Social media has also been enormously beneficial in terms of crippling the propaganda power of centralized, commercial media. It would be very bad to simply return to the authority of editorial boards. What we actually need is to grapple with the social responsibility that comes with this power, which could take decades or even centuries of living with the internet to wrangle.
Especially now that we know how little of the world traditional newsrooms are even willing to cover, let alone fund coverage of.
Besides, the cat is out of the bag.
I’d argue the problem here is more so quality, and can really only be solved with regulation. I want to read news, not a blog and opinion.
There should be clear and concise standards media outlets need to adhere to, but as per my suggestion in regards to social media; will not self regulate.
Additionally; there is no accountability and responsibility.
I would argue that the only benefit that has been made is making this more apparent and obvious.. and hopefully for the better.
Yea that's be great but it's never going to happen, and if it did happen you wouldn't like it. It's like people wanting unbiased journalism: that only exists in the minds of the people who think there are only two serious opinions to have on any topic.
In response to an article posted in the global news thread on reddit, someone who lives there and actually has local knowledge and context can click 'reply' and explain what's actually going on and contradict/correct what the clickbaity sensationalist mass media article contains.
For example, I live here, the government is passing trying to pass said law that they can't control the implementation of. It's also seen by some as a surveillance state move under the guise of "won't someone think of the children". Under the proposed rules, theoretically people < 16 won't even be allowed to text one another.
More in depth/informative article from a local source, not Reuters:
[1] https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-poli...
I know that some people here on HN want to go full Unabomber and live in the woods but I kind of like the internet.
That's what I was thinking too.
I am not sure what the value is in severely regulating half a dozen or so companies when work arounds are so easily to implement. Maybe as a stop gap solution while we figure out long term solutions (which the government has a horrible track record on).
But for any long term solution we would first have to define what social media even is, and in a way that's testable in court. Don't run away from the hard things, but wow, that's hard.
I think we're stuck with it no matter what so we better develop better ways to deal with its existence regardless.
This is just plain wrong. Social media has moved the propaganda power to foreign hostile nations on a golden platter. That is not an improvement.
I mean it's not like the power of domestic propaganda has waned, it's just in a war for the attention of the ignorant with other interests (most of which aren't foreign powers, by the way, but simply capital). Social media that enabled independent coverage and discussion is still there for the adults in the room and it would be a true loss for any society to sweep the rug out from under the people who care to look beyond the for-profit newsroom (i.e., almost all media that's readily accessible at least to americans).
I'm not actually sure that's true. The only reliable sources on social media (in the sense of 'usually not horribly wrong') are actually traditional media companies like bbc, guardian. Perhaps I'm holding it wrong, but finding other trustworthy sources is actually really hard...
I don't understand what you're referring to. How do you recommend reigning in a newsroom? Especially one beholden to owners and advertisers with interests directly opposed to those of readers? How do you as a consumer opt out of the financial barriers to quality reporting? The only answer is the peer to peer nature of social media and the internet.
Perhaps what you're missing is that traditional media has zero incentive to highlight the positives of direct communication between disparate populations, creating farcically-negative hysteria about the dangers of worldviews not beholden to giant interests (yes, including domestic and foreign state powers, but also individual entities with massive capital to throw around).
Not me. Having a solid experience living in some far-from-democracy countries, I can state with all certainty that social platforms opened at least a crack to alternative opinions for a lot of people. Yes, they are full of propaganda, but I think they still provide more pluralistic picture compared to the world where old media ruled supreme. The real problem with those platforms is not "misinformation" (which will be everywhere anyway), buy addictiveness, and the fact they incentivize aggressive tribalism
