CNBC: Ex-Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya: Social media is 'ripping apart" society

[Zguy28]

CNBC:  Ex-Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya: Social media is 'ripping apart" society

 

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/12/12/ex-facebook-executive-chamath-palihapitiya-social-media-is-ripping-apart-society.html

 

Interesting conversation and thoughts from Chamath Palihapitiya on social media and how money coupled with social media can convince people that what is popular is true and what is unpopular must be untrue.

[tshile]

Seems spot on to me, and I didn't expect that based on the title. I thought it would be another one of those "we're mean to each other" discussions, which is also true.

 

My problem is the desire to have the social media companies fix it.

 

The hosts mention that "We're adults, we can make these decisions" when discussing targeting kids etc. 

 

However, I would contend that said "adults" don't seem to be doing a very good job of making said decisions. They seem to be suckers for ideas that fit their desired narratives and everything that goes along with that (feedback loops, us vs them/tribalism attitudes, failing to critically think on even a basic level)

 

Stop being so damned lazy and stupid and start solving the problem by not being played. 

 

The money targeting the masses is only being spent that way because it works.

[Zguy28]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

Seems spot on to me, and I didn't expect that based on the title. I thought it would be another one of those "we're mean to each other" discussions, which is also true.

 

My problem is the desire to have the social media companies fix it.

 

The hosts mention that "We're adults, we can make these decisions" when discussing targeting kids etc. 

 

However, I would contend that said "adults" don't seem to be doing a very good job of making said decisions. They seem to be suckers for ideas that fit their desired narratives and everything that goes along with that (feedback loops, us vs them/tribalism attitudes, failing to critically think on even a basic level)

 

Stop being so damned lazy and stupid and start solving the problem by not being played. 

 

The money targeting the masses is only being spent that way because it works.

This isn't really a new problem though. It existed in the days when newspapers were the only social media. With the advent of the internet though, the scope of impact is so much more far-reaching.

[grego]

i wrote a paper in this topic- specifically the problem of social media and filter bubbles- last week for my digital and social media class.

 

.eli pariser predicted this problem 6 years ago. filter bubbles caused by facebook/googles/etc (everybodys) personalized 'daily me' news feed, group polarization, confirmation bias, the backfire effect, or what happens when we're presented with facts that correct false things we believed- why we are so politically divided, ts all really fascinating stuff. 

 

 

[No Excuses]

None of these companies have the balls to take a firm stand against bot accounts and fake news outlets. 

 

Spend 10 minutes in conservative social media, and all you see are posts from obscure blogs with completely made up stories being shared thousands and millions of times.

 

In general, for the sake of “free speech” they refuse to take a stand against bull****.

 

Twitter at this point is basically bots from Eastern Europe and Russia spreading false propaganda across the entire West.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

This isn't really a new problem though. It existed in the days when newspapers were the only social media. With the advent of the internet though, the scope of impact is so much more far-reaching.

Agreed.

 

That doesn't make me happy or comfortable or optimistic about people demanding the social media companies fix it.

 

Though I don't find it surprising that's their go-to solution.

 

8 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

In general, for the sake of “free speech” they refuse to take a stand against bull****.

Let's not kid ourselves, free speech has nothing to do with it.

 

They know if they stop it, there's a solid chance a portion of their user base would move on to another platform that doesn't stop it. As opposed to 'figuring it out' and not buying into the nonsense.

 

They can't have that.

[Llevron]

I actually believe this should be regulated by our government. But I dont trust our government to regulate it. 

 

I saw this as an issue with my own habits on social media and thus got off of it quickfast. This is a super interesting subject. Gonna check that video in a bit @grego

[tshile]

@grego thanks for sharing that video. finally had a minute to watch it.

 

the only problem i have, which is similar to the original video, is that it continues to push the reliance of a fix on social media.

 

you can get whatever type of information you want. you have to go looking for it.

 

if you're expecting your facebook feed or your google search to be the end-all-be-all then you have a bigger issue that needs addressed.

 

(you, in the general sense, not you specifically grego )

[TradeTheBeal!]

I enjoy social media and have used to form many enduring and uplifting friendships.  But then again, I'm not a lunatic.

[grego]

46 minutes ago, tshile said:

@grego thanks for sharing that video. finally had a minute to watch it.

 

the only problem i have, which is similar to the original video, is that it continues to push the reliance of a fix on social media.

 

you can get whatever type of information you want. you have to go looking for it.

 

if you're expecting your facebook feed or your google search to be the end-all-be-all then you have a bigger issue that needs addressed.

 

(you, in the general sense, not you specifically grego )

 

i think there are a couple of things going on there. first, people tend to trust google. at least, trust that when they type in a search, they are getting the information they are looking for. i didnt until recently that, even if i'm logged out of my google account, ill get different results from someone else (that number that pariser talked about is up from 57 signals to over 200 now, btw).

 

everybody knows fox new gives info from one perspective, people watch fox cuz they know what they are getting. basically. thats kind of what google, facebook (zuckerberg earlier this year seems to have realized this and changed up how they disseminate info), yahoo, etc have become- they tell you what you want to know- they give you dessert and skip the vegetables. people either dont know they arent getting all the facts, or they do know but dont really care because they trust their sources to give them what is really important and they dont trust the other side anyway.  confirmation bias plays a role in this- one screw up by cnn, one article by the ny times saying they were biased, one quote from jake tapper saying they were easy on obama, and theyre locked in even further. 

 

there was a study done by cass sunstein (former obama administration guy). heres the just of it- 

 

 

"For Cass Sunstein, a challenge that social media poses to democracy was clarified by a social-science experiment that he conducted in two different communities in Colorado: left-leaning Boulder and right-leaning Colorado Springs. Residents in each place were gathered into small groups to discuss their views on controversial topics, like climate change and same-sex marriage. Afterward, they were asked to report on the opinions of their groups as well as their own views on the subjects.

The results were the same in both communities.

The effect of gathering into groups composed of mostly like-minded people to discuss controversial subjects was to make participants more set and extreme in their views:

(1) Liberals, in Boulder, became distinctly more liberal on all three issues. Conservatives, in Colorado Springs, become distinctly more conservative on all three issues. The result of deliberation was to produce extremism -- even though deliberation consisted of a brief (15 minute) exchange of facts and opinions!

(2) The division between liberals and conservatives became much more pronounced. Before deliberation, the median view, among Boulder groups, was not always so far apart from the median view among Colorado City groups. After deliberation, the division increased significantly.

(3) Deliberation much decreased diversity among liberals; it also much decreased diversity among conservatives. After deliberation, members of nearly all groups showed, in their post-deliberation statements, far more uniformity than they did before deliberation."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/together-people-like-you-fuel-extremism/531702/

 

what we do is we form tribes online. we generally prefer to communicate with people who think like us rather than people who differ in our opinions. when we talk amongst ourselves, we actually become more firm and extreme in our views (i think this has happened on the board).

 

this is the great irony of the world wide web- even though we have access to almost any piece of information we want to find, rather than the internet serving as a bridge builder, we choose to isolate ourselves with like minded people- echochambers., and we become unaware of what going on outside of our bubble. 

 

the backfire effect i mentioned earlier is linked to this-

 

"It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

 

 

 

according to pew surveys, 2/3rds of america is on facebook. most of those people report getting news via facebook. 

 

 

so, we're tribal and we dont like to admit when we're wrong, rather we twist our beliefs to conform to new information (not unlike conspiracy thinking), and we get our news from sources that dont necessarily tell us the whole story. 

 

this is how we get to here. - http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/

this link shows a graph how we are more divided politically than at any point in recent history. 

 

 

 

 

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Let's not kid ourselves, free speech has nothing to do with it.

 

They know if they stop it, there's a solid chance a portion of their user base would move on to another platform that doesn't stop it. As opposed to 'figuring it out' and not buying into the nonsense.

 

They can't have that.

 

Of course, it's why I put "free speech" in quotes. They use it as a cover, but really they don't want to lose the ad revenue that comes from a huge audience.

[Destino]

Social media has some powerful arguments for and against it, but I think it's an extremely bad situation for kids.  They all have to learn to deal with social pressures, and thats never a painless experience, but now that pressure follows them home.  It follows them everywhere.  Even moving away no longer leaves problems behind like it used to.  

 

 

[Llevron]

23 minutes ago, Destino said:

Social media has some powerful arguments for and against it, but I think it's an extremely bad situation for kids.  They all have to learn to deal with social pressures, and thats never a painless experience, but now that pressure follows them home.  It follows them everywhere.  Even moving away no longer leaves problems behind like it used to.  

 

 

 

It's the same for adults. I work with and am friends with many people who just can't escape other people's opinions and it's because they live a second life online. 

[Springfield]

It’s heroin for the 21st century.

[Mr. Sinister]

It honestly started making me uneasy 6-7 years ago. It is out of control, and is harming us in several different, cascading ways.

 

I'll happen eventually, but I wonder how much worse things have to get before law and order reaches the cyber world

[Kosher Ham]

18 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

This isn't really a new problem though. It existed in the days when newspapers were the only social media. With the advent of the internet though, the scope of impact is so much more far-reaching.

 

It was only within a constricted realm for the most part then. WP one of the biggest newspapers in the country... One newstand in SF area had it when they were looking for the Unibomber.  

 

18 hours ago, No Excuses said:

None of these companies have the balls to take a firm stand against bot accounts and fake news outlets. 

 

Spend 10 minutes in conservative social media, and all you see are posts from obscure blogs with completely made up stories being shared thousands and millions of times.

 

In general, for the sake of “free speech” they refuse to take a stand against bull****.

 

Twitter at this point is basically bots from Eastern Europe and Russia spreading false propaganda across the entire West.

 

Money is a big part of why they let things roll. I know that you know that. 

The influx of info that you get is incredible. We have to be smart enough to decipher for ourselves...same as reading a local based WP articles from the 80's about the Redskins. 

 

18 hours ago, Llevron said:

I actually believe this should be regulated by our government. But I dont trust our government to regulate it. 

 

 

You can't regulate it. If you could our President wouldn't be. Freedom of speech is the very best thing in this country... 

We vote in the regulators. Simply say you don't trust our neighbors or other states voters. 

That last part was me just joking. Vote, have your voice heard, I wish more of us would. 

 

17 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I enjoy social media and have used to form many enduring and uplifting friendships.  But then again, I'm not a lunatic.

 

So many conflicting things here. 

No, you make money off of it, or get laid, just be honest. 

[Zguy28]

Just think how much influence somebody like our own Visionary can have on us for example with how many Tweets he re-posts. If this site is you majority source for opinions, somebody such as he could easily sway you over time with selective posting. Making what is popular true in our eyes.

 

If he had an agenda.

[Kosher Ham]

Not me, I skip past ~95% of the tweets that are posted. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Just think how much influence somebody like our own Visionary can have on us for example with how many Tweets he re-posts. If this site is you majority source for opinions, somebody such as he could easily sway you over time with selective posting. Making what is popular true in our eyes.

 

If he had an agenda.

 

2 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

Not me, I skip past ~95% of the tweets that are posted. 

I use what he posts to get a large portion of my news.  And I use this forum in general.  It's easier having him and the rest of you search out the news for me.  But I also trust the rest of us to call him or anyone else out when posting biased or misleading articles.  I have much more faith in the people here than I do in the rest of society.  Which is funny because I disagree politically with most people here.  But trust their news more. 

[Llevron]

 

 

Saw this today on Reddit (oh ****) and thought it was worth sharing to bump this thread again.

 

I wanted to ask - since im not on social media anymore (outside of Reddit) - how many Christmas posts you saw that fall into the behavior he is describing in the above clip. I personally saw a series of Facebook posts that seemed to rip apart 3 of my family members this holiday weekend for.....complicated.....reasons. I should say, I didn't see the posts myself. But a trio of siblings did, and the result was so much drama that I wondered if it was worth it. These 3 siblings are also between 21-27 so they are the perfect age to be unknowingly addicted (and they all are) to social media. 

 

I guess im just curious if you saw anything this weekend that makes you worry about where we are headed and get this conversation going again. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

He's right.  

 

I haven't seen anything this weekend to make me worry, but I hardly use facebook.  I get on every so often and then am quickly reminded why I don't check it more often.  I am going to post that video, though.

 

I like Instagram, but really only to push out my photography.  Twitter is useful to catch up on news related items but I hardly tweet.  

 

Where he talks about feedback loops destroying how society works...no civil discourse, cooperation...I think social medias greatest trick is allow people to feel that they're important and that their voice matters.  Get a few hundred followers or even a few thousand followers, post something that gets a lot of likes and replies and you're tricked into thinking you've got a voice that matters, not realizing that you're still insignificant outside of your loved ones and friends.  Just because you have 2,500 or 25,000 followers on twitter doesn't mean you make a dent in the world.  

 

But now people have an easier way to make a connection and get reinforcement on their viewpoints and feelings.  They also have an easy way to ignore others, or shout them down.  Ugh, how many times have you seen something like "Well if you're voting for Hillary, delete me from your facebook!"  Or "I just deleted a TON of Trump supporters!" as if bragging about only surrounding themselves with likeminded viewpoints is something to be proud about.  

 

IMO, social media is mostly for people who want to validate their world viewpoint and feel good about their thoughts and feelings.

 

Lack of civil discourse ties into it, too.  The way people treat each other, write to each other.  Sometimes it's sad, sometimes it's sickening.  I don't think people do a good job of analyzing their feelings and coming up with constructive solutions.  It's just easier to write a snarky tweet or vent about it on facebook and be on your way.  

 

[Cooleyfan1993]

Wow....you guys seem to be using Facebook the wrong way ?? 

 

i use Facebook to keep up with my family’s lives while I’m at college (i have a pretty close family) and to Post NFL news, or things about my favorite bands or tv shows  if people just stop being so damn negative the world might be happier with social media!!! Just sayin  ?

[FanboyOf91]

 

[China]

So Facebook will censor art, but goes easy on Russian bots...more reasons for me to never use Facebook.

 

Facebook angers Flanders with Rubens ban

 

The Flanders Tourist Board has written an open letter protesting against Facebook's "cultural censorship" of adverts showing paintings by Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens.

 

The removed ad featured the artist's The Descent from the Cross, which shows a bare-chested Jesus.

 

Following the ban, the authority made a satirical video with fake investigators ushering visitors out of a museum after they looked at similar paintings.

Facebook has not yet responded.

 

The letter to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was signed by the chief executive of Visit Flanders, Peter de Wildes, and supported by a network of museums and cultural institutions.

 

It reads: "The bare breasts and buttocks painted by our artist are considered by you to be inappropriate.

 

"Even though we secretly have to laugh about it, your cultural censorship is making life rather difficult for us.

 

"After all, we want to use your platform to promote both our Flemish masters as well as Flanders - because art lovers use Facebook too."

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

Facebook dodges questions about Russian interference in upcoming US midterm elections

 

 

Facebook expects to see "bad actors" trying to interfere with the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, but it stopped short of saying whether it's found malicious activity already.

 

The company held a conference call on Tuesday with reporters regarding its policies to improve political advertising, lessen fake news and other initiatives ahead of election season.

 

When reportes asked if there was any indication Russians or other groups were planning an attack to sway the midterm elections, Facebook said it thought "bad actors" would try to use the platform for this purpose. It said it was monitoring for malicious activity, and would notify the proper authorities if anything was spotted.

 

However despite repeated questions, the company would not confirm or deny whether it had already found suspicious behavior, only noting that giving guidance could interfere with internal or governmental investigations.

 

The company also reiterated its policy to reduce the frequency of misinformation on its platform instead of removing it, which has gained prominence in recent days as some onlookers have questioned the decision to allow conspiracy theory media outlet Infowars to continue to post false content.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[nonniey]

On 12/13/2017 at 9:13 AM, tshile said:

@grego thanks for sharing that video. finally had a minute to watch it.

 

......

 

you can get whatever type of information you want. you have to go looking for it.

 

if you're expecting your facebook feed or your google search to be the end-all-be-all then you have a bigger issue that needs addressed.

 

.......

And there lies the problem people go and get the information they want. It takes some discipline get the information you need.