Support NeoGAF

[Joel Was Right]

The propagation of social media has seen an increasing amount of people are becoming engaged in politics. But the same platforms, based on algorithms designed to group people together by their preferences, are inadvertently making it harder for those with different political ideologies to discover one another.

TYT and Breitbart are two good examples of this; both champion themselves as the next generation of media and information platforms. But their success is largely down to the ease of which people are able to seek platforms that share their own worldview.

As a result, we have two competing ideologies who view each other with deep suspicion, if not disdain. And the very platforms they use to find their voices is the same tool that makes it harder for them to hear other voices.

Take Neogaf for example: the echo chamber holds the belief that one half of the nation advocates the pursuit of short-term wealth at the cost of the environment and protected species; the pursuit and glorification of war at the cost of countless lives; a revulsion for non-white, and the heterosexual; an ambition of invoking a pseudo-theocracy and a preference for profit over the health of others.

We are hostile here to those ideas, and justifiably so. But the problem is those with a different point of view are posting on other forums, with a similarly hostile point of view, because our choices on the Internet have left us isolated from one another.

How is a democracy to survive?

 

[Aizen.S.Kennedy]

I hear you.. but please provide one point in history where this wasn't the case. It's not a modern phenomenon or happening more because of the internet. You just see it easier and more clearly.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Im on my phone but someone post Colonel AIs speech which is extremely relevant to this discussion
Thread: I agree

 

[BocoDragon]

I guess I don't have to go far to accept your premise, because it's been the prevailing feeling of the zeitgeist lately.

It's not just that Trump won... its that "WTF... Trump won??" ... it seemed unthinkable outside of the bubble many of us didn't even realize we were in. And then you do the forensic work and look at the Trump bubble, and it's not just "racists", it's a whole ecosystem devoted to Trump as a positive force, busting up the system... and that didn't enter our perception at all.

What's the solution? Dunno.

 

[Derwind]

If Democracy includes behaviours that threaten or undermine your fellow man/woman, then I see no hope.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

The worst thing we did for the Internet was adding the comment section

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

The worst thing we did for the Internet was adding the comment section

Then it was pretty much dead from it's inception.

We will evolve. In what state we come out is the true question.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Some things do not have a large gray area. Things like human rights, understanding and reacting to human-caused climate change, etc. Similarly, as has been stated by some others, reality has a liberal bias. Comfortable people benefitting from the status quo are fearful of change (conservatives) for the fear (be it real or imaginary) that progression will make them less comfortable. If these individuals cannot handle reality and need to escape into fantasy and conspiracy filled echo chambers, they are not rational actors and would best be isolated. There are not two equal sides, but rather reality and fiction.

 

[sikkinixx]

The worst thing we did for the Internet was adding the comment section

Totally. They should be wiped from the web.

 

[FZZ]

We breed breh

White people making less babies than us minorities

And I think the internet is still so new where we haven't properly integrated it or had time to in society

Take note of platforms such as facebook that created such an ease of use that billion(s) are using it now, and from what I know that's what propagates a majority of the misinformation and fake news

People need to be more internet literate if anything

 

[Abinash117]

I partially agree, people will naturally go to places that crater to their views. Very little amount of people will go to places to challenge their views.

I guess I don't have to go far to accept your premise, because it's been the prevailing feeling of the zeitgeist lately.

It's not just that Trump won... its that "WTF... Trump won??" ... it seemed unthinkable outside of the bubble many of us didn't even realize we were in. And then you do the forensic work and look at the Trump bubble, and it's not just "racists", it's a whole ecosystem devoted to Trump as a positive force, busting up the system... and that didn't enter our perception at all.

What's the solution? Dunno.

Teach scientific curiosity and critical thinking in school, I think.

 

[Sianos]

Im on my phone but someone post Colonel AIs speech which is extremely relevant to this discussion
Thread: I agree

Coming right up:

 

[SentientStone]

I partially agree, people will naturally go to places that crater to their views. Very little amount of people will go to places to challenge their views.

That's why I'm here.

 

[d00d3n]

The worst thing we did for the Internet was adding the comment section

Users contributing with their own web pages, comments, pictures and files is the whole point of the Internet. I think what you are looking for is a newspaper printed on paper. You can still subscribe to those and be free of any non-professional input.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The ways these media are shared (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube) should take some responsibility by showing that shared items are clearly bullshit, and removing them from timelines if you don't seek them out yourself.

 

[akira28]

the net is only as good as the intent and the content. it wasn't always a red meat and sex skinner box or a commercial entertainment heaven. But that is what it has turned into through the people designing for it. How to make money by providing experiences or services or goods or content.

it doesn't have to be an echo chamber by default, but if no one acts contrary to that and the general flow of a status quo goes unchallenged, people take what they came for and growth doesn't happen, neither does genuine exchange. Then you get a circular reasoning cycle that self amplifies.

 

[Media]

As the poster above me said, some things don't have gray areas.

But a lot of things do and that is where each side needs to find footholds with each other.

Like if we could come together on something mundane with someone, we could eventually turn them in the right direction via civil rights simply because they are around us enough and aren't driven from our ranks.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

If Democracy includes behaviours that threaten or undermine your fellow man/woman, then I see no hope.

Dat godless nihilism.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I hear you.. but please provide one point in history where this wasn't the case. It's not a modern phenomenon or happening more because of the internet. You just see it easier and more clearly.

This is the issue - not that people are drawn to their own biases, but that the illusion that we are instead influenced by rationality or intellect has been exposed; we are instead confronted by mankind's willingness to self-destruct so visibly.

 

[killer rin]

You could also argue that by not having strong and responsible media institutions, laws against hate speech or people deliberately telling lies to misinform others and mechanisms to prevent businesses from turning the other direction to gain more profit, you are doing a lot more damage to Democracy than the Internet ever could.

 

[Madness]

I hear you.. but please provide one point in history where this wasn't the case. It's not a modern phenomenon or happening more because of the internet. You just see it easier and more clearly.

It is a modern phenomenon because you still had people hold those views but the proliferation of the internet and social media has allowed people to find like mind individuals and BAM, the one guy yelling at clouds finds 10000 people who do the same and then they only speak, share, discuss with themselves and then see others as separate. Nowadays if someone doesn't like something, the first thing they do is post on twitter or facebook for validation from among others. 50 years ago, who would they complain too? This is what creates the fake news and conspiracy theorist crap.

 

[Derwind]

Dat godless nihilism.

I'm not trying to get anyone else to subscribe to my feelings.

 

[Fracas]

Is there definitive evidence that social media sites intentionally wall people with different ideologies?

Isn't the whole point of social media the fact that it's completely up to the user to shape their experience?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

If it hadn't been for the Internet I would have been stuck in the echo chamber that is the bigoted American rural midwest.

 

[patrickthehedgehog]

Coming right up:

Whoaaa is that actually from MGS2? I wish I could post that on FB without having to explain the background.

 

[onadesertedisland]

You could also argue that by not having strong media institutions and laws that go against people deliberately telling lies to misinform others in addition to businesses turning the other direction to gain more profit, you are doing a lot more damage to Democracy than the Internet ever could.

I think this sort of goes back to the elimination of the fairness doctrine and the retreat of kooks to AM radio. They were allowed to simmer for decades with un-checked bullshit that morphed into an alternate reality that a sizable portion of the country identified with.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Is there definitive evidence that social media sites intentionally wall people with different ideologies?

Isn't the whole point of social media the fact that it's completely up to the user to shape their experience?

Some argue this facilitates the echo chamber because the users tune out anything that doesn't agree with their worldview. This may be true for some, but I argue those individuals would do that regardless. Perhaps their vitriol and fake-news would be more isolated, but I don't believe the platform is what shapes them. I think that is integral to their personality.

 

[IISANDERII]

The propagation of social media has seen an increasing amount of people are becoming engaged in politics. But the same platforms, based on algorithms designed to group people together by their preferences, are inadvertently making it harder for those with different political ideologies to discover one another.

TYT and Breitbart are two good examples of this; both champion themselves as the next generation of media and information platforms. But their success is largely down to the ease of which people are able to seek platforms that share their own worldview.

As a result, we have two competing ideologies who view each other with deep suspicion, if not disdain. And the very platforms they use to find their voices is the same tool that makes it harder for them to hear other voices.

Take Neogaf for example: the echo chamber holds the belief that one half of the nation advocates the pursuit of short-term wealth at the cost of the environment and protected species; the pursuit and glorification of war at the cost of countless lives; a revulsion for non-white, and the heterosexual; an ambition of invoking a pseudo-theocracy and a preference for profit over the health of others.

We are hostile here to those ideas, and justifiably so. But the problem is those with a different point of view are posting on other forums, with a similarly hostile point of view, because our choices on the Internet have left us isolated from one another.

How is a democracy to survive?

In our last election, there was a website dedicated to ousting Harper and it helped you by advising who to vote for in your riding. So in this case it definitely helped democracy.

Anyway, the topic doesn't apply to the US since it's not a democracy.

 

[Wensih]

If Democracy includes behaviours that threaten or undermine your fellow man/woman, then I see no hope.

I think the question is whether or not these behaviors are caused by the social media bubbles that seclude and allow radicalization due to lack of interaction with other groups.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Before saying "the internet broke everything, it is bad", I would consider how many accelerating trends over the course of the 20th century came together to result in the present state of affairs.

Lots of things have happened to create an atmosphere of polarization. People don't need the internet to retreat into echo chambers and draw battle lines - I think to a large degree, these echo chambers are a symptom of what's happening. Not the cause.

The way the internet has been used, of course, isn't helping. And traditional media has often done a terrible job of dealing with the situation. The 24 hour news cycle has complimented social media's irresponsible handling of information and failure to care about the damaging effects of using the internet as the most efficient way to spread propaganda in history.

It is almost indescribably bizarre, for example, that so much of what has sweeping effects on the world occurs today on a thing called twitter in 140 character bursts of data shot into the void.

 

[jacksnap]

Undiverse communities are echo chambers that have been around for ages, but those seem to not have prevented democracy (totally) from progressing forwards.

Is it the internet or is it a lack of critical thinking skills, or exaggerated distrust in our media institutions that is undermining democracy here.

 

[Goro Majima]

What if it's a combination of the echo chamber combined with hyperbole driving more discussion than anything else because reasonable middle ground opinions aren't driving as many likes, retweets, comments, etc.?

Then over time, these hyperbolic opinions become normalized and new hyperbole is being used which further radicalizes individuals?

I'm just not seeing a place as often for boring "middle of the road" opinions, either in MSM or in social media because it doesn't get ratings or social feedback.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Take Neogaf for example: the echo chamber holds the belief that one half of the nation advocates the pursuit of short-term wealth at the cost of the environment and protected species; the pursuit and glorification of war at the cost of countless lives; a revulsion for non-white, and the heterosexual; an ambition of invoking a pseudo-theocracy and a preference for profit over the health of others.

We are hostile here to those ideas, and justifiably so. But the problem is those with a different point of view are posting on other forums, with a similarly hostile point of view, because our choices on the Internet have left us isolated from one another.

With all due respect one need only look at virtually any major news site's comment section to understand what happens when hate isn't filtered out. It becomes overrun. SO this idea that GAF is an echochamber is faulty, it is a site that doesn't tolerate hate and with all due respect hate is a huge product of the right : racism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry all stem from on some level or anther hatred, these are of course present on the left too god knows I've argued as much frequently but that's not the point here. Is it our fault that those on the conservative side have trouble framing their issues in other ways beyond the language of hatred? Like Milo is literally an in demand speaker for campus republicans now,and the only thing he offers is hate and encouragement to feel good about being hateful.

To be an echo chamber is to assume that many of us are unaware of what's going on outside of here. That's bullshit. It's the same argument used to argue against safe spaces in universities and encourage hate speakers to be given platforms, the assumption that, and here I will speak mostly of the oppressed, that the oppressed without universities allowing them to be directly confronted with the hatred of their oppressors won't be prepared for the real world. When the reality is the language of hatred is what many minorities are surrounded by, it is their daily lives, it is their struggle, they seek safe spaces at Universities not because they ignorant of the world around but because they want to be given one, single space, where the hatred of the world around them isn't acceptable.

And hate is 100% acceptable, it is why Milo and his ilk can tour the country, tour the world, spread hatred, directly harass minority students, encourage the hatred of minorities, literally get banned from twitter for a racist harassment campaign (and arguably that only happened because Leslie Jones being a celebrity had an equal platform to him), and have their hatred completely reduced to "controversial speaker' by the media and get invited on TV by folks like Bill Maher, to likely complain about how he has no free speech, which I mean is pretty ironic no?

Furthermore if GAF is an echo chamber it certainly is a shitty one given that a protest blocking traffic is controversial, or black queer folk asking the police not to have a float in pride parade is seen as oppression of the police.

Like there's a ton of discussion had here, and a ton of disagreement, what line is drawn is centred around not tolerating calls for hatred and oppression, and if you want that to be included in the conversation too? Well there's pretty much every other website out there for you to go to.

 

[Fracas]

Some argue this facilitates the echo chamber because the users tune out anything that doesn't agree with their worldview. This may be true for some, but I argue those individuals would do that regardless. Perhaps their vitriol and fake-news would be more isolated, but I don't believe the platform is what shapes them. I think that is integral to their personality.

For sure. Social media doesn't shape views, it simply allows you an elevated platform to share yours as well as find others that share those views. And I'd argue that with the advent of social media, it's easier to discover multiple perspectives than ever.

 

[Ogodei]

Here's the thing. The age of "national media," where culture was homogenized by dominant cultural institutions, and to be a part of mainstream society meant you watched one of three TV networks. In the age before that, cities had multiple competing newspapers and radio stations, each vying to find its niche and often doing so through targeted cultural appeal. Cities had a newspaper for Democrats, Republicans, every ethnic and racial group, every religion, Socialists, trade unionists, etc.

The perception that we are all unified by common sources of information is a fleeting phenomenon that dominated from the 50s and the mainstreaming of TV until the mid 00s and the rise of social media (because in the first 10 years of mainstream internet, news was dominated by the mainstream media).

We've lived through the age of "media bubbles" before. The problem is that politics is also much more nationalized, so your tiny bubble has to filter the whole world instead of just filtering local politics and local affairs.

 

[SolVanderlyn]

Whoaaa is that actually from MGS2? I wish I could post that on FB without having to explain the background.

I posted it and realized explaining it for my non-gamer friends kind of ruined the impact.

Removed it and discussed it on GAF instead.

Realized I was doing what was described in the image

 

[Sianos]

Whoaaa is that actually from MGS2? I wish I could post that on FB without having to explain the background.

Here's a more thorough write-up on it, if you're interested.

Yeah, the context of the story make the speech more relatable and concretely grounded. But with a bit of editing and removal of the "we's" it could be rewritten to be read out of context - although I think it is that link of accessibility from the story to these broader ideas that makes this speech resonate with people.

The worst thing we did for the Internet was adding the comment section

I disagree: whilst on an individual level it is of course wise to not look at the comment section precisely because it is a wasteland, I think it is important to acknowledge that the comments do exist and are reflective of a more primal and barbaric side of humanity. People thought of the words and sentences to put in those comments and had the motivated agency and desire to post them, and I find the argument that anonymity "makes" people say terrible things is reductive - it merely enables a deeper tendency that was always present.

The "error" exists between the chair and the keyboard, although to say deeper malevolent tendencies are an "error" implies there is an easily defined source of culpability. I view human consciousness as an "emergent system" and such malevolency as the result of the development of unhealthy cognitive thought process paradigms and reductive or inaccurate schema.

It is very dangerous to propose "a fix" to this problem, because that is quite a dark road to begin travelling down. I think the solution that minimizes potential risk is to focus on developing efficacious and more importantly comprehensive and deeply piercing cognitive focused therapy rather than to try and internally "fix" such behavior through dim understandings of the physical machinations of cognition or retroactively prescribed genetic explanations that are really just grasping at excuses for illogical internal biases.

 

[JordanN]

If it hadn't been for the Internet I would have been stuck in the echo chamber that is the bigoted American rural midwest.

This.

The internet is what helped open me up to different viewpoints.
Despite being in Canada, almost everyone growing up close to me had conservative viewpoints. Once I got on the internet, I learned what liberalism was and stayed that way.

 

[Frozenprince]

Nobody is prevented from posting from a conservative ideological viewpoint here.

It's only an "echo chamber" because those that would attempt a dialogue from the "other side" can't seem to stop using hate speech or victimizing themselves to actually take the time to attempt a dialogue.

They make the assumption nobody wants one in good faith, so they just shit threads up with hate and memes.

 

[AYF 001]

Is there definitive evidence that social media sites intentionally wall people with different ideologies?

Isn't the whole point of social media the fact that it's completely up to the user to shape their experience?

Targeted advertising. They take data from things and pages you like, and recommend content similar to that for you. You like it, and the process repeats, until the company knows more about you than your social media friends do.

 

[ugaboga232]

Internet is a very strong drug. Unlimited entertainment, information, and psuedosocialization that conforms with your beliefs AKA doesn't upset you. The internet is everything to all people. The problem isn't the internet which is just a good way to connect computers. The problem is within all of us. How we are wired. How we work.

Things will get worse before they better unless we realize why social media/forums/fake news/etc. are bad/proliferate.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Whoaaa is that actually from MGS2? I wish I could post that on FB without having to explain the background.

Yeah

Its actually dictated by the AI using both Rose/Colonels visages, but that whole speech is probably the most remembered thing in my mind last year in terms of this whole fake news/media bubbles/etc. That has really come to prevalence this past year.

Like people latching to Benghazi and really believing that Hillary is to blame for it, they simply found their own circles of people to confirm their own beliefs despite everyone saying otherwise. Whether its fake news or about emails, people simply retreated to their own communities which affirmed their own beliefs. Even on neogaf, I was at fault for this too, but suggesting that Trump could win was met with "stop bedwettingg" or disbelief. We are in our bubbles safe and sound, and with the internet, we are allowed to immerse ourselves completely into these bubbles.

 

[hipbabboom]

Both sides are wrong because they they're competing ideologies that make people have to work too hard to figure out whose lying. Its easier to shut down the internet then to expect everyone to educate themselves. Who knew ignorance was the key to a successful democracy. It may sound like sarcasm but the forefathers didn't have the internet and all they did was BUILD A COUNTRY! Boom! I rest my case. I just hope people listened to me and OP.

 

[michaelius]

I don't agree - internet is perfect tool for democracy. Everyone can create his own platform and it's only up to him/her if they reach similarly thinking people on not.

Previously traditional media had a monopoly on what is aired and in what way which made them creators of political trends.

It's the same process as indie game development - what was once prohibitively expensive became much cheaper and open to much more people.

And much like in Steam/app store - it's up to people to choose smartly who they follow.

 

[bionic77]

The net definitely killed local journalism and what replaced it has been disastrous so far.

 

[Grenouille]

The internet is such a game changer...As Herzog puts it, it's a bigger historical point than the discovery of the Americas.

I don't think we know its ramifications yet. We are the first generation facing this, having no idea of the possible casualities. Like the crew in Aguirre, Wrath of God... We are gonna look so naive in history books.

 

[Caelus]

Nobody is prevented from posting from a conservative ideological viewpoint here.

I don't even know what conservatism means or stands for anymore, all the conservatives I've ever met or talked to have toxic beliefs about progressiveness, as opposed to any reasonable or data-driven opinion about governance.

Or even if they have some rational belief in like the economy, geopolitics, or climate change, their empathy and critical thinking go out the window once they choose to deny widespread structural oppression.

I wish I could have a proper debate with a conservative, but it makes me uncomfortable that they'd defend policy which targets people of my ethnicity, race and culture.

 

[Frozenprince]

The net definitely killed local journalism and what replaced it has been disastrous so far.

Unfortunately most companies didn't anticipate it blowing up as it did and eliminating print, so investigative journalism was the first department to get cut.

Hopefully we see a resurgence soon now that the larger news outlets have pretty much weathered the storm.

 

[ThePrequelsSuck]

Duh

 

[Kettch]

This isn't really a problem with the internet, but with people.

I mean, before the internet and news people would have their entire world view shaped by the small community around them with no other choice. That was far more insular than anything today.

Yes, people can absolutely close their eyes to any outside opinions on the internet if they want to, but at the same time opposing views are freely available at a simple click. That's an amazing thing that's never been available to humanity before, and it helps many people see outside the box.

Gaffers in general clearly have strong opinions on many subjects that aren't as clear in our general societies, but at the same time we have posters from all across the world here and are only really connected through video games (and through that mostly youth).

We also still have quite a few disagreements. I would say the threads about outlawing hate speech are pretty split down the middle, with Americans generally being against and Europeans generally being for. When UBI comes up there is quite a big split as well. GAF only really turns into an echo chamber on certain subjects, and for good reasons.