Are Social Networks Vulnerable to Manipulation?

[Bowser]

Been watching several videos that are claiming popular online social networks are being manipulated to favor liberal politics--Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumbler, possibly now, Youtube. In example, conservative views are being shadow banned or worse in an effort to place more liberal views on the top of the search list.

Is our online experience being scripted with select information to further a specific ideology?  Is the danger of politics, money and power becoming more relevant to the internet community?

[Secular Sanity]

 
"We all (hopefully) remember the Facebook scandal, where Facebook manipulated the content seen by more than 600,000 users in an attempt to see if they could affect their emotional state. They basically skewed the number of positive or negative items on random users’ news feeds and then analyzed these people’s future postings. The result? Facebook can manipulate your emotions." Online Manipulation

Interesting, Bowser.  I’ll have to do a little more reading on the topic.  I’ve always agreed with Milton Friedman’s views on persuasion vs. coercion, but I’m a little uncomfortable with propaganda.  I’ve been reading a little on the concept of glory and war propaganda.  It’s very interesting.

Years ago, I saw this Ted Talk presentation on filter bubbles. Since then, I’ve wondered if our search results are personally tailored, if they’re contributing to our confirmation biases.  It would be interesting to compare them.

Can you gives us the links to the videos that you’ve been watching?

[stryder]

(anti?)Social networks have always been their for manipulation, their entire premise, their "Business model" is about consumption.  Such business models don't look at what people want but what consumers should buy, be it material products or politics.  Extremism can actually occur on such networks and I'm not referring to the kind usually attributed to terrorism.  For instance a group of people with extreme views can literally "Hijack" a social group (you only have to look through Reddit, Steam or other locations where a group mentality thrives) and this can either be blatantly obvious (trolls) or far more clandestine subversive elements.

The only thing that stops such activities is moderation, however moderation itself can get attacked from all directions.  For instance removing a small group of extremists pushing one particular political view will just increase the notion of unfair censorship towards them and their political directive, even if they technically aren't the mainstream supporters.  (This is just old fashion "Grandstanding")

The moderators themselves can be brought into question too, after all how did they exactly get their task (and/or job)?, does it pay? would they be open to sliding the rules based on a bribe?  or do they just prefer the as it draws traffic to the website which in turn allows their paid advertisements to be shown?

There is then the external factors on such social sites like the constant overview of internet traffic by our self-imposed overlords. It might be suggested to be a conciliation of "what terrorism did to the freeworld", however it was always earmarked due to the increasing number of "unwashed masses" and the ruling minority always being a minority. (Who said the worst kind of Communism was dead.)

Of course all what I've wrote is just my POV (albeit grammatically embellished) which suggestibility is protected by the concept of Free Speech but in turn to say out loud thoughts or perspectives that might seem damaging or concerning by some, leads to those words being analysed and some of those groups that do the analysing will be trying to work out how to flip my switches in relationship to what's been said.  (This could be some troll online trying to create an argumentative narrative, it could be some government trying to quell a proverbial firestarter or turn such firestarter to start fires somewhere else etc)

Social networks on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt. (They should be taken too seriously, unless you are talking about Amateur enthusiasts as they can be quite serious.)

[Syne]

Just like a news organization may not intend to be biased, having a staff composed largely of one political persuasion does lead to their biases having influence, even if unintended and unbeknownst to them. Facebook has recently tried to remove the human editorial influence from trending topics, in the hope to defray such accusations. Whether any of this is done intentionally is arguable. It could be someone trying to promote an agenda...or it could just be that Hollywood, TV, news, & social media all tend to attract people of one political bent.

[Secular Sanity]

Unfortunately, advocacy journalism sells in today's market. Consumers want news that is intentionally biased.  It’s an industry.  Whatta ya gonna do(?)

[Bowser]

 

Interesting, Bowser.  I’ll have to do a little more reading on the topic.  I’ve always agreed with Milton Friedman’s views on persuasion vs. coercion, but I’m a little uncomfortable with propaganda.  I’ve been reading a little on the concept of glory and war propaganda.  It’s very interesting.



Can you gives us the links to the videos that you’ve been watching?

Here is a sample of what is being said...

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hcXQpYKPl_s