this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
1013 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
3427 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really don’t like cases like this, nor do I like how much the legal system seems to be pushing “guilty by proxy” rulings for a lot of school shooting cases.
It just feels very very very dangerous and ’going to be bad’ to set this precedent where when someone commits an atrocity, essentially every person and thing they interacted with can be held accountable with nearly the same weight as if they had committed the crime themselves.
Obviously some basic civil responsibility is needed. If someone says “I am going to blow up XYZ school here is how”, and you hear that, yeah, that’s on you to report it. But it feels like we’re quickly slipping into a point where you have to start reporting a vast amount of people to the police en masse if they say anything even vaguely questionable simply to avoid potential fallout of being associated with someone committing a crime.
It makes me really worried. I really think the internet has made it easy to be able to ‘justifiably’ accuse almost anyone or any business of a crime if a person with enough power / the state needs them put away for a time.
This appears to be more the angle of the person being fed an endless stream of hate on social media and thus becoming radicalised.
What causes them to be fed an endless stream of hate? Algorithms. Who provides those algorithms? Social media companies. Why do they do this? To maintain engagement with their sites so they can make money via advertising.
And so here we are, with sites that see you viewed 65 percent of a stream showing an angry mob, therefore you would like to see more angry mobs in your feed. Is it any wonder that shit like this happens?
It's also known to intentionally show you content that's likely to provoke you into fights online
Which just makes all the sanctimonious screed about avoiding echo chambers a bunch of horse shit, because that's not how outside digital social behavior works, outside the net if you go out of your way to keep arguing with people who wildly disagree with you, your not avoiding echo chambers, you're building a class action restraining order case against yourself.
I’ve long held this hunch that when people’s beliefs are challenged, they tend to ‘dig in’ and wind up more resolute. (I think it’s actual science and I learned that in a sociology class many years ago but it’s been so long I can’t say with confidence if that’s the case.)
Assuming my hunch is right (or at least right enough), I think that side of social media - driving up engagement by increasing discord also winds up radicalizing people as a side effect of chasing profits.
It’s one of the things I appreciate about Lemmy. Not everyone here seems to just be looking for a fight all the time.
It depends on how their beliefs are challenged. Calling them morons won’t work. You have to gently question them about their ideas and not seem to be judging them.
Oh, yeah, absolutely. Another commenter on this post suggested my belief on it was from an Oatmeal comic. That prompted me to search it out, and seeing it spelled out again sort of opened up the memory for me.
The class was a sociology class about 20 years ago, and the professor was talking about cognitive dissonance as it relates to folks choosing whether or not they wanted to adopt the beliefs of another group. I don’t think he got into how to actually challenge beliefs in a constructive way, since he was discussing how seemingly small rifts can turn into big disagreements between social groups, but subsequent life experience and a lot of good articles about folks working with radicals to reform their beliefs confirm exactly what you commented.
You may have gotten this very belief from this comic
Nah. I picked that up about 20 years ago, but the comic is a great one.
I haven’t read The Oatmeal in a while. I guess I know what I’ll be doing later tonight!
People have been fighting online long before algorithmic content suggestions. They may amplify it, but you can't blame that on them entirely.
The truth is many people would argue and fight like that in real life if they could be anonymous.
Absolutely. Huge difference between hate speech existing. And funneling a firehose of it at someone to keep them engaged. It's not clear how this will shake out. But I doubt it will be the end of free speech. If it exists and you actively seek it out that's something else.
I think the design of media products around maximally addictive individually targeted algorithms in combination with content the platform does not control and isn't responsible for is dangerous. Such an algorithm will find the people most susceptible to everything from racist conspiracy theories to eating disorder content and show them more of that. Attempts to moderate away the worst examples of it just result in people making variations that don't technically violate the rules.
With that said, laws made and legal precedents set in response to tragedies are often ill-considered, and I don't like this case. I especially don't like that it includes Reddit, which was not using that type of individualized algorithm to my knowledge.
This is the real shit right here. The problem is that social media companies' data show that negativity and hate keep people on their website for longer, which means that they view more advertisement compared to positivity.
It is human nature to engage with disagreeable topics moreso than agreeable topics, and social media companies are exploiting that for profit.
We need to regulate algorithms and force them to be open source, so that anybody can audit them. They will try to hide behind "AI" and "trade secret" excuses, but lawmakers have to see above that bullshit.
Unfortunately, US lawmakers are both stupid and corrupt, so it's unlikely that we'll see proper change, and more likely that we'll see shit like "banning all social media from foreign adversaries" when the US-based social media companies are largely the cause of all these problems. I'm sure the US intelligence agencies don't want them to change either, since those companies provide large swaths of personal data to them.
While this is true for Facebook and YouTube - last time I checked, reddit doesn't personalise feeds in that way. It was my impression that if two people subscribe to the same subreddits, they will see the exact same posts, based on time and upvotes.
Then again, I only ever used third party apps and old.reddit.com, so that might have changed since then.
Mate, I never got the same homepage twice on my old reddit account. I dunno how you can claim that two people with identical subs would see the same page. That's just patently not true and hasn't been for years.
Quite simple, aniki. The feeds were ordered by hot, new, or top.
New was ORDER BY date DESC. Top was ORDER BY upvotes DESC. And hot was a slightly more complicated order that used a mixture of upvotes and time.
You can easily verify this by opening 2 different browsers in incognito mode and go to the old reddit frontpage - I get the same results in either. Again - I can't account for the new reddit site because I never used it for more than a few minutes, but that's definitely how they old one worked and still seems to.
It's probably not true anymore, but at the time this guy was being radicalized, you're right, it wasn't algorithmically catered to them. At least not in the sense that it was intentionally exposing them to a specific type of content.
I suppose you can think of the way reddit works (or used to work) as being content agnostic. The algorithm is not aware of the sorts of things it's suggesting to you, it's just showing you things based on subreddit popularity and user voting, regardless of what it is.
In the case of YouTube and Facebook, their algorithms are taking into account the actual content and funneling you towards similar content algorithmically, in a way that is unique to you. Which means at some point their algorithm is acknowledging "this content has problematic elements, let's suggest more problematic content"
(Again, modern reddit, at least on the app, is likely engaging in this now to some degree)
That's a lot of baseless suppositions you have there. Stuff you cannot possibly know - like how reddit content algos work.
The problem then becomes if the clearly defined rules aren't enough, then the people that run these sites need to start making individual judgment calls based on...well, their gut, really. And that creates a lot of issues if the site in question could be held accountable for making a poor call or overlooking something.
The threat of legal repercussions hanging over them is going to make them default to the most strict actions, and that's kind of a problem if there isn't a clear definition of what things need to be actioned against.
Bullshit. There's no slippery slope here. You act like these social media companies just stumbled onto algorithms. They didn't, they designed these intentionally to drive engagement up.
Demanding that they change their algorithms to stop intentionally driving negativity and extremism isn't dystopian at all, and it's very frustrating that you think it is. If you choose to do nothing about this issue I promise you we'll be living in a fascist nation within 10 years, and it won't be an accident.
this is exactly why section 230 exists. sites aren't responsible for what other people post and they are allowed to moderate however they want.
Reddit is the same thing. They intentionally enable and cultivate hostility and bullying there to drive up engagement.
But not algorithmically catered to the individual.
Nah. This isn’t guilt by association
Which despite their denials the actually know: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-knew-radicalized-users-rcna3581
Yeah, but algorithmic delivery of radicalizing content seems kinda evil though.
I don't think you understand the issue. I'm very disappointed to see that this is the top comment. This wasn't an accident. These social media companies deliberately feed people the most upsetting and extreme material they can. They're intentionally radicalizing people to make money from engagement.
They're absolutely responsible for what they've done, and it isn't "by proxy", it's extremely direct and deliberate. It's long past time that courts held them liable. What they're doing is criminal.
Proving this "intent to radicalize" in court is impossible. What evidence exists to back up your claim beyond a reasonable doubt?
The algorithms themselves. This decision opens the algorithms up to discovery and now we get to see exactly how various topics are weighted. These companies will sink or swim by their algorithms.
I do. I just very much understand the extent that the justice system will take decisions like this and utilize them to accuse any person or business (including you!) of a crime that they can then “prove” they were at fault for.
I think the distinction here is between people and businesses. Is it the fault of people on social media for the acts of others? No. Is it the fault of social media for cultivating an environment that radicalizes people into committing mass shootings? Yes. The blame here is on the social medias for not doing more to stop the spread of this kind of content. Because yes even though that won't stop this kind of content from existing making it harder to access and find will at least reduce the number of people who will go down this path.
I agree, but I want to clarify. It's not about making this material harder to access. It's about not deliberately serving that material to people who weren't looking it up in the first place in order to get more clicks.
There's a huge difference between a user looking up extreme content on purpose and social media serving extreme content to unsuspecting people because the company knows it will upset them.
Systemic problems require systemic solutions.
Do you not think if someone encouraged a murderer they should be held accountable? It's not everyone they interacted with, there has to be reasonable suspicion they contributed.
Also I'm pretty sure this is nothing new
Depends on what you mean by "encouraged". That is going to need a very precise definition in these cases.
And the point isn't that people shouldn't be held accountable, it's that there are a lot of gray areas here, we need to be careful how we navigate them. Irresponsible rulings or poorly implemented laws can destabilize everything that makes the internet worthwhile.
I didn’t say that at all, and I think you know I didn’t unless you really didn’t actually read my comment.
I am not talking about encouraging someone to murder. I specifically said that in overt cases there is some common sense civil responsibility. I am talking about the potential for the the police to break down your door because you Facebook messaged a guy you’re friends with what your favorite local gun store was, and that guy also happens to listen to death metal and take antidepressants and the state has deemed him a risk factor level 3.
I must have misunderstood you then, but this still seems like a pretty clear case where the platforms, not even people yet did encourage him. I don't think there's any new precedent being set here
Everyone on lemmy who makes guillotine jokes will enjoy their life sentence I'm sure
Is there currently a national crisis of Jacobins kidnapping oligarchs and beheading them in public I am unaware of?
No
Unfortunately
This wasn't just a content issue. Reddit actively banned people for reporting violent content too much. They literally engaged with and protected these communities, even as people yelled that they were going to get someone hurt.
Also worth remembering, this opens up avenues for lawsuits on other types of "harm".
We have states that have outlawed abortion. What do those sites do when those states argue social media should be "held accountable" for all the women who are provided information on abortion access through YouTube, Facebook, reddit, etc?
I dunno about social media companies but I quite agree that the party who got the gunman the gun should share the punishment for the crime.
Firearms should be titled and insured, and the owner should have an imposed duty to secure, and the owner ought to face criminal penalty if the firearm titled to them was used by someone else to commit a crime, either they handed a killer a loaded gun or they inadequately secured a firearm which was then stolen to be used in committing a crime, either way they failed their responsibility to society as a firearm owner and must face consequences for it.
This guy seems to have bought the gun legally at a gun store, after filling out the forms and passing the background check. You may be thinking of the guy in Maine whose parents bought him a gun when he was obviously dangerous. They were just convicted of involuntary manslaughter for that, iirc.