[Hojojo]

Honestly, it's crazy that any country allows online media to control the national discourse about politics without having any insight into how the algorithms decide what kind of content is shown to whom and how content is moderated or controlled. Then there's bot/propaganda accounts run by who knows who poisoning any political discussion.

[beloch]

If you're upset with what Meta does in the U.S., consider that Meta's engagement algorithms played a key roll in driving the Rohingya massacre in Myanmar[1].

"Internal studies dating back to 2012 indicated that Meta knew its algorithms could result in serious real-world harms. In 2016, Meta’s own research clearly acknowledged that “our recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism."

They knew there was a problem, but refused to act until Myanmar's government shut them down in 2014. After that, their response was half-hearted, inept, and actually made things worse[2].

Governments should not simply be paying attention to what users publish on Facebook, but also how Facebook's algorithms promote material to its users. Meta has demonstrated they will not take preventative action themselves. Meta needs to be carefully and extensively regulated by the government of any jurisdiction Facebook operates in.

It's easy to appreciate concerns that regulating social media could result in state propaganda or censorship. However, regimes likely to do this are probably already using other forms of control anyways. Taking Meta's remorselessly proft-seeking engagement algorithms out of the picture may be the lesser evil by a substantial margin.

[1]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

[2]https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2022/09/29/rohingya...

[imiric]

A valid solution is, of course, authoritarian levels of control over all media outlets. This puts countries like China and Russia at an advantage in this case.

Since most western citizens would object to this, surely middle ground solutions can be found that would prevent abuse and foreign (and domestic) manipulation, while preserving democracy, free speech and individual freedoms. I'm inclined to believe that democracy and authoritarianism doesn't have to be zero-sum, and that a balance can exist that allows societies to prosper even among hostile actors.

[vasac]

And only ten years ago, during the Arab Spring, social networks were praised for their role.

Wondering what has changed in the meantime.

[NikkiA]

What has changed is who it affected. Meddling in foreign elections/uprising is the US's MO, but when it's reversed it becomes a problem.

[throw1222212121]

"To save the public from propaganda, we must implement national controls on all political media dissemination"

[rcxdude]

More like "let's not have national controls on political media dissemination in the hands of large corporations and hidden from view"

[euroderf]

Or more like "Let's require technical measures to inhibit social media provider lock-in."

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

"everyone is smart enough to not be fooled by a firehose of addictive misinformation"

You can tell how smart everyone is by looking at our excellent voter turnout, especially in local elections