• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solution proposal for the facebook propaganda problem

Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
85,137
Reaction score
78,185
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Here is my proposal to combat the facebook propaganda (and other social media platforms to some extent) issues. The only portion of this that the platform should control is bot detection. The reason for the bot detection is that free speech should apply to humans and not software. In my opinion at least, the first amendment is sacrosanct, but its also meant for people and if we allow software to participate, that weakens it, as software has no moral instincts or need for prosocial behaviors. Because of that, that is the only limitation.

The rest of the proposal relies on known systems already in place on the internet, thus we can be sure they work well. I do propose one tweak (2d) in that nobody can completely turn off any flags as this will help combat ideological bubbles. The one exception of this would be criminal behavior (for example, NAMBLA). So that would mean we would still be subject to flat earth or antivaxxor information sometimes, but reasonable people can see that for what it is. This wold also provide a democratic means to help combat propaganda by state actors (Russia, for example).

One future proposal would be detection algorithms that flag emotionally manipulative language, but machine learning isn't there yet, so right now its off the table.

My proposal would be:
1. Work on systems to detect people vs bots (being worked on heavily right now) reliably, flag the bots.
2. Set up a reputation system (this historically works well for internet sites) that is run entirely by users for whatever platform.
2a. Set up a hashtag system to work with that reputation system, people will (if they act like they do on other platforms, which likely they will) standardize on key phrases on their own
2b. Users vote on those key phrases that people eventually settle on
2c. Users can set their preferences based on those key phrases in a control panel (I want to see less apple news and more android news, or less impeachment news and more cat videos, etc)
2d. No user can shut out any flag entirely (this is key!), just minimize it. This fights against echo chambers (exception being criminal activity)
 
Flies in the face of everything free speech is designed to protect.

It is NOT highly ranked, majority approved, socially *acceptable* speech that it intended to be protected, but the MINORITY voice from the tyranny of the majority.

That this core element is not understood is mind-boggling.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Flies in the face of everything free speech is designed to protect.

It is NOT highly ranked, majority approved, socially *acceptable* speech that it intended to be protected, but the MINORITY voice from the tyranny of the majority.

That this core element is not understood is mind-boggling.
Click to expand...

Look at point 2c, people can set what they want to see. Thus, they are in control of content aggregation and their own tolerance for seeing information of any level of popularity.

Thus your point is wrong.

2d also combats it to some extent as well, by purposefully promoting less popular content for any particular person or group (meaning liberals would see more conservative news items)
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
Look at point 2c, people can set what they want to see. Thus, they are in control of content aggregation and their own tolerance for seeing information of any level of popularity.

Thus your point is wrong.
Click to expand...

No; you fail to grasp the essence of free speech.

You've created a fancy, crypto-censorship model.

This model is intended to squeeze out the margins, and prevent *unacceptable* ideas from being seen/heard.

It's censorship plain & simple.

That you choose not to grasp this is extraordinary.
 
3leftsdoo said:
No; you fail to grasp the essence of free speech.

You've created a fancy, crypto-censorship model.

But it's censorship plain & simple.

That you choose not to grasp this is extraordinary.
Click to expand...

So far your objections are vague and nonactionable. Do you actually have a point or are you just being a contrarian?
 
A huge point of contention here is whether this is just encouragement for the social networking companies to mandate themselves or are we just throwing away the whole idea of free speech? First one, go ahead and petition them and show them how it benefits them to offer the best services - Second one, yeah, screw that, I like my free speech
 
Keridan said:
A huge point of contention here is whether this is just encouragement for the social networking companies to mandate themselves or are we just throwing away the whole idea of free speech? First one, go ahead and petition them and show them how it benefits them to offer the best services - Second one, yeah, screw that, I like my free speech
Click to expand...

How exactly would this be throwing away free speech?
 
tacomancer said:
So far your objections are vague and nonactionable. Do you actually have a point or are you just being a contrarian?
Click to expand...

Vague and non-responsive. Preposterous and nonsensical.

You want *unacceptable* ideas censored.

This is a core aim of the modern liberal.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Vague and non-responsive. Preposterous and nonsensical.

You want *unacceptable* ideas censored.

This is a core aim of the modern liberal.
Click to expand...

So if you go into your control panel and set the news you want to see and what works for you as an individual (thus being in control of your own experience)? This is someone deciding for you what is acceptable content?
 
tacomancer said:
How exactly would this be throwing away free speech?
Click to expand...

"You can't allow speech or ads that conflict with the opinions that have been used to filter the information through a series of popularity, have been shown not to be shared by a supporter of Russia, and whatever other filters we want and we have devised a system to make sure you only say and share things we have approved and want you be able to show"
 
tacomancer said:
So if you go into your control panel and set the news you want to see and what works for you as an individual? This is someone deciding for you what is acceptable content?
Click to expand...

Your metrics are absurd and arbitrary except insofar as free speech on the margins will be quashed - your presumed goal.

You propose crypto-censorship.

Unacceptable.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Your metrics are absurd and arbitrary except insofar as free speech on the margins will be quashed - your presumed goal.

You propose crypto-censorship.

Unacceptable.
Click to expand...

then set those flags to see the speech on the margins in your control panel. now you see it and problem solved.
 
tacomancer said:
then set those flags to see the speech on the margins in your control panel. now you see it and problem solved.
Click to expand...

Absurd & you know it.

The intent here is clear: censorship.

Liberals, having placed blinders on their own eyes, wish to do the same for others.

Unacceptable.
 
Keridan said:
"You can't allow speech or ads that conflict with the opinions that have been used to filter the information through a series of popularity, have been shown not to be shared by a supporter of Russia, and whatever other filters we want and we have devised a system to make sure you only say and share things we have approved and want you be able to show"
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell that has nothing to do with what the metric system proposed in 2 works, look at point 2c and 2d where, 1 you are on control of what you want to see and 2 the system is designed for leakage to allow ideas that may piss a user off. This effectively combats what your response.
 
3leftsdoo said:
No; you fail to grasp the essence of free speech.

You've created a fancy, crypto-censorship model.

This model is intended to squeeze out the margins, and prevent *unacceptable* ideas from being seen/heard.

It's censorship plain & simple.

That you choose not to grasp this is extraordinary.
Click to expand...
Since it is a private business and not the government, they can do whatever they like.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Absurd & you know it.

The intent here is clear: censorship.
Click to expand...

So now that I have shown you where the system already takes your objections into account and gives the user that power, you are back to vague responses.

The only conclusion I can make so far is you don't actually understand the proposal.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Absurd & you know it.

The intent here is clear: censorship.
Click to expand...

Even if it wasn't as incredibly obvious as it is, we live in a country that is smart enough (so far) to stay a mile away from anything resembling the infringement of free speech by the time something gets to court
 
Rising Sun said:
Since it is a private business and not the government, they can do whatever they like.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, but this has yet to be articulated by the Supremes.
 
tacomancer said:
So now that I have shown you where the system already takes your objections into account and gives the user that power, you are back to vague responses.

The only conclusion I can make so far is you don't actually understand the proposal.
Click to expand...

How about this, having to go in and click "I'd like to have my free speech options back" is not the same as not censoring it
 
Keridan said:
How about this, having to go in and click "I'd like to have my free speech options back" is not the same as not censoring it
Click to expand...
You failed to answer how this is against free speech in the first place.
 
tacomancer said:
So now that I have shown you where the system already takes your objections into account and gives the user that power, you are back to vague responses.

The only conclusion I can make so far is you don't actually understand the proposal.
Click to expand...

It doesn't; yours are nothing but.

The only conclusion I can draw it that you wish others to be blinkered as are liberals.
 
3leftsdoo said:
It doesn't; yours are nothing but.

The only conclusion I can draw it that you wish others to be blinkered as are liberals.
Click to expand...

Please give concrete and concise objections.
 
tacomancer said:
Here is my proposal to combat the facebook propaganda (and other social media platforms to some extent) issues. The only portion of this that the platform should control is bot detection. The reason for the bot detection is that free speech should apply to humans and not software. In my opinion at least, the first amendment is sacrosanct, but its also meant for people and if we allow software to participate, that weakens it, as software has no moral instincts or need for prosocial behaviors. Because of that, that is the only limitation.

The rest of the proposal relies on known systems already in place on the internet, thus we can be sure they work well. I do propose one tweak (2d) in that nobody can completely turn off any flags as this will help combat ideological bubbles. The one exception of this would be criminal behavior (for example, NAMBLA). So that would mean we would still be subject to flat earth or antivaxxor information sometimes, but reasonable people can see that for what it is. This wold also provide a democratic means to help combat propaganda by state actors (Russia, for example).

One future proposal would be detection algorithms that flag emotionally manipulative language, but machine learning isn't there yet, so right now its off the table.

My proposal would be:
1. Work on systems to detect people vs bots (being worked on heavily right now) reliably, flag the bots.
2. Set up a reputation system (this historically works well for internet sites) that is run entirely by users for whatever platform.
2a. Set up a hashtag system to work with that reputation system, people will (if they act like they do on other platforms, which likely they will) standardize on key phrases on their own
2b. Users vote on those key phrases that people eventually settle on
2c. Users can set their preferences based on those key phrases in a control panel (I want to see less apple news and more android news, or less impeachment news and more cat videos, etc)
2d. No user can shut out any flag entirely (this is key!), just minimize it. This fights against echo chambers (exception being criminal activity)
Click to expand...

Interesting proposals. The main flaw I see regards the nature of the Russian attacks themselves - their main goals. They don’t just support different parties in the US. As the DNI report detailed, their main mission is to sow dissent, distrust and confusion among American voters especially if it involves their own government - - a point where they are already one step ahead since it’s American nature not to trust our own government on certain points.

They will exploit any entry and means available even if it is to flood FB with Flat Earthers telling Americans their government is hiding the truth with fake pictures. Eventually, as with climate change, they might see over a third to a half of Americans begin to doubt the Earth is round or to suspect that our government is hiding something since, as the logic goes, so many “people” are claiming something differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom