Free speech can’t flourish online — Social media is an outrage machine, not a forum for sharing ideas and getting at the truth::Social media is an outrage machine, not a forum for sharing ideas and getting at the truth

  • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    People tend to reflect and post the outrage media they subscribe to, then look for echo chambers to reinforce those views. Reasonable opponents get exhausted and leave - and yes, IMO that’s what makes them reasonable, the ability to understand what they’re up against and quit a battle that cannot be won.

    Also IMO the “gentleman’s agreement” we had, in the US at least, that free speech was somewhat honored most places including your job or online decades ago is dead. It’s quite clear that even the government isn’t too keen on the 1st amendment depending on who is in charge, much less corporations who will terminate people for speech conflicting with corporate agendas, and absolutely not petty or controlling forum moderators.

    People that yell “muh freedum of speech!1!1!” the loudest are often the ones doing their best to force some hateful subjects or outright lies into other’s faces, then they get upset and claim they’re being attacked or bring up some other victim complex when they get “cancelled.”

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I feel you are pointing in the right direction, but you did miss some stuff that is commonly missed. (I am going to preface that all I am doing is presenting facts, corps can burn in hell for my personal opinion)

      • Freedom of Speech only has a bearing on law, government, and the agents thereof. Corporations in the US are not bound by the Constitution, only the government. Corporations and individuals operating a space where the public are able to act are bound by the laws, but as long as they don’t directly violate any if those law, they can restrict speech as much as they like.
      • While echo chambers are a major issue, and one we should all be focused on making sure we don’t get trapped in, they are not the largest issue concerning the issue at hand. Humans are more prone to engage with controversial topics, whether that is surging to the protection of something that affirms our biases, or lashing out against things that offend them. Social media platforms only care about so-called “engagement”. Their statistical validity for investors and advertisers are strictly based on sanitized numbers regarding how many users live on their platforms, how often they post, and even more so how often they comment. Polarizing posts see the most commentary, so social media companies are financially incentivized to propagate as much polarizing information as possible, regardless of the content. The advertisers never see what the post info is or how how much hate and vitriol are in the comments, and they don’t care (some are starting to realize). All they want to know is “if I pay you to put my add on peoples posts, how many people will see them?”. It is disgusting, but true. Bad news sells. Tragedy sells. Hate sells. Polarization sells. It makes me long for the days when all we had to worry about being manipulated by marketers with was sex.
      • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m thinking that maybe you missed my point, which is exactly what you said.

        First point: Free speech only applies to government retaliation, but that’s on thin ice. Like I said. Not sure what needed clarification, maybe my more sarcastic take on it made it less clear.

        Second point: The point is that people aren’t really falling into echo chambers and having the lack of awareness to remove themselves from it, the point is they don’t want to leave the safety of their rage-bait fed herd and face criticisms of their narrative and/or worldview. Sure, someone who views a controversial or fringe subject will probably be fed more by algorithms, and the fault not only lies in that algorithm that wants to profit off clicks but the person that actively excludes any factual evidence to the contrary. Nobody thinks they’re the bad guy, and they don’t want to be told so.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Nobody thinks they’re the bad guy, and they don’t want to be told so.

          You also should not assume that everyone is the bad guy, either.

          And I get you might to push back against what I just said, but take a look at the tone of your comments, they tend to come from a critical point of view that already sees Humanity in a negative light. (No insult is meant.)

          • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Are we not, though? I’m pretty cynical, but even from a pragmatic standpoint we are incredibly destructive despite us telling ourselves how great we are with our technological advancements.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Are we not, though? I’m pretty cynical, but even from a pragmatic standpoint we are incredibly destructive despite us telling ourselves how great we are with our technological advancements.

              We’re both, actually. And I would push back on your assertion that you’re holding a pragmatic standpoint.

              The fact that you focus on the negatives and do not mention any of the positives bolsters my point…

              You also should not assume that everyone is the bad guy, either.

              • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                There is no requirement to mention “both sides”. I did not agree to such a condition, that’s your own criteria to make yourself correct. Have at it.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  There is no requirement to mention “both sides”.

                  There is in America. It’s one of the founding parts of the framework of the social fabric of the country.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Reasonable opponents get exhausted and leave - and yes, IMO that’s what makes them reasonable, the ability to understand what they’re up against and quit a battle that cannot be won.

      Sometimes though, it’s not about winning or losing the battle, but just pushing back against the messages that’s trying to shape a harmful narrative. To leave both sides of the argument available for third parties to read and consider.

      And for that, every reasonable person should be doing some of that, instead of just bailing. Consider it a civic duty.

  • daltotron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’ve kind of been of the opinion for a while that there are maybe a couple different ideas of “free speech”. If you have total “free speech”, right, everyone is allowed to talk and say whatever they want, much like the public square yadda yadda. You won’t get nazis, you’ll get spam, something which is obviously bad to anyone with half a brain (increasingly a smaller and smaller amount of the population). Spam is “free speech”, technically, as, someone is making the most of their ability to scream at the top of their lungs, maximum volume, they’re taking up all of the airwaves as much as is possible, and since these are usually the people with the most resources, it generally falls into the same kind of capitalist maximum usage of a resource in the most efficient way possible, with the minor caveat that nobody sane ever wanted that resource to be used in that way. Everyone needed a little bit of inefficiency in order to grease the wheels of conversation.

    Of course, over time, we realize spam becomes less effective than subtly prodding at the collective consciousness, and running a twitter account with snarky remarks. We basically just have to understand here that it’s still spam, it’s just that the distinction has been moved from maximum volume, to bad faith. Which, is something that isn’t necessarily the role of a corporation, just like spam doesn’t necessarily have to be a corporation. Spam can also be people that are just scammers. Instead of selling products, these sorts of spammers and scammers try to win you over, drive the discourse in a different direction, engage in a bad faith manner. It fills the same role as spam being the maximum volume in the amphitheater, drowning out any other communications, but this is more insidious, harder to catch, and doesn’t necessarily come from a place of malice or like, actual bad faith. If you were an alien listening to the airwaves, you might just hear something resembling a regular discussion, with the distinction that maybe you’d be getting a larger percentage of people getting mad and storming off as they talk to what are basically ideological zombies, or maybe robots.

    I can get a bad faith discussion out of taking two people that are temporarily mad, or passionate, invested, about the same thing in different ways, and then controlling the debate in a certain kind of way, say, over a text medium where neither side can communicate effectively. And those are people that should’ve been able to relate over a shared passion, ideally. I can get a bad faith discussion out of two people that do not speak the same language, out of two people that can communicate just well enough that what’s being said sounds sensible, but doesn’t actually translate to either side. And of course, I can get a bad faith discussion out of just simple trolling. I mean, that’s what trolling is, at a basic level, just taking a devil’s advocate nonsense stance super seriously, until other people also do that, basically on the premise that you’re someone to talk to. We sort of approach an event horizon with communication, where the closer two people are to actual communication, the more potential for frustration and misunderstanding there is, sort of like the hedgehog’s dilemma. So of course you get bad actors who lean into that, and who propagate that behavior and their own sorts of separate language and thought terminating cliches, in order to basically be spam, without being spam. They create bad faith conversations.

    And then, of course, I kind of fear the role that AI might take in the coming years, with all of this. Especially if analog computing hardware starts taking off again and people have easy access to building their own actually sensible chatbots resembling some mid-level internet discourse, instead of stuff that resembles what are really smart toddler might write. Then we’re gonna see this all play out all over again, with the spam, except in a way that’s much harder to detect, and in a way where you don’t have to recruit human labor to do any of it. Dead internet theory, but real, basically. I dunno of a real way to counteract any of this, en masse.

    I think the biggest thing is that people, generally, just have to put more thought into why specifically they want to leave a comment. Who are you doing this for? It can’t really be for the person on the other side of the screen, you know, because the miscommunication is going to be inevitable given enough time, there’s nothing you can do to counteract it. I think, inevitably, we all must realize, that the only reason to post online is, because you wanted to.

    And so we all become trolls, in a way. But then, as is the ancient wisdom of the trolls, it becomes boring to just inhabit a shallow perspective, to spout nonsense. It’s like playing a game with all the cheats enabled. It’s fun for a while, probably too long actually, if you’re insecure and have a chip on your shoulder, but it’s not fulfilling long term. You can get plenty of people to do this regularly, clock in and clock out, be passionless, play the game with cheats for 3-4 hours with no real investment and then walk away. But if you’re serious, you have to disable the cheats, to start inhabiting perspectives with real depth, you have to start inhabiting worldviews that aren’t your own, but are still fully internally consistent. Ones that just stem from maybe other starting values. Or maybe they are all the same perspective, just given different easily malleable information landscapes. And if that’s the case, then you’re not really trolling anymore. You’re just doing the socrates shit, where socrates invents a fake guy to challenge himself and others. Was that socrates? I dunno, who gives a fuck.

    Tl;dr We are/all must become trolls! Memes are the DNA of the soul!

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      > ChatGPT crits you for 1,000! <

      Seriously, you have to be more concise than that. We didn’t purchase one of your novels to read over an afternoon, we’re browsing a comments section of an online form.

      Apologies for the implied rudeness, none is meant.

  • morrowind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s amazing how much casually nicer lemmy and the greater fediverse is. You still see some bad habits leaking over from the rest of the web, but then people actually apologizing! and asking others to be nice! And it actually works!

    Well outside of some thorny political issues, but that’s just human nature.

  • mydude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    If you want a proper civilized discussion, head to pornhub. You’re welcum.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Pornhub comments is where I learned about the existence of and how to make chicken adobo. Shit’s delicious.

        This is the most _________ comment I’ve ever read on the Internet.

        *Can’t think of the proper word to use for this comment, it’s totally blown my mind. Esoteric? Nope. Non-sequitur? Nope. Has the word actually been invented that describes this comment? It’s power is over 9000!

        ** I have further questions. Where can one get the recipe for chicken adobo? Also, why when you use voice-to-text does the word “internet” always show up in lower case, when it’s a pronoun that is supposed to be in uppercase?

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I couldn’t even get to the article. My screen was immediately blurred on the top half, and the bottom half with a full width pop-up talking about “managing cookies”.

    (And yes, I know, but I not using my desktop, I’m using my phone.)