Researchers at New York University have concluded that social media is not an accurate reflection of society, but more like a funhouse mirror distorted by a small but vocal minority of extreme outliers. It’s a finding that has special resonance this election season. John Yang speaks with psychology professor Jay Van Bavel, one of the authors of the paper that reported the research, to learn more.
It’s starting to feel more like we shouldn’t allow political ads or discussions online without restrictions. Foreign actors and idiots are too quick to spread misinformation. If people want to get an idea of what others believe in, then go talk with other real people. This feels more like kids learning how to socialize from online games. People are dicks online, and you can interact with people that way in real life
Honestly I’ve started to start any political conversations with someone who’s misinformed like: “Oh you’re think they’re eating dogs? I saw that too, but it isn’t news. It’s political ads. You know? Propaganda? But they are selling you fear instead. Turns out it’s just fiction, lol. They tricked me too.”
It generally opens up a legit conversation, and the person is less defensive since it’s us talking about something else. Instead of me vs them.
Who are this “we” that should not allow political discussions online ? How would that be enforced?
Would Lemmy.world (the “foreign” social media) have to apply these US restrictions (via political pressure on it’s host countries) or will the US block access to it?
Or your home instance sh.it just.works?
Do you even remotely realize how authoritarian your position is?
What I mean by that is no anonymous posting. A big issue is that you have thousands of bots pushing fake messages. It’s worse with algorithms where the company can control how many people certain messages reach. But places like Lemmy and reddit aren’t immune either. I still remember seeing how crazy reddit went during 2016 elections. All of a sudden a ton of pro Trump people were there. I couldn’t trust a lot of news, pro or against Trump, because there would be false information posted (false anti information I bet also posted by Russian bots for this reason as well.)
As of now, we’re basically allowing Russia, China and Iran to influence our citizens. That’s partially why MAGA has such a an alternate view Trump. They don’t ever hear the bad news about him, or just don’t believe it.
No anonymous posting means what? Credit card verified accounts? Mobile number verified accounts? On all websites or just ones that meet a threshold like Facebook and Twitter?
What happens to sites hosted outside the US like the lemmy instance you use? Are they blocked? Does the US try to prosecute them and get them extradited like they do with pirate sites?
For larger website that allow political discussions and reach a lot of people, yes I think verification would help tackle disinformation. Same thing that happens to websites that don’t follow GDPR is what I would imagine.
If you have suggestions for dealing with foreign disinformation, I’m all ears
GDPR violations result in fines. It also applies to entities engaged in commercial activities.
You are foreign to me and in fact a lot of misinformation and propaganda comes from the US. I would not block access to US media.
You still haven’t answered what would to the Lemmy instances you currently use and allow anonymous (email as verification is not very hard) posting.
I agree that a lot of disinformation comes from snd is aimed at the US.
For Lemmy, idk. On one hand, it could also be restricted. I can imagine restrictions being dependent on the size of the website in terms of traffic and posting.
On the other, if there isn’t such a huge impact because of it’s size, then restrictions aren’t necessary.