State-backed manipulation rampant on social media(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
State-backed manipulation rampant on social media
https://theconversation.com/trumps-twitter-ban-obscures-the-real-problem-state-backed-manipulation-is-rampant-on-social-media-153136
69 comments
> But how much of social media is real?
One of the biggest problems with social media is the fact that social media companies are financially incentivized to keep the public at large from knowing. Twitter has long refused to answer exactly how many of its users are bots as a percentage of its user base, Facebook did the absolute bare minimum in cooperating with Senate Intelligence in 2017 relating to Russian propaganda, etc.
Kara Swisher said it best in an interview with Preet Bharara around the time of the Russian propaganda scandal: "The Russians didn't hack into Facebook and manipulate its servers. They were users of Facebook, they were users of Twitter. They used these platforms exactly the way they were designed to be used."
One of the biggest problems with social media is the fact that social media companies are financially incentivized to keep the public at large from knowing. Twitter has long refused to answer exactly how many of its users are bots as a percentage of its user base, Facebook did the absolute bare minimum in cooperating with Senate Intelligence in 2017 relating to Russian propaganda, etc.
Kara Swisher said it best in an interview with Preet Bharara around the time of the Russian propaganda scandal: "The Russians didn't hack into Facebook and manipulate its servers. They were users of Facebook, they were users of Twitter. They used these platforms exactly the way they were designed to be used."
Yes exactly!
And as you pointed out, some "bad actors" are not even bots, they are real people working on behalf of some organization.
It would be nice if more people were aware that the hyperbolic content they see on social media is possibly(probably?) either not a real person's thoughts, or has been influenced by some disingenuous source
And as you pointed out, some "bad actors" are not even bots, they are real people working on behalf of some organization.
It would be nice if more people were aware that the hyperbolic content they see on social media is possibly(probably?) either not a real person's thoughts, or has been influenced by some disingenuous source
The problem is that many wouldn't believe it if they were told (i.e. "this is what big tech wants me to think"). This is essentially what happened when Facebook and Twitter informed users that had interacted with suspected propagandized content.
Particularly after this current purge, social media companies have lost most of their authoritative credibility. Combined with a political culture that embraces wild conspiracy theories, you'd just be adding fuel to the fire.
Particularly after this current purge, social media companies have lost most of their authoritative credibility. Combined with a political culture that embraces wild conspiracy theories, you'd just be adding fuel to the fire.
> ...even really smart engineers...
No, ESPECIALLY really smart engineers.
"Techies" have some of the most crippling blind-spots when it comes to political sensibility. Moreover, it's not just bots and computational propaganda that we need to worry about (though that is serious problem too). Propaganda is just as "real" regardless of whether it's computational and offered up by bots, or if it's a guy with a megaphone, or if it's a poster or newspaper article (like in the 1930's).
What really matters is the intention behind the propaganda and that's what needs to be uncovered and dealt with. Coming up with AI to deal with AI-backed disinformation campaigns can only ever be an infinite game of wack-a-mole, unless the root-causes are addressed. These are political problems and they require a political solution. Facebook and Google aren't going to be the hero here.
No, ESPECIALLY really smart engineers.
"Techies" have some of the most crippling blind-spots when it comes to political sensibility. Moreover, it's not just bots and computational propaganda that we need to worry about (though that is serious problem too). Propaganda is just as "real" regardless of whether it's computational and offered up by bots, or if it's a guy with a megaphone, or if it's a poster or newspaper article (like in the 1930's).
What really matters is the intention behind the propaganda and that's what needs to be uncovered and dealt with. Coming up with AI to deal with AI-backed disinformation campaigns can only ever be an infinite game of wack-a-mole, unless the root-causes are addressed. These are political problems and they require a political solution. Facebook and Google aren't going to be the hero here.
> Family and friends often are distressed by the state of the world
I see this a lot too, and I have seen it the other way around as well. Where people believe everything is either Armageddon or a non-issue. Ironically I think this effect is applied to itself. Are we distressed because we think our world-view is wrong so we seek to the extremes for validation?
I see this a lot too, and I have seen it the other way around as well. Where people believe everything is either Armageddon or a non-issue. Ironically I think this effect is applied to itself. Are we distressed because we think our world-view is wrong so we seek to the extremes for validation?
I'm no expert but this is my opinion.
1. We are all products of our environment
2. The internet and social media is becoming a higher percentage of our environment every day
3. Large parts of the internet and social media makes money by occupying our attention
4. The best way(that we know of) to occupy our attention for long periods is through hyperbolic/enraging material
^^^ Doing this long enough leads to enraged/hyperbolic population and I don't know of a reasonable way to stop it :(
1. We are all products of our environment
2. The internet and social media is becoming a higher percentage of our environment every day
3. Large parts of the internet and social media makes money by occupying our attention
4. The best way(that we know of) to occupy our attention for long periods is through hyperbolic/enraging material
^^^ Doing this long enough leads to enraged/hyperbolic population and I don't know of a reasonable way to stop it :(
I read a quote once: "What I eat becomes my body. What I read becomes my mind." (I would give credit where due, but I can't find the attribution at the moment.)
Social media becoming a higher percentage of our environment means that it becomes a higher percentage of our reading. That means it becomes a higher percentage of our mind. That's... rather disturbing.
Social media becoming a higher percentage of our environment means that it becomes a higher percentage of our reading. That means it becomes a higher percentage of our mind. That's... rather disturbing.
i would disagree with #1, we are products of our curation and observation of information that is coming in forms of feelings or outer causes. you can be in a bad environment but still curate where do you put your attention by explicitly acknowledging what subjective values do you carry during your lifetime.
as above, curation is the main skill of the future, you can use youtube to watch stupid cat videos or to watch self development content, it is up to the viewer. if you are willing to read lies, you deserve to be deceived.
with the current abundance of information and possibilities it is a blasphemy to argue that people are manipulated, they are rather choosing this by being lazy or not curious enough or because it already confirms their biases / beliefs.
it is sad to see that people replicated the TV (Tell-Me-Vision) model on the internet.
as above, curation is the main skill of the future, you can use youtube to watch stupid cat videos or to watch self development content, it is up to the viewer. if you are willing to read lies, you deserve to be deceived.
with the current abundance of information and possibilities it is a blasphemy to argue that people are manipulated, they are rather choosing this by being lazy or not curious enough or because it already confirms their biases / beliefs.
it is sad to see that people replicated the TV (Tell-Me-Vision) model on the internet.
I think you're right. We are products of our perception of reality. I just didn't want to get too deep in my summary.
I feel that people are manipulated on social media mostly by opinions/narratives and not incorrect facts. These opinions end up guiding how we feel about facts.
Example:
Fact -> Maga protesters stormed the capital
Opinion 1 -> "These protesters will be looked at as heroes for trying to protect our democracy"
Opinion 2 -> "These protesters are fools to do such a dangerous thing for a president that doesn't care about them"
I believe that depending on if you get more Opinion 1's or 2's on your feed, it probably will eventually shape how you feel about the fact. Sad thing is most of the time these opinions are hyperbolic and not balanced.
I feel that people are manipulated on social media mostly by opinions/narratives and not incorrect facts. These opinions end up guiding how we feel about facts.
Example:
Fact -> Maga protesters stormed the capital
Opinion 1 -> "These protesters will be looked at as heroes for trying to protect our democracy"
Opinion 2 -> "These protesters are fools to do such a dangerous thing for a president that doesn't care about them"
I believe that depending on if you get more Opinion 1's or 2's on your feed, it probably will eventually shape how you feel about the fact. Sad thing is most of the time these opinions are hyperbolic and not balanced.
if you are willing to read lies, you deserve to be deceived.
This is too simple a statement. Most lies aren't advertised as such, so you are presuming:
1) subject matter expertise in every reader
2) a mental framework of truth and trust to accurately evaluate a source
Yes, critical thinking skills are important, but they must be taught, cultivated and honed to be effective. And even then, the deception skills of most (successful) deceivers are greater than the thinking skills of the general population. Remember that most deceivers have university degrees in sociology, psychology, marketing or economics.
This is too simple a statement. Most lies aren't advertised as such, so you are presuming:
1) subject matter expertise in every reader
2) a mental framework of truth and trust to accurately evaluate a source
Yes, critical thinking skills are important, but they must be taught, cultivated and honed to be effective. And even then, the deception skills of most (successful) deceivers are greater than the thinking skills of the general population. Remember that most deceivers have university degrees in sociology, psychology, marketing or economics.
> if you are willing to read lies, you deserve to be deceived.
What if you don't know if it's lies or not. Which party is responsible for a solution? Should people "wake up" first or should we as a society punish those who prey on the unknowing?
What if you don't know if it's lies or not. Which party is responsible for a solution? Should people "wake up" first or should we as a society punish those who prey on the unknowing?
I think the solution is very straightforward: Turn off the platforms. So what if a few folks in SV lose jobs? They'll find new ones. The rest of the world will move on.
>If a single developer can create a twitter bot in 4 hours
Several years ago I took a week-long python class from a PhD who spent his days building and tweaking weather pattern models. A lot of the class was learning Pandas and other mathematical libraries. One of the assignments in class was twitter sentiment analysis using a prebuilt dictionary of weighted words. In other words I'm heartily agreeing with you that this is not difficult for anyone with skills and time.
Several years ago I took a week-long python class from a PhD who spent his days building and tweaking weather pattern models. A lot of the class was learning Pandas and other mathematical libraries. One of the assignments in class was twitter sentiment analysis using a prebuilt dictionary of weighted words. In other words I'm heartily agreeing with you that this is not difficult for anyone with skills and time.
> but the capital and blm riots have shown that online opinions can have real world impacts.
If people are acting based on what they read, is banning the words the real solution? It seems that learning the reasons why people are dissatisfied is the more useful approach.
Suppressing people's words or beliefs under the guise of Democracy has never been a good strategy throughout history.
If people are acting based on what they read, is banning the words the real solution? It seems that learning the reasons why people are dissatisfied is the more useful approach.
Suppressing people's words or beliefs under the guise of Democracy has never been a good strategy throughout history.
I never suggested banning words and agree that opinions should not be surpressed.
The issue occurring is that bad actors are using social media as a tool to enrage people and shape their opinions.
I do not have a solution but I feel as though identitying this as a real problem is part of the solution. Most people are not aware that social media is filled with computational propaganda
The issue occurring is that bad actors are using social media as a tool to enrage people and shape their opinions.
I do not have a solution but I feel as though identitying this as a real problem is part of the solution. Most people are not aware that social media is filled with computational propaganda
> But how much of social media is real?
For me personally, I treat social media as entertainment. Sure you can have reliable sources of news, but I force myself to deal with social media like entertainment so that I moderate myself. I will never sit and watch TV all day and so I will never sit and scroll through social media all day. I keep my follow list manicured so if someone is tingling my BS meter, I drop them. It is far too easy to get inside an echo chamber. The goal is to always have credible but challenging points of view in my feed and to limit how much I time I spend in the feed.
For me personally, I treat social media as entertainment. Sure you can have reliable sources of news, but I force myself to deal with social media like entertainment so that I moderate myself. I will never sit and watch TV all day and so I will never sit and scroll through social media all day. I keep my follow list manicured so if someone is tingling my BS meter, I drop them. It is far too easy to get inside an echo chamber. The goal is to always have credible but challenging points of view in my feed and to limit how much I time I spend in the feed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The best example of this thing can be seen through the crypto giveaway scams on Twitter. Since the intent is to scam the other individual, this is the best snapshot you can see of someone trying to achieve an end within a few hours through bots (as opposed to political manipulation which made run on a longer time frame).
well reddit political subs are managed through email blasts by some groups and this is not even bots doing it but people who feel empowered to take part.
I have always been of the opinion that the only people who should be restricted with regards to how they get their message out are those in office but Trump has changed the game a bit and now I realize there are far too many who have been waiting this moment to find new means to regulate who and what message can be conveyed.
prior to the net and social media sites we had to rely only on the press, printed and televised. both were shown their bias if not outright distortion of truth by the same social media many are being told to revile.
in the end it comes down to educating people and accepting that in any free society you get the good with the bad
I have always been of the opinion that the only people who should be restricted with regards to how they get their message out are those in office but Trump has changed the game a bit and now I realize there are far too many who have been waiting this moment to find new means to regulate who and what message can be conveyed.
prior to the net and social media sites we had to rely only on the press, printed and televised. both were shown their bias if not outright distortion of truth by the same social media many are being told to revile.
in the end it comes down to educating people and accepting that in any free society you get the good with the bad
BTW. Has anybody ever seen ever one example of sequence of Tweets that are so cleverly constructed by some foreign entity that it might have effect on elections?
Majority of (European) moderation in Twitter is done in Russia, or Russians residing in Malta or some such place. I used to burn Twitter accounts by the dozens by trolling^H^H^Hdiscussing issues that only Russians have opposing and sentimental view -- like Winter War, or origin of "Rus", or Crimea occupation.
Majority of (European) moderation in Twitter is done in Russia, or Russians residing in Malta or some such place. I used to burn Twitter accounts by the dozens by trolling^H^H^Hdiscussing issues that only Russians have opposing and sentimental view -- like Winter War, or origin of "Rus", or Crimea occupation.
Your challenge seems misplaced. It isn't that one or a few tweets or likes is clearly responsible for a significant shift of opinion (usually). Your question is like asking, "Has anybody seen the bucket of water which caused the flood?"
In 2016 there were Russian accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers. They maintained accounts on both sides of contentious issues and pushed inflammatory stories simply to increase divisiveness.
Stories they wanted to promote, whether they created it or not, they could use bots to push to higher visibility. It isn't as if any one vote made the difference.
In 2016 there were Russian accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers. They maintained accounts on both sides of contentious issues and pushed inflammatory stories simply to increase divisiveness.
Stories they wanted to promote, whether they created it or not, they could use bots to push to higher visibility. It isn't as if any one vote made the difference.
Why would anybody follow Russians and their discussions? I do not get this.
If you desperately wanted to know what American "Alt-right" was thinking 2016, you subscribed to Milo Yliannospullo, Gavin MacInnes or Steven Crowder, but they are all banned everywhere now, and they are not Russians.
If you desperately wanted to know what American "Alt-right" was thinking 2016, you subscribed to Milo Yliannospullo, Gavin MacInnes or Steven Crowder, but they are all banned everywhere now, and they are not Russians.
> Why would anybody follow Russians and their discussions
You misunderstand the situation. They weren't posing as Russians. They were posing as Americans as individuals, as news outlets, as political organizations:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russian-t...
Quoting a bit from this:
They posed as local news outlets, such as "New Orleans Online," "El Paso Top News," and "San Jose Daily." The majority of these accounts were created between May and August of 2014, but lay dormant until January 2015, when most of them started tweeting. This suggests a significant element of advance planning, Symantec said.
You misunderstand the situation. They weren't posing as Russians. They were posing as Americans as individuals, as news outlets, as political organizations:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russian-t...
Quoting a bit from this:
They posed as local news outlets, such as "New Orleans Online," "El Paso Top News," and "San Jose Daily." The majority of these accounts were created between May and August of 2014, but lay dormant until January 2015, when most of them started tweeting. This suggests a significant element of advance planning, Symantec said.
Ok.
Not for twitter, but on a european reddit: Starting at about the refugee "crisis", I have seen regularly postings using the following script:
- newly created account (or, in the more sophisticated variants, an account created some time ago with a few meaningless postings) - ask for help, or ask a question to distract from the actual goal - somewhere in the text, throw in some association that should stick (like "refugees steal", or "refugees sexually assault woman", as a fact that doesn't need discussion) - when confronted, the only answers were contentless excuses, like "but I am really asking this for my mother, who can't use a computer". Never any attempt to engage in actual discussion.
The reaction to these is that people usually address the question, don't address the baseless association, which probably then starts to stick in the unconsciousness of at least some of them.
And on the political side, at the same time there was an increase in support for extremist and nationalist, anti-foreigner parties.
Though of course how much such messages contribute to that is difficult to say.
- newly created account (or, in the more sophisticated variants, an account created some time ago with a few meaningless postings) - ask for help, or ask a question to distract from the actual goal - somewhere in the text, throw in some association that should stick (like "refugees steal", or "refugees sexually assault woman", as a fact that doesn't need discussion) - when confronted, the only answers were contentless excuses, like "but I am really asking this for my mother, who can't use a computer". Never any attempt to engage in actual discussion.
The reaction to these is that people usually address the question, don't address the baseless association, which probably then starts to stick in the unconsciousness of at least some of them.
And on the political side, at the same time there was an increase in support for extremist and nationalist, anti-foreigner parties.
Though of course how much such messages contribute to that is difficult to say.
[deleted]
Over the last 4 years I have personally tried finding an actual example, but still they allude me. I've seen plenty of bot activity, or news articles talking about bot capabilities, but never a real post in the wild or even a screenshot of one. I'm personally believe this is a mass hysteria used to explain how intelligent voters can make wrong decisions.
You might be interested in page 14-35 of the Mueller report. Yes, it's heavily redacted, but there is some very specific information in the unredacted portions, including individual twitter handles, etc.
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea...
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea...
There's an example of how this looks in this teardown:
https://gru.gq/2019/12/07/baltic-counter-disinformation-2/
This explains more background:
https://gru.gq/2018/11/08/russian-propaganda-isnt-even-good/
https://gru.gq/2019/12/07/baltic-counter-disinformation-2/
This explains more background:
https://gru.gq/2018/11/08/russian-propaganda-isnt-even-good/
Surely we can widen the issue from state-backed manipulation to lots-of-money-backed manipulation.
And the article's suggested solution is:
> These companies should therefore increase their efforts to flag and remove disinformation, along with all cyber troop accounts which are used to spread harmful content online.
So the suggested solution is to have different lots-of-money companies stop the lots-of-money manipulation. Of course, if you are doing the right kind of manipulation (ads), that's allowed.
Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
> These companies should therefore increase their efforts to flag and remove disinformation, along with all cyber troop accounts which are used to spread harmful content online.
So the suggested solution is to have different lots-of-money companies stop the lots-of-money manipulation. Of course, if you are doing the right kind of manipulation (ads), that's allowed.
Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Lots-of-money-backed manipulation is how things have been traditionally. "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel". It tends to be a stabilizing force for society, despite the malevolence (eg Iraq war). Meanwhile state-backed (or alternatively, lots-of-foreign-money-backed) seems to be a destabilizing force. We've presently got two large political movements, both essentially protesting against out of control government, but yet they've ended up being each other's enemy.
I don't think the distinction between state-backed or lots-of-money-backed manipulation is really what makes it stabilising or destabilising. Rather, I think it whether the manipulation separates out the manipulated into an echo-chamber of similarly-minded outrage or not.
For example, a government statement based on scientific investigation, such as "Covid-19 is a dangerous disease, but it helps if you wear a mask" is state-backed manipulation, but it doesn't try to isolate the manipulated into an echo-chamber, and it is intending to be stabilising.
Conversely, some of the worst parts of social media can whip up a storm of outrage and hatred because the algorithm (which is intended to maximise the advertising profits of a commercial company) recommends outrageous stories that make you angry, but that you are likely to agree with. This is lots-of-money-backed manipulation, but it does isolate people into echo-chambers, and it is destabilising.
Regarding having two large political movements that have become enemies, I think this is an emergent property of a complex interaction between politics and the tendency of people to get sucked into echo-chambers that (as an emergent property, not an intended outcome) steer people towards thinking that the other side is the devil incarnate. Political parties will always disagree with each other. I admire politicians who can say to each other that they disagree strongly with the other's point of view, but they respect them as a person and get on with them well.
I think it will be very hard to destroy the natural tendency of social media to form echo-chambers, but it should be attempted. Regarding politics, I think it's interesting that countries that have election systems that discourage two-party politics in favour of multiple parties having to make compromises with each other tend to be more stable and friendly about it.
For example, a government statement based on scientific investigation, such as "Covid-19 is a dangerous disease, but it helps if you wear a mask" is state-backed manipulation, but it doesn't try to isolate the manipulated into an echo-chamber, and it is intending to be stabilising.
Conversely, some of the worst parts of social media can whip up a storm of outrage and hatred because the algorithm (which is intended to maximise the advertising profits of a commercial company) recommends outrageous stories that make you angry, but that you are likely to agree with. This is lots-of-money-backed manipulation, but it does isolate people into echo-chambers, and it is destabilising.
Regarding having two large political movements that have become enemies, I think this is an emergent property of a complex interaction between politics and the tendency of people to get sucked into echo-chambers that (as an emergent property, not an intended outcome) steer people towards thinking that the other side is the devil incarnate. Political parties will always disagree with each other. I admire politicians who can say to each other that they disagree strongly with the other's point of view, but they respect them as a person and get on with them well.
I think it will be very hard to destroy the natural tendency of social media to form echo-chambers, but it should be attempted. Regarding politics, I think it's interesting that countries that have election systems that discourage two-party politics in favour of multiple parties having to make compromises with each other tend to be more stable and friendly about it.
I agree that filter bubbles and algorithmic engagement is a serious issue, but that's somewhat orthogonal to how I took your initial point.
"State-backed" is generally implying foreign states. The real distinction being foreign versus domestic, regardless of whether the actor is part of a bona fide government or not. A domestic actor will push their own interests, but generally not to the catastrophic detriment of the larger country. Whereas a foreign actor's entire goal might be to incite chaos.
"State-backed" is generally implying foreign states. The real distinction being foreign versus domestic, regardless of whether the actor is part of a bona fide government or not. A domestic actor will push their own interests, but generally not to the catastrophic detriment of the larger country. Whereas a foreign actor's entire goal might be to incite chaos.
But back in the old days, you still had the same thing. Find a list of the names of local newspapers. Look at the names of them. Notice how many have "Democrat" in the name. Most (all?) of those were papers that took an explicit editorial stance in favor of the Democratic Party. There were some explicitly Republican papers as well, but I think these were fewer in number.
That is, when you were getting your news from a newspaper, you could still live in a filter bubble...
That is, when you were getting your news from a newspaper, you could still live in a filter bubble...
> It tends to be a stabilizing force for society, despite the malevolence (eg Iraq war).
Brave words. Stabilizing for whom?
Brave words. Stabilizing for whom?
... and the social media giants have lots of money, and are in the perfect position to manipulate.
Motivation and opportunity ...
Motivation and opportunity ...
I've suspected this for years- twitter and reddit are especially manipulated. You don't even need an email for reddit and it's mostly browsed by Americans. You'd have to have your head in the sand to not think it's manipulated like crazy. They're huge juicy targets with incredibly low barriers.
Anytime I'd try to bring the conversation back toward civility I'd be downvoted to oblivion.
I find it's best to separate news from social.
Anytime I'd try to bring the conversation back toward civility I'd be downvoted to oblivion.
I find it's best to separate news from social.
Social media is just another media, and media hacve always been manipulated, somewhere more, somewhere less. This might be a news to Americans, as US propaganda efforts used to be more directed outwards, but us who grew up in (failed) socialism grew up knowing that most of political news are filtered lies and that you can't ever trust just one source. And I think that's the only viable solution, educating people to be skeptical of anything, on first ball at least. Check the multiple sources, wait a little for stories to be officially confirmed before reacting. It's not that hard, and Internet actually makes it a lot more viable, just that we still haven't really adapted emotionally to how the world works now. We still jump to conclusions, we still click the clickbait titles and the biggest problem, we're all deeply biased on our own views of the world - and these biases are the glasses that we view the world through, they affect every single aspect of our perception, often on a subconscious level. People often believe in fake news simply because deep inside they already think that's the case, they want it to be true.
> People often believe in fake news simply because deep inside they already think that's the case, they want it to be true.
This is also how you lie and con people, you construct a plausible lie they want to tell themselves, but if _you_ do it, they have deniability.
This is also how you lie and con people, you construct a plausible lie they want to tell themselves, but if _you_ do it, they have deniability.
There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
How much of the accepted-without-question, 100% undisputed mainstream narrative is disinformation as well?
Just two recent examples:
1. Voter fraud in the election.
After the election was done and rumours of fraud arose in the social media memeplex, nearly immediately the "There is no evidence of election fraud - claims of election fraud are disinformation" counter-meme was released into official media channels (and from there spread into social media). That this too is disinformation should be obvious.
- Election fraud (to whatever degree) occurred, or it did not.
- Evidence of election fraud (that is discoverable by humans) then existed, or it did not (regardless of that discovery).
- The necessary investigations to discover any such evidence had been launched and completed, or they had not.
disinformation: false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.
As of the date of the election completion + 1 day, the necessary investigations to uncover the existence of election fraud had not been completed - therefore, the assertions of fact broadcast from multiple independent media organizations that there is(!) no evidence of election fraud is disinformation.
2. The riot at the Capitol
Immediately after the Capitol incident, a coincidentally similar narrative was asserted by multiple independent media organizations: this was literally a coup attempt, an attack on "our most sacred(!) institution". And, the intent of the people on the ground was(!) to execute a coup against the US government. This was asserted as if it was a fact. However, what was actually going on (which is contained within the minds of the human beings who were there that day) is not actually known.
(Meanwhile, speaking of "attacks on sacred institutions": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... - curiously, this seemed to not come up in the conversation, despite its obvious relevance).
Getting back to the "Morning, boys. How’s the water?" story...somewhere along the way (my sense is that this has occurred mostly in the last 5 years), the notion of what is actually(!) true seems to have become somehow radioactive in a way - the very idea is considered repulsive, not to be mentioned in polite company.
And it's not just braindead political partisans who exhibit this behavior - as far as I can tell, this default intuition has been adopted by extremely high percentages of people across all categorizations. If anything, it seems to me that highly intelligent people are often even more repulsed by it than normal folks (who perhaps don't grasp the philosophical depth of the idea).
The election fraud disagreement and the Capitol riot, these things concern me somewhat, but what concerns me even more is the degradation of the very fabric of reality, the "This is Water" in the story. And not only the degradation itself, but that the degradation is being promoted (at least unconsciously and passively) by some of the brightest minds in our population. A society that is arguably involved in some form of a new cold war with a rapidly rising new global superpower adopting a culture of disregard for what is actually true seems like not a great idea to me. If we actually care as much about the Capitol riots as we proclaim to, I think we should be willing to face up to what the actual underlying causes of it are, as opposed to the simplistic narratives (disinformation) that are asserted as fact to be the cause.
How much of the accepted-without-question, 100% undisputed mainstream narrative is disinformation as well?
Just two recent examples:
1. Voter fraud in the election.
After the election was done and rumours of fraud arose in the social media memeplex, nearly immediately the "There is no evidence of election fraud - claims of election fraud are disinformation" counter-meme was released into official media channels (and from there spread into social media). That this too is disinformation should be obvious.
- Election fraud (to whatever degree) occurred, or it did not.
- Evidence of election fraud (that is discoverable by humans) then existed, or it did not (regardless of that discovery).
- The necessary investigations to discover any such evidence had been launched and completed, or they had not.
disinformation: false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.
As of the date of the election completion + 1 day, the necessary investigations to uncover the existence of election fraud had not been completed - therefore, the assertions of fact broadcast from multiple independent media organizations that there is(!) no evidence of election fraud is disinformation.
2. The riot at the Capitol
Immediately after the Capitol incident, a coincidentally similar narrative was asserted by multiple independent media organizations: this was literally a coup attempt, an attack on "our most sacred(!) institution". And, the intent of the people on the ground was(!) to execute a coup against the US government. This was asserted as if it was a fact. However, what was actually going on (which is contained within the minds of the human beings who were there that day) is not actually known.
(Meanwhile, speaking of "attacks on sacred institutions": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... - curiously, this seemed to not come up in the conversation, despite its obvious relevance).
Getting back to the "Morning, boys. How’s the water?" story...somewhere along the way (my sense is that this has occurred mostly in the last 5 years), the notion of what is actually(!) true seems to have become somehow radioactive in a way - the very idea is considered repulsive, not to be mentioned in polite company.
And it's not just braindead political partisans who exhibit this behavior - as far as I can tell, this default intuition has been adopted by extremely high percentages of people across all categorizations. If anything, it seems to me that highly intelligent people are often even more repulsed by it than normal folks (who perhaps don't grasp the philosophical depth of the idea).
The election fraud disagreement and the Capitol riot, these things concern me somewhat, but what concerns me even more is the degradation of the very fabric of reality, the "This is Water" in the story. And not only the degradation itself, but that the degradation is being promoted (at least unconsciously and passively) by some of the brightest minds in our population. A society that is arguably involved in some form of a new cold war with a rapidly rising new global superpower adopting a culture of disregard for what is actually true seems like not a great idea to me. If we actually care as much about the Capitol riots as we proclaim to, I think we should be willing to face up to what the actual underlying causes of it are, as opposed to the simplistic narratives (disinformation) that are asserted as fact to be the cause.
[deleted]
propaganda is the oldest trick in the book, goes all the way back to the first civilizations.
I once found this stellar talk on YouTube about the history of the NSA up from the cabinet noir days in ww1. What was particularly interesting to me is that you can look at ww1 propaganda efforts and show hard numbers that they're extremely effective at changing viewpoints.
I once found this stellar talk on YouTube about the history of the NSA up from the cabinet noir days in ww1. What was particularly interesting to me is that you can look at ww1 propaganda efforts and show hard numbers that they're extremely effective at changing viewpoints.
Is there a significant difference between the manipulation activity on real-identity social media and pseudonymous media?
FB and Twitter are places where the real participants mostly use their real identities, whereas places like Reddit and HN are just politely pseudonymous. I wonder if the collateral of real identities means a greater or lesser degree of manipulation.I don't use those other sites because I'm less interested in connecting online with people who use their real names, as it reduces to a personal brand performance divorced from ideas and truth.
Whether we're engaged in discourse or politics seems linked to whether we're using "real" or abstracted identities. While I think people who can't abstract their ideas from their identities are the ones who get manipulated, consuming pseudonymously produced junk could have a similar but different impact.
FB and Twitter are places where the real participants mostly use their real identities, whereas places like Reddit and HN are just politely pseudonymous. I wonder if the collateral of real identities means a greater or lesser degree of manipulation.I don't use those other sites because I'm less interested in connecting online with people who use their real names, as it reduces to a personal brand performance divorced from ideas and truth.
Whether we're engaged in discourse or politics seems linked to whether we're using "real" or abstracted identities. While I think people who can't abstract their ideas from their identities are the ones who get manipulated, consuming pseudonymously produced junk could have a similar but different impact.
That is an issue, but the real fundamental issue is algorithmic timelines and recommendations that bias content to maximize engagement. What maximizes engagement? Hate, fear, and bombast.
This is the fundamental design flaw of the system.
Fixing it isn't going to be easy, though. Look at the amount of effort that the scientific community tries to put into improving the quality of communication:- peer review, standards for content ... and there's still nagging issues with reproducing results and even outright fraud in some cases.
Whatever solution we come up with will likely increase friction in the user experience, but there's lots of room for innovation here.
Fixing it isn't going to be easy, though. Look at the amount of effort that the scientific community tries to put into improving the quality of communication:- peer review, standards for content ... and there's still nagging issues with reproducing results and even outright fraud in some cases.
Whatever solution we come up with will likely increase friction in the user experience, but there's lots of room for innovation here.
Fixing this isn't a matter of adding complexity but of removing it. When timelines were sequential or user-moderated and YouTube was just a search engine and host for videos it was fine. Algorithmic prioritization algorithms were introduced around the 2008-2012 time frame and all Internet discourse went to hell shortly afterwords.
What we did was to insert a biasing function between all people that biased content for engagement. What maximizes engagement? Hate, fear, and conflict.
What we did was to insert a biasing function between all people that biased content for engagement. What maximizes engagement? Hate, fear, and conflict.
The fundamental flaw is human nature. That's not going to be easy to fix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-liked_tweets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-retweeted_tweets
Doesn't seem like you are right about that.
Edit: Going by replies might yield a different more negative result, the word "ratiod" imply that many see a reply almost as a downvote. But I was not able to find a list of most replied-to tweets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-retweeted_tweets
Doesn't seem like you are right about that.
Edit: Going by replies might yield a different more negative result, the word "ratiod" imply that many see a reply almost as a downvote. But I was not able to find a list of most replied-to tweets.
Interesting data — and heartwarming to see! — but I’m not sure it’s the right measure.
A thousand tweets that are each seen by a different (non-intersecting) group of a thousand people, each tweet being an accusation of evil directed at a specific person or group, does as much damage as one tweet seen by a million.
I hope that this measure would show the same result as the two lists you linked to; my current guess is that if someone did this analysis, the result would be almost as positive, but not quite, on the grounds that hate-inducing tweets are against the TOS and will be hidden or deleted when they reach a visibility threshold.
A thousand tweets that are each seen by a different (non-intersecting) group of a thousand people, each tweet being an accusation of evil directed at a specific person or group, does as much damage as one tweet seen by a million.
I hope that this measure would show the same result as the two lists you linked to; my current guess is that if someone did this analysis, the result would be almost as positive, but not quite, on the grounds that hate-inducing tweets are against the TOS and will be hidden or deleted when they reach a visibility threshold.
A thousand tweets, each seen by a different, overlapping group of a thousand people, reaches fewer total people, but to those people it looks like multiple independent sources confirming the same information. That is, the information looks more trustworthy. (That was one of the points of the Soviet "active measures" propaganda during the Cold War. They not only had western sources giving the Soviet line, they had multiple sources giving the same line.)
Thanks for the insight, I thought that might be the case but didn’t know.
(I also felt it would be an Apples-to-Oranges comparison when the alternative was a single account tweeting to a million followers).
(I also felt it would be an Apples-to-Oranges comparison when the alternative was a single account tweeting to a million followers).
According to that list, K-pop maximizes engagement so Twitter should pivot to being MTV online.
I don't think looking at the 30 most liked / retweeted tweets is a good measure for deciding what kind of content is most engaging. BTS makes up more than half of both of those lists - that's just a list of popular twitter accounts.
The most tweeted about people on twitter are Trump, Biden, and George Floyd[1]. I think that gives a pretty good idea of the content occupying people's minds.
[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/insights/2020/spending...
The most tweeted about people on twitter are Trump, Biden, and George Floyd[1]. I think that gives a pretty good idea of the content occupying people's minds.
[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/insights/2020/spending...
To me the biggest issue that was raised by the Trump bans is that we shouldn't be relying on these channels for communication with our governments and elected representatives. Boris Johnson had a brief flirtation with Facebook Q&A sessions.
Our governments should broadcast any messaging in the widest possible sense. Official government websites, live feeds to anyone who cares for it etc.
Our governments should broadcast any messaging in the widest possible sense. Official government websites, live feeds to anyone who cares for it etc.
>To me the biggest issue that was raised by the Trump bans is that we shouldn't be relying on these channels for communication with our governments and elected representatives
When you couple this with the fact that the USA pretty much decides political policy for most of the western world too, I really fear that [more than ever before] we're living in a world where US 'correct think' and US 'correct act' are the only acceptable forms of behaviour, outside of Chinese totalitarianism and Russian nepotism.
Not only that, but we seem to be so in thrall of the US that we even have to adopt your social problems as our own. A classic example of this is the recent George Floyd protests in the US:
All of a sudden, all over Europe, virtue signalling folks were going on BLM marches vandalising statues etc. Now, we may have had our problems in the past but, here in most of Europe, the kind of nasty emdemic racism that seems all too prevalent in the US barely exists any more. It's largely been consigned to that handy receptacle 'the dustbin of history'.
But, here we were, all of a sudden stirring up division and conflict in our own societies because "If the USA is nasty and racist then we must be nasty and racist too!" And, of course, the media were falling over themselves to unearth black celebrities to recount the traumatic tale of how, sometime between earning their fifth and tenth million, someone once looked at them in a funny way in a supermarket.
I just can't understand why the almost total domination by the US of European cultural and political life is a complete non-issue here. Why are Silicon Valley hipsters deciding on the acceptable parameters of discourse in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome... etc?
> "If the USA is nasty and racist then we must be nasty and racist too!"
I suppose we also get a free pass on sexual assaults and discrimination since #metoo is obviously just an American social problem?
While I agree that our problems are subtlety different, it's mostly people of Asian ethnicities who get a shit deal in the UK, to pretend they don't exist is just sticking your head in the sand.
Overt racists are alive and kicking in the UK at least. I have the misfortune of being related to some of them.
I suppose we also get a free pass on sexual assaults and discrimination since #metoo is obviously just an American social problem?
While I agree that our problems are subtlety different, it's mostly people of Asian ethnicities who get a shit deal in the UK, to pretend they don't exist is just sticking your head in the sand.
Overt racists are alive and kicking in the UK at least. I have the misfortune of being related to some of them.
> the kind of nasty emdemic racism that seems all too prevalent in the US barely exists any more
Let's be clear, the US has problems, but make no mistake, the US in comparison to Europe and Asia has far less of these problems, despite whatever impressions you get of prevalence. There are acts of overt racism and xenophobia that, even if viewed with disdain and acknowledged with an apologetic tone from the enlightened parts of European society, are nonetheless permissible in public outside the US. Things that, in the US by contrast, would be considered unthinkable that they even even happen, until the evidence is put in front of you, and then the reaction is pretty much universal shock to American eyes and ears no matter where they are on the PC/anti-PC spectrum. (Shocking even to ardent racists, who would instead be thinking, "How are they able to get away with this?")
When you hear of commotion across the ocean, think if the US as being an intensely self-critical bodybuilder, or a programmer trying to ruthlessly root out all of the vestiges and latent effects of old bugs.
Let's be clear, the US has problems, but make no mistake, the US in comparison to Europe and Asia has far less of these problems, despite whatever impressions you get of prevalence. There are acts of overt racism and xenophobia that, even if viewed with disdain and acknowledged with an apologetic tone from the enlightened parts of European society, are nonetheless permissible in public outside the US. Things that, in the US by contrast, would be considered unthinkable that they even even happen, until the evidence is put in front of you, and then the reaction is pretty much universal shock to American eyes and ears no matter where they are on the PC/anti-PC spectrum. (Shocking even to ardent racists, who would instead be thinking, "How are they able to get away with this?")
When you hear of commotion across the ocean, think if the US as being an intensely self-critical bodybuilder, or a programmer trying to ruthlessly root out all of the vestiges and latent effects of old bugs.
Sorry that's totally wrong mainland Europe in particular is a bit tone deaf in this area even compared to the UK.
Its very telling that refugees risk death trying to cross the channel to the UK rather than settle in mainland Europe.
Its very telling that refugees risk death trying to cross the channel to the UK rather than settle in mainland Europe.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, et al are the broadest method to broadcast.
They're not limited by geography, time of day, cable provider, and due to recording capabilities, the messages kept online easily without many restrictions. And potentially most importantly, they're easy for everyone to find.
In 2018, a number of people sued Trump for him blocking them on Twitter. It was viewed as unconstitutional to be blocked from reading and engaging with his messages. That went to the Courts and they agreed, his Twitter account was declared a "public forum" and he had to unblock them.
That's the real mismatch here.
They're not limited by geography, time of day, cable provider, and due to recording capabilities, the messages kept online easily without many restrictions. And potentially most importantly, they're easy for everyone to find.
In 2018, a number of people sued Trump for him blocking them on Twitter. It was viewed as unconstitutional to be blocked from reading and engaging with his messages. That went to the Courts and they agreed, his Twitter account was declared a "public forum" and he had to unblock them.
That's the real mismatch here.
That has been an issue for a long time: ever since individual citizens became unable to use these platforms, or were expected to make compromises on privacy rights etc to do so.
The only reason this was ever an issue is that Donald Trump chose to use his personal Twitter account as his primary means of communication, to the point that it had to be recognized as a de facto official channel. And that's mostly because he believed the press and every other avenue was controlled by leftists. This is far more a "Donald Trump is a paranoiac" problem than a social media problem per se. Nothing wrong with a politican doing an AMA on Reddit or a Facebook Q&A or having a Twitter account, which they all do at this point.
Politicians using social media as a convenient way to communicate with people directly can be a net benefit for society, although probably more so the more local government becomes. But using social media exclusive of other, official channels is obviously a problem.
Politicians using social media as a convenient way to communicate with people directly can be a net benefit for society, although probably more so the more local government becomes. But using social media exclusive of other, official channels is obviously a problem.
"A medium gets the content it deserves." Said Marshall McLuhan.
Twitter is a minimalist virtue signalling platform that selects for sensation and controversy. Nothing in the article should come as a surprise to anyone read up on their Chomsky.
If Trump had used traditional presidential communication channels, his pulpit would not have have the same capacity for amplifying disinformation and fomenting outrage. The mainstream media earned many clicks in their expressions of outrage over the last several years. The whole media ecosystem was either complicit or counter-complicit to Trump's BS, and the national discourse is now a dumpster fire.
It's not that the real issue is this or the real issue is that. I'd like to nominate "comorbidities" as the word of the year.
Twitter is a minimalist virtue signalling platform that selects for sensation and controversy. Nothing in the article should come as a surprise to anyone read up on their Chomsky.
If Trump had used traditional presidential communication channels, his pulpit would not have have the same capacity for amplifying disinformation and fomenting outrage. The mainstream media earned many clicks in their expressions of outrage over the last several years. The whole media ecosystem was either complicit or counter-complicit to Trump's BS, and the national discourse is now a dumpster fire.
It's not that the real issue is this or the real issue is that. I'd like to nominate "comorbidities" as the word of the year.
It's not a Twitter problem specifically. It's an internet-wide problem. You can't hold users accountable if you can't even uniquely identify them. There's hardly any point trying to search for bots because they are, effectively, in infinite supply.
The article is missing some very important points. How effective are these disinformation campaigns? Are they effective enough to, for example, significantly impact an election or sway enough people’s opinions about a vaccine to affect it’s adoption? Where is the evidence?
Also, how is a bot able to avoid detection? Seems like it would be easy to see that a single userbot “liked” more than is humanly possible ... even if the bot were written to mimic normal humans, then it would require more bots, all presumably coming from a similar cluster of ip addresses, making it more easy to detect.
Of course, what incentive do the social media platforms have to detect fake users (especially active ones like bots), since their metrics are largely driven by that metric?
Also, how is a bot able to avoid detection? Seems like it would be easy to see that a single userbot “liked” more than is humanly possible ... even if the bot were written to mimic normal humans, then it would require more bots, all presumably coming from a similar cluster of ip addresses, making it more easy to detect.
Of course, what incentive do the social media platforms have to detect fake users (especially active ones like bots), since their metrics are largely driven by that metric?
Perhaps Twitter should label bots?
I've always thought "Well they're just manipulating online opinions" but the capital and blm riots have shown that online opinions can have real world impacts.
Family and friends often are distressed by the state of the world, where their view of the world is social media. But how much of social media is real? How many of the radical opinions expressed are made by real people? Of those real people, how many of them were influenced by bots or "computational propaganda"?
I believe that we, even really smart engineers, are easier to influence that we want to believe