1,153 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2020
  2. May 2020
    1. Part of the problem of social media is that there is no equivalent to the scientific glassblowers’ sign, or the woodworker’s open door, or Dafna and Jesse’s sandwich boards. On the internet, if you stop speaking: you disappear. And, by corollary: on the internet, you only notice the people who are speaking nonstop.

      This quote comes from a larger piece by Robin Sloan. (I don't know who that is though)

      The problem with social media is that the equivalent to working with the garage door open (working in public) is repeatedly talking in public about what you're doing.

      One problem with this is that you need to choose what you want to talk about, and say it. This emphasizes whatever you select, not what would catch a passerby's eye.

      The other problem is that you become more visible by the more you talk. Conversely, when you stop talking, you become invisible.

    1. How can we portray emotions, gestures, and attention in an authentic way through a computational medium?

      This reminds me a bit of Kevin Marks' post about phatic reactions in social media: http://epeus.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-twitter-works-in-theory.html

    1. It feels a lot like the reason we are unable to offer real alternative social networks is not that we cannot do so. It is because most people with the abilities to do so spend their time working on things that only work for the tiny audience that is the tech sector, while happily ignoring the needs of all those billions of non-technical humans out there. This is something that frustrates me more than I want to admit.
  3. Apr 2020
  4. Feb 2020
    1. Social media research ethics faces a contradiction between big data positivism and research ethics fundamentalism. Big data positivists tend to say, ‘Most social media data is public data. It is like data in a newspaper. I can therefore gather big data without limits. Those talking about privacy want to limit the progress of social science’. This position disregards any engagement with ethics and has a bias towards quantification. The ethical framework Social Media Research: A Guide to Ethics (Townsend and Wallace, 2016) that emerged from an ESRC-funded project tries to avoid both extremes and to take a critical-realist position: It recommends that social scientists neither ignore nor fetishize research ethics when studying digital media.Research ethics fundamentalists in contrast tend to say,You have to get informed consent for every piece of social media data you gather because we cannot assume automatic consent, users tend not to read platform’s privacy policies, they may assume some of their data is private and they may not agree to their data being used in research. Even if you anonymize the users you quote, many can still be identified in the networked online environment.
    2. One important aspect of critical social media research is the study of not just ideolo-gies of the Internet but also ideologies on the Internet. Critical discourse analysis and ideology critique as research method have only been applied in a limited manner to social media data. Majid KhosraviNik (2013) argues in this context that ‘critical dis-course analysis appears to have shied away from new media research in the bulk of its research’ (p. 292). Critical social media discourse analysis is a critical digital method for the study of how ideologies are expressed on social media in light of society’s power structures and contradictions that form the texts’ contexts.
    3. Marx is certainly not the only relevant critical social theorist who matters for under-standing social media. The critical study of social media should be based on a broad range of critical theories of society. The crisis of capitalism and the devastating social and political effects of austerity and neoliberalism have made evident that political econ-omy can no longer be ignored in the study of society. This does not mean that the econ-omy determines society but rather that all social phenomena have an economy and are economic and non-economic at the same time (Fuchs, 2015a).
    4. There are at least six elements in Marx’s works that are of key relevance for understanding communications today (Fuchs, 2016b; Fuchs and Mosco, 2016a, 2016b):(1) Praxis communication: Marx was not just a critical political economist but also a critical journalist and polemicist, whose writing style can inspire critical thought today.(2) Global communication: Marx stressed the connection of communication technol-ogy and globalization. In an age, where there are lots of talk about both the Internet and globalization, we should remind ourselves that technology-mediated globalization has had a longer history.(3) Dialectical philosophy: Marx elaborated a critical theory of technology that is based on dialectical logic. Dialectical philosophy can help us to avoid one-sided analyses of the media (Fuchs, 2014c).(4) Class analysis: Marx stressed the relevance of the connection of labour, value, commodities and capital. He analysed modern society as a class society. Focusing on class today can counter the positivism of analyses of society as information society, net-work society, knowledge-based society, post-industrial society and so on.(5) Crisis and social struggles: Marx described class struggle and crisis as factors in the historical dynamics of class societies. Class structures and struggles are in complex ways reflected on and entangled into mediated communication.(6) Alternatives: Marx envisioned alternatives to capitalism and domination. Given capitalist crisis and monopoly control of social media today, it is important to envision alternatives to capitalism and capitalist social media.
    5. The term ‘social media’ takes on different meanings depending on what concept of the social is foregrounded. Example understandings of the social are Émile Durkheim’s concept of social facts, Max Weber’s categories of social action and social relations, Ferdinand Tönnies’ notion of community or Karl Marx’s understanding of the social as social problems and social co-production that implies the need for social ownership

      Understanding and contextualizing social media

    1. Upon the efficient consumption and summarizing of news from around the world. Remember? from when we though the internet would provide us timely, pertinent information from around the world? How do we find internet information in a timely fashion? I have been told to do this through Twitter or Facebook, but, seriously… no. Those are systems designed to waste time with stupid distractions in order to benefit someone else. Facebook is informative in the same way that thumb sucking is nourishing. Telling me to use someone’s social website to gain information is like telling me to play poker machines to fix my financial troubles.. Stop that.
  5. Jan 2020
    1. One of the key critiques of the study is that the researchers didn’t log in. That is to say that they could not experience the full impact of the algorithm as it impacts their findings.

      As Becca Lewis suggests, is the problem associated with methodology? This reminds me of some of the discussions associated with [social media and teens] (https://collect.readwriterespond.com/social-media-has-not-destroyed-a-generation/)

  6. Dec 2019
    1. And I am planning on cutting back on my personal use of social media (easier said than done) and want to try to return to using my blog more than Twitter for sharing.

      certainly a laudable goal!

      It helped me a lot to simply delete most of the social media apps off of my phone. I scribbled a bit about the beginning of the process back in November and there's a link there to a post by Ben doing the same thing on his own website.

      More people are leaving social feeds for RSS feeds lately. I've recently started following Jeremy Felt who is taking this same sort of journey himself. See: https://jeremyfelt.com/tag/people-still-blog/

      Kudos as well to making the jump here:

      Taking a bit of a Twitter break. I'm going to try to stay off until the new year, but likely lack the willpower to stay off for more than a few hours. Wish me luck!<br><br>....but silently. Not via reply to to this tweet. Cause that'll just suck me back into the vortext.

      — Clint Lalonde (he/him) (@edtechfactotum) December 19, 2019
      <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

      In part, it's what prompted me to visit your site to write a comment. (Sorry for upping your cis-gendered white male count, but 2019 was a bad year, and hopefully we can all make 2020 better as you've indicated.)

    2. Most of the convo, if any, seems to happen on the socials vs comments left on the blog these days.

      The sad part of this is how painfully limiting the conversation can be on social with the character limitations and too many issues with branching conversations and following all the context.

      I find that using Webmentions on my site adds a lot of value because it brings all the conversation back to my site, where it really should be for more context.

    3. By the numbers

      I'm curious what things would look like if you similarly did an analysis of Twitter, Facebook, etc.? Where are you putting more time? What's giving you the most benefit? Where are you getting value and how are you giving it back?

    1. Moving back to a focus on protocols over platforms can solve many of these problems.

      This may also only be the case if large corporations are forced to open up and support those protocols. If my independent website can't interact freely and openly with something like Twitter on a level playing field, then it really does no good.

    1. Alexander Samuel reflects on tagging and its origins as a backbone to the social web. Along with RSS, tags allowed users to connect and collate content using such tools as feed readers. This all changed with the advent of social media and the algorithmically curated news feed.

      Tags were used for discovery of specific types of content. Who needs that now that our new overlords of artificial intelligence and algorithmic feeds can tell us what we want to see?!

      Of course we still need tags!!! How are you going to know serendipitously that you need more poetry in your life until you run into the tag on a service like IndieWeb.xyz? An algorithmic feed is unlikely to notice--or at least in my decade of living with them I've yet to run into poetry in one.

    1. Madison’s design has proved durable. But what would happen to American democracy if, one day in the early 21st century, a technology appeared that—over the course of a decade—changed several fundamental parameters of social and political life? What if this technology greatly increased the amount of “mutual animosity” and the speed at which outrage spread? Might we witness the political equivalent of buildings collapsing, birds falling from the sky, and the Earth moving closer to the sun?

      Jonathan Haidt, you might have noticed, is a scholar that I admire very much. In this piece, his colleague Tobias Rose-Stockwell and he ask the following questions: Is social media a threat to our democracy? Let's read the following article together and think about their question together.

  7. Nov 2019
    1. Loading this iframe allows Facebook to know that this specific user is currently on your website. Facebook therefore knows about user browsing behaviour without user’s explicit consent. If more and more websites adopt Facebook SDK then Facebook would potentially have user’s full browsing history! And as with “With great power comes great responsibility”, it’s part of our job as developers to protect users privacy even when they don’t ask for.
    1. Using Technology to Help First-Gen Students

      This article highlights the need for and benefits of implementing more technology tools to support first-generation college students' learning, engagement, and success. For many first-gen students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, the transition to college can be challenging; this leads to lower retention rates, performance, and confidence. The authors, drawing off of research, suggest mobile devices and Web 2.0 technologies to prevent these challenges. Example of such tools include dictionary and annotation apps that are readily-accessible and aid in students' understanding of material. Fist-gen students can also use social media apps (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) to maintain supportive connections with family, peers, and mentors. Rating: 8/10

  8. Oct 2019
    1. When these signals are intercepted, collected, co-opted, or stolen, they have the potential to confuse, weaken, or compromise an individual or initiative.

      I can't help but thinking here about stories of native peoples feeling like photographs of them were like having their soul stolen.

    1. Liberal and Conservative Representations of the Good Society: A (Social) Structural Topic Modeling Approach

      I chose this article, because it is timely, relevant, easy-to-follow (because it is intuitive), and innovative (using data sources, Twitter, and an innovative method, textual analysis). I hope you enjoy the reading. Please follow my annotations (comments + questions) and respond to the questions I pose. Try to answer them in your own words.

  9. Sep 2019
    1. On social media, we are at the mercy of the platform. It crops our images the way it wants to. It puts our posts in the same, uniform grids. We are yet another profile contained in a platform with a million others, pushed around by the changing tides of a company's whims. Algorithms determine where our posts show up in people’s feeds and in what order, how someone swipes through our photos, where we can and can’t post a link. The company decides whether we're in violation of privacy laws for sharing content we created ourselves. It can ban or shut us down without notice or explanation. On social media, we are not in control.

      This is why I love personal web sites. They're your own, you do whatever you want with them, and you control them. Nothing is owned by others and you're completely free to do whatever you want.

      That's not the case with Facebook, Microsoft, Slack, Jira, whatever.

    1. I feel by far less distracted. My attention span feels more robust than it ever has. I also clocked in at 1000 consecutive days of meditation this past year so I’m not sure which can lay claim to more of these benefits, but my hunch is that getting rid of social media helped.

      No Facebook/Instagram/"social media" better concentration. I'm quite sure that this adheres to a lot of people.

  10. Aug 2019
    1. Social media network TikTok is testing an advertising platform that will let advertisers target users across third-party apps, as well as within TikTok.

      As of 2018-08, TikTok has 500M users worldwide. 2/3 are under 30. In the US, more than half are 16-24.

    1. As such, we can read Yelp and similar review sites as curated collections of texts that provide annotators.d-undefined, .lh-undefined { background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) !important; }.d-undefined, .lh-undefined { background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5) !important; }2Troy Hicks, Maha Bali with a public and networked opportunity to express their truth and author counternarratives.

      Here I'm reminded of Tom Standage's book Writing on the Wall: Social Media: The First 2,000 Years as potentially having some interesting examples that include the ideas of social media as an annotation layer on life.

    2. notes are tediously authored for the profit of multinational corporations.

      social media: live annotations on life itself

  11. Jul 2019
    1. Another solution might be to limit on the number of times a tweet can be retweeted.

      This isn't too dissimilar to an idea I've been mulling over and which Robin Sloan wrote about on the same day this story was released: https://platforms.fyi/

    1. The initial promise of Web 2.0—that gatekeepers have their power reduced and that “ordinary” users can make media—is still true, even for for-profit firms such as Facebook and Twitter.

      While this is generally true that everyone can now create, the real inequity is the fact that distribution is not equal for all players. We might also ask the question: Should distribution be equal for all?

      Robin Sloan has an "essay" on this topic that mirrors my own long held distribution questions/problems: https://platforms.fyi/

    2. In the years between 2004 and 2012, many media critics proclaimed a promising new mediascape of democratic production and thus democratic organization (Benkler, 2006; Bruns, 2008; Shirky, 2009)—precisely what alternative media theorists had been calling for in previous decades.

      I note here that they mention production and organization, but there is a missing piece of "distribution". In large part, part of the problem with current corporate social media is one of how their content is distributed and the advertising model that drives what sorts of content are distributed.

  12. Jun 2019
    1. To put our toxic relationship with Big Tech into perspective, critics have compared social media to a lot of bad things. Tobacco. Crystal meth. Pollution. Cars before seat belts. Chemicals before Superfund sites. But the most enduring metaphor is junk food: convenient but empty; engineered to be addictive; makes humans unhealthy and corporations rich.
    1. So this is where some older paths-not-taken, such as Ted Nelson’s original many-to-many, multidirectional model for hypertext, and some more recent potential paths, such as Herbert van de Sompel’s decentralized, distributed vision for scholarly communication, might come in.
  13. May 2019
  14. Apr 2019
    1. A social network like Path attempted to limit your social graph size to the Dunbar number, capping your social capital accumulation potential and capping the distribution of your posts. The exchange, they hoped, was some greater transparency, more genuine self-expression. The anti-Facebook. Unfortunately, as social capital theory might predict, Path did indeed succeed in becoming the anti-Facebook: a network without enough users. Some businesses work best at scale, and if you believe that people want to accumulate social capital as efficiently as possible, putting a bound on how much they can earn is a challenging business model, as dark as that may be.

      An interesting thesis on why Path failed. Again it posits that social capital is the only reason to be there...

    2. Most of these near clones have and will fail. The reason that matching the basic proof of work hurdle of an Status as a Service incumbent fails is that it generally duplicates the status game that already exists. By definition, if the proof of work is the same, you're not really creating a new status ladder game, and so there isn't a real compelling reason to switch when the new network really has no one in it.

      This presumes that status is the only reason why people would join such a network. It also underlines the fact that the platform needs to be easy and simple to use, otherwise no one enters it and uses it as the tool first before the network exists.

    3. It's true that as more people join a network, more social capital is up for grabs in the aggregate. However, in general, if you come to a social network later, unless you bring incredible exogenous social capital (Taylor Swift can join any social network on the planet and collect a massive following immediately), the competition for attention is going to be more intense than it was in the beginning. Everyone has more of an understanding of how the game works so the competition is stiffer.

      Perhaps the IndieWeb is growing at such a much slower rate (in this thesis, there is a much higher level for "proof of work") that this sort of social capital is more akin to that of social capital in real life? Some of the value of IndieWeb is that all your "social capital" can be put in one place and better controlled by you.

      Why would one want to game their own sites in these ways? Are personal sites a better reflection of real life social capital? There's also lost personal time in learning and participating in dozens of social silos which is much better spent creating things of greater consequence.

      With respect to his mention of Paul Krugman's Instagram account, it's useful to be able to pick and choose what you might want to follow in Paul's life. If you're a close friend then his Instagram account is awesome, but if you're a young political science student then his bookmarks, reads, notes, and articles would be much more valuable to you.

    4. [An aside about exogenous social capital: you might complain that your tweets are more interesting and grammatical than those of, say, Donald Trump (you're probably right!). Or that your photos are better composed and more interesting at a deep level of photographic craft than those of Kim Kardashian. The difference is, they bring a massive supply of exogenous pre-existing social capital from another status game, the fame game, to every table, and some forms of social capital transfer quite well across platforms. Generalized fame is one of them. More specific forms of fame or talent might not retain their value as easily: you might follow Paul Krugman on Twitter, for example, but not have any interest in his Instagram account. I don't know if he has one, but I probably wouldn't follow it if he did, sorry Paul, it’s nothing personal.]

      In publishing circles, this has long been known as platform or author platform--ie that thing that made you famous in the first place that gives you the space to attempt to try to use that fame to sell books.

    1. One reason is that products are often designed in ways that make us act impulsively and against our better judgment. For example, suppose you have a big meeting at work tomorrow. Ideally, you want to spend some time preparing for it in the evening and then get a good night’s rest. But before you can do either, a notification pops up on your phone indicating that a friend tagged you on Facebook. “This will take a minute,” you tell yourself as you click on it. But after logging in, you discover a long feed of posts by friends. A few clicks later, you find yourself watching a YouTube video that one of them shared. As soon as the video ends, YouTube suggests other related and interesting videos. Before you know it, it’s 1:00 a.m., and it’s clear that you will need an all-nighter to get ready for the following morning’s meeting. This has happened to most of us.

      This makes me think about the question of social and moral responsibility- I understand that YouTube and Facebook didn't develop these algorithms with nefarious intent, but it is a very drug-like experience, and I know I'm not the only one who can relate to this experience

    1. Summarization:When an original message is passed on,it is frequently compressed, focusing on the essence whileomitting unnecessary details.

      This may be even more true on social media platforms, such as Twitter.

  15. Mar 2019
    1. YouTube playlist of my classes' Student Production Award winning projects from the Ohio Valley chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (the organization behind the Emmy awards).

    1. This is a discussion of informal learning that focuses on ensuring that incidences of informal learning are recognized. This discussion portrays it has happening through casual conversations, online discussions, or social media. The page is easy enough to read though it does not try to be comprehensive. rating 2/5

    1. Social media is not a thing that needs to be fixed. People connecting with people is a thing. Jerks are a thing. Jerks are not a digital problem. Jerks are a real-world problem that has been around for a long time. We need to get past the digital and fix our real-world jerk problem. And, as we go along, we have to think about how our systems help create those jerks.
  16. Feb 2019
    1. The combination of state surveillance and its capitalist counterpart means that digital technology is separating the citizens in all societies into two groups: the watchers (invisible, unknown and unaccountable) and the watched. This has profound consequences for democracy because asymmetry of knowledge translates into asymmetries of power.
    1. If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Culture, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.

      So sad to see that they've abrogated their responsibility for comments on their site to Twitter and Facebook

  17. Jan 2019
    1. Do we want technology to keep giving more people a voice, or will traditional gatekeepers control what ideas can be expressed?

      Part of the unstated problem here is that Facebook has supplanted the "traditional gatekeepers" and their black box feed algorithm is now the gatekeeper which decides what people in the network either see or don't see. Things that crazy people used to decry to a non-listening crowd in the town commons are now blasted from the rooftops, spread far and wide by Facebook's algorithm, and can potentially say major elections.

      I hope they talk about this.

    1. “I’m always genuinely happy to interact with listeners,” he said, “and since some prefer social media, I use it. But my (thus far only modestly effective) strategy has been to try and produce enduring content and let it speak for itself, rather than posting ephemera on Facebook and Twitter at regular intervals.”

      I love his use of the word "ephemera" in relation to social media, particularly as he references his podcast about ancient history.

    1. This distinction enlightens the reading of thegrowing social media and mass emergency lit-erature for three reasons. First, without it, thisnew literature risks undoing decades of work bysocial scientists who have dismantled the mythsof disaster, with a dominant discourse thatincludes panic and unlawful behavior by victims.But in disasters arising from natural hazards, weknow such behaviors are not typical. Massemergencies arising from criminal behavior canhave a much wider range of collective behaviorbecause the source of the hazard is unknown,unpredictable and perhaps more imminentlydangerous

      Palen and Hughes raise concern about boundaries and classification in mass emergency research. They define crisis as an overarching term that incorrectly generalizes sociobehavioral phenomena during natural and criminal events.

    2. Misinforma-tion arising from natural hazards or exogenousevents might be greater in kind, but less inimpact, with fewer in-common readers as it tra-verses a network that can move a little slowerthan it might in criminal mass emergency events.Because the problem-solving tends to be morediffuse in exogenous events, the same messagemight not reach enough people; in other words,the misinformation might also be thinly diffused.Misinformation in such events is more likely toage out, or not be relevant to enough locations topose a big threat—in other words, all informationin thefirst place is less likely to be categoricallycorrect or incorrect, and as such, it is hard tofindas much value in pursuing the threat of misin-formation in such situations.

      Not sure I entriely agree with this argument that misinformation in natural disaster/exogenous events.

      Mis/Dis-information definitely matters for those affected. (see Neal, 1997 and Phillips work on phases of response for minority groups).

      What about misinformation campaigns during mass migration or other politically-tinged humanitarian crises where the exogenous factor (long-standing war, religious conflict/persecution, colonialism, etc.) is far removed from the immediate crisis? (Think 2015 migration crisis in Europe, Rohingya genocide in Myanmar implications for Bangaldesh).

      Is there a middle ground between endogenous and exogenous hazards?

    3. Wefindendogeneityandexogeneityof haz-ards to be a meaningful distinction in socialmedia in mass emergencies research, one thatreadily clarifies for a range of researchers andreaders who are outside the social science disci-pline. Just as events that arise from exogenousand endogenous hazards differently impact legal,political, health, and other societal systems, so dothey differently impact social media behavior.8With exogenous events, the culprit is beyondreach, and unstoppable. With endogenous agents,the suspect lies within. Therefore, organizingfeatures of the communication are distinctlydifferent, because the source(s) of the problem(s),the nature of their solutions,and the ability forthe perception of the collective control of theoutcomeare different. Online participation focu-ses on in-common salient problems when theyare present; when the problems are lessin-common and must be addressed in parallel, thecrowd organizes in many smaller groupings and,often endogeneity and exogeneity of hazardspredicts this (Palen & Anderson,2016).

      Describes differences in social media response between 2012 Hurricane Sandy (exogenous) and 2013 Boston Bombing (endogenous) mass emergencies.

    4. We make this point because we worrythat the very idea of“social media”flattens themany meanings of“crisis”and“emergency”forwhich social sciencefields have worked to pro-vide insight. For example, because Twitter orFacebook are available for use in any kind ofcrises, it is easy to make these applications thesalient concern, and ask“Is Twitter or Facebookbetter in emergency response?,”rather thanquestion how the very nature of emergencyresponse might beg for different forms of infor-mation seeking and reporting. We refer to thisflattening of communication medium and hazardas thesocial media and crisis confound.

      Definition of social media and crisis confound

    1. What social media did was to transform discovery into a passive rather than an active process.

      Nicely put observation on how social media changed the way in which we discover information.

  18. Dec 2018
    1. His dream is to put a live Web server with easy-to-edit pages on every person's desktop, then connect them all in a robust network that feeds off itself and informs other media.

      An early statement of what would eventually become all of social media.

    2. The Weblog community is basically a whole bunch of expert witnesses who increase their expertise constantly through a sort of reputation engine."

      The trouble is how is this "reputation engine" built? What metrics does it include? Can it be gamed? Social media has gotten lots of this wrong and it has caused problems.

    3. Man, this is a beast that's hungry all the time."

      Mind you he's saying this in 2001 before the creation of more wide spread social networks.

    1. It is based on reciprocity and a level of trust that each party is actively seeking value-added information for the other.

      Seems like this is a critical assumption to examine for current media literacy/misinformation discussions. As networks become very large and very flat, does this assumption of reciprocity and good faith hold? (I'm thinking, here, of people whose expertise I trust in one domain but perhaps not in another, or the fact that sometimes I'm talking to one part of my network and not really "actively seeking information" for other parts.)

    1. On the net, you have public, or you have secrets. The private intermediate sphere, with its careful buffering. is shattered. E-mails are forwarded verbatim. IRC transcripts, with throwaway comments, are preserved forever. You talk to your friends online, you talk to the world.
    1. Maybe during this Christmas break I will find the guts to do a purge but I know that it will be a "fake purge".

      I've been seeing a lot about (Japanes) minimalism this past year in relation to physical goods, but hadn't considered what a minimal social media presence would look like.

    1. I adopted a ‘horses for courses’ approach to keep it in check. I used Facebook primarily to keep in touch with family and real-world friends, I used Twitter for tech discussions and networking, I used LinkedIn sparingly, and I dropped any social media that didn’t fulfill a specific function for me.
  19. Nov 2018
    1. Facebook’s lofty aims were emblazoned even on securities filings: “Our mission is to make the world more open and connected.”

      Why not make Facebook more open and connected? This would fix some of the problems.

      As usual, I would say that they need to have a way to put some value on the "connections" that they're creating. Not all connections are equal. Some are actively bad, particularly for a productive and positive society.

    1. As deepfakes make their way into social media, their spread will likely follow the same pattern as other fake news stories. In a MIT study investigating the diffusion of false content on Twitter published between 2006 and 2017, researchers found that “falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than truth in all categories of information.” False stories were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than the truth and reached 1,500 people six times more quickly than accurate articles.

      This sort of research should make it eaiser to find and stamp out from the social media side of things. We need regulations to actually make it happen however.

    1. But now it was all for the best: a law of nature, a chance for the monopolists to do good for the universe. The cheerer-in-chief for the monopoly form is Peter Thiel, author of Competition Is for Losers. Labeling the competitive economy a “relic of history” and a “trap,” he proclaimed that “only one thing can allow a business to transcend the daily brute struggle for survival: monopoly profits.”

      Sounds like a guy who is winning all of the spoils.

    1. They can spew hate amongst themselves for eternity, but without amplification it won’t thrive.

      This is a key point. Social media and the way it amplifies almost anything for the benefit of clicks towards advertising is one of its most toxic features. Too often the extreme voice draws the most attention instead of being moderated down by more civil and moderate society.

  20. Oct 2018
    1. Why do people troll? Eight factors are given, which might boil down to:

      • Perceived lack of consequences.
      • Online mob mentality.
    1. news is stressful and has little impact on the day-to-day routines —use it for class assignments, avoid it otherwise.” While a few students like this one practiced news abstinence, such students were rare.

      This sounds a bit like my college experience, though I didn't avoid it because of stressful news (and there wasn't social media yet). I generally missed it because I didn't subscribe directly to publications or watch much television. Most of my news consumption was the local college newspaper.

    1. When students are shown quick techniques for judging the veracity of a news source, they will use them. Regardless of their existing beliefs, they will distinguish good sources from bad sources.

      https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/

    1. The Online Disinhibition Effect (John Suler, 2004) - the lack of restraint shown by some people when communicating online rather than in person. (It can be good as well as bad. How can we reduce the bad behavior?)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect http://truecenterpublishing.com/psycyber/disinhibit.html

    1. On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned—pun very much intended—by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white “allies” do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.
    1. The last thing most people need is another microphone. They need something to say. (And time to say it.)

      Interesting to hear this from 2006 and looking back now...

    1. In the past, technology has extended the human body, providing it with tools to act upon the world. But at some point, a tool becomes something more. When does it become part of its user?

      In this passage, the author is claiming that with transhumanism and the growing appeal of technology as tools to advance or "extend" the human body, it can blur the lines between what is considered human and what is considered technology. For example, the author previously mentions social media and cell phone use in today's world. In today's society, using smartphones has become second nature. The author is implying that in the near future tools and technology such as anabolic steroids, laser surgery, advanced prosthetic limbs, etc can also become as prominent to humans as cellphones/social media is now.

  21. Sep 2018
    1. Snap is also confident that it can reach a high amount of new voters: 80 percent of its users are over 18, so this campaign won't just fall on well-meaning (but still too young) thumbs

      Snapchat becomes confident due to being the new form of communication and it happens to be the most activated and number one form of social media. This allows people to be reached out because almost everyone has a Snapchat account.

    1. Rather than imagine a timeless world of connection and multiple paths, the Stream presents us with a single, time ordered path with our experience (and only our experience) at the center.
    1. Trump’s digital strategy, Singer and Brooking argue, is not unlike militant groups and street gangs that leverage the viral web to tell a compelling story about policy, religious dogma, or their own perceived fearsomeness, all in an engaging voice, while repeatedly targeting exactly the right audience to trigger a dopamine response or sheer terror, both online and IRL. "To 'win' the internet, one must learn how to fuse these elements of narrative, authenticity, community, and inundation," Singer and Brooking write. "And if you can 'win' the internet, you can win silly feuds, elections, and deadly serious battles."
    2. In 1968, two psychologists wrote a paper theorizing that computers could become communications devices. The US Department of Defense ran with the idea, and in 1969 the precursor of the internet as we know it today, the military-operated ARPANET, went live. The National Science Foundation took over in the 1980s before business began to dominate in the 90s, at which point, things started to grow in exponential leaps. There were 28,000 internet users in 1987, according to Singer and Brooking. Today, there are billions.
    3. Trump's unlikely rise to the White House was symptomatic of social, political, and technological trends decades in the making—trends that gave rise to the internet and social media and which, in turn, transformed the way we control, spy on, and kill each other.
    1. All tribes need tribal leaders, who in turn need loyalty. Followers of Corbyn and Trump will both detest the comparison, but note how both have the merch, the chants, the hagiography. They’re radically different, but both are products of the tribalism that social media has accidentally brought about.
    1. My relationship is a lot healthier with blogs that I visit when I please. This is another criticism I have with RSS as well—I don’t want my favorite music blog sending me updates every day, always in my face. I just want to go there when I am ready to listen to something new. (I also hope readers to my blog just stop by when they feel like obsessing over the Web with me.)

      Amen!

  22. Aug 2018
    1. merican public life has become increasingly ideologically segregated as newspapers have given way to screens. But societies have experienced extremism and fragmentation without the assistance of Silicon Valley for centuries. And the polarization in the US began long ago, with the rise of 24-hour cable news. So just how responsible is the internet for today’s divisions? And are they really as bad as they seem?
    1. Social media is well-understood to be contributing to identity politics, but I’d argue it’s contributing to something deeper: identity paralysis. This condition is one in which we have a forced awareness of how everything we say and do — even the seemingly inconsequential, like the shoes we wear, or the airline we fly — reflects on us.

      This relates to another article on gender dysphoria in teens.

      Among the noteworthy patterns Littman found in the survey data: 21 percent of parents reported their child had one or more friends become transgender-identified at around the same time; 20 percent reported an increase in their child’s social media use around the same time as experiencing gender dysphoria symptoms; and 45 percent reported both.

      Is rapid-onset gender dysphoria a response—if only partially—to the identity paralysis borne out of an age of pervasive social media?

    1. we can’t just recreate the same thing we’re trying to escape, and we can’t expect the solution to be precisely as easy on us as the problem was.
    2. Just like in real life, where your bar trivia team doesn’t really overlap with your work softball team or your church bowling league, all of your online communities gathered in their own places, ones best suited to them, and you didn’t have to act as all facets of yourself simultaneously when trying to only interact with one.
    1. To start you thinking, here’s a quote from lead educator Jean Burgess. Jean considers how Twitter has changed since 2006 and reflects on her own use of the platform in the context of changing patterns of use. In response to the suggestion that Twitter is a dying social media platform, Jean states that: the narratives of decline around the place at the moment […] have to do with a certain loss of sociability. And to those of us for whom Twitter’s pleasures were as much to do with ambient intimacy, personal connections and play as they were to do with professional success theatre, celebrity and breaking news, this is a real, felt loss: sociability matters.
    1. Yet, at the same time as power is exercised by both the state and corporations, power is gathering from the bottom up in new ways. In disaster response, a dynamic interplay between publics and experts is captured by the concept of social collective intelligence (Büscher et al. 2014); a disruptive innovative force that is challenging the social, economic, political and organisational practices that shape disaster response.

      Cited paper references social media and DHN work.

    1. identity why do teens seem strange online?292privacy why do youth share so publicly?543addiction what makes teens obsessed with social media?774danger are sexual predators lurking everywhere?1005bullying is social media amplifying meanness and cruelty?1286inequality can social media resolve social divisions?1537literacy are today’s youth digital natives?1768searching for a public of their own199

      Just reading this table of contents reminds me that this "analysis of teens" seems a lot like the perennial contemplations of adults who think that the generations of teenagers coming behind them is different, weird, or even deviant.

      A typical case in point is that of the greatest generation looking at the long-haired 60's hippy teens who came after them. "Why do they like rock and roll? They do too many drugs. There's no hope for the future." "Damn kids. Get off of my lawn!"

      Is the way that current teens and millennials react to social just another incarnation of this general idea?

    1. I had been a victim of something the sociologists Alice Marwick and danah boyd call context collapse, where people create online culture meant for one in-group, but exposed to any number of out-groups without its original context by social-media platforms, where it can be recontextualized easily and accidentally.
    1. Ten years ago, if I knew someone primarily through online means, you could guarantee they had their own domain name. It was just before the big explosion in social media use which meant that if you wanted a space online, you had to create it. This provided a barrier to entry in terms of the digital literacy skills required to register a domain, set up the necessary software and, of course, design, build and upload a website. The upside was that your digital identity was yours.

      Why have we gotten away from this? In short, I think it's because it was easier for big companies with massive resources to do the initial heavy lifting.

      If we look at history, Gutenberg created the first printing press and guarded it heavily for years. Eventually others figured out how to do it and printing presses spread like wildfire.Now, with some modest means and some time, almost anyone can publish.

      With simple standards and accessible hosting people can now broadly own their own domain name and create their own websites using a variety of content management systems. In a few years, this will be even more ubiquitous. Facebook is going to be just like Gutenberg attempting to hold onto his monopoly, but failing miserably.

      The best part, I think, is that the speed of digital technology means that the Facebook edifice is going to crumble faster than Gutenberg's.

  23. Jul 2018
    1. I am generous with what I have—I choose to be generous with what I have—precisely because we are no longer committed to one another as members of a shared social structure. Instead, the shift of responsibility for the public welfare toward private entities displaces our obligations to one another in favor of individual liberties and, I think, leaves us queasy about the notion of obligation altogether.

      The game theory of things tends to pull the society apart, particularly when it is easier to see who is paying what. If the richer end feels they're paying more than their fair share, this can tend to break things down.

      I suspect that Francis Fukuyama has a bit to say about this in how democratic societies built themselves up over time. Similarly one of his adherents Jonah Goldberg provides some related arguments about tribalism tending to tear democracies down when we revert back to a more primitive viewpoint instead of being able to trust the larger governmental structures of a democracy.

    1. But Blair is not just posting about her own life; she has taken non-consenting parties along for the ride.
    1. I also value reading a person’s blog over time to understand better their voice and context. So I’m asking for some advice on how to update my module on finding research. What replaces RSS feeds? What works for you that goes beyond “someone on Twitter/Facebook shared….” to something that is more focused and intentional?
    1. When it comes to democracy and human rights, a Jeffersonian internet is clearly a safer choice. With Web 3.0 still in its infancy, the West at least will need to find other ways to rein in the online giants. The obvious alternative is regulation.
  24. Jun 2018
    1. Sreekumar added: "Interestingly enough, the change was made after Instagram opened the doors to brands to run ads." But even once they pay for visibility, a brand under pressure to remain engaging: "Playing devil's advocate for a second here: All the money in the world cannot transform shitty content into good content."

      Artificially limiting reach of large accounts to then turn around and demand extortion money? It's the social media mafia!

    1. FB dominates news distribution

      If this assertion is based on the Pew "News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017" (http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/) please note the question asked in the survey reads:

      "Do you ever get news or news headlines on any of the following sites? By news we mean information about events and issues that involve more than just your friends or family."

      Do you ever... I'm surprised the figure wasn't higher.

  25. Apr 2018
    1. This fall, my colleagues and I released gobo.social, a customizable news aggregator. Gobo presents you with posts from your friends, but also gives you a set of sliders that govern what news you see and what’s hidden from you. Want more serious news, less humor? Move a slider. Need to hear more female voices? Adjust the gender slider, or press the “mute all men” button for a much quieter internet. Gobo currently includes half a dozen ways to tune your news feed, with more to come.

      Gobo, a proof of concept.

  26. Mar 2018
    1. At that time I was working with this umbrella group for languages to support communications using social media and to raise awareness of the need for better government support for languages in the UK.  I have always been a passionate advocate of language learning,

      Advocacy, leadership, social media

    1. A majority of Americans use Facebook and YouTube, but young adults are especially heavy users of Snapchat and Instagram

      social media use

  27. Feb 2018
  28. Jan 2018
  29. Nov 2017
    1. Mike Hearn, formerly with Google, calls a recent report on Twitter bots promoting Brexit "deliberate lying, or if you like, fake news."

      Without having looked into it further than reading his response, I'm doubtful about his doubtfulness. I suspect the kind of bots he was trying to identify were a different variety. He says he never saw "cyborg" accounts. He doesn't mention that Russia is known to employ people for social media propaganda.

    1. Online kommunizieren "Social-Media-Verweigerer" auch durch ihr Fernbleiben von Facebook und Co.

      Wer den Social Media fernbleibt, ist vielleicht online, vielleicht auch nicht. In beiden Fällen können die, die online sind und bei Social Media mitmachen, denjenigen, der fernbleibt, nicht «sehen», auch nicht als Leerstelle. Wer nicht bei den Social Media mitmacht, existiert – aus der Innensicht – in gewisser Weise nicht. Es sei denn, das Fernbleiben wird innerhalb der Social Media thematisiert. Und das kann nur, wer mitmacht oder prominent mitgemacht hat. Aus den Social Media heraus könnte zwar nach außen auf jemanden verwiesen werden, der nicht mitmacht – aber wäre das Kommunikation? Doch nur dann, wenn diese Person innerhalb der Social Media bekannt ist. «Ich mache bei Euch nicht (mehr) mit!» mach bei Social Media keinen Sinn. Ich würde also behaupten: im Zusammenhang mit Social Media ist Nicht-Kommunizieren durchaus möglich.

    1. Jonathan Albright says that Instagram is another major channel of Russian propaganda.

      IRA (Internet Research Agency) - a Russian troll factory.

      David Karpf argues that actual user engagement among US citizens can be hard to estimate, since a lot of apparent activity comes from fake accounts.