Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

True or False?

The federal government should increase its efforts to reduce the harms caused by social media.

The video: An hour and twenty minute debate between Jonathan Haidt (for) and Robby Soave (against).

Note: Video is erroneously time stamped to the QA section of the debate.

 

[Vestal]

Its an extremely difficult subject to approach. Our constitution and laws were not built around the concepts of instant communication and spread of information across the entire country in an instant. We never contemplated the idea of individuals having free unadulterated access to not only information but the ability of spreading such information across the globe.

To me the only thing that could be done without trampling over the 1st amendment would be to have a sort of "True Identity" in social media. Which in all honesty should already be thing here in the US. Create a government backed online identity system that would be used for government services securely, but also be required to participate in Social Media. Hell that same identity could be your identity across all E-Commerce/Online banking as well. Anonymity and lack of accountability in social media is one of the main issues with misinformation.

 

[haxan7]

Nope. Government has its hands in enough shit already. I doubt it would change my mind, but I would be interested in what the arguments are in favor of Government being able to dictate what social media can and can't do. I ain't watching a 74 minute video.

 

[ZywyPL]

Nobody is forcing anyone ne to use any of the social playforms. And there's still the option to set your prifile into private mode so that only your friend see the content. But if you profile is ipen to everyone, and on top of that you're doing everything to reach as many random strangers as possible, expect various reactions, including the negative ones.

 

[ipukespiders]

We need less government, not more.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Last summer we got a storm that knocked the power out on my street (and a bunch of other areas) for two full days.

During those two days, our street was transformed back to 1983 again. Kids were playing in the street, neighbors were walking and talking to eachother. Then, once power came back on our entire street got sucked back inside. It was such a bizarre social event that it's hard to describe how different the neighborhood felt for those 48hrs.

I'm for it. It's tobacco.

 

[ManaByte]

Twitter and Facebook are cancer. We don't need government regulation, just a viable alternative.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

The government is the only entity powerful enough to ring in these social media company's from profiting off what divides us the most.

How else will we stop them from destroying humanity?? They got too much money for anything else to effect them.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Twitter and Facebook are cancer. We don't need government regulation, just a viable alternative.

The viable alternative to refined sugar, tobacco, and cocaine is...Salt+fat, weed, and Oxycontin, right?

How can a viable alternative emerge when the unhealthy aspects are what people are drawn to?

 

[Termite]

I don't know if government intervention is the answer, but there are two problems that need to be addressed:

Social media is treated as an instant conversation, but is as permanent as a publication. Which is it? We haven't got to grips with that as a society.

Secondly, social media is now required for a whole bunch of jobs, from being a journalist to just marketing your small business. It's no longer at the point where you can feasibly say "Just don't use it." It's necessary now. It's a utility.

I'd like to see (in Europe) an EU-funded, ad-free twitter alternative with either no algorithm or a publicly published algorithm. I think that could help. It's the algorithms that push negative content for increased engagement in order to sell ads that turn social media toxic.

 

[PrimetimeKnight]

The way I see it is we don't have a social media problem we have a stupid populace problem.

 

[daveonezero]

But they are. They are actively encouraging its people to be on it so they can easily collect information with their corporate partners.

How the government built Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley has long been seen as the bread basket of commercial technology. But in this episode of our Project 38 podcast, author Margaret O'Mara describes how the federal government helped create that global technology engine and how its role continues today.

washingtontechnology.com

Silicon Valley has long been seen as the bread basket of commercial technology. But in this episode of our Project 38 podcast, author Margaret O'Mara describes how the federal government helped create that global technology engine and how its role continues today.​

So people that want the government involved to fix a problem the government created.

The 'Stomp Reflex': When governments abuse emergency powers

History shows that during times of crisis, politicians tend to reach for more power. It's happening again now, argues researcher Luke Kemp.

www.bbc.com

Basically you give government emergency powers to regulate the internet then they will create that emergency to regulate the internet.

 

[DeepEnigma]

We have a corrupt players in government problem that does indeed seem to be the only thing that "trickles down", ironically.

Don't look at them to fix any of your problems, only exasperate them more so.

 

[haxan7]

The government is the only entity powerful enough to ring in these social media company's from profiting off what divides us the most.

How else will we stop them from destroying humanity?? They got too much money for anything else to effect them.

pretty please daddy big govt, will you save me from those awful meanies pls pretty pls

 

[Punished Miku]

Both these guys are great. I'll check it out.

I think that anyone kidding themselves about the future of misinformation that awaits us is in for a rude awakening though. We've just gotten through a relatively non-lethal pandemic that could easily be worse next time, with large portions of the population deeply confused on basic facts. We have large portions of the population disagreeing about basic facts regarding our elections. We're literally living in the age of alternate realities. Within the next few years it'll be easy for anyone at home or abroad to go viral with a deepfake video of comments or events that never even happened, that can mislead society on critical issues when we need unity to get anything completed; essentially paralyzing society's ability to function.

So it's not about what should happen, it's my prediction of what will happen:

• Disinformation will continue to paralyze society on large and important issues.
• The government will crack down on it.
• While cracking down on it, we'll lose access to any information they feel is inconvenient even if true, and free speech will continue to be rolled back.

The only alternative we have to this dark future is a highly educated population, and a population with high media literacy. People able to sift through mountains of perfectly convincing and totally false information and come to correct conclusions.

I just don't see that happening though.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

pretty please daddy big govt, will you save me from those awful meanies pls pretty pls

So if you don't believe in regulation, what your solution for stopping social media company's from destroying us?

Do you believe we should remove all government regulations, like building codes too?

 

[daveonezero]

So if you don't believe in regulation, what your solution for stopping social media company's from destroying us?

Do you believe we should remove all government regulations, like building codes too?

Building codes have only hindered innovation in architecture.

Have you ever owned a home? They are all built like shit and constantly break. Meanwhile it is impossible to get approved for something like an earthship or use innovative, cost effective and high efficient designs and materials like hempcrete and aircrete domes.

 

[p_xavier]

Both these guys are great. I'll check it out.

The only alternative we have to this dark future is a highly educated population, and a population with high media literacy. People able to sift through mountains of perfectly convincing and totally false information and come to correct conclusions.

I just don't see that happening though.

Highly educated doesn't mean highly intelligent. Most universities are filled with stupid people, usually in humanities.

 

[Punished Miku]

Highly educated doesn't mean highly intelligent. Most universities are filled with stupid people, usually in humanities.

That's definitely true. But I guess you get what I mean in principle.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Social media and legacy media already work for a particular political party as is.

Only way to fix this societal problem would be to get rid of smart phones honestly. Normal people shouldn't have access to the internet at all times.

 

[synchronicity]

I will ***NEVER*** understand people who look to the government to solve problems. They often *are* the problem.

 

[synchronicity]

Highly educated doesn't mean highly intelligent. Most universities are filled with stupid people, usually in humanities.

People conflate knowledge with intelligence all the time. There can be overlap, certainly, but they are *not* the same.

"Did you see that guy on Jeopardy?!? He's so smart!" /s

 

[haxan7]

So if you don't believe in regulation, what your solution for stopping social media company's from destroying us?

Do you believe we should remove all government regulations, like building codes too?

Social media isn't destroying us. I don't know what to say about your little building code diversion tactic.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Social media isn't destroying us. I don't know what to say about your little building code diversion tactic.

If you don't see a problem with social media as it is currently, then I guess there isn't anything to really talk about.

 

[haxan7]

If you don't see a problem with social media as it is currently, then I guess there isn't anything to really talk about.

Who's dying because of social media bro?

 

[p_xavier]

Social media isn't destroying us. I don't know what to say about your little building code diversion tactic.

Not sure about that...

 

[haxan7]

Not sure about that...

Can't regulate that away tho. They are gonna do what they're gonna do. The genie is already out of the bottle. Have to play the hand we're dealt.

 

[StateofMajora]

Why would they do that? they like us stupid and divided.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Government intervention with social media is only a matter of time, whether you like it or not. I suspect that in the next 10 years there will be massive restrictions. Why? Because it is known that it makes people sick and depressed. My prediction is that the whole plattforms will first become adult only or something and then everything will progress from that point on.

Something similar will come to refined sugar and fast food too by the way. Not today, not tomorrow, bit eventually.

And before anyone claims bullshit, keep in mind that back in the 20‘s cylclists have passed cigarettes among each other. And look where we are now.

Social media is shit. Facebook knows it and deep in their hearts everyone who uses it knows it. There will be restrictions. Or the plattforms will be massively overhauled. It‘s unavoidable.

 

[mortal]

No. I need the government less up my ass, not more.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Who's dying because of social media bro?

Suicide rates have gone up among young people over the last decade or so.

Isolation from community is one of the leading causes/factors of suicide.

Americans have fewer friends than ever before: study

Americans have fewer friends and are talking to them less than they did 30 years ago, according to a study. But the coronavirus lockdown isn’t the only reason.

www.google.com

It's also plausible that social media increases extremism and conspiratorial beliefs which can lead to violence.

 

[Kraz]

If the civilizations through some means can reduce the effects of the reposting echoes and thoughtless tomatoes of driven zombies would be beneficial.
Education will take some time. Perhaps, in the short term, there is a way to use pesticides on irritable gadflies attracted by rotten produce.

 

[p_xavier]

Can't regulate that away tho. They are gonna do what they're gonna do. The genie is already out of the bottle. Have to play the hand we're dealt.

Audience is the key, them doing that in a closed room, they would probably be closed in asylum. They are influencing small kids that will think that it's normal, hence the decaying of society we're seeing right now.

 

[haxan7]

Suicide rates have gone up among young people over the last decade or so.

Isolation from community is one of the leading causes/factors of suicide.

Americans have fewer friends than ever before: study

Americans have fewer friends and are talking to them less than they did 30 years ago, according to a study. But the coronavirus lockdown isn’t the only reason.

www.google.com

It's also plausible that social media increases extremism and conspiratorial beliefs which can lead to violence.

I don't see what meaningful interventions the Government could take without becoming like China and restricting how much time people can spend doing certain things. We have the internet. It's not going away. This reminds me of the political backlash against porn and cursing in music in the 80s. I won't really be surprised if we end up with a "Parental Advisory" sticker on the next TikTok.

 

[kingfey]

At this dna age, goverments needs these shit to hide all their shits. Doubt they will remove it, since it distracts people. Perfect tool for politics.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I don't see what meaningful interventions the Government could take without becoming like China and restricting how much time people can spend doing certain things. We have the internet. It's not going away. This reminds me of the political backlash against porn and cursing in music in the 80s. I won't really be surprised if we end up with a "Parental Advisory" sticker on the next TikTok.

The debate somewhat addresses your point. There are "moral panics" that turned out to be nothing. Then there are moral panics that the government solved, such as banning led paint in the 1970's.

Our government also restricts alcohol consumption to levels that society feels OK with. You need to be a certain age to buy. Businesses need licenses to sell. You can't be over the legal limit and operate a vehicle etc... Just because China does something doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

Haidt also brings up the idea that social media didn't have noticeably harmful effects until the like and retweet buttons were added to everything and robust algorithms were created to get people outraged + addicted. Early Twitter was supposedly a very friendly place, which is hard to imagine.

There seems to be a number of different ways to attack the social media problem. I'm not confident in any strategy but I think it's a conversation more and more should be having.

 

[Wildebeest]

People get addicted to substances and end their lives at a young age because they "want to appear like they have problems" for social media? I don't really get many of these debate style arguments.

 

[godhandiscen]

I vote yes. Social media can subvert countries and propel genocides. It’s too much power going unchecked. Putting stronger parameters on social media isn’t canceling free speech. Social media has specific tools that allow bad actors to target individuals with specific messages and alter their reality.

A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military (Published 2018)

With fake pages and sham accounts, the military targeted the mostly Muslim Rohingya minority group, said former military officials, researchers and civilian officials.

www.nytimes.com

I also recommend people watch this movie. I build some of these technologies and shit is out of control.

The Social Dilemma - A Netflix Original documentary

We tweet, we like, and we share- but what are the consequences of our growing dependence on social media? Discover what's hiding on the other side of your screen at TheSocialDilemma.com

www.thesocialdilemma.com

 

[PaddyOCanager]

I voted yes even though I have no idea what that would look like nor do I have confidence in our government to do it appropriately.

 

[EviLore]

Ideally they're pressured into taking steps themselves without direct government intervention. Changes in the laws could cause problems for smaller independent platforms that aren't destroying society or crippling our mental health.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Don't use social media. Only weird people want to broadcast what is going on with their lives for likes and attention.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

I'm torn. On the one hand, I agree with OP that big social media -- Facebook, Twitter, and to some extent even YouTube comments -- are the pretty bad for people's mental health and discourage normal and healthy human relationships.

On the other hand... The government has a proven track record of making things WORSE, not better. Also, at least here in the US, we still have the Constitution (thank heavens for that!); and while I'm no Constitutional lawyer, I do wonder at what point government restrictions on social media could start getting into violations of the First Amendment.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Last year, I went out on a date with some chick, who told me that on her spare time she just watches shit on TikTok -- to me, the date died right there on the spot. But, just to amuse her, I let her show me 2 minutes of the kind of shit she watches on TikTok.

I can't ever get those two minutes back. On top of that, I think the brain cells I lost during those two minutes are permanently gone

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I would be interested in what the arguments are in favor of Government being able to dictate what social media can and can't do. I ain't watching a 74 minute video.

Government exists to protect citizens. Social media harms citizens, causes societal divide and fractures communities by polarizing the discussion.

Did the democracy not exist before Facebook? It did. It will still exist if you regulate the shit out of social media companies.

 

[haxan7]

Government exists to protect citizens. Social media harms citizens, causes societal divide and fractures communities by polarizing the discussion.

Did the democracy not exist before Facebook? It did. It will still exist if you regulate the shit out of social media companies.

I'm not buying it. What about personal responsibility, parents, etc? The internet is here to stay. People will figure how to deal with its ramifications in a healthy way in time.

What happens to my ability to shitpost on the internet when the Government starts regulating what businesses can allow? It's not a trade I'm willing to make. Have you ever had to deal with Government regulations setting up or running a business? It already sucks ass, it sucks even more ass depending what state(s) you're in, and the more regulations there are the more it sucks ass.

 

[ResilientBanana]

We need honest regulation which we won't get. We simply need a group of people to eliminate bots and truly false information.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I'm not buying it. What about personal responsibility, parents, etc? The internet is here to stay. People will figure how to deal with its ramifications in a healthy way in time.

Why do then government regulate safety standards, seatbelts, all other things? Shouldn't it be a personal responsibility for people to take care of all that? Yet here we are. You can always be smart about it - fact is social media algorithms polarize the discourse on purpose! Imagine it's like a boxing coach yelling in your ear: go kill, fuck him up.

How is that beneficial to society? Again, democracy and discourse existed before social media. This is not some holy ordained rock that is untouchable.

 

[haxan7]

Why do then government regulate safety standards, seatbelts, all other things? Shouldn't it be a personal responsibility for people to take care of all that? Yet here we are. You can always be smart about it - fact is social media algorithms polarize the discourse on purpose! Imagine it's like a boxing coach yelling in your ear: go kill, fuck him up.

How is that beneficial to society? Again, democracy and discourse existed before social media. This is not some holy ordained rock that is untouchable.

And then the government becomes the arbiter of truth. That's far worse than where we started.

Seatbelts, building codes and the like are all false equivalencies here.

 

[Mossybrew]

You can't legislate human stupidity. Any harm from social media is generally self inflicted. You can opt out any time. Nothing that needs further government nanny-state interference.

 

[HoodWinked]

deleting twitter would be good but the way government has been operating as of late rather than the goal of improving society their main goals have become perverse and and completely self-serving. look at how democrats/liberals have wielded their power rather than to improve social media all they've done is weaponized it in the name of "safety" to censor any dissent.

they'd use the guise of "reducing harm" to shove their own government appointed stooges to be on executive boards of all of these social media companies so they can just further their power/influence.