Free speech can’t flourish online — Social media is an outrage machine, not a forum for sharing ideas and getting at the truth::Social media is an outrage machine, not a forum for sharing ideas and getting at the truth
“Free speech can’t flourish online”
Subscribe to unlock this articleLOL. Truth!
With the truth there is a price to pay?
Used to be slowly changing
What happens on social media has nothing to do with free speech. If I can kick Nazis out of my bar , I can kick them off my website.
And either way, a public square where violent fascists are attacking people and screaming over everyone with megaphones isn’t a place where anything important is being discussed anyway.
And either way, a public square where violent fascists are attacking people and screaming over everyone with megaphones isn’t a place where anything important is being discussed anyway.
Screaming over everyone with megaphones about how they’re not allowed to scream over everyone with megaphones, to a crowd that’s 50% mannequins that have been wired up to play pre-recorded cheering.
Unfortunately, the discussion is important. Everybody hangs out in that public square which means everybody is forced to hear the megaphone Mein Kamph. It’s how the far-right procreate now
The right wants to make it so that if you ban Nazis from a website, armed men from the government will come and arrest you. At the same time, they rant about being compelled to use transgender pronouns.
Free speech online doesn’t even seem to be a particularly well-defined concept. Those who extol it the loudest are often looking to have the millionth “good faith discussion” about The Bell Curve, or use slurs as “just a joke”, or promote a “dating and lifestyle coaching” business to teenage boys. If all they want is carte-blanche to say absolutely anything without being censored, I guess they only need to spin up a web server of their own, or run a lemmy instance. But what they actually want is to bypass the moderation rules on widely-used platforms and shit on the social contract. It’s the same reason they don’t show pornography, snuff footage, or other damaging content on television.
What they seem to want is a right to an audience.
No paywall: https://archive.ph/2023.11.12-212740/https://www.ft.com/content/8fde56b7-2515-441a-9472-30c8aedcc200
Tbh, the article doesn’t really talk about the headline. Just some history and talk about Elon musk and Twitter. Not a convincing argument about social media in general.Free speech cant flourish under corporate rule
Free speech has nothing to do with corporations? As long as the government doesn’t start a social media platform, the First Amendment has 0 to do with any of them.
Not in this Cyberpunk world
Well, “social media” and “online” ain’t the same thing, now are they?
Well, mostly they are nowadays. Sure, there’s still old school forums and personal websites around but most people online interact via social media.
The old forums I used to go to don’t exist anymore. One is now a separate entity from the sponsor company because they pivoted from renting game servers ( the old times when you could host your own private server) to telco and it lost all the value to have gamers attached to the image of the company. Also gamers in the meantime assumed another meaning entirely…
Multiple US court cases have repeatedly affirmed the concept that money is speech because access to media costs, but if that’s true and explicitly part of how it works, then media will always be dominated by those with the most money to create media.
All media ends up being shitty and awful because it’s a business. It’s always a business. When the Internet got big, businesses showed up and took a framework for cheaply exchanging information across large distances and turned it into Cable 2.0, because cable is inherently more like what they want than a powerful framework that empowers citizens to speak their minds or whatever. You know what people would do if they were really empowered to create their own media, and more importantly, create it on their terms? Nothing that makes businesses happy. They want you strapped in to an emotional manipulation machine that exists to convince you to buy things. They only want you posting because it helps them figure out what to sell to you and how.
Social media is an outrage machine for the exact same reason cable news is filled with horrible and terrifying imagery – it hits your emotional buttons and keeps you coming back. Social media just makes the manipulation even easier and more fine-grained.
Thank you!
Such a better writing than whatever shit was behind that paywall.
Is this an issue with… social media, or corporate social media? Mastodon technically is social media and it can potentially have the problems of Facebook or Twitter, or not. Depends on the instance owners control. Even then, however they can’t control every little detail when it’s federated but, that’s a good thing for the freedom of ideas.
If you want my actual opinion, places like Lemy and even Reddit are better for independent voices, because you can go into a dedicated community and get what you want specifically. While places like Mastodon, is more like a timeline of, hey I did this thing, or hey Elon musk did a thing today. Lemy is less like that, but it can also be like that.
Lemy or reddit seems to encourage discusion and Lemy seems to do great at it. The best interaction i’ve seen on an opensource social platform even compared to mastodon, dispite mastodon having more users.
I would have agreed with reddit before but the moderators are killing it the other way. Too much power, zero oversight, and quick to delete or even ban without having knowledge of what they’re supposed to be moderating.
It’s one of the reasons I’m here now, hoping for less of that. And I don’t mean “the vaccines are making my 5G reception weak” type of posts. I mean factual information just getting removed of it doesn’t align with the random moderator of the day when someone inevitably reports it. So much information there is scrubbed that’s accurate and what remains is just an echo chamber of outdated or false information. I don’t know how anyone can solve it other than relinquish control to our robot content moderator overlords.
I think we’ve always thrived on outrage.
Before social media we had newspapers. Sure, we had real serious newspapers where the headlines where printed in a serif font, and mostly contained news about share prices and the political ramifications of abandoning the gold standard, but that wasn’t what the masses bought.
We had tabloids. Look at what the BARMY EU want to ban now. Check out what BOFFINS are doing to dogs. Here’s a 16 year old with her tits out. Look at this man on BENEFITS with 10 kids.
The only objective actual reporting in them was the sports pages at the back, and the TV guide in the middle.
We’ve always been like this. I have no answers how to make things better. We’d have to want to be better, and I don’t believe most people do.
There’s also no algorithm taking the most controversial answer and making it the top most comment ala Facebook.
This was clearly written by someone who has very little interaction with healthy forums for dialogue. There will always be trolls online and in real life, pretending like idiots and jokers only exist in an online setting is disingenuous or the view of a completely sheltered individual.
Up- and Downvotes should be removed entirely.
I have mixed feelings about this. Self moderation is better then needing to get mods involved with everything. Lemmy does it pretty well where voting only impacts each post and there’s no total karma count.
deleted by creator
If you want a proper civilized discussion, head to pornhub. You’re welcum.
Pornhub comments is where I learned about the existence of and how to make chicken adobo. Shit’s delicious.
Pornhub comments is where I learned about the existence of and how to make chicken adobo. Shit’s delicious.
This is the most _________ comment I’ve ever read on the Internet.
*Can’t think of the proper word to use for this comment, it’s totally blown my mind. Esoteric? Nope. Non-sequitur? Nope. Has the word actually been invented that describes this comment? It’s power is over 9000!
** I have further questions. Where can one get the recipe for chicken adobo? Also, why when you use voice-to-text does the word “internet” always show up in lower case, when it’s a pronoun that is supposed to be in uppercase?
People tend to reflect and post the outrage media they subscribe to, then look for echo chambers to reinforce those views. Reasonable opponents get exhausted and leave - and yes, IMO that’s what makes them reasonable, the ability to understand what they’re up against and quit a battle that cannot be won.
Also IMO the “gentleman’s agreement” we had, in the US at least, that free speech was somewhat honored most places including your job or online decades ago is dead. It’s quite clear that even the government isn’t too keen on the 1st amendment depending on who is in charge, much less corporations who will terminate people for speech conflicting with corporate agendas, and absolutely not petty or controlling forum moderators.
People that yell “muh freedum of speech!1!1!” the loudest are often the ones doing their best to force some hateful subjects or outright lies into other’s faces, then they get upset and claim they’re being attacked or bring up some other victim complex when they get “cancelled.”
I feel you are pointing in the right direction, but you did miss some stuff that is commonly missed. (I am going to preface that all I am doing is presenting facts, corps can burn in hell for my personal opinion)
- Freedom of Speech only has a bearing on law, government, and the agents thereof. Corporations in the US are not bound by the Constitution, only the government. Corporations and individuals operating a space where the public are able to act are bound by the laws, but as long as they don’t directly violate any if those law, they can restrict speech as much as they like.
- While echo chambers are a major issue, and one we should all be focused on making sure we don’t get trapped in, they are not the largest issue concerning the issue at hand. Humans are more prone to engage with controversial topics, whether that is surging to the protection of something that affirms our biases, or lashing out against things that offend them. Social media platforms only care about so-called “engagement”. Their statistical validity for investors and advertisers are strictly based on sanitized numbers regarding how many users live on their platforms, how often they post, and even more so how often they comment. Polarizing posts see the most commentary, so social media companies are financially incentivized to propagate as much polarizing information as possible, regardless of the content. The advertisers never see what the post info is or how how much hate and vitriol are in the comments, and they don’t care (some are starting to realize). All they want to know is “if I pay you to put my add on peoples posts, how many people will see them?”. It is disgusting, but true. Bad news sells. Tragedy sells. Hate sells. Polarization sells. It makes me long for the days when all we had to worry about being manipulated by marketers with was sex.
I’m thinking that maybe you missed my point, which is exactly what you said.
First point: Free speech only applies to government retaliation, but that’s on thin ice. Like I said. Not sure what needed clarification, maybe my more sarcastic take on it made it less clear.
Second point: The point is that people aren’t really falling into echo chambers and having the lack of awareness to remove themselves from it, the point is they don’t want to leave the safety of their rage-bait fed herd and face criticisms of their narrative and/or worldview. Sure, someone who views a controversial or fringe subject will probably be fed more by algorithms, and the fault not only lies in that algorithm that wants to profit off clicks but the person that actively excludes any factual evidence to the contrary. Nobody thinks they’re the bad guy, and they don’t want to be told so.
Nobody thinks they’re the bad guy, and they don’t want to be told so.
You also should not assume that everyone is the bad guy, either.
And I get you might to push back against what I just said, but take a look at the tone of your comments, they tend to come from a critical point of view that already sees Humanity in a negative light. (No insult is meant.)
Are we not, though? I’m pretty cynical, but even from a pragmatic standpoint we are incredibly destructive despite us telling ourselves how great we are with our technological advancements.
Are we not, though? I’m pretty cynical, but even from a pragmatic standpoint we are incredibly destructive despite us telling ourselves how great we are with our technological advancements.
We’re both, actually. And I would push back on your assertion that you’re holding a pragmatic standpoint.
The fact that you focus on the negatives and do not mention any of the positives bolsters my point…
You also should not assume that everyone is the bad guy, either.
There is no requirement to mention “both sides”. I did not agree to such a condition, that’s your own criteria to make yourself correct. Have at it.
There is no requirement to mention “both sides”.
There is in America. It’s one of the founding parts of the framework of the social fabric of the country.
Reasonable opponents get exhausted and leave - and yes, IMO that’s what makes them reasonable, the ability to understand what they’re up against and quit a battle that cannot be won.
Sometimes though, it’s not about winning or losing the battle, but just pushing back against the messages that’s trying to shape a harmful narrative. To leave both sides of the argument available for third parties to read and consider.
And for that, every reasonable person should be doing some of that, instead of just bailing. Consider it a civic duty.
