Re:Turkey blocks Twitter after the earthquake
by anigbrowl on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @12:58PM
(#34711984)
Cliches aren't an argument, but they're good for clicks. You can do better.
The solution is not as simple as 'more speech' because we are dealing with a historically unprecedented volume of amplified and recorded speech at scale, so things like signal:noise ratio become very important. Simplistic responses like yours suggest an unwillingness or inability to engage with the complexity of the issue.
A simple example of why you're wrong is that it's easy for an actor with access to an echo chamber to launch a viral cascade by modeling outrage over some made-up or minor issue to boost engagement. Fans of the actor share it out of agreement, amusement, or for the pleasure of owning their opponents, while opponents of the actor either deride or argue. The actor gets to appear in the day's trends, gain new followers/subscribers, boosting influence and financial intake.
But there's also a more subtle transfer of wealth, not so obviously measurable by the metrics of the social media platform. The actor spends 1-5 minutes composing their message, like you spend only a short period to select and repost your cliched response. The time that other people spend replying takes at least as long and often longer. So while the actor may have invested 5 minutes out of their 24 hour day in amplifying their own profile, by saying something deliberately controversial, they've caused others to put in significantly more time to responding.
Here, that's not such a big deal because HN discussions are not that complex and people have time to read and consider every comment in a thread they're interested in - so your claim has some validity. But on large social media platforms, the scope is radically different. A provocative tweet can generate thousands of negative replies, so that an investment of 5 minutes by the provocative actor can cause people to collectively put hundreds of hours into their responses, which unconscious social labor serves to amplify the provocateur. There are lots of influencers who have this down to a system and do it on an almost daily basis. It's essentially a theft of time - a little from their fans, a lot from their anti-fans, with that time being converted into engagement and increased reach.
This is why your reflex response is wrong. Bad speech can be designed to yield more speech that amplifies the original bad message for fun and profit. Your concept of reasoned debate only functions in forums where there are some leveling factors like equal time allocations or legal procedures for the allocation of time. Here on HN and on many small forums, that function is done by moderators (who can ban intentionally disruptive users or manage anti-spam filters) and to some extent by users (whose expressed preferences have direct weight like downvotes or flags, and indirect weight by their long-term community participation making them familiar to each other). On big platforms, the calculus is completely different and your model of reasoned debate breaks down.
The solution is not as simple as 'more speech' because we are dealing with a historically unprecedented volume of amplified and recorded speech at scale, so things like signal:noise ratio become very important. Simplistic responses like yours suggest an unwillingness or inability to engage with the complexity of the issue.
A simple example of why you're wrong is that it's easy for an actor with access to an echo chamber to launch a viral cascade by modeling outrage over some made-up or minor issue to boost engagement. Fans of the actor share it out of agreement, amusement, or for the pleasure of owning their opponents, while opponents of the actor either deride or argue. The actor gets to appear in the day's trends, gain new followers/subscribers, boosting influence and financial intake.
But there's also a more subtle transfer of wealth, not so obviously measurable by the metrics of the social media platform. The actor spends 1-5 minutes composing their message, like you spend only a short period to select and repost your cliched response. The time that other people spend replying takes at least as long and often longer. So while the actor may have invested 5 minutes out of their 24 hour day in amplifying their own profile, by saying something deliberately controversial, they've caused others to put in significantly more time to responding.
Here, that's not such a big deal because HN discussions are not that complex and people have time to read and consider every comment in a thread they're interested in - so your claim has some validity. But on large social media platforms, the scope is radically different. A provocative tweet can generate thousands of negative replies, so that an investment of 5 minutes by the provocative actor can cause people to collectively put hundreds of hours into their responses, which unconscious social labor serves to amplify the provocateur. There are lots of influencers who have this down to a system and do it on an almost daily basis. It's essentially a theft of time - a little from their fans, a lot from their anti-fans, with that time being converted into engagement and increased reach.
This is why your reflex response is wrong. Bad speech can be designed to yield more speech that amplifies the original bad message for fun and profit. Your concept of reasoned debate only functions in forums where there are some leveling factors like equal time allocations or legal procedures for the allocation of time. Here on HN and on many small forums, that function is done by moderators (who can ban intentionally disruptive users or manage anti-spam filters) and to some extent by users (whose expressed preferences have direct weight like downvotes or flags, and indirect weight by their long-term community participation making them familiar to each other). On big platforms, the calculus is completely different and your model of reasoned debate breaks down.