Abusing media jeopardizes our precious and fragile democracies
I think the simple and accurate opinion is YES. Too much bullshit floating around facebook and twitter etc.....
No it isn't. It opens up an opportunity. It wildly increases the potential for democracy. It undermines traditional media's monopoly on mass communication. I wonder if someone like Bernie Sanders could have risen so high without social media.
No it isn't. It opens up an opportunity. It wildly increases the potential for democracy.
The dream: "Discussing the new immigration bill online, with a diverse group of citizens and stakeholders, helped me to better understand what's being proposed, and being able to fact-check various claims meant I could consider the real costs involved."
The reality: "FreedomPatriot.org says that if elected, the Democrats would force everyone to adopt a gay Costa Rican refugee, so of course I immediately forwarded that to my 341 Facebook friends!"
Well it sure has given every sicko on the planet a platform if the freaks who responded here are any indication
No it isn't. It opens up an opportunity. It wildly increases the potential for democracy.The dream: "Discussing the new immigration bill online, with a diverse group of citizens and stakeholders, helped me to better understand what's being proposed, and being able to fact-check various claims meant I could consider the real costs involved."
The reality: "FreedomPatriot.org says that if elected, the Democrats would force everyone to adopt a gay Costa Rican refugee, so of course I immediately forwarded that to my 341 Facebook friends!"
Sure it also gives opposition the opportunity to spread hate and misinformation but if progressives can't win the argument it isn't the fault of the medium being used. We have greater opportunity to reach people through social media than we ever did through traditional mediums. Telephone chains were much more arduous to use than facebook. Activists worldwide have an unprecedented ability to contact one another instantly.
"The Dream" is unrealistic. That facebook doesn't provide a venue for in depth discussions is immaterial. Where would the Young Turks be without Youtube? We link to youtube political videos frequently. There are lots of speeches I would never have heard or read about were it not for Youtube.
I don't think activists are using social media as well as they could be using it (yet) but that is not the fault of the medium.
Is Social Media Destroying Our Democracy?
Not sure. But I do know that social media are destroying our grammar.
I don't think it's fair to blame the Latin abuse of using "media" as a singular word on social media, since I've heard it since [i]long[/i] before Twitter and Facebook were around.
It lessens the opportunity for consideration and perspective. Increases the opportunity for participation and exchange of views.
The word medium has two plural forms—mediums and media—and which one you use depends on what you're talking about.
If your subject is art, it's okay to use mediums or media. For science and communication, media is generally preferred. And if you're talking about fortunetellers and psychics, you always refer to them as mediums.
https://www.shmoop.com/grammar/spelling/media-vs-medium.html
I don't think it's fair to blame the Latin abuse of using "media" as a singular word on social media, since I've heard it since [i]long[/i] before Twitter and Facebook were around.
You're absolutely correct, of course. I was just trying to be cute (with my usual limited success). I blame the author of the thread title. And I think it's undeniable that social media allow linguistic usages, whether right or wrong, to proliferate exponentially.
The word medium has two plural forms—mediums and media—and which one you use depends on what you're talking about.
If your subject is art, it's okay to use mediums or media. For science and communication, media is generally preferred. And if you're talking about fortunetellers and psychics, you always refer to them as mediums.
https://www.shmoop.com/grammar/spelling/media-vs-medium.html
Good point! But still, both "mediums" and "media" is plural. Neither one are singular.
Not the first time I've, and others, thought a "like" button would be helpful here. But we're not FB and real time here relies on how often you refresh the browser. Anyway, carry on.
Not the first time I've, and others, thought a "like" button would be helpful here. But we're not FB and real time here relies on how often you refresh the browser. Anyway, carry on.
Despite the need to refresh the page to see an up to date count, I would vote for a like button.
Good point! But still, both "mediums" and "media" is plural. Neither one are singular.
I see what you did there. ;)
Not the first time I've, and others, thought a "like" button would be helpful here. But we're not FB and real time here relies on how often you refresh the browser. Anyway, carry on.
Good point! But still, both "mediums" and "media" is plural. Neither one are singular.
I see what you did there. ;)
Remember when babble had emoticons?
Ug, thumbs down on the like button from me. Facebook should be more like babble, not the other way around.
Remember when babble had emoticons?
You mean, like, 10 years ago maybe? I vaguely do.
I would like a poll feature on babble instead of like buttons -- where a babbler could set a poll question and available responses, and only 1 vote per account.
I would like a poll feature on babble instead of like buttons -- where a babbler could set a poll question and available responses, and only 1 vote per account.
Agreed. But didn't we use to have that, or is it my vivid imagination acting up again? E.g., what was madmax referring to here?
EnMasse (may it rest in peace) had a like button. People, er, liked it.
I'm not sad there's no "Like" button here. If people like a post they can say so, but I don't see much merit in being able to do so anonymously and silently. It certainly doesn't encourage discussion. I'd also be leery of it being used to "crowdsource" who is right and who is wrong.
We are no match for what is out there unless we act
Beware the ‘Weaponized’ Web, Says Guy Who Helped Elect Trump
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie on Facebook, democracy and hope.
Is there hope?
I think there is. The fact that in under a year it’s become such a prevalent conversation I think is really hopeful. A year and a half ago, it was a niche, abstract issue talked about at the ivory towers of the university. Now it’s in mainstream political discourse.
The first step to any kind of social change is awareness. We can’t move anywhere until people are aware that there’s a problem. I am hopeful because only a couple years ago, these giant tech companies were seen as sort of the saviours of mankind, but now kind of look like another douchey oil company who are trying to hide what they do, trying to whitewash and greenwash or in this case machine-wash what they’re doing. But actually it’s all bullshit, and it’s just another big corporation. I think people are starting to wake up to that and that actually is what makes me hopeful. Regular people who don’t have tech backgrounds are starting to talk about it. ![[Tyee]](https://thetyee.ca/ui/img/ico_fishie.png)
Toward a Youth Manifesto on Digital Rights and Responsibilities
Workshop has students explore issues around growing up in the digital age.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/04/17/Youth-Manifesto-Digital-Rights-Workshop/
Ug, thumbs down on the like button from me. Facebook should be more like babble, not the other way around.
Agreed.
It would create a bunch of problems. If you write a good comment and nobody likes, the writer may be discouraged. If you write a comment in a certain manner and it gets likes, you may be encouraged to keep writing comments in a similar fashion.
When I was on fb, I had already seen and heard many complaints that went something like this.
Going out drinking with with friends tomorrow and getting shit faced! 765 likes
The government is increasing military spending and cutting funding for education 5 likes
Now that’s an extreme example that probably wouldn’t translate the same way on babble, but you get where I’m getting at
Oh I forgot to add, you can already like someone’s comment, just wright another comment saying so!
I'm not sad there's no "Like" button here. If people like a post they can say so, but I don't see much merit in being able to do so anonymously and silently. It certainly doesn't encourage discussion. I'd also be leery of it being used to "crowdsource" who is right and who is wrong.
agreed
Is Social Media Destroying Our Democracies?
For me this is an odd thread title. I’m no fan of the imperialist invention “western democracy”, so I sure as hell wouldn’t defend it!
Also, isn’t babble social media? Is babble hurting western democracies?
Nothing is perfect but sorely needed.
Confronting the Disinformation Age
Social media's greatest accomplishment is proving Einstein correct. When asked the difference between genius and stupidity, Einstein said that genius has limits.
I think a 'like' feature is needed but not a 'dislike' feature.
Probably a prudent jesture.
Social media shut down in Sri Lanka in bid to stem misinformation
I hope I never see the day I consider widespread censorship a "prudent gesture".
Disagree cco!
over 200 died. Assuming that the Sri Lankan government wants to stop violence there, they will take steps they feel is necessary to stop violence. I don’t see how not shutting down social media for a while would prevent further violence?
Disagree cco!
over 200 died. Assuming that the Sri Lankan government wants to stop violence there, they will take steps they feel is necessary to stop violence. I don’t see how not shutting down social media for a while would prevent further violence?
If 200 people were murdered by some wacked-out group in Canada, and PM Jason Kenney announced he was shutting down Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc, would you assume it's all about stopping violence, and trust him not to abuse the censorship?
But conversely, if social media egged on retaliations against that wacked-out group (or just people who look like them), resulting in another hundred deaths, would we believe the PM if he said "well, there wasn't anything we could do about that. We can't just block Facebook when someone needs to check and see if their friend liked that kitten picture!".
I think Sri Lanka recognizes that social media is about to enjoy an unprecedented cascade of hate speech (and I mean the actual kind, the "incitement to violence" kind) and that they simply won't be able to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
But conversely, if social media egged on retaliations against that wacked-out group (or just people who look like them), resulting in another hundred deaths, would we believe the PM if he said "well, there wasn't anything we could do about that. We can't just block Facebook when someone needs to check and see if their friend liked that kitten picture!".
I think Sri Lanka recognizes that social media is about to enjoy an unprecedented cascade of hate speech (and I mean the actual kind, the "incitement to violence" kind) and that they simply won't be able to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
So, basically, as you see it, in this case, social media is equivalent to the guy who. seeing a brawl already in progress, runs up and starts yelling "Come on, you guys, let's see some more punches here!", knowing that his incitements are likely to inspire the combatants to keep going.
If so, yeah, I agree, banning that sort of thing is probably justified under the accepted prohibition of incitement. I'd still be a bit worried about the government's overall intentions, however, given that banning social media entirely(rather than simply banning calls to blow up churches or attack Muslims) also removes a lot of OTHER discussion and debate from the public square, eg. if I see some cops beating up on some Muslims ostensibly to get info about the bombings, but it looks more like they're just on a revenge spree, I won't be able to film that and put it on social media.
The ability to restrict how and what people communicate is one I simply don't trust any government with. Not even if it's a government I like, and they swear it's only temporary, and I'm convinced the people it's restricting are literally Nazis.
I recognize that in Canada that's a bit of a fringe position. Try this logic out:
While nobody's claimed responsibility for the attacks yet, the choice of victim group, location, and date strongly suggests that the attacks had something to do with religion. If the Sri Lankan government banned all religious observances for a while, just to keep people safe, how many people would find that acceptable?
"We can't deal with the threat on a case-by-case basis, so we targeted the entire group, just to keep it simple." Some variant of that statement has been the justification for nearly all of the worst policies in human history, and I'm including the ones we know by the name "genocides". When the group's as broad as "people who want to speak" (and the content of social media is speech, regardless of how trivial, ugly, untrue, or instantaneous it is), how does that make it okay?
I have a real philosophical allergy to the word "incitement". It removes personal agency and responsibility, and puts all the blame on those nasty ideas that made people unable to control themselves. It's Orwellian in the truest sense of the word.
cco wrote:
While nobody's claimed responsibility for the attacks yet, the choice of victim group, location, and date strongly suggests that the attacks had something to do with religion. If the Sri Lankan government banned all religious observances for a while, just to keep people safe, how many people would find that acceptable?
I take your point. There is arguably something threateningly "newfangled" about social media that might make it a more acceptable target for attack compared to more "venerable" and time-honoured means of communication. "Yes, okay, a priest can just as easily scream 'KILL ALL THE MUSLIMS!!' during his homily at mass as he can post the same words on twitter, and sure, given the 'right' kind of audience, he could probably cause a lot of carnage by saying that, but shutting down churches is Just. Not. Done."
I have a real philosophical allergy to the word "incitement". It removes personal agency and responsibility, and puts all the blame on those nasty ideas that made people unable to control themselves. It's Orwellian in the truest sense of the word.
I don't like the idea of prohibiting incitement in the general sense, eg. even the most misogynistic cartoonist at Hustler shouldn't be held responsible if someone unknown to him goes out and beats his wife after reading a cartoon. But, on the other hand, in my original example of the guy cheering on a bunch of people engaged in a beating, you don't think he should be held legally liable? I don't think even Hugo Black would have gone along with that one.
given that banning social media entirely(rather than simply banning calls to blow up churches or attack Muslims) also removes a lot of OTHER discussion and debate from the public square
I'm very sympathetic to that argument. If I thought that simply banning those incitements would actually prevent them in any meaningful way, I'd suggest that's the way to go. But in a powderkeg situation, the best that could do is allow the government to try to get a subpoena to find out the real name of "RealPatriot733" after the fact, while others are burying more bodies.
I have a real philosophical allergy to the word "incitement". It removes personal agency and responsibility, and puts all the blame on those nasty ideas that made people unable to control themselves.
I agree in one sense -- I wouldn't have much patience for any member of a lynch mob claiming "it's not my fault; others incited me".
But at the same time, I think we know incitement can work. Lynch mobs surely weren't just the result of a hundred townspeople forming the same intention at the same instant.
Here it's a tradeoff. People aren't being prevented from communicating with one another. They're being prevented from using a handful of computer applications to do so. I'd argue that a curfew or a quarantine infringes much further on your rights.
Ultimately in the end it’s the Sri Lanka people that have to live without social media. The same people who have to live with a threat of getting blown up.
I find it a kind of rich that some posters here think that they couldn’t live without social media, but for some reason, living with the threat and possibility of dieing from a bomb is a perfectly ok price to pay to enjoy social media?!?!?!?
Now I know the argument is that the two aren’t connected and that the government is using this as a cover, but really, that’s borderion false flag conspiracy theory
Also keep in mind that these acts of violence will have a huge negative impact on the Sri Lanka tourism economy. Tens of thousands will probably lose some amount of income not to mention the negative impact on the overall economy.
From some quick reading 100k Sri Lankan’s have died over the years from in fighting. Shutting down the internet to regain control of the country sounds logical and well within reason.
But, on the other hand, in my original example of the guy cheering on a bunch of people engaged in a beating, you don't think he should be held legally liable? I don't think even Hugo Black would have gone along with that one.
The culpability spectrum is, of course, something courts have spent a lot of time on. I'll make a qualified statement that I think the threshold for incitement should be pretty close to the threshold for actual conspiracy. You could quibble in court about whether "cheering on" is the same thing as "directing".
I agree in one sense -- I wouldn't have much patience for any member of a lynch mob claiming "it's not my fault; others incited me".
But at the same time, I think we know incitement can work. Lynch mobs surely weren't just the result of a hundred townspeople forming the same intention at the same instant.
Here it's a tradeoff. People aren't being prevented from communicating with one another. They're being prevented from using a handful of computer applications to do so. I'd argue that a curfew or a quarantine infringes much further on your rights.
But the apps are being targeted precisely because they're popular means of communication. There's nothing really inherent in Facebook that makes it more dangerous than Babble.
I'm against curfews too (especially how they're generally enforced), but I think quarantine is an interesting choice of comparison. People are quarantined because they [i]involuntarily[/i] spread disease through contact (give or take the assholes who have measles parties). When infection isn't certain, or requires some kind of voluntary action to contract, people are far less keen on quarantines. Canada's moving towards decriminalizing non-disclosure of HIV status. And while incitement can certainly be traced as a root cause of violent action sometimes, I don't think anybody's made a case that some words are so evil that they're impossible to resist being infected by.
But, on the other hand, in my original example of the guy cheering on a bunch of people engaged in a beating, you don't think he should be held legally liable?
He would be committing a Criminal Code offense under Section 22(2).
So what do we make of a rogue counselor or one who gives, not just bad advice, but advice to commit a criminal offence and an offence is in fact committed? Section 22 of the Criminal Code contemplates this very situation and places such an unscrupulous counselor in the same position as a party to an offence.
Section 22 has three subsections and reads as follows:
22(1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counseled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence is committed in a way different from that which was counseled.
(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counseling that the person who counseled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counseling.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, “counsel” includes procure, solicit or incite.
There are a number of really interesting points to be made about this section. First, let’s review subsection 1. Not only does this section, as mentioned earlier, deem the counselor as a participant in the actual offence committed but it also attaches criminal liability to the counselor even if the manner in which the actual crime is committed differs from the manner in which the crime was counselled to be committed. An example of this is when Y counsels X to commit a murder by shooting B with a gun but in fact X uses a knife to kill B. Y is still a party to the murder, even thought the manner of killing is different.
Second, in 22(2) we see a broadening of the liability. Any person who counsels a crime is a party to every offence the counseled party commits as a result of the counseling as long as the counselor knew or “ought to have known” that such a crime was likely to be committed as a result of the counseling. We will come back to this “knew or ought to have known” concept a little later but this section captures a broader range of conduct. In this situation, if Y counsels X to rob Z of money and X not only robs Z but kills him, then Y may be a s.22 party if Y knew that murder was a likely consequence of his counseling.
http://www.ideablawg.ca/blog/2014/6/6/when-counseling-is-a-crime-section...
Progressive forces too busy fighting each other in Canada are no match for this, and if something doesn't change rapidly the Conservatives/Oil Industry will win the next election. Is that really the kind of Canada we want?
Ontario Proud launches Canada Proud with aim of taking down Trudeau
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/04/25/ontario-proud-launches-canada-proud-with-aim-of-taking-down-trudeau/
^ So, a pro-Conservative group puts up a Facebook page telling people to vote Conservative. I'm sure the Liberals have their own Facebook pages in the works, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.
Perhaps Ford didn't win the Ontario election.
And maybe Trump never got elected President.
And possibly the majority of Candian Premiers are not Conservative.
you know what's destroying our democracy?
people. that's why.
people voting for what's they believe is good for them. switching between Conservative or Liberal and occassionally voting NDP, but getting pissy with the them if they can't get all the 100 year old messes cleaned up in 4 years. so they go back to enabling those who have spent generations destroying democracy.
like i got no sympathy for Nova Scotians who have no health care now. they voted the Liberals back in and will again switch to Conservatives. or Ontario and now AB.
it's insanity. and you know how you know it is? they've got no idea their actions are insane.
We are paying a bigger and bigger price for providing a platform for these people to spew out their garbage, so the sooner the better it gets addressed.
Hate-Filled Letter Posted Online Claims to Be From Synagogue Shooting Suspect
https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/hate-letter-8chan-poway-chabad-synagogue-shooting.html
While nobody's claimed responsibility for the attacks yet, the choice of victim group, location, and date strongly suggests that the attacks had something to do with religion. If the Sri Lankan government banned all religious observances for a while, just to keep people safe, how many people would find that acceptable?
Well. I'll be damned:
Sri Lankan Catholic churches shut, Muslims ordered to stop wearing veils as tensions rise
I'm not sad there's no "Like" button here. If people like a post they can say so, but I don't see much merit in being able to do so anonymously and silently. It certainly doesn't encourage discussion. I'd also be leery of it being used to "crowdsource" who is right and who is wrong.
Interesting -- a compromise could be a feature at the bottom of each post simply listing the names of those who said they liked it. It would be easier to do as well. It would by just a field below with a list seperated by commas: "Liked by x,y,z...."
This would reduce the length and space of threads where people are simply posting to say they liked something.
I agree, I am not in favour of anon. like buttons.
There is one problem with this. Sometimes, we get into fights here. If there was a way to have a feature where only posts with ideas could get the liked feature and posts that are fights or responses to fights could not then I would be all for it. If I am in an argument, the last thing I would want is to have a post I wrote get a bunch of likes and become a pile on. When angry I want to stand up for myself but do not want it to be taken to become an instant pile on.
If we did not already have too much for the mods to do, it could be a compromise to have a volunteer person tasked with flicking on the feature for "ideas" posts only avoiding fights. An idea but I don't see it happening.
A simple like button would unfortunately be used as a pile on button and I am against that.