Comment by logifail 3 months ago
> They're places where people buy a voice and the illusion of support by astroturfing the platform and/or manipulating the algorithm (either through paid advertisements or by owning a platform and controlling the algorithm outright)
Anyone willing to take a good-faith stab at why this couldn't equally well be a description of traditional media too - say - the WaPo?
> How much is astroturfing and illusion can be debated forever, but any positive value is greater than zero.
That's an easy way to toss aside a very damaging attack on the public and freedom, with power unlike anything humanity has seen. I'm not sure what "any positive value is greater than zero" means, other than a mathematical tautology, but I certainly don't accept that social media is a net positive.
> Journalistic integrity and trust in institutions has been sold off for shareholder value.
Your reasoning is circular. You both conclude and use as your premise that they've been sold off.
Sadly, after generations of (mostly) not being sold off, of standing up for freedom and professional journalism, in the last couple of months many of the institutions have capitulated.
Part of the cause is you (and people like you): Serious journalism was a threat to the far right, so they did what they always do: Use a campaign of constant repitition and demonization. They do it also to immigrants, trans people, liberals, Democrats, and individuals they see as threats (including any leading Democrats). Part of that campaign is getting everyone repeating it on social media.
Now we have few reliable sources of news left.
>I'm not sure what "any positive value is greater than zero" means
It means that traditional media is a one way information valve and social media is not. Built into the information medium is the inability to know what people think. It's at most a reflection of what a small number of people think.
>Part of the cause is you
Incorrect. I do not participate in the creation of traditional media or social media. I cannot be part of the problem of trust being eroded away. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of those guiding discourse.
> I do not participate in the creation of traditional media or social media. I cannot be part of the problem of trust being eroded away. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of those guiding discourse.
We are part of society. The outcomes are our responsibility and within our power - why do you think so many spend so much to manipulate public opinion? Even just posting here will spread narratives and influence others.
I posted this elsewhere:
There's a major difference with the modern social media platforms, which is that the way in which they manufacture consent gives the illusion of popular consensus. That illusion makes them much more powerful than anything that came before, to the point where they are different in kind, not just in degree.
When a mainstream media outlet takes a position, most people are able to distinguish between that outlet's position and a large social movement in favor of a particular political position. The same cannot be said for these platforms, which by design attempt to make you feel like you're interacting with a large number of real people who hold real opinions. They much more effectively become seen as peers, and from that position can much more effectively manipulate people.
The role of "influencer" is a thousand times more potent than anything that we had in the previous era, and that's without even getting into the possibility of creating hundreds of AI-powered sock puppets or of deliberately constructing an algorithm to put specific people into specific types of echo chambers.
At this point in the game, the only way to equate speech-by-corporations with democracy is to be willfully blind to this difference in kind. The very rich at this point don't just have a megaphone, they have a direct neural link into an enormous number of brains. That's not free speech, that's free votes.
> When a mainstream media outlet takes a position, most people are able to distinguish between that outlet's position and a large social movement in favor of a particular political position
I hesitate to reference politics here, but read Nate Silver's writings on what he's termed "the Indigo Blob"[0][1]...
> The same cannot be said for these platforms, which by design attempt to make you feel like you're interacting with a large number of real people who hold real opinions
When I think back to how things went down during the pandemic, I'm convinced that the "real opinions" that most people held were based on blindly following position of whatever media they were consuming (and that media likely blindly following whatever government messaging).
Actual scientists posting actual statistics?[2] No-one wanted to see the data on who was - and wasn't - at significant risk from Covid.
At one point back then, one of my closest friends bluntly told me in a group chat that I was "a sociopath", despite him knowing that out of the two of us, I'm the one with the science PhD + published papers, and (at least science-wise) he's the layman.
Hey ho, he and I eventually made up...
[0] https://www.natesilver.net/p/twitter-elon-and-the-indigo-blo... [1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-the-indigo-blob-runs-a-bluf... [2] https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-ris...
> The Washington Post has changed considerably in the last few months, specifically from being fiercely free to being bought.
I read it every day and hadn't noticed. Can you give examples, beyond having heard of the Presidential Endorsement saga?
Sure! Here’s another that got wide attention, but many journalists have also left recently in quieter protest.
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-5248299/cartoonist-quit...
> Can you give examples
Here are comments from many leading journalists at the Washington Post, many of whom have left. For example recently:
Jennifer Rubin resigned: "The Washington Post's billionaire owner and enlisted management" "betrayed their audiences' loyalty and sabotaged journalism's sacred mission - defending, protecting and advancing democracy. ... They have undercut the values central to ... all journalism: integrity, courage, and independence. .... Jeff Bezos ... accommodate[s] and enable[s] the most acute threat to American democracy - Donald Trump ..." [1]
Ann Telnaes resigned [2]: She "tells NPR she always accepts editing but had never previously been told she couldn't address a specific topic ..." [3]
Management blocked Telnaes' cartoon criticizing Trump and billionaire media and tech execs bowing to Trump; an article, approved by editors, on Managing Editor Matea Gold leaving [4]; and more.
Bezos, owner of one of the country's most important media institutions, has openly supported Trump and donated to him, while blocking content critical of him.
That's all of the top of my head. We can always waste time by denying everything and bog down any discussion, but American democracy - that your ancestors bled and sacrificed to build - is burning and you are sitting in your chair playing with picayune arguments. You'd better act now.
[1] https://contrarian.substack.com/p/i-have-resigned-from-the-w...
[2] https://anntelnaes.substack.com/p/why-im-quitting-the-washin...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5258221/washington-post...
[4] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/09/nx-s1-5222807/washington-post...
> but American democracy - that your ancestors bled and sacrificed to build
You understand that not everyone here is American, right?
> playing with picayune arguments
Am I? Could you give an example?
The rest seems to be rehashing the editorial cartoon, the endorsement debacle, and some internal newspaper politics.
I challenge the notion that they're equal. Social media at least provides vox while traditional media is completely one-way. How much is astroturfing and illusion can be debated forever, but any positive value is greater than zero. Traditional media acts as programming first. Journalistic integrity and trust in institutions has been sold off for shareholder value.