The only way to minimize these effects is to consume a multitude of media from multiple sources, so no one entity has too much influence. Balancing all the US-based social networks with some TikTok certainly seems healthy in that regard.
1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
I don't think Facebook and many social networks are doing a good job but I think we should also recognize that the problem is difficult and unclear how to solve. There's an issue with how information naturally flows and how that can be manipulated.
Specifically I don't think TikTok is great because the focus on short videos (we see this on Facebook too. A meme is even shorter). 30 sec to 3 min political videos are more likely to be propaganda in my experience (e.g. NowThis). Though that isn't too say there aren't longer form versions (e.g. PragerU).
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
Are you referring to Camebridge Analytica?
If you didn't check social media or have any input from a new sources in the past 2 weeks what would you have missed?
The NASDAQ went down then back up?
Real news could be done with a single web page that updates weekly. Even if monthly you wouldn't really miss out on much of anything important.
To me social media isn't about news, it's about entertainment, education, social interaction, etc. My TikTok is about people rapping childrens books, what ADHD does to people and how to deal with it, how introverts go to the party for the cats instead of to meet people (all things in the first five clips when I just opened it).
Social media certainly can be toxic, but it can also enrich your live and give you a much wider horizon by bringing you into contact with people outside your social bubble.
Well step 1 is to see what country the social network was made in, and see if that government has had a strong history of using the law to force companies to silence criticism.
Amplifying pre-existing fault lines to encourage general weakness is certainly one that's been well explored. Another might be amplifying political or ideological that serve the foreign power's goals (e.g. general pacifism when that power is planning some kind of aggression or military build up, or electioneering messages for a candidate with a more favorable trade policy to that power).
No one could deliver particular results with certainty using any of these methods, but they could definitely put their finger on the scales.
I know you were. The issue here isn't that this kind of manipulation is totally unheard of, it's that it could be done far, far more effectively and stealthily with the control of the platform.
What now? Who's blaming anything "on the insidious machinations of the great hidden Other"?
We just watched people spend 3-4 years claiming that 50 Russian internet trolls were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign. The "smart people"! At some point you have to add up the mass values and ask if this adds up, or if we're just making excuses for ourselves.
A hop you took, not me.
> We just watched people spend 3-4 years claiming that 50 Russian internet trolls were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign.
Fifty Russian internet trolls (likely more), were working to put their finger on the scale, but it's an exaggeration to say definitively that they "were responsible for beating a billion dollar presidential campaign." Maybe they tipped the scale, but maybe they didn't. There's no way anyone will ever answer that question.
It's like hacking. Has a foreign nation hacked the US power grid to cause widespread blackouts? No. Does that mean foreign hacking of US utility companies is not something for Americans to be concerned about? No. Does that mean the US shouldn't harden its power grid against the threat? Also no.
If we're so fragile that some marginal stuff can steer our culture, then we deserve it.
No, we were not asked to believe that, at least not by anyone worth listening to.
You're missing the point. The attempt to put a finger on the scale is threat that warrants a response. It doesn't matter if the scale was tipped or not. It's like if someone shoots at you and misses. Would you have no problem with that? Should you proceed like nothing happened?
Similarly, the capability to make an attempt is also a threat. It's like if someone hands you a time bomb, are you going to carry it around and act like it's not dangerous, just because it hasn't gone off yet?
I don't know if this counts but I was surprised to run into this pro-DPRK account while scrolling recently: https://www.tiktok.com/@dprkorea_?lang=en
It purports to show North Korea through the lens of a hidden camera. Plenty of shots of couples holding hands and playing badminton without nets.
I get the sense that this is propaganda and not genuinely capturing the everyday lives of North Koreans. That said, I can't prove that this is the case.
The best performers train there entire lives and put on shows year round. Secretly they hope the leader will show up one day.
In America people wait hoirs to get a star to sign something. In North Korea the biggest star is the leader.
From the real footage I've seen it's a crazy place with normal people who do normal things.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they wouldn't. What I'm trying to convey is: I have no idea what life in North Korea is like because (to my understanding) nearly every photo that is taken and leaves the country must be approved by North Korean officials[1].
I think many people would love to see North Korea as it is, not as North Korean officials would like it to appear. As such, a TikTok account that claims to be secretly filming North Koreans and exfiltrating that footage is very interesting. However, I believe there is a good chance that this footage is still released with the approval of the North Korean government and does not accurately capture the everyday lives of North Koreans.
The fundamental problem here is that I don't know what life in North Korea is like. I cannot claim with certainty that this footage was staged. I suspect the same could be said about the footage that you've seen, it is very hard for outsiders to know what is real and what is not.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-life-photos-2018...
I knew a western family German passport who went over. You cannot wear blue jeans. You have someone with you at all times and you are not allowed to talk to anyone.
But that tells you very little about day to day life. Checkout this 2012 movie. You will find it interesting and believable.
2012 movie https://www.tvo.org/programs/the-defector-escape-from-north-...
Director interview https://www.tvo.org/video/behind-the-lens-the-defector
There are important differences between being influenced by domestic actors, as part of a domestic political process, and being influenced by foreign actors. The latter is a far more serious threat to political independence.
It's also pretty well documented that the PRC political authorities already use its domestic social networks in this way.
Where's the evidence that TT has been successfully used for nefarious purposes on a similar scale?
And passing legislation to provide financial relief.
And coordinating global travel restrictions.
And coordinating vaccine development efforts.
I don't need to see a particular bomb blow up to know it'll be dangerous when detonated.
To add nuance, it's also not a binary problem. Is it influence from a country with closer values to you/your country or one further apart? Obviously your country is likely to be one end of the spectrum. I'd also say that US and China have very different cultural/political/economic views and considering a significant percentage of HN posters are American, this is why the specific comparison is frequently made (and a Dutch, for example, social network isn't really a world player right now).
No, I was responding with my thoughts as an American. And frankly, his comment was ambiguous enough to be open to multiple interpretations (e.g. 1. to a non-American, US-controlled networks are foreign; 2. and manipulation/propaganda happens on US-controlled networks already, so why should it be any more concerning on one from China; 3. etc.).
> He's dutch, and is regularly spied on by the US.
The issue I was talking about isn't spying.
Just because the actors are domestic doesn't make it at all better. Domestic actors don't have public welfare in mind, they have their own welfare in mind.
This influence happens behind close doors, and I, as a constituent, don't get to have any input on it.
For a great example, I didn't get to vote on whether or not Fox news should peddle absolute nonsense 24/7 that radicalizes their base. Its owners made that decision, without my input.
If you want 'domestic' influence and oversight over your mass media, social networks, etc, use the political process to set some ground rules, and make everyone operating these businesses in your country follow them. Blaming or targeting the foreign boogieman is a distraction, when we've got plenty of domestic monsters living in our closet.
No love for any social network from me, but there's a huge difference between a company looking for its own interest, and one being controlled by a state which may be in a hot (or certainly cold) war with your country in the near future.
You can surmise that FB will put its interests over your own, but you can bet that a Chinese owned media will actively look to harm you and the place you live, it's just a matter of time.
Whatever that is, I live in the US and so do many TikTok users. As a point of view of someone who lives in the US, being dominated by a foreign adversary is a bad thing. Giving that adversary control of what we see and think about is therefore very dangerous.
I totally understand that if you're in China your perspective on this will be backwards but here's one example: let's say China invades Taiwan which is our ally. Should the US defend our ally? Would china use its control of social media to make most Americans not aware/not care/be misinformed about the situation to ensure that the US does not get involved?
Again, not expecting you to agree, but do think that someone who lives in and likes the US to care about this
There are plenty of powerful domestic actors that actively want to harm particular groups of people. Sometimes the cruelty and the harm is the point. Sometimes it's just a distraction, intended to pit half the country against the other half, while they get away with highway robbery. Sometimes it's because they are sociopaths on a massive ego trip.
And I'm not talking about Facebook's leadership, here. You are correct that it just wants to make money.
I actually had a thought in the back of my mind that the outlook may be different in other countries, but I didn't write it down. Especially since American companies have a tendency to pursue their own agendas, even against the American government.
and social influence
there are a few worrying trends on the internet which are difficult to attribute to simply headstrong visionaries concerned with the general progress of our species
Did y'all just forget Cambridge Analytica?
I don't think the only question is "who wins at having the most popular social network." The more concerning one is of exerting political influence through manipulative amplification/suppression (which is something the PRC has a lot of experience with). That could be both highly effective and extremely subtle and difficult to detect (e.g. activating one political tendency with relatively more call to action videos, while distracting its opposition with relatively more cat videos and relatively fewer calls to action).