[creato]

> 10 short years ago, huge swaths of the population were swayed to accept non-scientific statements like eating fat and cholesterol were unhealthy. I don't think Facebook is the problem here.

That's a horrible example, I don't think that is even remotely comparable to swaying the population into burning down dozens (hundreds?) of cell towers or accusing Bill Gates of starting the coronavirus pandemic.

[disgruntledphd2]

So, pretty much every new medium in history has been accused of formenting conspiracies at one point or the other.

The core issue here is that the internet allows many, many voices to flourish, and some of these voices speculate attractively but incorrectly (from my viewpoint, at least).

Blaming the platform which allows the voices to spread seems like a bad move, given that the core issue is the people who choose to go along with it.

The only way in which I can assume that FB is responsible for all the alternative theories on their platform is by refusing to accept any agency on the part of FB's users, which I think is probably the wrong idea.

As an example, right now you are promoting a narrative on an internet site holding FB responsible for the behaviour of others. Do your readers have so little agency that they will mindlessly act on your words without reflection?

If so, what differentiates your post from a similar post on FB?

If not, what makes FB different?

These are genuine questions by the way, I'm actually interested in your answers.

[TomSwirly]

I'm probably older than the average YCer.

I don't idealize the past at all. Too many bad things to write.

However, the internet amped up the level of overall craziness to an unprecedented level. Even the first twenty years, it was much like the regular world, but geekier. But then in a fairly short time all these crazy ideas just started to spread in an incredibly tiny period of time.

I have always been a student of the paranormal and conspiracy theories - as a skeptic. Suddenly random people were spouting all the obscure classics, and brand-new ones appeared every day.

Last year, before COVID, I decided that this was akin to an infectious disease - suddenly people were thrown in with hundreds of thousands of anonymous people, many with bad but infectious ideas.

Before the internet, you acquired most of your delusional ideas at birth from your parents under the guise of religion etc.

Now you could pick up delusional ideas one at a time - more, the presentation gets to evolve because the creators get second-to-second feedback. Call these Vemes for virulent memes perhaps?

Some once-friends of mine clearly have very poor immune systems as they picked up many vemes.

> The only way in which I can assume that FB is responsible for all the alternative theories on their platform is by refusing to accept any agency on the part of FB's users, which I think is probably the wrong idea.

1. Infectious diseases don't work that way!

2. Also, a lot of this is caused by a small number of actual psychopaths who literally just want to cause grief. Allowing a tiny group of people to damage the whole is wrong.

---

Trying to assign agency to the crowd is madness and not backed up by observations of humanity en masse or reading a history book. In such a mob scene, crazies, aggressive people and criminals will always win.

[close04]

> what makes FB different?

If it's not immediately apparent, pretty much no other medium in history (new or old) had/has the real reach Facebook has now. So taking it out of context and simply defining Facebook as a "new medium" is disingenuous. A firecracker and a bomb only differ in scale, hence the massive difference in how they're seen and treated.

With great power comes great legal and moral responsibility, and greater scrutiny. You can't shrug it off just because others have also done badly at this, especially when nobody else did it badly at such a massive scale.

[RNCTX]

Indeed.

I wonder what the cell phone generation would think of our pulp paper fake Necronomicons from the 1970s? There was also a book of spells at my local library in the very-white very-evangelical suburbs of Little Rock, AR when I was a kid, too. I liked the one about how to become a werewolf a lot, but didn't really get to the point of going and murdering a dog and painting myself with its blood and boiled fat.

The pearl-clutching about social media is because power has been taken away. Media executives can no longer fancy themselves in control of people's minds, because they no longer have a monopoly on eyeballs via print and TV information.

Worse yet (for them), the user customizable nature of social media feeds mean that they can't even know what people really see.

If people use the internet to make themselves worse that's a failure of people not the internet.

[mnsc]

But back in Little Rock, AR when you were a kid. Are you sure that there was someone who sat in on every private gettogether in every house, located in a corner listening for keywords and when someone said something mildly racist this cornerman gently told your uncle that "these racist inclination you seem to have, did you know that the local bookstore White Pages™ has a book called Mein Kampf that confirms your suspicions, you should read that one, if you like of course, not telling you, just a friendly suggestion, it's actually on sale now".

[close04]

Does this mean you consider scale to be irrelevant to this situation? Because that's pretty much what the difference boils down to. You mention "media" as s singular entity but in reality the media of the past was a mosaic of thousands of individual outlets, newspapers, radios, TV stations. Today FB is a singular entity with the combined power of most of those together. Do you agree that changes the game?

FB has almost every eyeball now. Can you say the same about your fake Necronomicon? Book of spells? The media that controlled your mind?

The last statement is basically one against any form of control or regulation. If people use the x to make themselves worse that's a failure of people not x. Sometimes people need help.

[disgruntledphd2]

But it's not. The news on Facebook is in fact those newspapers, TV shows and whatnot, plus loads more amateurs than ever before.

They are a platform rather than a publisher, in my view at least.

[close04]

Saying that scale is irrelevant makes me think you are intentionally obtuse about this. FB picks which newspaper's article to show you just like newspapers choose which journalist's article to show you. And just like newspapers give a tremendous amount of power to one individual (the journalist) compared to another (you), FB can do the same for individual articles and outlets. Except FB has the kind of reach no newspaper ever had or will. They give a podium for others to climb on, they decide who gets the front seats, and they monetize it.

For all intents and purposes they should be responsible for everything that happens on the platform regardless of where the content was picked up from. They should have a responsibility but this comes in conflict with their goal to to drive engagement and profits.

Their algorithm curates what people see, shows specific links, and influences opinions. And when you can influence opinions on such a large scale and monetize it we have a conflict of interest and even a weapon. FB and others have proven this in the past. Why do you think the media is regulated so tightly around election time? FB can take even a blog post and push it so aggressively right before elections that they manage to sway opinions but still claim they were just a platform.

[RNCTX]

The counter-argument is that it's easier than ever for an individual to find critical analyses of that information. If you were suspect of the information on TV in 1983 there was no one to tell you any different, unless you put effort into finding it.

Let's put it in terms other than politics...

In the early 1980s a full third of all households in the US watched the TV show "Dallas" every weekend. Was "Dallas" the greatest performance ever made or just the best option out of 3 choices?

[monadic2]

Honestly far more violent and highly accepted behaviors are pushed through media outlets as sane opinions every day, like military intervention or straight up misinformation campaigns (see: the OAS, who for some reason never evaluates the election health of rich northern american countries, who should logically have released some statement about facebook right now, let alone all the primary voting discrepancies). Hell the NyTimes alone had enough fuckups in the 00s alone they should be on the shortlist for fact checking suspicion.

If facebook is wading into being a truth-teller, they’re going to run straight into government-media-academia social circles a la Pinker, Chomsky, all the punditry on TV, all the punditry in opinion columns (claims still need fact checking even if the result is an opinion).

Then, how do you deal with framing the presentation of verifiable facts with extremely ominous and sinister tone/hinting? You can do an enormous amount of damage just making untestable, unverifiable implications.

IMHO facebook is gonna get squeezed till they pop over this, either by blatantly having political double standards or by becoming a misinformation-based hellhole. The accessibility of Truth is much harder than people realize, and I don’t even think it’s fair to off load this responsibility onto facebook. People are just strangely ok with believing bullshit.

[2019-nCoV]

Yes, the misleading dietary advice was objectively worse. How many needless deaths lost to the likes of diabetes and heart disease. The ramifications of the replication crisis (of which social media censorship also runs afoul) run much deeper.

[creato]

I think you are knowingly missing the point. Nutritional experts disagreed among themselves, and probably still do. Is there even a single 5G engineer that will take up the cause of 5G causing coronavirus? How about an immunologist that will claim Bill Gates is trying to inject people with microchips delivered in vaccines?

[2019-nCoV]

Which is why it's a non-sequitur. Any well-adjusted adult with a modicum of common sense can see through such claims. Cults and conspiracies flourished long before FB's existence, as they will after. Removing such content just validates it in their minds — it must be true that's why "the corporations" insist on covering it up!

Most of the west has learnt that we should not penalise drug addicts. We treat the underlying problems that brought about their habitual use. The need to self-medicate disappears.

Like the war on drugs failed, so too shall the war on misinformation. The solution is tending for the human condition that leads one to not only believe, but want to believe, in these fantasies.

[square_usual]

> Cults and conspiracies flourished long before FB's existence, as they will after

The problem is that Facebook's algorithms are directly helping those cults grow by polarising people, as stated in the linked article:

> Worse was Facebook’s realization that its algorithms were responsible for their growth. The 2016 presentation states that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform’s “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” algorithms: “Our recommendation systems grow the problem.”

I'm sure we can all agree that you can't end all cults, but surely actively encouraging their growth is a bad idea.

[tripzilch]

> Cults and conspiracies flourished long before FB's existence, as they will after.

Similarly, rats and mold flourished long before we started keeping open trash bags in the kitchen.

It's pretty clear that FB is an incredibly fertile breeding ground for such ideas, and that is on them. Not on the ideas.

[TomSwirly]

Hundreds of thousands of people are still in jail for drugs in the United States! Neither presidential candidate is for legalization of cannabis alone, and there is no talk of legalizing anything else.

I hope one day the war on drugs will end - but sadly it is still alive and well in the United States and all over the world.

As for the war on misinformation, we have lost continuously on this one for years in a row, and there's no evidence at all we're succeeding.

[rndgermandude]

Would literal witchhunts be a better example? Or hunting "communists"? Or Young Earth creationsim? The "idea" that your skintone and level of intelligence are "biologically" linked? Or Jet fuel cannot melt steal beams and 9/11 was an inside job? And don't even get me started about that fake moon landing... Oh no... I can hear an airplane, here come the chemtrails.