Is social media distorting reality ?

[studiot]

Exeter University is the nearest university to me.
Here is a quote from journalist alumnus J Irwandi about his prizewinning photo during the covid pandemic, although he was villified by both government and private authorities for 'fake news' at the time.

 

Quote

I quickly learned, however, that it was not necessarily the denial we are battling with. We are also fighting a loosing battle with socila media algorithms where the reality people believe in is the reality they choose for themselves. If you like. or comment, or support certain posts on social media, the algorithm feeds you back similar content.

His example was from coronavirus, but I ask it in a much wider context.

Edited March 11, 2022 by studiot

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Exeter Euniversity is the nearest university to me.
Here is a quote from journalist alumnus J Irwandi about his prizewinning photo during the covid pandemic, although he was villified by both government and private authorities for 'fake news' at the time.

 

His example was from coronavirus, but I ask it in a much wider context.

I don't think this is a new problem, it reminds me of my gran chatting over the garden fence, scaled up.

Some people are gossiper's and some people are gossipee's; we're social people, we just want friend's.

I don't think it distorts reality, it emphasises the problem of gossip. 

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't think this is a new problem, it reminds me of my gran chatting over the garden fence, scaled up.

Some people are gossiper's and some people are gossipee's; we're social people, we just want friend's.

I don't think it distorts reality, it emphasises the problem of gossip. 

Oh dear me.
Thank you for helping me correct my spelling mistake. +1

 

I doubt your gran ever caused serious social consequences.
Although even swapping misinformation over the garden fence with a couple of neighbours has led to human deaths in the past.
(Here I am thinking of falsely accused paedophiles/murderers hounded to death or lesser consequences)

But social media now spread lies on a grand scale.

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by studiot

[MigL]

Absolutely !
Social media's algorithms feed your biases and like opinions back yo you, re-enforcing them.
Like a confirmation bias feedback loop; and the more sensationalist, the more amplification.

A large majority of people get their news from such social media sources.
What could possibly go wrong ?
( I am not on any social media, nor do I plan to be )

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I doubt your gran ever caused serious social consequences.

It depends on, how one define's, serious...

[Peterkin]

Yes, very much so. But it's not only social media, it's the internet in general.

So many people no longer get their news from mainstream broadcasting - which is governed by some public standard, even if not held to a very high one - but all kinds of sources. These sources, many of them unaccountable, unreliable and unverifiable, are owned by political, religious or commercial entities with a particular POV and agenda to promote. They gather a loyal following that hears no other voices, and the same audience passes the links back and forth among themselves, creating a web of misinformation, validating and reinforcing one another in the same shared ideas - creating hive minds with fixed ideas.

But there have always been 'influencers' on a smaller scale. The grannies gossiping over fences long ago did create a similar web of opinion in some neighbourhoods and small towns, and the mean girls do in high schools, and the frat-boys do do in universities, and the cliques of every kind do in every parochial jurisdiction - especially when it came to prejudices and denigration of a designated  'out' group.   

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

But there have always been 'influencers' on a smaller scale. The grannies gossiping over fences long ago did create a similar web of opinion in some neighbourhoods and small towns, and the mean girls do in high schools, and the frat-boys do do in universities, and the cliques of every kind do in every parochial jurisdiction - especially when it came to prejudices and denigration of a designated  'out' group. 

 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

( I am not on any social media, nor do I plan to be )

Me too.

[Peterkin]

The difference is in scale and scope. The internet connections mobilize huge movements, for good or ill - more often ill - that can topple governments, destroy in a week social structures that had taken decades to erect, or get thousands of their adversaries and their own adherents killed and jailed.   

It's easy to distort the perception of reality - at least locally. It's relatively easy for widely broadcast media (national press, commercial tv, religious pulpit) to spread propaganda over an entire population and thus distort a population's perception of reality. The internet is different from those media in that the audience is no longer passive recipient but active participant. That, with the speed of dissemination, distorts the functioning of a society, and has an immediate effect on the real world.  

[MigL]

I just read the posts in the other thread about the war in Ukraine, that Facebook is allowing posts advocating violence against Russians an d V Putin.
This may be well intentioned, but is further politicising social media, and, in my opinion, not a good move.

It would be a 'slippery slope' argument, but what happens when they start doing that with other issues related to Politics and social agendas ?

[beecee]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

But social media now spread lies on a grand scale.

Yes, emphatically. 

7 hours ago, MigL said:

( I am not on any social media, nor do I plan to be )

Me three.

[CharonY]

In addition to scale, the platforms are designed to create positive feedback loops so that users stay engaged. Considering that folks are already biased towards what they assume to be true, this feedback loop can start based on some level of reality. However, with each cycle they can be more and amore outrageous until it becomes and almost impenetrable alternate reality which is not amenable to any sort of discussion anymore.

For example, at the beginning there were quite reasonable worries regarding vaccine safety. While clinical data looked good, there are (as we any other vaccine) safety considerations that needed to be looked at. However after a couple of rounds through social media, there are now folks actually believing that vaccines cause infertility and death on a regular basis. Sources are of course social media.

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Facebook is allowing posts advocating violence against Russians an d V Putin.
This may be well intentioned

I don't see how it can be well intentioned. How many Russians, accessible to the average Facebook user, are directly responsible for attacking Ukraine?  How many Russians in Russia itself had any say in the matter, or bear any responsibility? For that matter, how many Facebook users can tell the difference between a Russian and a Ukrainian?

Edited March 11, 2022 by Peterkin
sp

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

( I am not on any social media, nor do I plan to be )

 

7 hours ago, Genady said:

Me too.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Me three.

Hate to burst your bubbles, but discussion forums are like the OG of social media. Forums & chat rooms were staples of the early web. The added algorithms seem to be what causes the problems that have been brought up so far.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 

 

Hate to burst your bubbles, but discussion forums are like the OG of social media. Forums & chat rooms were staples of the early web. The added algorithms seem to be what causes the problems that have been brought up so far.

In this case, what is a proper label for that kind of social media, the one with the algorithms?

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

In this case, what is a proper label for that kind of social media, the one with the algorithms?

I admit to being far behind the times as well. I quickly gave up on FB (after really high hopes of a good family platform) and haven't touched it in the last ten years or so. 

My experience with the algorithms is somewhat recent. Google news uses them, and it almost makes me want to go back to print newspapers. I signed up for TikTok and immediately experienced the way my choices brought more of the same. I've enjoyed much of the work I've seen there, but it can't be good to only see things you like or agree with. 

[StringJunky]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Absolutely !
Social media's algorithms feed your biases and like opinions back yo you, re-enforcing them.
Like a confirmation bias feedback loop; and the more sensationalist, the more amplification.

A large majority of people get their news from such social media sources.
What could possibly go wrong ?
( I am not on any social media, nor do I plan to be )

Same with streaming media programme lists, same with google search if you never remove your cookies, which probably most mobile phone users don't.

I  haven't had a TV for for nearly 20 years, so this is really noticeable to me when I go to a friend's home and watch Netflix sometimes. His family's Netflix choices get narrower over time, and they end up bored with it because it now  only gives them what they wanted before. They still carry on watching the same genres though. You don't want chocolate ice cream everyday, but that's what the likes of Netflix, Google, et al do, gradually restrict your choices and force you into a rut that becomes  ingrained. Brainwashing basically.

Social media is not distorting reality as such,.it has increased our exposure to exponentially more realiities than pre-internet times. We are overwhelmed by the number of windows we can see through. On any given night, pre-90's, probably 30-50% might be watching the same programmes at any given time, quite often. Eastenders, Coronation Street, and televised national events easily pulled 25 million viewers ... that was half the UK population on one channel.... one window of reality. That doesn't happen now because of the plethora of media choices. Us older ones sense this but we often don't realise why. Nationally, countries populations used to share a common media reality, and now we don't. I'm afraid us older ones are the new Luddites, as happens with every generational change, and the younger ones will seamlessly accept it because they know nothing else.

The consequence of the internet is that there is much less local, national and global synchronicity of shared perceptions and intersubjective realities, therefore, the chances of sharing the same opinions within large groups is much reduced now. This is a major reason, I think, for the increasing disharmony in the world now.

Edited March 11, 2022 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

They don't call them "echo chambers" for nothing.  The power they have to gaslight people (especially those who don't stray from one platform, and don't regularly clear cache and cookies) is creepy.  

The other distortion that bothers me is from platforms that favor brevity, like Twit(ter).  Many issues are complex, and reducing one's thoughts to 288 characters may lead to shallowness and sloganeering.   (For zen wisdom, it might be okay, and I do sometimes see very pithy stuff that is valuable)

 

 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Hate to burst your bubbles, but discussion forums are like the OG of social media.

That's why I try my best not to be 'sociable'.

 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You don't want chocolate ice cream everyday,

Yes I do !!!

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yes I do !!!

An algorithm would get with bored you.

[Genady]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I  haven't had a TV for for nearly 20 years

Et tu, Brute? The very last time we watched TV was the first Obama inauguration.

[OldChemE]

Not only does social media allow reality to be distorted, it also removes some of the historical limitations.  Historically, it took effort to get anything published.  This tended to limit the influence of nut cases.  That is no longer the case.

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, Genady said:

Et tu, Brute? The very last time we watched TV was the first Obama inauguration.

Yes, originally it was because I couldn't hear it properly anymore. TV's are better now and I have options to address my deafness with it but watching other peoples TV's convinces me it's not worth having. The internet takes up that kind of leisure time because I am more at home with the written word. I think listening to someone speak is several times slower than I can read, even if I could hear it. 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Hate to burst your bubbles, but discussion forums are like the OG of social media. Forums & chat rooms were staples of the early web.

OTOH, I use them to confuse Google. People I wouldn't encounter in ordinary life interest me in subjects i normally wouldn't investigate, so I do research on this and that, and some entirely unrelated other thing, as well as my mundane lookups (the price of a steel barn, is that actor is still alive, how do you prune a philodendron) as well as any figures, names, places, background I need for a story. I search for so many kinds of things, poor Goog doesn't know what to advertise at me. It usually settles for bloody Grammarly.    

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

His family's Netflix choices get narrower over time, and they end up bored with it because it now  only gives them what they wanted before.

We quit Netflix, partly for that reason. I'm much happier subscribing to public television networks: Knowledge in BC is by donation and CBC Gem is $5 a month, commercial free. New programming, and both offer closed captions. We still subscribe to amazon prime, while i finish watching a couple of old favourite series, but I notice the lack of diversity. Signed up to You Tube less than a year ago, and it's already trying to channel me to premier league football and building projects. And kittens. Everybody gets kittens.  

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

OTOH, I use them to confuse Google. People I wouldn't encounter in ordinary life interest me in subjects i normally wouldn't investigate, so I do research on this and that, and some entirely unrelated other thing, as well as my mundane lookups (the price of a steel barn, is that actor is still alive, how do you prune a philodendron) as well as any figures, names, places, background I need for a story. I search for so many kinds of things, poor Goog doesn't know what to advertise at me. It usually settles for bloody Grammarly.    

We quit Netflix, partly for that reason. I'm much happier subscribing to public television networks: Knowledge in BC is by donation and CBC Gem is $5 a month, commercial free. New programming, and both offer closed captions. We still subscribe to amazon prime, while i finish watching a couple of old favourite series, but I notice the lack of diversity. Signed up to You Tube less than a year ago, and it's already trying to channel me to premier league football and building projects. And kittens. Everybody gets kittens.  

I found a site that explains how to remove/hide your viewing history in Netflix and, hopefully, they can start the serving algorithm from scratch on demand. They aren't tech savvy, except as consumers. That lack of diversity you have on Prime may be due to the suggestion algorithm. Perhaps find out how to remove your history , so that the algorithm can be reset. As an experiment try creating a new viewer account and compare what your current and new account serves you. I think it's worth investigating because, I'm sure you would agree, this suggestion algorithm is pernicious if not controlled.

@studiot I hope you don't think this kind of post is a distraction from your intended subject. I think finding out ways of being aware and taking control can help us have a more personally satisfying media experience.

Edited March 12, 2022 by StringJunky