[PittleyDunkin]

> Globally, we've been speedrunning fucking up society in critical areas for decades now.

Social media has also been enormously beneficial in terms of crippling the propaganda power of centralized, commercial media. It would be very bad to simply return to the authority of editorial boards. What we actually need is to grapple with the social responsibility that comes with this power, which could take decades or even centuries of living with the internet to wrangle.

Especially now that we know how little of the world traditional newsrooms are even willing to cover, let alone fund coverage of.

Besides, the cat is out of the bag.

[gU9x3u8XmQNG]

Not sure I agree with this entirely, especially the points on media. And I don’t think it’s been beneficial at all.

I’d argue the problem here is more so quality, and can really only be solved with regulation. I want to read news, not a blog and opinion.

There should be clear and concise standards media outlets need to adhere to, but as per my suggestion in regards to social media; will not self regulate.

Additionally; there is no accountability and responsibility.

I would argue that the only benefit that has been made is making this more apparent and obvious.. and hopefully for the better.

[PittleyDunkin]

> There should be clear and concise standards media outlets need to adhere to

Yea that's be great but it's never going to happen, and if it did happen you wouldn't like it. It's like people wanting unbiased journalism: that only exists in the minds of the people who think there are only two serious opinions to have on any topic.

[partomniscient]

It does happen - sometimes get we unbiased journalism. Just not from 'professional' journalists.

In response to an article posted in the global news thread on reddit, someone who lives there and actually has local knowledge and context can click 'reply' and explain what's actually going on and contradict/correct what the clickbaity sensationalist mass media article contains.

For example, I live here, the government is passing trying to pass said law that they can't control the implementation of. It's also seen by some as a surveillance state move under the guise of "won't someone think of the children". Under the proposed rules, theoretically people < 16 won't even be allowed to text one another.

More in depth/informative article from a local source, not Reuters:

[1] https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-poli...

[ImPostingOnHN]

That link seems like the opposite of unbiased journalism, and also the title quotes someone as having called it a ‘deeply flawed plan’ but upon closer inspection, seems to be quoting the opinion of the author themself!.

[partomniscient]

At a fundamental aspect, that's what journalism is though - some individual noticing something and writing down what they percieved, its always biased. To think otherwise is ludicrous.

The linked article is way more informative and in depth compared to the link in the original HN post.

[ImPostingOnHN]

The linked post seems to spend all its time advocating for one position without taking even a moment, much less equal time, to even explain the other position.

[Neonlicht]

Social media could include everything including forums and websites were people can leave a comment.

I know that some people here on HN want to go full Unabomber and live in the woods but I kind of like the internet.

[dsvnasd]

> Besides, the cat is out of the bag.

That's what I was thinking too.

I am not sure what the value is in severely regulating half a dozen or so companies when work arounds are so easily to implement. Maybe as a stop gap solution while we figure out long term solutions (which the government has a horrible track record on).

But for any long term solution we would first have to define what social media even is, and in a way that's testable in court. Don't run away from the hard things, but wow, that's hard.

[mcdeltat]

Your point is very valid. I know I would certainly have less awareness of global topics if social media didn't exist (and I don't even use it that much). Social media is definitely contributing to mental health issues too. Do you think social media is net positive? Or do you think there is an alternative method by which the negative effect can be mitigated?

[PittleyDunkin]

> Do you think social media is net positive? Or do you think there is an alternative method by which the negative effect can be mitigated?

I think we're stuck with it no matter what so we better develop better ways to deal with its existence regardless.

[_Algernon_]

>Social media has also been enormously beneficial in terms of crippling the propaganda power of centralized, commercial media

This is just plain wrong. Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter. That is not an improvement.

[PittleyDunkin]

> Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter.

I mean it's not like the power of domestic propaganda has waned, it's just in a war for the attention of the ignorant with other interests (most of which aren't foreign powers, by the way, but simply capital). Social media that enabled independent coverage and discussion is still there for the adults in the room and it would be a true loss for any society to sweep the rug out from under the people who care to look beyond the for-profit newsroom (i.e., almost all media that's readily accessible at least to americans).

[bigfudge]

> Social media that enabled independent coverage and discussion is still there for the adults in the room

I'm not actually sure that's true. The only reliable sources on social media (in the sense of 'usually not horribly wrong') are actually traditional media companies like bbc, guardian. Perhaps I'm holding it wrong, but finding other trustworthy sources is actually really hard...

[belorn]

If there is one single reliable fact that I wish was repeated more often in this kind of discussions is that news papers and media companies will cater to the demographics of their core audience. Left, right, center, young, old, male, female, city, rural, and so on. Consumers will self select towards publishers which they agree with, and publishers will cater to that which more reliable generates revenue and views.

Meta studies often illustrate this well, but one can also do this on an individual level. Seek up reliable sources which opposing core audience compared to ones own demographic and it becomes obvious how horribly wrong they seem with miss leading statements, omissions, weasel words, emotional labeled meanings, mixed with with straight falsehoods.

The only trustworthy sources are multiple sources, and even then we are likely to fail since we are going to be searching for confirmation of what we already believe to be true. Social media do not usually help here, through Wikipedia seems to be a fairly good starting point (especially the talk pages are good to see where different reliable sources disagrees the most).

[alxlaz]

This is especially untrue today, when reaching a wide, relevant audience requires significant resources, including financial -- either outright paying for sponsored places at the top of people's timelines, or paying for the expertise that delivers the right content to the right people in the right formulation.

There's obviously still room for exceptions (especially in small niches, where individual content creators can still make a dent) but this isn't 2006 anymore. The vast majority of the content that covers social, political or economic issues on social media platforms is paid for and pushed by directly interested parties (political parties, companies etc.) with ample funding and is often part of campaigns that span both social media and traditional media. The "indie" outlook is part of the packaging.

The terms of the "paid by" disclaimers are sufficiently generous that they're all but useless once you get past things like goodie bags for influencers or regulated campaign ads.

[PittleyDunkin]

> Perhaps I'm holding it wrong, but finding other trustworthy sources is actually really hard...

Yes, it is hard, but there's no such thing as easy trust, and you should always be questioning whether such trust is actually earned or just comforting.

I don't think the "bbc" or "the guardian" are very trustworthy, either (at least by themselves)—both have obvious polemics and blind spots. They also only cover a very narrow, western-centric view of the world, leaving you with piss-poor understanding of world politics. I'm not saying you should ignore them but they're still propaganda.

Substack is invaluable; blogs are invaluable; twitter, as miserable as it is, is invaluable (for direct access to reporters sans newsrooms, if nothing else).

[EraYaN]

They are not propaganda in the classic sense since that requires intent and a goal.

[PittleyDunkin]

Sorry, why do you believe these entities have no intent nor goals? That's a very odd assumption to make.

As always, I highly recommend Manufacturing Consent, which well illustrates how to examine financial interests to determine the above. Propaganda does not require conspiracy nor explicit instructions on what messages to convey; it only requires a class of people produced from the same environment, aiming to reproduce that same environment.

[doodaddy]

There is some truth to this crippling power and I don’t doubt that there are examples of it. But social media has been the vector for massive amounts of propaganda. Sorry to say I’d rather just have the commercialized editorial boards. At least that’s a single problem that can be reigned in. Instead we have the worst of both worlds - commercialized media plus a million-headed hydra spewing falsehoods and nonsense.

[PittleyDunkin]

> At least that’s a single problem that can be reigned in.

I don't understand what you're referring to. How do you recommend reigning in a newsroom? Especially one beholden to owners and advertisers with interests directly opposed to those of readers? How do you as a consumer opt out of the financial barriers to quality reporting? The only answer is the peer to peer nature of social media and the internet.

Perhaps what you're missing is that traditional media has zero incentive to highlight the positives of direct communication between disparate populations, creating farcically-negative hysteria about the dangers of worldviews not beholden to giant interests (yes, including domestic and foreign state powers, but also individual entities with massive capital to throw around).

[broken-kebab]

>Sorry to say I’d rather just have the commercialized editorial boards

Not me. Having a solid experience living in some far-from-democracy countries, I can state with all certainty that social platforms opened at least a crack to alternative opinions for a lot of people. Yes, they are full of propaganda, but I think they still provide more pluralistic picture compared to the world where old media ruled supreme. The real problem with those platforms is not "misinformation" (which will be everywhere anyway), buy addictiveness, and the fact they incentivize aggressive tribalism