@EdJames there's some good points in this one, and it's short. What do you think?
@Sanguine Thanks, BTW, I have that last Schweizer Google video open in a tab, but haven't had a chance to watch it yet (hoping for later this week).
OK, he is talking about "outrage porn" to give it a name. Functionally, it is the same thing that a cable outlet like Fox News or CNN does... they put on story after story that is designed to get the viewer
outraged!! (And of course, staying tuned for the next outrageous story, and coming back later to see/hear more outrageous stories!)
The Facebook "algorithm" actually selects item to be shown in your News Feed using a number of different elements which include:
- ads from advertisers that you have interacted with in the past
- ads from advertisers that you have targeted you using a whole host of various criteria
- posts from Friends/others that you interact with often
- posts from Friends/others that you have reacted to recently
- posts from Friends/others that you have commented on recently
- posts from Friends/others that you have Shared recently
I have seen no evidence of (nor have read any reports of), the "algorithm" selecting items for your News Feed based upon that items capacity to "outrage" you. Now, if you are on Facebook and regularly interact (react or comment or share) with items in your News Feed that "outrage" you, then for certain, you will continue to see items in your News Feed that "outrage" you (based on the above elements).
So, this is a case of a population of Facebook users that *
choose* to get on the platform and argue with others (most often about politics and social issues). Because this is what they do, they are fed a stream of more of it. In effect, their behavior on the platform is telling the platform: "More please!!"
Many people use Facebook for other purposes, for example, business purposes. I can tell you that when I look at my News Feed, I see
nothing that outrages me in the least. I see
nothing about politics or social issues, since I never engaged with any posts of this nature.
We may find that we may never see "eye to eye" on this topic, as I come at it from a
very libertarian point of view. (Not to say that I am very libertarian about
all issues, but I am about some.) From my point of view:
- I will always be in favor of government keeping their hands off individuals and other privately owned entities (including corporations). If the subject has not broken any existing laws (or regulations), then my stance will always tend to favor government not attempting to penalize or otherwise regulate the subject.
- I will always be in favor of government keeping their hands off of "speech," wherever it may be found. Again, subject to the similar lawfulness as mentioned above.
It doesn't please
me that Facebook and other dominant social media platforms have shown a bias toward suppressing conservative and libertarian speech; that is not pleasing at all. If I were a user that wanted to use Facebook or these other platforms as a vehicle to promote this type of speech and ideas, I would walk away and find another vehicle to suit my purposes.
Back to the video:
- the "camps" or "information ghettos" that they are speaking of are
self-selecting "camps." The people that find themselves in these "ghettos" have chosen to go into them (based on their behavior on the platform).
- if one chooses to wade into these "ghettos," one will not find the kind of resolution to societal issues that they spend a fair amount of time talking about.
- using the example of regulating genetic engineering is specious, at best.
- I certainly agree that the population as a whole is fed a carefully curated "news feed" in general... it happens in virtually every media outlet that exists. The onus is on the news and information consumer to analyze this "news feed" and treat it accordingly. There will never be a role for government to either perform the curation or the analysis in a suitable manner.
- Relying on government to be the arbiter of what is "fair," is asking for nothing but trouble. (Talk about "unintended consequences!!")
- Talking about a "species wide" conversation about anything is fantasy...
- They do raise a valid point that the world has never been as
connected as we are now. That is a fact of life. We humans need to sharpen our knowledge and insights about what it means to survive and thrive in this connected world; the genie will not be put back into the bottle. However, this is an effort that each
individual must undertake to the best of her/his abilities, government, nor any other "big brother," can not do this for the individual.
