[mcoops]

This really caught my eye this week:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54161344

To some extent I feel like this is passing me by, very likely as I am pushing 50. Most of my digital interactions with friends and family have moved off Facebook onto messaging platforms. I get my news from major news websites.

I'm mindful of not triggering a descent into hot spots like conspiracy or tired right vs left debates. But I'm interested in whether people get their news through social channels, and whether giants like FB and Google are accountable enough. I'm planning to watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix too - anyone seen it and care to comment?

[Blacktemplar]

I had the impression that FB was pretty much 'old hat' for most folk under 50, who have moved to things like Instagram. I tend to consume my news from a variety of outlets, usually a mix of Sky, BBC and 'respectable' broadsheet websites such as the Guardian in the UK and the Washington Post or NY Times in the US. To be honest, I don't take anything I read at face value and always try to at least corroborate from one other source.

I believe that outlets such as FB and Google are reluctantly being forced to take more accountability for the content on their platforms, but nowhere near enough yet. For me Twitter is the work of the Devil and whilst it might give a voice to people or groups that might otherwise be muted, in the main it acts as an unfiltered platform for every nutter with a cause - including the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Blacktemplar

For me Twitter is the work of the Devil and whilst it might give a voice to people or groups that might otherwise be muted, in the main it acts as an unfiltered platform for every nutter with a cause - including the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For me social media is the world's biggest case study of unintended consequences. If you provide a platform for anyone to say almost anything with colossal reach, addictive/self-reinforcing mechanics and minimal moderation, you are going to end up with all of humanity, including the very worst, in the shop window.

As an aside, if you think Twitter is bad, don't look at TikTok. I've recently downloaded it to set up parental controls for my kids etc. What a stream of unbelievable excrement, largely from people with nothing useful to say.

[Watsey]

I have zero interest in FB, Insta, and the plethora of self-obsession platforms that exist. Never used them; never will.

Whether FB is active or passive in the world of social media influencing and political meddling, it's certainly complicit. We can absolutely certain that governments, political parties, and lobbying groups are all using it for their own purposes whilst also protesting profusely and waving their own "unfair meddling" banners in the face of the 'opposition'. FB too powerful in that regard, which is partly why I avoid it (and others). Just dosn't interest me.

I check-in with major news sites, although TBH that's pretty much just the BBC, on the basis of "has anything massive happened today ?". No, move on, more important/productive things to do.

LinkedIn is relevant for work and tends to be very a-political.

Bimmerpost is very useful for car-related technical stuff and enjoyable for a bit of banter, but the swing towards ham-fisted moderation is becoming increasingly offputting so I'm tending to drop-in a lot less these days.

In terms of mainstream (i.e. mass adoption) social media platforms I'm very happy to be 'outside the circle'.

[mcoops]

Part of the problem is the megalomania of Zuckerberg and others. They all start out imagining themselves as this people power / counter-cultural force. But they fail to account for the rottenness of certain sections of humanity, and end up as bad as the authority figures they despise.

I don't know what the answer is. A root and branch review of political content feels worthwhile. And then there is a more fundamental question about whether something so big, with that much reach is healthy at all.

[Ronstein]

As someone who works in ICT and Cyber Security, Social Media is a total nightmare. Anyone wishing to target an individual has myriad opportunities through various social media platforms to profile that individual and either target or spoof them with amazing accuracy. Profiling is the first part of the Cyber Attack Kill Chain and it's made incredibly easy when individuals fail to set their privacy setting, reveal critical personal information or simply assist the house burgling community by plastering their current location all over the internet.

And don't even get me started on the number of under 40's that read all sorts of sh*te on social media and then quote it as fact, without any attempt to verify if it's true or not!!!

[JD6]

For me, one of the most troubling aspects of social media and even YouTube type platforms is the algorithmic approach to what appears in your channel. Humans quite sensibly look for confirmation of 'facts' from more than one source, but if an algorithm selects stories or videos which it thinks you'll like, people get this reinforcement of whatever crazy idea they had in the first place.

It is hardly surprising that people can become 'radicalised' if everything they see validates their own initial bias. Some of it is benign enough not to really matter - vegetarians become vegans, frugivores and then tend towards raw only foods. But some of it has much more disturbing outcomes.

I think the algorithms need regulating to ensure that this can't happen. I have seen otherwise sensible people start to believe all kinds of crazy stuff.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by mcoops

The Social Dilemma on Netflix too - anyone seen it and care to comment?

I watched it last weekend, confirmed what I thought, they care about nothing but the bottom line, like most businesses. However their model/product is founded on a dangerous idea/ethos, the Marlboro (insert cigarette brand of your choice) of the 21st century.

Come the 22nd century they will have been regulated out of existence as we see them now and people will be amazed that it was allowed....either that or society will have broken down at the hands of them.

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Wills2

I watched it last weekend, confirmed what I thought, they care about nothing but the bottom line, like most businesses. However their model/product is founded on a dangerous idea/ethos, the Marlboro (insert cigarette brand of your choice) of the 21st century.

Come the 22nd century they will have been regulated out of existence as we see them now and people will be amazed that it was allowed....either that or society will have broken down at the hands of them.

Just finished watching it, agree with your observations. Zuckerberg makes my teeth itch. There is a man who knows his creation is utterly f***ed and out of control, but is too invested in it (in every sense) to admit to himself or anyone else.

[RobUK]

Social media is just plain disgusting these days so I stay well clear of it.

For news I now use something called Ground News, available as an app on various platforms and on the web. The nice thing about them is that they first verify new stories before publishing them, the second is that they show the headline and then link to sources according to political bias where you can read the full article, making it possible to see the spin that various publications will put on a story depending on their own political leanings.

It is very interest to see how a right wing, left wing and centrist publication will report the same thing in completely different ways. It also gives you an insight into news story 'blindspots' e.g. how certain stories and events get completely ignored in either left or right wing media.

[MY340i]

Social media isn’t social. Full to the brim of market and advertising, along with sponsored posts.

Long gone are the days of it’s actually purpose of connecting people.

[Craig-SM]

Originally Posted by RobUK

Social media is just plain disgusting these days so I stay well clear of it.

For news I now use something called Ground News, available as an app on various platforms and on the web. The nice thing about them is that they first verify new stories before publishing them, the second is that they show the headline and then link to sources according to political bias where you can read the full article, making it possible to see the spin that various publications will put on a story depending on their own political leanings.

It is very interest to see how a right wing, left wing and centrist publication will report the same thing in completely different ways. It also gives you an insight into news story 'blindspots' e.g. how certain stories and events get completely ignored in either left or right wing media.

This is about the only way to determine the facts of an issue. Everyone knew that Newspapers had a bias and on issue they steer a story to their view. Now you read a paper and take it with a pinch of salt even from the likes of the Guardian or New York Times. The later story on the austerity impact on Prescot was more fiction than fact.
All you can do now is assume they all lie, read various articles from both sides and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by RobUK

Social media is just plain disgusting these days so I stay well clear of it.

For news I now use something called Ground News, available as an app on various platforms and on the web. The nice thing about them is that they first verify new stories before publishing them, the second is that they show the headline and then link to sources according to political bias where you can read the full article, making it possible to see the spin that various publications will put on a story depending on their own political leanings.

It is very interest to see how a right wing, left wing and centrist publication will report the same thing in completely different ways. It also gives you an insight into news story 'blindspots' e.g. how certain stories and events get completely ignored in either left or right wing media.

Very interesting Rob. Do they say how they assess political persuasion? The Guardian wouldn't quibble with being slotted as left leaning I'm sure, but people have all sorts of views about the BBC for example.

[RobUK]

Originally Posted by mcoops

Very interesting Rob. Do they say how they assess political persuasion? The Guardian wouldn't quibble with being slotted as left leaning I'm sure, but people have all sorts of views about the BBC for example.

Ground News themselves don't decide on the political bias of any given media source, they use outside monitoring organizations for that. Here's their explanation: https://ground.news/about-bias-ratings