🐱 Study Shows The Trolls Have Won

CatParty
http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/03/...speech-trolls-anonymity-and-fake-news-online/

To illuminate current attitudes about the potential impacts of online social interaction over the next decade, Pew Research Center and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center conducted a large-scale canvassing of technology experts, scholars, corporate practitioners and government leaders. Some 1,537 responded to this effort between July 1 and Aug. 12, 2016 (prior to the late-2016 revelations about potential manipulation of public opinion via hacking of social media). They were asked:

In the next decade, will public discourse online become more or less shaped by bad actors, harassment, trolls, and an overall tone of griping, distrust, and disgust?

In response to this question, 42% of respondents indicated that they expect “no major change” in online social climate in the coming decade and 39% said they expect the online future will be “more shaped” by negative activities. Those who said they expect the internet to be “less shaped” by harassment, trolling and distrust were in the minority. Some 19%said this. Respondents were asked to elaborate on how they anticipate online interaction progressing over the next decade. (See “About this canvassing of experts” for further details about the limits of this sample.)

Participants were also asked to explain their answers in a written elaboration and asked to consider the following prompts: 1) How do you expect social media and digital commentary will evolve in the coming decade? 2) Do you think we will see a widespread demand for technological systems or solutions that encourage more inclusive online interactions? 3) What do you think will happen to free speech? And 4) What might be the consequences for anonymity and privacy?

While respondents expressed a range of opinions from deep concern to disappointment to resignation to optimism, most agreed that people – at their best and their worst – are empowered by networked communication technologies. Some said the flame wars and strategic manipulation of the zeitgeist might just be getting started if technological and human solutions are not put in place to bolster diverse civil discourse.

A number of respondents predicted online reputation systems and much better security and moderation solutions will become near ubiquitous in the future, making it increasingly difficult for “bad actors” to act out disruptively. Some expressed concerns that such systems – especially those that remove the ability to participate anonymously online – will result in an altered power dynamic between government/state-level actors, the elites and “regular” citizens.

Anonymity, a key affordance of the early internet, is an element that many in this canvassing attributed to enabling bad behavior and facilitating “uncivil discourse” in shared online spaces. The purging of user anonymity is seen as possibly leading to a more inclusive online environment and also setting the stage for governments and dominant institutions to even more freely employ surveillance tools to monitor citizens, suppress free speech and shape social debate.


PI_2017.03.29_social-climate_0-01.png
 
http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/03/...speech-trolls-anonymity-and-fake-news-online/

To illuminate current attitudes about the potential impacts of online social interaction over the next decade, Pew Research Center and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center conducted a large-scale canvassing of technology experts, scholars, corporate practitioners and government leaders.

Not only don't I give any credence whatsoever to the prognostication abilities of "technology experts, scholars, corporate practitioners and government leaders," I also probably completely disagree about what they consider "negative."

In short, fuck these people, but they're right they're going to lose.
 
Some said the flame wars and strategic manipulation of the zeitgeist might just be getting started if technological and human solutions are not put in place to bolster diverse civil discourse.
Ok for starters, I hope I can find a list of the people who said this, I like to know exactly who it is that I hate. Secondly, why the fuck do we need diverse civil discourse? I mean, civil discourse is alright I guess, but why does everything have to be diverse? The only answer I ever get is that with diversity we will hear from viewpoints that aren't our own,but that's idiotic.

Leaving aside the fact that I am, as a human with empathy, perfectly capable of imagining other viewpoints, just because someone's opinion is different doesn't mean it's any fucking good. Just adding a black person to my Facebook book club isn't going to automatically mean we have better conversations, what if he's an idiot? And why does it matter anyway, it's just a shitty book club where nerds sperg about fantasy novels, we're not plotting out the global agenda for 2017. Why can't people just do what they enjoy with people they enjoy doing it with?
 
Being able to upset other people and getting lots of imaginary points on social media isn't really the totality of "trolling", there's a serious side to this.

First off, increased trolling is just going to drive up public support for a more authoritarian approach, which is guaranteed to result in a suppression of dissenting opinion.

Secondly, the whole 'fake news' and sensationalist crap, while nothing new, is seriously warping the ability of the public to make descisions. We've already seen people in various countries voting based on what they read on facebook. And old media is following suit, trolls have literally made printing the truth unprofitable.

Basically there's less and less reason to use the internet for communication, which doesn't exactly bode well for the future of the internet or for society.

but why does everything have to be diverse? The only answer I ever get is that with diversity we will hear from viewpoints that aren't our own,but that's idiotic.

So you're fine with scientific studies that use a sample size of one, then?

When you consider for a moment that the vast majority of our worldview is shaped by culture and not rational thought, we literally cannot afford to shut ourselves off from the experience of others.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
So you're fine with scientific studies that use a sample size of one, then?

When you consider for a moment that the vast majority of our worldview is shaped by culture and not rational thought, we literally cannot afford to shut ourselves off from the experience of others.
1. Call me a pessimist, but I seriously doubt they are talking about diversity of thought. Given the fact that the phrase 'diversity of thought' is treated like a secret nazi dog whistle by the regressive left, I'd actually feel pretty good about betting on it. No, they mean diversity of skin colour and genitals.

And as we can see just by visiting the community watch section here on kiwifarms, the most 'diverse' places are also the places which reward any diversity of thought with the harshest punishment available. And do you know what's just as good as a sample size of one? A sample size of 50 where everyone is too afraid to express their own opinions due to the threat of repercussions.

Can you imagine it? Imagine if you lived in a version of America where people were too afraid to express their actual thoughts, because they thought they would be branded racist or sexist or etc, and instead they told scientists what they think they want to hear. We'd probably end up with Donald Trump as president.

2. You are right that culture plays a big role in shaping society, a bigger role than rational thought. I don't know why you think that means I should abandon rational thought in favour of, I don't know, mixing cultures and hoping for the best? I really don't know what you are suggesting here, or why you would contrast the two.

And this line of thought seems to be ignoring two things: Western culture basically introduced the idea of absorbing other cultures' best elements during the Imperial phase of expansion and discovery - most cultures outside the west are still happy to remain primarily homogeneous even today. That aside, it ignores that modern western culture has been shaped - into the most powerful and advanced culture in history - by the enlightenment and the elevation of rational thought. Does that mean we can't be even better? No, and it seems probable that future advances will be propelled at least in part by the absorption of elements of other cultures. But those elements will need to have some sort of basis in rational thought, because it is an integral part of our culture's foundation.

3. You have just done what every sjw does when I ask why we need diversity all the time. I'm not talking about a bunch of studies, and overwhelmingly neither are diversity's fans, except as a motte and bailey defense. I am asking why my book club needs diversity. They are insisting video games/comics/tv shows/groups of people with a shared interest on the internet need diversity.

But why? What does that give us that is better than people telling the stories they want to tell the way they want to tell them? Or better than people spending time with others based on wanting to spend time with them? More importantly, what does diversity provide that is better than the things it fucks up? As if the video game world hadn't already provided ample proof that diversity doesn't give us the better stories its proponents promised, both Marvel and DC recently outright stated that diversity was a stupid pursuit.

And just to clarify, in case I hadn't made it clear enough, I don't have a problem with diversity itself. I have a problem with forced diversity, particularly diversity which is forced despite nobody having a rational reason to do so.
 
1. Call me a pessimist, but I seriously doubt they are talking about diversity of thought. Given the fact that the phrase 'diversity of thought' is treated like a secret nazi dog whistle by the regressive left, I'd actually feel pretty good about betting on it. No, they mean diversity of skin colour and genitals.

And as we can see just by visiting the community watch section here on kiwifarms, the most 'diverse' places are also the places which reward any diversity of thought with the harshest punishment available. And do you know what's just as good as a sample size of one? A sample size of 50 where everyone is too afraid to express their own opinions due to the threat of repercussions.

For this to be the case, the Pew Research Center would have to be wholly leftist, and leftism would have to be wholly regressive. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think institutions like this are less like tumblr than we might unfairly assume. I don't think they're upset about your book club, at the very least.
 
For this to be the case, the Pew Research Center would have to be wholly leftist, and leftism would have to be wholly regressive. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think institutions like this are less like tumblr than we might unfairly assume. I don't think they're upset about your book club, at the very least.
So you've gone from 'without diversity science is worthless!' to 'call me an optimist, but I don't think the pew research centre is regressive left and that is the only way they would mean racial diversity, so while I don't have an answer for the question you actually asked, I doubt pew cares about your book club.' Why didn't you just say that second thing in the first place? Then I could have written you off as a fucking idiot and not wasted time writing a bunch of shit you clearly didn't even read.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: MMMMMM
Back