Do social media threaten democracy?
Social media initially appeared to be a positive force when it helped to overthrow authoritarian governments in the Middle East in 2010-2012 (the "Arab Spring").
However, internet practices such as doxxing ("to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge") and the widespread forwarding of "fake news" have halted the cheerleading.
Some remedies: [bold added]
The social-media companies should adjust their sites to make clearer if a post comes from a friend or a trusted source. They could accompany the sharing of posts with reminders of the harm from misinformation. Bots are often used to amplify political messages. Twitter could disallow the worst—or mark them as such. Most powerfully, they could adapt their algorithms to put clickbait lower down the feed. Because these changes cut against a business-model designed to monopolise attention, they may well have to be imposed by law or by a regulator. [blogger's comment: nope, regulators are not impartial; the cure is worse than the disease.]I try to support trusted sources by buying subscriptions to Time, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, and the San Francisco Chronicle (note: I do not support many of these publications' editorial positions), among others, all of which pre-dated the internet and, not coincidentally, adhere to standards of journalism no longer widely practiced.
I try to live outside a political bubble by reading publications--both free and paid--that I disagree with.
I try not to inflame others by using language that provokes (exception: stuff that I find funny), nor do I forward articles that leave out strong (IMHO) counter-arguments or, more importantly, facts that contradict the main arguments.
I still believe in the ultimate rationality of human beings, and that the truth will become known.
On the other hand I still think Donald Trump can be a good President though I didn't vote for him, so consider the source.
No comments:
Post a Comment