[eloisius]

I agree about sunlight being the best disinfectant, but I think social media like Facebook is a little more insidious than just "increased exposure." Facebook is designed for targeted messaging to people who are likely to engage with it. We've known about filter bubbles for at least a decade now. Amplifying disinformation specifically to an audience that is vulnerable to it is different than airing it on TV and increasing awareness.

That's exactly what algorithmically curated content feeds like Facebook and YouTube recommendations do. They amplify messages to certain people who are susceptible, and there's little awareness until somebody shoots up a mosque and then suddenly we realize there's a whole subculture of people that have semi-willingly brainwashed themselves with conspiracies floating around about white people being "replaced" and think Shariah law is being implemented in Western countries.

I don't think censorship of the content is the right answer. Short of calling for violence, people should obviously be free to propagate conspiracies, alternative history, whatever. The component that I am wary of is the algorithmic curation. It seems to tend towards "you like that? How about this slightly more extreme piece of related content?"

[smaryjerry]

I disagree that people are vulnerable to it. I honestly can’t think of a single Facebook ad that has ever changed my mind in a topic. Adults are not vulnerable. The point is is so identify and catch the people who are posting conspiracies and getting radicalized before they do something. You can do that if you don’t see it. I doubt some random reader gets radicalized simply from reading things and never engaging in conversations. With those conversations you are now to identify people and actually prevent more radicalization. For example Facebook knows if you make a death threat, via their algorithms as well as flagging by users. Not only that but their algorithms can identify them in private messages sent, and report them to law enforcement. This may shock people but if these people don’t post on Facebook they then create heir own websites, post in chat rooms, recruit their friends. Then you are left with a completely uncontrolled website or app where these people get stuck in an echo chamber.

[eloisius]

I'm not gravely worried about the ads themselves. They definitely bother me, but I'm more worried by "organic" content. It's really the algorithmically curated feeds that I see being harmful. My dad has always been kind of wing-nutty, but it was localized. He was suspicious about things like Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege when I was a kid. Now he is constantly repeating some garbage meme he encountered on FB. He is completely steeped in disinfo, and actively seeks out more of it by joining basically any FB group named something like "Real Trump Patriot Boat Lovers" and entices him with a meme about locking up the Clintons. If I watch him use it on his iPad, his feed is just torrent of crap, most of it endorsed by his friends and self-selected bubble. That's the harm, he was susceptible to disinfo to begin with, but now with the social proof that all his friends agree, they are escalating to more and more radical shit. At this point they're all saying how they won't stand for another inch of Corona rules and the governor is about to have an uprising on their hands. We don't even have any Corona restrictions in my state, but he's radicalized against them regardless.

[smaryjerry]

I know this is late but maybe your Facebook feed is different from mine. Mine only shows people I follow and advertisements. I don’t get any other content. Twitter on the other hand constantly recommends related people to those I follow and shows their tweets.