money on censorship measures is useless.
making more money on…
tbh if you aren't in highschool or a content creator why the fuck have an insta or Facebook or any of this at this point. nobody cares about your vacation bro
To follow the content creators?
view more: next ›