The internet is completely overrated.
According to United States Postal inspectors, child pornography was all but eliminated by the early 80s, then the internet came along.
7
We can create artificial intelligence that holds conversations, so clearly we can create artificial intelligence that edits.
The question now is do we want our computers to respond with redline editing, critiques, and final permission to publish?
Capitalism and greed have had big roles in making people stupid and hateful.
2
A thought: What is the difference between those who post white supremacy writings anonymously on friendly websites and those who once shouted hate and brought terror to communities wearing white sheets and a hood? I don't see much of a difference. Time to end anonymous postings in the internet. Time to unmask these purveyors racism and antisemitism through either some form of regulation or real self-policing by internet platforms. To all the nationalist, white supremacist cowards who spout hatred hiding behind a hood or a screen. Let the world know who you are. Let your employer and your neighbors know what your beliefs on race and religion are. Quit hiding.
4
While I agree that the awful spreads twice as fast as the good on social media, it is not a new phenomena. My father left the small town in which he grew up out of frustration for the ever-present grapevine — everyone knew your business and then some (gossip). The Internet is a high-tech grapevine. We choose to expose ourselves to its conveniences and cravenness with the click of a mouse or the swipe of a finger — all actions we must learn to self-moderate for the sake of our individual and collective insanity.
The argument the author makes does not preclude "those who know better": mainstream media. Example: A recent news story on the migrant caravan claimed it is illegal to claim asylum at ports of entry. It took only 30 seconds on Google to learn that claiming asylum at a port of entry is, in fact, legal!
If we want to curtail the divisive hold social media platforms have on the populace, journalists need to double down on the quality of their craft. When, instead, facts are purposefully or incidentally skewed, it empowers the "fake news" trope and the rate at which individuals retreat to social media silos that reinforce a warped reality.
Still, the answer in the Internet era is the same as it was in generations past: education. Logic, rhetoric and critical thinking curriculum must be taught as tools with which to identify manipulative messaging. Education is preferable to losing faith that freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas are defensible liberties.
4
Why are humans so good at abusing their freedom? Social media was freeing; it connected people who could not afford to travel to meet each other and made it much easier for people to work from home. And, yet, humans are doing everything that they can to destroy this medium.
I am seeing the same thing here in San Diego with dockless bicycles. Within only a few months, we’ve gone from shiny new bikes on every other corner to a nightmare of dumped and damaged bikes (stolen and modified for personal use, smashed to bits for parts or for fun, and so on).
I expect self-driving cars to also provoke a host of bad behavior. People will destroy their own freedom of transit because of the instinct they have to bully when they think no one is looking. Self-driving cars will be baited and abused by idiots, and if carmakers don’t plan to thwart that, the cars will end up as nothing but expensive trash.
1
People talk about this Pandora's box as though it can be closed. The internet and social media are not going to go away. Yes, you can have moderated discussion (in theory, the manpower demands are high), but there is no way to stop nastiness cropping up elsewhere. There is no limit to the size of the internet. The internet is far too valuable to get rid of it now.
.
The same problem happened with the advent of the printing press. The people (until then often illiterate) were suddenly presented with a flood of new ideas printed on the new presses that cropped up everywhere. Much of what was printed was a lie, or politically biased, or otherwise misleading. What resulted? The Protestant Reformation, The Thirty Years war, which killed 1/3 of central Europe, and a series of mass migrations, wars and revolutions. I hope we'll do better this time, but like the advent of printing, it will take our civilization generations to learn to cope with this new technology and the flood of (often bad) information that is both its blessing and its curse.
4
Hate speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment. Tech platforms should just shut down these sites and forget about the lost profits. The service to society should be all the profit they need. Further some well constructed regulations are needed with enforceable consequences for violating them. Face it, the more complex society becomes, the more the boundries need to be defined. A few will feel the pain of regulations, but the vast majority will benefit.
I spent a good portion of my childhood navigating my way around a DOS prompt, occasionally killing some pixelated Nazis while playing ‘Wolfenstein 3D’, or getting demolished by the computer in Chessmaster.
I was also aware of how much information that could be accessed with almost no effort, and I sought to understand. Over enough time, I began to see.
“There is no evil but the acts of man.”
When television exploded after WWII our leaders saw this new phenomenon as something that needed some thought, control, and guidance. They created the FCC and rules of behavior that demanded responsibility from "platforms" or networks at the time. It was not until the 1980's and the zest for deregulation that led to changes, but that, at least, was after many years of experience and understanding. The internet generally, and social media, specifically have been the wild west from the beginning. There needs to be serious regulation and control!
1
Vox populi, apparently, is overrated. Two of social media's biggest problems are 1) people say things on it that would get them hit in the mouth if they said it in person; 2) since the closing of foreign desks, traditional news outlets use Twitter and other social media sites as surrogate reporters. It's lazy, unprofessional and easy to mistrust .
3
There should be a middle ground between wild, anything-goes, libertarianism and overly restrictive regulations of things like our internet and various public media. We don't seem able to find it but we should not give up and continue our wild west, libertarian free-for-all. Let's use our creative intelligence and reclaim some kindness and civility can return.
1
It has been reported recently that over one million people have submitted their DNA to unregulated unscientific businesses that make unfounded claims of ancestry. You can now buy a prepaid kit at many retail big box stores and send it in. No waiting for a kit to be sent you is necessary.
What guaranty does the public have that their DNA will be kept private? How does anyone know that years from now someone will show up claiming get to be your long lost third cousin?
Privacy is a relic of the past. Like the Internet this heritage quest seems innocent, if kept private. There are no guarantees on that however. If successful these companies will be sold to Big Pharma and others. Your privacy will be sold to the highest bidder.
This is just one example of how our new found ability to communicTe that which we think is private may not be so private after all. What if a hateful group buys one of these ancestry companies solely to find people who have African American heritage, Jewish heritage or Asian?
Obviously our government is hopelessly disabled from protecting us. We have to be smart and not trust our private thoughts, ideas, home security, and DNA to others.
Right now your cell phone is sending out information as to exactly where you are. Your vehicle is sending out information on where it is. If you add your DNA to this mash up all sense of privacy is lost forever.
3
The problem with the internet is the cubbyholing of opinion and information. People look for and find self-affirming stuff and avoid what they choose not to hear or know. We were better off without it.
@Al M, know anybody who's using a search engine not built by Google? The key words in what you wrote are, "People look for...". It isn't "self-affirming" until you already believe it. Someone had to show it to you in the first place. Try this experiment: Search for something truly despicable on YouTube. See how long it takes to stop every single "suggestion" to stop being repugnant things YouTube is AI-sure you want to indulge in. The only thing Google would rather recommend than social divisiveness and kinkiness is that you spend your time buying things.
The lead says:”This is what the internet has come to: thugs like Mohammed bin Salman funding tech companies to host the vitriol of thugs like Cesar Sayoc and Robert Bowers.”
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram — all run to make money. The profit motive before all else. Not the real idea behind capitalism, but what it has become.
1
Web is for the common people who have proven themselves quite ignorant.
Are we living on the same universe? Ever since AOL chat rooms were all the rage, hate was prevalent.
1
@Don When you add Trump's encouragement of people's shattered of perceived others to the ability to be anonymous online you get more people acting out violently. The internet is a big part of the problem but so is Trump. Together they add up to something no one could have foreseen. America possibly heading for civil war again.
What is conveniently forgotten is that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for all.
The internet has given anyone a voice. What we have expected from past experiences are news organizations would demonstrate a level of civility and not print simply lies, speculation and rumor. Yes, there are news organizations that would deviate but they were fairly easy to determine. No longer.
The news media has lost its power. It is no longer the purveyor of unbiased news and considered a trusted source. Everyone has an agenda and it is unclear what is truth vs fiction.
Now anyone who says anything on the internet is considered reputable by some segment and truth is interpreted.
Voices once in shadows are out front and center. Not only are they front and center but instead of being ignored, they are publicized, drawing more into their fold. Where we once required proof of truth we jump on the lie and demand it be unproven.
What has occurred and is growing is for content providers to make their own determination what is truth. That is called
It is up to us to become educated and decide what is truth. It is our responsibility and be informed citizens, ferreting out truth from fiction and opinion. This is not easy but the responsibility is ours, not Facebook, not Twitter, not the NY Times...our responsibility.
Our future as a nation and our freedoms depends upon it.
2
When personal accountability is little more than joined letters, not rooted and anchored in menschlich values, norms, ethics, is absent, daily, at all levels of society, there is little wellness, in BEcoming. In BEing.Your single violator was not alone THEN. Did our ongoing WE-THEY toxic culture, violating created, selected and targeted "the other(s)" transmute into an infectious, epidemic-like weltanschauung only since cyberspace entered our life -? At home?In the neighborhood? In, and on, our streets- which are more than just for walking? Our community? At school. Work. Sacramental places of whatever beliefs and rites as well as perverted "wrongs.?" How does, can, holding the passive internet responsible for what individual and organized sources and users choose or do not, choose to say and do, or not-to make changes in a divided country, help? When Yeats reminded US that "the centre can not hold" there was no internet. When God ejected the original human violators, there was no internet. Man's abilities to innovate in order to violate, to choose to be ummenschlich, do not seem to be boundary-bound. Plant a bit of hate. IT can and does grow forever. Everywhere! The challenge is how to continue to "weed" when necessary civility, mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual help, when and if needed, seem to have abandoned so many. How to re-transmute "humans-as-tools" into menschlich-caring-BEings. Who choose to minimize and prevent traumatic events. Tooling for wellbeing.
2
It's time to shut down facebook and twitter. It's time for news to be consumed by reading your favorite newspaper or magazine and sharing by a phone call, at lunch or in the office. The bad outweighs the good. These platforms make hate too easy. They make bragging too easy. They make bullying too easy. Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerburg need to take the lead and shut down their platforms. They need to find a new adventure. Hate is too easy when it is not real.
1
@Jill, the ICTR -- the International Criminal Tribunal-Rwanda -- did not just convict the people who "posted" on Radio Television Libre des Milles Collines, the DJs or animateurs/animatrices. They convicted the directors of the platform, the radio station, and they convicted the money that backed the station. They convicted all of them of genocide and inciting to genocide and crimes against humanity.
Platform enabling of heinous acts is not considered beyond criminal indictment internationally. Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg don't just need to take the lead, they need to be put in the docket and asked why they shouldn't be charged with aiding and abetting before the fact.
1
The natural inclination of humanity is to be tribal and hostile. Until the recent proliferation of information via the internet, people were largely restricted to their local paper or perhaps a Walter Cronkite delivering responsible news. There was no Fox or other sources of fear driven misinformation. The internet, Fox, social media, and even youtube allow for those with tribal inclinations to confirm their fears and perhaps stoke their hatred. This problem isn't going away anytime soon.
2
The problem is that humans are driven by the algorithm of being liked. Everyone who posts to social media enjoys likes and upvotes. The way to get liked and upvoted is to post things that people have strong feelings about, especially things that validate what others already feel or want to feel. Kittens and puppies work well. So does hate. So does anything extreme. This is as true in NYT comments as it is in Donald Trump's twitter feed. It's also true of his rallies.
Donald Trump is a perfect example of a human algorithm driven to be "liked." Building a wall across the Mexican border came out of a throw away line at a rally that garnered a lot of applause. Because that applause line was liked it's now a serious (costly, pointless and degrading) policy goal. This past week's incidents of murder and terrorism likewise grew, at least in part, out of social networks that gave validation to hate.
The algorithm of being liked has caused people to emulate machines. Instead of forming opinions based on facts, more and more, human opinions and subsequent actions are based on getting likes. This is how "alternative facts" are born.
The desire to be liked is the problem. The fix is easy. Just change human nature.
28
@Mike Marks
I like your comment.
By association I recall Philosophy of Psychology class 45 years ago, and the problem of equivocating the notion of intelligence with what I.Q. tests measured, and the problems with some of the philosophical claims the behaviorists made about how what they did by measuring stimulus and response made certain other approaches to psychology unnecessary. And I recall being dubious about some of the normative claims political scientists were making about their data back then.
But I still happily recommended your comment.
2
That was interesting. Ms Swisher reminds me a lot of many young people I know in the tech industries. They have a few traits in common. They're white. They are privileged. They have a happy rosey optimistic view of people. They harbor a libertarian fantasy that if only restraints, laws, norms of behavior, and "big government" were lifted that the common good would prevail. I remember like yesterday being told that the internet was going to liberate everyone. Kara Swisher speaks for them. I hope that more of these privileged happy lucky few awake as Ms Swisher has. There are a few really bad people out there. It doesn't take many of them to ruin it for everyone.
3
Just as it's naive to think that the internet would enlighten and inform people, it's equally naive to believe that reason is only benevolent. As others have correctly noted, the internet is but another extension of television, providing people with what they want to believe, but not what they need to know. Then again, America's news media particularly fosters an environment where the entertainment value of news has parity of importance with evidence and information. Indeed, one won't confuse CNN with the BBC. Worst of all, it provides fertile ground for fake news and the dissemination of hate; after all, such a habitat thrives where ratings are deemed more sacred than facts.
“No one in this world, so far as I know...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.... Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.” H.L. Mencken, 1926.
Mencken was writing about the rise of tabloid newspapers but his astute observation applies to our current situation - bigly. All that the internet has done is reveal that the dark side of human nature, which is present to some degree in all of us, dominates the world views of more of us than was realized before. Trump's dangerous antics have merely emboldened those who already held, and are unlikely to change, fixed, resentful, bitter and paranoid ideas about 'the other' to come out from under the rocks under which they have always lived. But whether by government or internet/social media companies, regulation is never going to return them to Pandora's box. As Justice Louis Brandeis observed: "The remedy for speech you don't like is more speech."
18
"I cannot tell you how sad that is to write, because when I first saw the internet way back when, I hoped that it would help eliminate the attitudes...
"I was obviously very wrong...Tech made no real rules, claiming the freedom from any strictures would be O.K...."
I don't know when "way back when" was for you, but this has been growing for a very long time, people have warned about the negatives of the internet commercialization since the 1990s (I was one of them). I've watched you on TV, Ms. Swisher, your attitude towards the "tech leaders" has been identical to the attitude that they have displayed to their nefarious funders.
I've said in similar settings recently that I floated viewing the internet as a neural network to superiors, a theory which does explain, as do others like the Lucifer Effect, what's happening now. For a "way back then" marker, that was in 2001. With a colleague, I warned about the commercial attack on privacy of ordinary people in 1999. I wasn't alone in thinking Barlow's Internet Manifesto was dead wrong. I have pestered that journalists listen to small cabals on internet security, and show their ignorance when they use the term "facial recognition." But you are the experts, I'm just a faceless geek.
Your solutions won't work. There's solid mathematics saying so. But "do the math" in the media means grade school arithmetic, so you keep talking, oblivious to the fact that your solutions are as mathematically strange as climate science denials.
The Internet is an issue for most as it allows anonymous postings. Not just from an individual, but from organizations globally. Your letter from a man attacking Jews years back was not only from one person, but you could have easily traced it back to the person sending the letter. One bad apple ruins the bushel, but if you pull it from the bushel in time, all is good. Not so with the Internet. When people can say anything and not be identified, we will lose rule of law and fall into chaos over time. If social networks are allowed to exist, they must not only be responsible to remove hate speech (as defined by objective parties, not far left or right), they must be responsible to identify the poster. If that means everyone is kicked off, and must prove who they are to participate, so be it. Know social media execs won't like that as their participation rates will be cut 90% or more, but, too bad. Either that, or people are allowed to sue FB, twitter, etc. if slandered whether actual poster is I'd or not.
Kara, with your vast experience and reputation, is it too much to ask for you to offer some solutions? I think that the most popular gatekeepers (media companies- offline and on) need to enforce their standards much more effectively. And this can't be completely automated. So maybe they need to ban certain topics completely? Your thoughts?
1
I remember a man I worked with took advantage of a unlocked workstation to send a message to a co-worker calling her "fatty", in 1981. It taught me a few things - whenever possible lock workstations and people can be jerks when they think they can hide behind another person's identity.
The internet allows for amplification of a person's views in a quasi-public space and allows others to validate it. That can be good, but it also attracts negative validations and includes views which are posted for monetary or other gain and unfortunately those can be sophisticated and attract followers.
Be careful who/what you believe - the nuts on the internet are not as easily identified as the ones sending wacky letters.
2
Ms. Swisher, I do not mean do demean you, but how on earth did you think that the web would stop hate, not spread it???
Are you unable to think back about the 20th century?
While first by word-of-mouth, and then by books, hatred was at home on the radio when it first came to be.
And then, when TV came along, hate was right there too.
So why would anyone with at least a sense of history not realise that the internet would also do the same?
And since the web erases national boundaries, it's easier for this hate to go around the world in seconds, something that radio bigots like Father Charles Coughlin would've sold their souls for.
2
Your theory, a theory of psycho pathology, seems to be that allowing the expression rather than the suppression of pathology, fosters its growth. Similar cases have been made for exposure of youngsters to porn, to Playboy, to things we find repugnant.
Surely, there is the phenomenon of "consensual validation," and so it's possible the creepy crawlies egg each other on, but these examples, which result in shootings, bombings, trips with guns to the pizza parlors are surely so extreme as to be, possibly, the exceptions that prove the rule.
Just because we can now see these lunatics now on line doesn't mean they haven't been out there before.
Disease fulminating under the surface is still there, even if you cannot see it.
Techies in aggregate, have a terrible power. Perhaps if first dawned on the American public with the advent of the atom bomb. The issue with so many techies is the focus on the solution to a problem, and not the ethical implications of those solutions.
So, we get platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, that are enormously effective in targeting content, for the purpose of generating revenue. This vicious cycle does not account for the effect it has on society in general. It would be great if the leadership of these companies baked in an understanding of these effects, but their focus always was, solving the problem, and making money.
What will it take to course correct? These companies are still causing damage, even now. It seems to me, that the rules to enforce ethical considerations needs to be imposed from outside, from government, from society. The crazies, lead by our Crazy in Chief, don't want this, so it will take a collective will on the part of our country, to impose this condition.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean being able to say whatever your want, wherever you want ...
1
I don't have a single solution to solve all the chaos that the Internet has unleashed, but I believe I have one to help ameliorate its effects: I have begun writing letters in long form, on nice stationary, to several friends and former colleagues. I believe letter writing could help bridge that widening empathy gap. By the way, I am "only" 40.
1
The haters, antisemites, and racists have always been among us, some of them in plain sight like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Richard Nixon, Fred and Donald Trump, Louis Farakkhan, Steve King and others. It may be a positive development that we are constantly reminded that these people exist among us, and how much work is left to be done to build a better, more respectful society for everyone.
Expecting for-profit public companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to censor social media for us is ridiculous. If you don't like what you're reading, just stop and close your account. I did years ago.
2
@Randomonium, the last thing we need as a solution is: suck it up, if you don't like it, you can always close your account.
Would it surprise you that if you have friends who have accounts on some social media, the algorithms there create accounts for you to house the information collected about you? I've closed several Facebook accounts which were "me" that I never opened. Their advertisers, both Russian government and American small business, don't pay them for information on only some of the public.
And as for the current critics? When the Las Vegas shooter didn't have accounts on social media, the press immediately pronounced him mentally ill.
As for your other theory, that the haters were always there and it is a positive that social media reminds us they exist all the time? That's exactly the theory behind Gab, host to a mass murderer and completely unrepentant. People who believe that haters and criminals were born that way and never change are just as bigoted as those who hate.
The theorem of the mean says that people will divulge more than they want to and the Lucifer Effect predicts that people given position in a group, a uniform, and power will create the Lord of the Flies. There is data upon data that addicts aren't born they are made, that the presence of heroin in a community creates heroin addicts where there were none before.
But this society, from you to the press to the techies, believes otherwise. Quitting a platform, as a cure, is a dodge.
I just heard about a doctor's office in Melbourne, Florida: Brevard Skin & Cancer Center Dermatology on Spyglass. A doctor is dressed as Trump for Halloween and the front office is dressed as Mexicans. I do not have social media accounts, but these people need to be called out for their racism. How anyone can be that blatantly tone deaf is shocking. Trump has allowed the racists to come out from under their rocks and feel pride - shameful. Help me expose them for what they are.
1
I'm so tired of the empty mea culpas of the tech community. It's funny, but the less tech-inclinded people I know (not blind luddites by any means) saw all of this from the very beginning, while everyone else was galloping lemming-like toward the next shiny Silicon Valley product. They promised that it was going to be a beautiful brave new world after all!!
Can't wait until people wake up to the consequences of the new in-home surveillance devices (otherwise known as 'smart' speakers) they are eagerly installing (if Silicon Valley says it's good, well, gosh darn it MUST be!). There will be a righteous outcry, but the damage will have been done.
Please, please start thinking critically of the tech you're consuming! It might actually be the smart thing to do.
26
I'm just a slob who bangs nails for a living, but am not remotely surprised by any of these developments. Spend some time with the hoi polloi and you will quickly understand why amplifying the American id with tech was a dumb idea. Yes, I will miss the innocent, hamster-dancing early days of the web, but it's gone. We need to regulate social media platforms as publishers. Should have been doing it all along.
38
Great column.
And this piece doesn’t even begin to address the damage to daily social interaction as people’s heads are buried in their devices, oblivious to others around them.
Spewing hate on-line is just part of the problem. What about just driving to the grocery store without fear of being broadsided by a distracted driver texting a friend about some stupid thing?
1
Ms. Swisher, thank you for your typically fearless journalism and advocacy for what you believe. No one could ever accuse you of cowardice! But come on, here it feels like you are protecting your friends, a lot. Why not lay out the facts? You know them. Yes, you take a gentle swipe at Google hosting MBS, but you know -- perhaps better than anyone -- how much money power and influence Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and the rest of the detestable rogue's gallery have in Silicon valley. And how much Silicon Valley arch-progressives indulge in sycophancy and bowing and scraping and looking the other way from fascists and torturers.
So why not just tell us?
Maybe start with Yuri Milner and his Kremlin-linked octopus? Or is that cutting too close to too many friends?
2
Just censoring the internet will not make the 12,000 people posting Anti-Semitic bile to Instagram go away, just go underground.
The real question is why there is so much latent fascism ready to be exploited.
1
Ms. Swisher, as a conservative, I couldn't agree more.
But when Farrakhan declares all Jews are "termites", the silence is overwhelming me. And he is still on Twitter within the past 2 hours.
Over the weekend, HRC declares, "they all look alike", then chuckles as if it's a jokes. More silence.
I guess it all depends upon who you are.
2
@hawk or as the great orange Id said, "bad people on both sides"?
The Internet quickly became the main artery for debasement of women--hardcore porn.
So why should anybody be surprised that it has become a conduit for hate? Its anonymity allows people to indulges their worst instincts without social guardrails. And, like porn, it is addictive and prompts bored viewers to push the envelope.
It brings first-person shooter games to the fingertips of socially maladjusted young men. And then we are surprised when they go from "fantasy" killers to the real thing.
24
“If it bleeds, it leads.” The press has been distributing hate for centuries. These other sites have simply enabled individuals to be their own publishers. Denying a person their right of free speech is going to wreck these companies and rightfully so. Denying one electric services because of their beliefs is wrong. So is denying one a voice on the internet due to their beliefs.
3
As Ms. Swisher notes, the Internet doesn't create hate, but allows it to be communicated wider faster. But hate spread just as quickly in the '30s through radio, and before that, almost as quickly multiple times through leaflets in literate societies. Perhaps the root cause of hate taking hold is the mass forgetting of the suffering such hate has caused in the past. Like the Business Cycle (which stubbornly persists), hate returns because people forget or come to disregard suffering outside of living memory, regardless of how they communicate.
2
Simple solution....just stop using these anti social platforms......the world will be a better place....anonymity is cowardly and maybe you might learn something by interaction with real people!!
“You must live life with the full knowledge that your actions will remain…We are creatures of consequence.” This seems like such a quaint notion in the era of the Internet. It’s asking individuals to take responsibility for their behavior. But in Silicon Valley there are few consequences for them, and they are ill-equipped to appreciate the consequences of their behavior on others.
The sad fact is that for Silicon Valley, and capitalism in general, the only consequence they are concerned with is profit. “Their usual so-sorrys for facilitating this dreck” is a shrug of the shoulders, a loud and chilling declaration that the dreck is just the collateral damage of doing business.
Climate change? Just collateral damage. Income inequality? Collateral damage. Healthcare? Just a function of the market. Hate is facilitated by our platforms? Sorry, it’s just a factor of doing business. We’re not equipped to anticipate or consider those things. And yes, society must pay the cost and just live with it. Isn’t that what society is for? After all, we are corporations, and society (and the government) is here for our pleasure and profit. No?
This is what we are up against.
Get out the vote. Maybe we can improve our schools to teach critical thinking, ethics, and social awareness – and not just job skills - so that future capitalists, entrepreneurs, and denizens of Silicon Valley will be able to factor social profit into their balance sheets.
3
I watch Washington Journal on CSPAN on a regular basis.
Occasionally, the moderator will question a caller as to the source of their information. Often the response is some variation of this: "The internet". The caller is oblivious to the fact that this is similar to declaring their source to be "The telephone".
The internet has exponentially accelerated the exchange of information. It has also turbocharged stupidity.
1
Seriously? The "Web" is just a device. Hate comes from people, not the "Web".
1
Ms. Swisher's techno-utopianism -- fueled by fancy appetizers, open bars and the access she hasn't earned as a mascot for big tech -- is a load of nonsense. If the internet was people -- with faces and names -- then it would be as civil as any other public square where your presence is linked to your name. But it's not people, it's money -- corporations, VC funding, fraudulent speculative IPO's -- and all money wants is more money. Twitter, Facebook and Instagram could all change overnight -- requiring real names and real ID's -- but they won't, because that would hurt the money coming in. This does not end anonymity, by the way --- organizations like the Times and the Guarian have ways to receive tips and docs anonymously -- but ending anonymity ON SOCIAL MEDIA would neuter cranks, trolls, 4chan edgelords and other human viruses while affirming pro-social behavior.
But that would hurt the user base; that would hurt the quarterly report; that would hurt the already-over-inflated stock prices that fund the glittering, optimistic, well-heeled lives of the tech overlords, and, yes, Ms. Swisher.
We don't just need to fix the Web; we need to fix capitalism. And that won't happen as long as 'journalists' like Ms. Swisher consider business-as-usual as the danger it is.
1
Come on, if books haven't put an end to ignorance, why the heck would you believe that the internet would curtail hate?
2
"Monsters from the id." We were warned decades ago.
Simple solution: ban anonymous posts anywhere at any time for any reason.
1
Talk about blaming the messenger...
..
That you were surprised by the obvious meant that you were focused on your world as you knew it. This is the same reason the NYT so completely missed the fact that there was huge faction of disenfranchised, middle aged white people who'd not participated in the jobless recovery and were angry.
The extent to which a demagogue and Fox could roil that anger and mix it with the Breitbart crowd to create mass murder might have been easy to under estimated, but not shocking.
BTW, there's porn on the internet too.
2
The naivety of tribes that dominate this area is well represented by Zuckerberg and other purveyors of "absolute freedom". The default behavior for us primates is not reason. Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" should be read by anyone who wishes to grow beyond adolescence.
1
I remember the first time I was introduced to the internet. I was in grade school in the early 80s and we had a handful of Macintosh computers in our lab. Our teacher spoke of what would later be called the Information Superhighway as a future gateway to access all human knowledge; mainly designed as a tool for academic institutions to share and collect data.
Fast forward a couple of decades, and I remember the first time I experienced the repulsiveness of YouTube comments. It has all gone downhill from there.
2
If each one of us stops blaming the other, stop telling crude jokes about the people we do not like, the atmosphere might cool down. Each side is blaming the other. By constantly blaming DJT and his supporters, we are not helping. If there is a clear proof of someone inciting the mob, go ahead and report. At this time I see more speculation and less proof when blaming the other side. Ignore DJT’s behaviour and see if it improves. Report only real Presidential news, ignore his non-presidential messages and tweets.
1
I am not really interested in naïve, contrite professions of bad faith in these platforms from the people who breathlessly covered them, only deigning to criticize them from a consumer (e.g. this hardware is overpriced) or somewhat economic (e.g. competition is being quashed) standpoint rather than take a view on the massive political clout they were accruing.
Sure, if you told me in 2008 that the website that allowed vague acquaintances to "poke" you would destabilize our democracy, I would have thrown serious side-eye at the proposition –but then I've never personally interviewed the Zuck and heard the lofty aspirations for his ad company straight from the source, right from the get-go.
2
Let's face it, the masters of the universe in Silicon Valley are no different than those on Wall Street and those from earlier times like Carnegie and Vanderbilt.
They love making money, traffic in empty platitudes about social responsibility and have the wealth to cordon themselves off from society's problems.
When people get murdered or women get raped because of the hate they foment on their platforms, they shrug in their heavily-secured homes in their gated communities and say they're not responsible. When things get really bad, they write a big check to charity to get the public off their back.
6
I consider the NYT the greatest news gathering source in the world. I understand that this takes lots of money.
Never the less, even good news sources that moderate content and comment are somewhat responsible for the extent of the damage that instant news is doing to our society.
Less coverage of toxic politics would be a good thing, I have always wondered and dreamed of a White House news conference that nobody attended. Sarah could give her evil look to--nobody.
4
Well, surprise! Technology rarely turns out to be what people originally thought it would be — especially technology promoted by venture capitalists “out to change the world.” (Just run....)
Marshall McLuhan well predicted this back in 1967: his book “The Medium is the Massage” is essential reading for anyone trying to understand this mess we find ourselves in.
3
I’ve had similar thoughts. I thought platforms for racists and sexist rants would expose, not promote, these deplorable thoughts, resulting in decent society coming out on top. Sadly not true.
7
Two major shifts perverted the 1980s "information superhighway" into the ominous thing it is today. The first was commercialization. The mid 1990s saw the start of the World Wide Web, i.e., websites, and ".com". Suddenly information wasn't free anymore. It served commercial purposes, even if users "paid" by viewing ads. Material that generated ad revenue was favored; we see today how this promotes sensationalism and superficiality.
The later major shift was Web 2.0 and social media. This took all the worst aspects of the commercial web and democratized them. Now anyone can spew sensationalistic, superficial drivel and gain a wide audience (and ad revenue, if they set it up that way). If the internet was once likened to our interstate highway system, it now resembles a knot of toll roads with misleading road signs.
A universal information conduit isn't well served by moneyed interests or individuals seeking fame. Like the USPS, public education, and public libraries, the internet should be a taxpayer-funded service for the common good. It shouldn’t rely on "capturing eyeballs" for its success.
8
If you haven’t learned long ago that the internet, the free press and the media outlets are just the corporate holdings, thus exclusively profit driven and oriented, then nothing I say here will change your minds.
Profit is never concerned with humanity, love, prosperity, global warming and peace but only about maximizing itself at expense of the entire world.
Everything starts with the colossal lies that the capital creates the new values, that the bloody wars are the wealth creators and science propellers, and that the politicians saddling us with the global conflicts are the great leaders and historic figures.
Those are just the utterly incompetent individuals incapable of solving the problems in a peaceful way.
There is a long way to go if we educate the kids with a wrong kind of history in the schools. It is absolutely irrelevant if those institutions are public or private. It only matters if they spread the knowledge or misinform the students.
4
Free porn, free news, and Amazon. That's about it.
1
One would think that the world is going to ''hell in a hand bag'' , but I would disagree.
This is but the last throws of white privilege (for men) and their backlash is fierce. The powers that be (money - and dictators) are piggy backing the so called extreme right movement for their own political means - more power. That is it.
The media and the internet (social) are but a greater outlay of what starts at home. Long ago, the extreme right decided to play the long game. They would start with the children.
Hate is not something that one is born with- it is taught.
School boards (and in particular the Texas school depository) were taken over, and the white wash of culture (brown and black - other) began. That has been happening for decades.
Fast forward though and media is depicting all of that ''other'' as us. (as regular folk) They show up in our culture, our media and our laws. - human rights for all. It is has been fast (just the last decade for much) so OF COURSE the backlash is going to be fierce.
Just keep teaching our children to love instead of hate, and the demographics will take care of themselves. The ones that are being loud right now will drown out soon enough. They are decisively the minority of a minority.
Keep the faith.
5
I've watched as friends have degenerated into raging lunatics as a result of engaging in forums on the Internet. Hate is not limited to anti-semitism but is too often generated as a result of anonymity and the self righteous power that goes along with it. The subject of discussion doesn't seem to matter. It appears that people who are reactionary and less educated to begin with find themselves empowered by anonymity, especially when accompanied by substance abuse. So, one solution would be to eliminate anonymity and require people to register as real people who are readily identifiable. Employing moderators, as the Times does, would also go a long ways towards maintaining civility and putting a check on the hatred incubator. But in the end, social media sites and Internet providers have to step up to the plate and do their part. As private entities, they have the right to restrict hatred from so-called free speech rights. Indeed, they have the responsibility to do so.
4
Hey, Trump abuses Twitter constantly and enjoys not being anonymous at all. So do many other raging ranters looking for acclaim.
When television was young—very young and still in the experimental stages of development––the idea was that it would be a miraculous educational tool that would turn us into a nation of philosophers. Instead, it became “the idiot box” and “a vast wasteland.” The internet was supposed to serve those same educational pipe-dreams and, at the same time, bring us all closer together in mutual understanding. It’s just human nature, I guess, to take the potentially good and cheapen, degrade, and, finally, wreck it.
29
Most of my life, I've studied the behavior of people in groups. I'm astonished by the naivete of the architects, managers and advocates of social media. Specifically, why has the industry failed to anticipate and meaningfully prepare for the utterly predictable eventuality of their virtual town hall, or town square, or whatever metaphor you wish getting hijacked by a malevolent mob for its own purposes? The group is only self-correcting if one assumes independent actors in the majority. Once, organized sub-populations (bots or otherwise) come in (especially undetected) they own the forum and determine its messages and values. Voila. Zuckerberg et al no longer runs Facebook (even should he want to).
4
It's lovely to say that the solution for hate speech is more good speech, not censorship. However, this inherently reactive approach means the hate and misinformation are out there, poisoning minds and recruiting allies, while the "good speech" is playing catch-up.
The problem with this situation has been known well before the advent of the Internet. Versions of the adage "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on" have been in circulation for two centuries. The Internet just widens the disparity.
Proactively banning or suppressing speech is an idea that should be approached gingerly. The potential for abuse is significant. The challenge of drawing lines that will gain broad social consensus is daunting. However, why is the Daily Stormer allowed to exist? Why can't we block obviously anti-Semitic hashtags?
At Nuremberg, we cemented the concept of crimes against humanity -- acts so inherently evil that they cannot be legitimized by the laws of any nation-state or the executive power of its ruler. What is the justification for allowing speech advocating policies which, if implemented, would lead to crimes against humanity? How does that contribute to legitimate debate? Does it make sense that it can be a crime to threaten one person, but if you threaten millions of people at once who have a particular race or religion, that is perfectly OK?
2
Just wait until AI reaches maturity! We will be doomed with no possible return.
I was also a person being published pre-internet and horrified by the sick responses I received - but (unlike the author) I was mortified by the idea of extending the ability to mass-communicate to the masses (via the internet).
My experience with "nutters" writing in response to my published pieces, lead me to conclude that opening up publication channels to everyone would result in:
A) every weak person (little girls, soft minded men, rabble and rebels) finding their own special individual predator (sickos preying on the potentially ill); and
B) every weak person being preyed upon generally by big corporations, feeding their addictions and illnesses (weak-minded being preyed on by the strong).
Such persons used to be hidden in the herd and sometimes expressly guarded from the worst - but the nightmarish facet of the internet is that their weaknesses are now all exposed to the jackals of this internet jungle. And these jackals are obsessive and ugly (as anyone who used to publish in the old days knows).
About 25 years ago, The New Yorker had a cartoon of a dog in front of one of those old huge monitors. "On the Internet, nobody knows that you are a dog." I never forgot that.
4
Those who would like to blame social media platforms for the hate speech distributed on them should be asking themselves, "who am I forgiving, and for what?"
Swisher writes, "Social media platforms are designed so that the awful travels twice as fast as the good."
That's silly. Show me the code.
Social media platforms are a mirror. One does not blame a mirror for the reflection it offers.
All this hate speech? It's not our social media, it's our country. If you blame social media, you're letting the haters off the hook.
2
Elect better leaders, get better people.
Don't blame the symptoms for root causes.
The web is us. It's not spreading Humanity. It is humanity: all it's glory and all its warts included.
As you've probably noted, the Internet is not the beginning or end of evil among us.
As you have not noticed: The Internet is not Spreading hate. Hate will always find a way.
1
US newpapers in the late eighteenth century were noteworthy for the virulence of reader contributions. Editing of such contributions became newspaper policy by the late nineteenth century.
1
Which has caused more deaths--the printing press or the internet?
1
There is good and evil in the world, and the Internet is part of that world. Our laws are many years behind changes in technology, and we are paying a price. Until politicians figure out how they can reliably get re-elected ($$$) choosing Internet policing as an issue, nothing will change.
If you think the Internet has been fun, just wait until AI wakes up.
Savagery will be 'N' more potent than tolerance til CRISPR neural upgrades & Thayler Nudging are widespread, & that depends upon the uncertain pace of decarbonization. Survival is contingent & problematical: No Deus, no ex Machina.
The internet as a widespread, near-universally accessible phenomena came of age when was finishing middle school. Oh the depravity you could find on there as a mischievous, hormone-imbalanced kid--and all in supposed secrecy (at least to an adolescent who didn't know how it actually works). Back then I realized it was a way to act out and explore the inner mind, all laid out in code, an endless anthology of how people really feel--and I was 13!!!
To say that as an adult you felt the internet would improve the world is naive--and a fairy tale only an adult at the time could've believed. Perhaps the WWW should've been beta tested by more 13-year olds...then the true danger of full access to information (and misinformation) could've been realized by society two decades ago.
4
I thought the web would spread reason and logic - not seventeenth century beliefs. I too was wrong. Instead of usurping in an era of enlightenment, the internet has allowed preachers and politicians to take us down a road of backward evolution toward a second Dark Ages. Donald Trump has demonstrated how today's social media can be used by a demagogue to gain and maintain power while making a mockery of reason, logic and basic morality. However, in the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof of how we have tricked the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about just what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. When we understand this, we will use the internet to spread the news and begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
Bravo Kara! I have been feeling the same that it is the platforms facilitating these lunatics. Please keep writing these as the real news that you are speaking about seems to have less weight because you are perceived to be liberal and are limiting free speech. I say you have named the enemy and called them out and I hope this message reaches more people and maybe get our do nothing congress and senate to fine these platforms for not removing hate speech.
As you say - bottom line. Responsible people need to stop using social media platforms - need to boycott Silicon Valley - until appropriate changes are made. You might also sleep better at night.
The fault lies in the fragmentation of the channels and networks from which Americans get their information. Plus, the abdication of the “public trust” attitude that guided management of the networks in the days before the internet.
With the abolition of the Fairness Doctine under Reagan, the stage was set for the establishment of cable networks like Fox and internet platforms like Facebook (or worse still, the Daily Stormer, Gab, etc.). These networks are run by entrepreneurs, who are in it solely for the money - and who are unchecked by trivial matters like the public interest.
What’s emerged is an environment where too many settle for the network that best feeds their basest instincts and resentments. And the resulting closed loop echo chamber feeds on itself until a Cesar Seyoc or Robert Bowers is moved to violence.
A truly constructive step towards correcting this problem would be the reestablishment of some form of a Fairness Doctrine, which would mandate more civil and balanced conversation on the cable and internet networks, who’ve showed little sensitivity to the broad public interest. Such a move would also deaden the impact of big money on the national dialogue.
The networks have clearly failed to self-regulate on behalf of the public good (and events of the past week prove it). A well-thought out public policy here could help prevent more of the same.
When historians point to history saying we've seen these scary times before I nod knowingly. My dad is a survivor of Auschwitz and my whole family on his side was murdered by Nazi's. I never knew any of them. But the internet, which I thought would be a game changer for good way back when, has me now wondering (concluding?) if it is the game changer for bad like the world has never seen. It seems there are so many bad actors out there who can manufacture bad bots to overwhelm any debate. It's like we are living the worst Batman movie plot ever.
Algorithms are everything online, all that we do are driven by endless algorithms. FB has managed to keep porn off their platform so why the foot dragging on stopping the hate speech and political lies meant to spread political chaos? And if money drives everything then what motivates companies to put an end to the hate on their platforms? We are truly in a scary world without the leaders of these organizations implementing some clear principals to follow about who they do business with and what they tolerate. FB's mission is to bring the world together but instead I feel like the world is being torn apart. Thank you Kara for your honesty and using your platform diligently.
2
Really love your columns. But this one, wow!
Thinking the Internet would stop hate not spread it? The Internet, a largely anonymous free-for-all zone where mob mentality is the rule not the exception - and people are supposed to nice to each other just because some tech nerds with zero life experience think they would be...? (Top-drawer, though surely inadvertent, confirming the stereotypes of the HBO show Silicon Valley.)
Really; welcome back from Never Never land. Unfortunately, you are not going to like it much on planet earth.
2
"Tech made no real rules, claiming the freedom from any strictures would be O.K. in what is the greatest experiment in human communications ever."
This for me was particularly rattling assertion because it rang so true, despite my instinctive reluctance to embrace censorship.
I thought about mob rule and how the angriest and most hateful voices find the front of the pack. The screens lighting up our faces in the night can be a chilling reminder of a lynch mob's torches. How hard it is to turn away one of those mobs from its assembled purpose.
An even scarier thought concerns a much more ambitious tech experiment, also claiming freedom from strictures: the Industrial Age, our attempt to remake the whole world in our own image. That great experiment has brought us unimaginable riches while it has left the natural world reeling.
Science is knowledge. We bit that apple a long time ago and have developed a taste for it. Our curiosity is very much part of who we are, perhaps our defining characteristic as a species.
If knowledge is power, however, it is not wisdom, and it shouldn't be confused with it.
It's often said that God punishes us by giving us what we want. Here I often think of Donald Trump, who I suspect is being punished but isn't smart enough to realize it.
Give us the wisdom to use our knowledge wisely.
2
In every way the Internet has led to a deterioration of our civic life. Internet commerce has disemboweled our town and city centers, Internet forums have coarsened our civic dialog, Internet backchannels have facilitated the flocking of the most despicable human beings on Earth. Every time I post on the Internet I try to make some kind of contribution, and be respectful of others (especially those I disagree with). But there really is no positive side to the Web, it is just dreck.
What I would recommend to the New York Times is to set up a system that would allow two responsible, tolerant advocates on opposing sides of an issue to conduct a recursive public dialog rather than continue to provide a venue for this pointless venting and posturing (I can tell you before the votes come in which comments are going to get hundreds of 'recommends'). NYT: do something civic rather than just what is profitable.
1
If you thought the web wasn't going to do this, or doing this, maybe you shouldn't cover the web by accepting the hospitality and spending time in the company of Silicon Valley billionaires, which not only blinds you to what has been obvious for years to those of us who just watch the world, and don't get bought by those billionaires, but is, for someone in your position, ethically inadmissible and reprehensible, and professionally speaking, the same. You are both bought and blinded by the stupidification of being a hireling, then you should apologize and resign. And give back the money you earned as a "reporter." By your own account, your conduct is appalling and entirely unacceptable.
1
And yet... violence world wide is at an all time low. So, maybe it’s all just a bunch of hot air. But let ‘em police their content if they like. Just so long as the gvt stays out of it.
Maybe we can rewrite the 1st Amendment to apply only to real Americans. Capitalism prevails and the despots of the world know how to use it. Seriously, how do you deal with the censorship issue? It should be easy for the FBI or the social media companies to track these deplorables and expel them to Venezuela or Guantanamo Bay.
you thought wrong...
(this, along with the story of silicon valley tech parents forbidding the usage of 'devices' to their children, reveals the culpability of 'tech' people in the unravelling of our societies...
1
Newspapers, Radio and Television have all been purchased by corporations which to a large degree give you the news you want hear and agree with. The Internet is a bottomless pit that each of us dive into every day, it gives us choices good and bad. It's a baby, lets see what it grows into.
1
Really? You imagined that this particular human invention was exempt from the two-edged-sword problem that has been the case with since Eden, Prometheus, electricity, explosives, nuclear, genetics...?
1
A starting point would be that every single school in America should have a strong special curriculum for every class about the internet - educating kids on the uses and misuses of it; the perils of talking in chat rooms with other like-minded people who in fact are predators; the web's capacity for promulgating unfounded conspiracies and alternative facts; the folly of listening only to people who agree with you in those conspiracies. In short: to be aware, to not take everything at face value and to rely on sound sources of information. And how to make the digital world the helpful asset it was envisioned to be.
Is this concept depressing, teaching kids about the realities of the world? So is having your kid seduced by a sexual predator or giving a wingnut like the MAGA bomber a platform to reinforce his craziness.
Where would the money come from? The Gates', Zuckerburg's, Bezozs', Cook's and other fellows who made their zillions creating the internet could get together and establish a foundation to finance it. And do something real to offset the hazards of their (lucrative) creation.
For that matter, they could use their money to act together to establish standards for operating in the digital world.
2
I agree wholeheartedly that the social media companies are a warm incubator for the extremists and it appears there is no controlling their platforms.
I permanently deleted all of my social media accounts after Cambridge Analytica. The writing was on the wall.
In my opinion if you are still on these platforms you are part of the problem. If the social media giants won’t shut these accounts down and do their civic duty to protect the democracy then they should be shut down.
Facebook should not have “Pages” and “Groups” and should ban links on posts. If it were true social media, it would be simply a place for friends to share photos and stories- not political memes and fringe alt-right websites.
Delete your Facebook and Twitter accounts now.
2
Let’s just start calling it what it is, anti-social media.
26
@Tom
I have also thought this for ages, and no offense to you, but NOW the Times calls this a "Times Pick"?
That's kind of funny...
1
Technology is completely irrelevant in our lives.
The people used to live without it for many centuries. The technology is just a tool that emphasizes and enlarges our basic human values so they are easier and faster to see.
Those expecting salvation from technology will wait in vain. It is neutral, meaning neither positive nor negative.
The real system of values has always been within us.
1
Polluters will continue to pollute as long as it continues to be profitable. The principle applies to both the air and the airwaves we are exposed to. Expecting the social media industry to self-regulate any better than the fossil fuel, banking, chemical, or pharmaceutical industries have is dangerously naive.
5
Smoking is pleasurable, but it is bad for you. The internet and especially social media is pleasurable, but it is bad for you. A serious health information campaign about social media harm, plus parental control on children's access to smartphones, plus about 50,000 more articles like this, will begin to make a dent in the problem. Not fix it, but make it that too.
3
I just published a blog and an article about Northern Ireland, which makes the same point in a different way. Extremists use the communications media and tools available to divide people, just as they did in Northern Ireland. In that case, TV, wall murals, radio, and, more recently, the Internet and social media are accentuating divisions among people.
Segregation and violence can happen anywhere, and they can happen here as well. We must never presume that we can allow hatred to spread freely.
3
Good piece. I would add that these world changing technologies mostly have a few things in common that produce these outcomes. First, they were mostly started by very young people with little world experience or social sophistication. In Zuckerberg’s case, he started Facebook in college and it’s the only job he’s ever had. Second, for all they’re do-gooder rhetoric, massive wealth was always the real motive. Related to that is the the fact that oversight required to help, if not stop, this problem costs money. That would make these guys merely crazy rich rather than one in a billion world dominating billionaires. How many moderators could you hire for a billion dollars? I guess we’ll never know as that money goes in to the pockets of these guys. And the fact that the companies are public, and brought public before they were mature, profitable, or even fully understood, makes change that much more difficult. Google’s motto is “don’t be evil.” Pretty low bar if you think about it.
8
I've said for a long time that anonymous social media allows humans worst tendencies to flourish outside of their minds and into everyone's consciousness.
No good can come of it.
7
In reading the comments below - "not the internet but social media companies", "not failure of capitalism or technology but failure of education," blah, blah,blah, yada, yada, yada. And I just feel like the biblical voice crying in the wilderness. I have been saying that the internet is destroying civilization for years.
Let me be clear, I too am a creature of the internet. I now make my living from it, as do lots of people. But only because one has to make a living and when the internet virtually destroyed every industry I've been a part of and devalued everything I have spent my life doing was I forced to join it. (I used to be a writer and journalist; now I am a "content provider").
I've watched people's attention span, abilility to spell, and punctuate, to read, to judge and to choose degenerate year after year. The tool that was supposed to make our lives easier is now one many of us are slaves to.
I can't for the life of me see why any of this is a surprise to anyone. All of these developments just foster the herd mentality. And the herd almost never has any good ideas.
11
How are we to moderate what is Truth, what is hateful, and what is destructive?
When we leave these critical decisions to corporations like Facebook we will end up in a very dark place.
We have only begun to grapple with the concept of the "World Wide" web and its impact on everyone of us. I'm glad that we are starting to think about these matters.
5
@bob
The faith is the answer. Try to understand, I said the faith, not the clergy and the religions, Vatican, Pope, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Sunnism or Shiism. Those are just the social polarizations and divisions identical to the Republicans and the democrats. Don't all of them have their temples, priest and sermons? It is irrelevant if the service is once nightly at 8 o'clock or every Sunday. The blind obedience and uncritical thinking is prerequisite
1
@bob - In essence, the First Amendment can be viewed as privatizing the policing of speech in the US. If government is staying out of the business of regulating what speech we will have and disseminate, then either we have no limits at all or we have to create them ourselves.
We are actually not doing anything new in looking to private entities to exercise some gatekeeping function. In the pre-Internet days, we called these gatekeepers newspaper editors, television producers, and book and magazine publishers. Nor is it anything new to be asking fair questions about who the gatekeepers are accountable to (advertisers, shareholders, etc.). Many people historically worried about whether the gatekeepers of the pre-Internet age had too much power, and tended to silence or minimize voices of women, people of color and others.
The problem we have today is not the existence of private gatekeepers. We have always had them. Rather, it is that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, towards lawlessness. We got here in part by trying to delegitimize the whole concept of gatekeepers, to claim that the Internet was merely an electronic street corner. That experiment is failing. We need to strike a balance.
1
This column indicates Ms. Swisher has had a long standing misconception of human nature.
2
In 1450 the printing press was invented, by 1475 it was really up and running. In the next century it produced over 100 million books, about two for every adult in Europe. And so people learned to read. The result was not enlightenment, but violent argument as they all read the bible and found they disagreed about what it meant. Suddenly the forum of public debate, till then mostly left to the leisured and priestly educated, became flooded with all sorts of half-educated people and their half-baked ideas, eager to prove the old maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There followed more than 100 years of bloody religious warfare.
In 1990 the internet was invented, by 2000 it was really up and running. In 2007 came the first smartphone and soon everyone was connected all the time. Suddenly the forum of public debate, till then mostly left to the readers of broadsheet newspapers, was flooded with Archie Bunkers, half-educated conspiracy theorists and xenophobic grandmas. Suddenly people were brought face to face with the violence of their disagreement, even as they also found silos where everyone saw things their way. The result was not enlightenment.
Its Rene Girard's mimetic theory. Its tribalism, Othering and schismogenesis leading to alterity (reactionary movements).
It’s the dying of the West…
14
@Justin Sigman Love your comment.
1
Tech bros in love with Ayn Rand and libertarianism - how will that turn out? The results are in.
4
In our naïveté we do not know and do not respect the power of the devices we hold in our hands. Nor do the billionaires who reap heaps of profits from them.
2
I think it was going in the right direction - if in a somewhat backward manner - before social media. It was clear early that fringe groups found like minds on the Internet and that that included abhorrent people like child molesters. I think it was also clear that some of these found encouragement through these online exchanges, but I naively thought that would bring long-term benefits: they would be rooted out. Perhaps that is true for some truly illegal behaviors but obviously not for hate and malevolence. I still hope education and regulation can turn this around, but with less conviction by the hour.
2
Anyone who thought, anytime in the last 20 years, that "the web would stop hate, not spread it," has manifestly not been paying attention or not thinking logically or both.
2
@Sage:
Arguably so, especially in retrospect, but Ms. Swisher was hardly alone in this: We all would like to believe in better versions of ourselves and others, and there was almost universal hope and optimism for the alleged democratizing effect the internet would have on us.
In retrospect, 'we' let our optimism push aside legitimate concerns, which quickly became out of control problems - ones that users and social media companies have done basically *nothing* about.
1
At some point in the hopefully not too distant future, we will realize that algorithms cannot replace humans when it comes to making moral editorial decisions.
1
As far as I'm concerned, it's the anonymity of it all.
You can sit in your bedroom and say the things that you feel without any real repercussions or accountability.
That doesn't happen anywhere else, in life.
And there are people out there -- cowards, I would call them -- who abuse that lack of accountability.
And it is a culture on the internet that is not confined to politics. There is a general lack of civility, whether you're talking about gaming, and any manner of other harmless activities.
1
And what do our children make of this?
There is no room for equivocation anymore. The tech bros combined with unfettered capitalism may break society.
Move fast and break things in the hands of a sociopath? What could go wrong?
3
I understand the problem; we all do. But what’s s possible solution here?
Without the true faith we don’t have freedom of speech but just the widely open doors for social stupidity.
The faith is absolutely essential for the survival of human civilization. Nothing else is more urgently needed in this world.
There is no substitution for the faith. Now we have witnessed firsthand how the world without it looks like – controlled by the untamed human greed, with the latest technological achievements used to brainwash the kids, making them addicted to the corporate products, destroying the sound system of values, unleashing our strangest desires in pursuit for elusive “happiness”, and exploiting all our weaknesses for the increased profitability...
Let’s not forget, the corporate-controlled free press has branded all the aforementioned as the social progress, freedom, liberty, justice and equality. They divided and polarized us in the name of the phony phrases.
The scientific progress is completely irrelevant here.
There is no branch of science capable of subduing our human ego, hubris, conceit, bias, hatred, greed and prejudice.
That special kind of training is called the faith.
Destroy the faith and system of values and you will destroy the entire society!
For the life of me I do not see the attraction of social media,
I belong to none because I could not stand the hate which they spew.
Look at one of the most popular Donald trump!
2
Remember “ do no harm”? It has become and to be honest always was “ show me the money” and as that great rock and roll song said “ first I look at the purse” .
1
I thought the internet would make our society more open and democratic. The means for many small groups to launch new media online would mean more probing and exposure of misbehavior and lies from people in powerful positions. People around the world would be able to talk to one another and get a better understanding of each other, decreasing the likelihood of nations going to war.
Before that, in the 80s, I had said the Soviet Union and the East Bloc was in decline before others had considered that. I said the USSR would pull out of Afghanistan. Before the Iraq War, I told people Iraq had no WMDs and that the U.S. would easily defeat Saddam Hussein's government, but that the trouble would start after that.
But boy was I wrong about the internet.
1
This entire oped disturbs me. I read the personal reflections of angst about the way current issues are presented on social media, but I don't read any ideas about how to make social media work better.
The issue is solely about limits of free speech. Once we understand that posting on the internet, social media, etc. is to a great extent anonymous, we can understand that posting any type of thought ranging from well-stated, reasonable opposition to "kill my enemies" are going to occur. What are the limits we as a society going to be willing to put on speech on the internet and social media? What type of speech are we as a society willing to censor, realizing that each step may well censor legitimate speech in opposition to whatever standards have been accepted at the time. It is obvious there have to be limits, but the devil is in the details of setting them. This is a difficult issue and it won't be resolved by angst.
My solution? I can't figure it out and neither can you. It is for society to resolve through social means, likely through political means, and that means that the resolution will be imperfect, but let's hope that over time the sharp edges of imperfection will be worn down and our society will find a solution that allows social and political opposition, but limits the worst of social damaging speech.
2
Awareness is the first step. Seeing Trump as the nation's perfect historical buffoon. His minions going down with that ship. The fact deniers seeing the danger of faith without reason. City folks realizing the importance and power of our rural voices. All of us moving slowly towards a communion of listening within and beyond our one of many million species.
1
Criticize Silicon Valley companies all you want, but it will do no good. They are for profit organizations. They are out to maximize profit. Expecting them to act ethically is comical and naive. That’s not how capitalism works.
I will tell you what has made me feel better: not participating in social media. Not bowing to those who make billions off of ad revenue while disseminating false information and housing trolls. I don’t understand why more people don’t abandon these harmful platforms. Granted, there will always be the perverts and racists among us. They will always find a way to congregate online, but why be part of mainstream platforms like Twitter and Facebook which provide a place to fuel their rants? Something that confirmed my desire to stay off social media was the Frontline documentary that was on last night and tonight called “The Facebook Dilemma.” These 20 and 30 something’s aren’t going to solve the issues of election interference or the genocide in Myanmar. It’s up to the users to say, “Enough is enough. I am outta here.” Write letters or emails. Read books and newspapers. Stay away from the obsession with likes.
2
Good column, but not good enough. What about all the invasion of privacy via the internet? The theft of identity? The cyber crimes? The hackers?
The answer is simple: the internet needs to be done-over, from scratch. And please don't tell me that is not possible. I am a retired programmer/analyst. It can be done. It must be done. The sooner, the better. Reminder: we put a man on the moon long before we had a "world wide web".
It also needs to be regulated. Heavily. ASAP.
Why won't either of my suggestions ever happen? Money. Big money. The money used by filthy rich people, who profit off the internet.
We need to change our priorities.
2
The Social Network and Sorkin had it right from the beginning-a communications network set up to appraise and disparage! I've never posted on Facebook or anywhere else, mostly because I couldn't see myself wasting my time showing my stuff or self to other people--it has been a gift to myself!
The problem isn't the individual. It's that the individual has been bolstered by paid comments to make it seem like radical is normal. More radical comments makes the commentary seem normal. Like many are feeling it. Then the individual who was actually feeling it is now emboldened to act on it. Because they were affirmed by their 'peers' online.
But the peers aren't real. Most of the noise you hear online is paid for. Snowden revealed it... but it was self-evident before hand.
Five years ago the only morally questionable rhetoric I read online was about Israel and Palestine...
Four years ago suddenly everything questionable was flooding every comment section.
Yeah, loons exist. But institutions/organizations are feeding those loons and reducing the entire conversation for everyone to it's most base. Normalizing the lunacy.
But it all comes back to critical thinking. Too many people don't have the skill. And all the censoring of Facebook isn't going to change that.
Facebook shouldn't be selling our private information, absolutely, and they should try and keep fake accounts off their site... but beyond that, they shouldn't be forced to censor our content.. or even "fake ads". If they want to, freely, that's their choice as a company... but making them do it will do more harm than good to other areas of our society.
---
Quick qualifier: I do not use Facebook. I have always voted Dem. Admired Hillary and abhor Trump -- lest someone think I'm deplorable...
1
"We have no idea how to deal with this situation, except to watch it play out over and over again, and allow it to kill us cell by cell."
Well for starters, stop using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and all other social medic sites. Money talks. Starve the beast.
Money used to be the plutonium that energizes opinion. Before, she who controls the money, controls the atomic bomb of opinion.
The web gave the power of opinion to Everyman. Now Everyman/woman holds the plutonium of their own private dirty bomb.
We feared Al Qeada would get the dirty bomb, and now every Al Qeada wannabe has one, their fingers toggling the joy-stick of world destruction by easily-spread dirty opinion.
We have met the enemy, and he is US. NOT the internet.
Like Al Qeada, the answer lies not in control of the dirty bomb so much as in reprogramming our extremest foes, enticing them back into the fold.
Possible? Maybe not.
Let's face the fact that we are not going to put this dirty Genie back into the lantern and throw it back into the ocean.
I love your writing Ms. Swisher, concise and valuable.
Yet, methinks the solution is not constructed from the top down, but from the inside, out.
We must reclaim our World Soul before the soul-less among us destroy us all.
This is purely an inner problem.
The solution to Prohibition was not found in control of fire water, the same dirty bomb of its time.
With such a fiery dirty bomb available to us all, we have to, absolutely must, find a way to awaken our combined latent humanity.
We cannot just invade Normandy this time to crush evil.
Anonymity plays a big role here. Our founders did not anticipate a forum like the internet where outright falsehood and hate speech could be spread unabated. In their day you knew where the printing press was located and who owned it. Not anymore. The parents of children killed at Sandy Hook are bringing a lawsuit against Alex Jones and I hope they're successful. The platforms that allow him to profit from his despicable behavior should also feel the financial pain. Unregulated capitalism is no friend to a healthy society. Every website will naturally descend to its lowest common denominator.
Kara Swisher, I share your concern about the misuse of the internet for hatred, hate mongering and dangerous incitement. This is a world wide problem. But the internet is a device, a tool. On its own it can never "eliminate the attitudes that fueled...horrible letters" to you and to others. It might be structured to reduce the volume or quantity of negativity. But the changing of highly negative attitudes requires the changing of minds....I will leave it there...
When will people realize that "technology" and "the internet" will never be "the answer." No, it won't stop hate. And it won't help students learn or ........
16
@Chris
Tech is helping spread democracy; and love. It is only that Progressive definition of both are so distorted. E.g, Brazil; people winning such elections are endeared by the peoples.
1
licensing, fairness doctrines, all that old-school regulatory stuff is sorely needed. The answer to pain is not more pain; it makes no sense to claim that unbridled speech is somehow the solution to unbridled speech.
1
It's important to step back from particular media, vile speech and actions, and the politics that might influence them to see the broad trend. The key shift in the U.S. since ca. 1980 has been toward an open embrace of money and consumption as the singular goal and measure of life. To be sure, money and the goods they buy have always been important. But the values and forces that used to offset this focus have shrunk. My favorite indicator is the number of articles that report movie revenue, art auction prices, and the size of book contracts. The buck has probably always been the universal American yardstick, but now there are no restraints. Trump's embrace of Saudi money, for example, is only novel for its openness.
1
I have been reading turn-of-the-century (1900) impressions of Florida. These antique magazine pieces underscore not only how we have destroyed the environment and its abundant wildlife, but also a certain knowledge that our inventions have a forward momentum that is relentless and unforgiving.
Laws and regulation are our best bet at harnessing unforseen consequences, but it is doubtful big business / big money will allow that.
In a piece published in 1908, a "fine old gentlemen" living on the edge of the Everglades is depicted as quaint, innocent and somehow noble. Why? Because he was suspicious of electricity and wistful for the pre-civil wat era.
If that doesn't sum up our predicament, I don't know what does. Our opposing thumbs gave us the big brains to conceive of enlightened social constructs and breathtaking inventions, but our core mammalian selves can't keep up.
Kara Swisher is a keen observor of the internet and it's impact on our culture. When she confesses "no clue" what to do about unintended consequences, it pays to listen. I am gratified to know that she and others are grappling with the problem, but it feels like it has spun out of our control.
5
Many. many people reveled in these illusions, and technology companies and tech advocates spread them.
The flaw is fundamental:
Racism, anti-Semitism, nativism are all deeply embedded in the American population.
Th idea that the clear light of truth and reason would banish the darkness was super-naïve.
Where this is likely to go: Congress gave the FCC authority to regulate content on the "airwaves."
It can do the same for the Internet.
The only question is the political identity of the filtering agents.
5
Companies can and should (in some circumstances, to some degree) be regulated by government; free speech and the exchange of ideas should not
1
It seems as though there was a kind of naivete among the early internet pioneers and investors. I started my online adventure in 1995, and I remember the zeitgeist of the time was exhilaration and freedom. The tech gurus were aging hippies who wanted to bring the world together, not tear it apart. And now it is such huge money that the profit motive complicates any effort to clean it up.
What a pity.
5
Not much new. The anonymity of the internet allows any number of people to say things they would never say on a soapbox in the town square. On the other hand, they can express what they really think (racism, bigotry and anti semitism with impunity and be as uncivil and impolite as they want.
The Web wasn't created to stop anything in particular, but legislation does. Hate speech can be banned in any way people want without infringing free speech, hate speech just have to be considered socially nefarious to be excluded from free speech protection laws.
4
Creatures of consequence? The anonymity of the internet means that people can let their darkest sides flourish. It's this disconnect between the human id and accountability that is the greatest strength of the "internet hate machine".
I watch cryptocurrency closely - not because I believe it's worth investing in, but hope that the technology behind it can help improve free speech accountability online. The cynic in me says that I'll be as disappointed as Ms. Swisher.
2
Of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in US history, 15 have occurred since 2005. Nine occurred while Obama was in office, with 170 dead. It may fit a narrative that this kind of violence is connected to Trump and his rhetoric, but that would be cherry picking and confirmation bias. The worst shooting was the recent Vegas shooting, where some on the left, through MSM and social media, hinted that the victims, being Country and Western types who likely voted Trump were the victims of what they wished for. If you look at he acceleration of these events since 2005, it really can't be pinned on one person or office. We have violent shooters looking for a body count. The correspondence in time matches the rise of Facebook/social media, not Trump's Presidency or anyone else's.
7
@TD
According to your numbers, we had 9 during the eight years of Obama's administration, and have already had 6 during the two (!) years of Trump's administration, that is a very sharp increase that in no way parallels an increase in social media usage. The most reasonable conclusion is that the President of U.S. influences the public expression of our citizens.
When Clinton was president being investigated and impeached in relation to the Lewinsky affair, the outcry against him focused a great deal on what a terrible model he was for citizens and how horrible of a representative he was of the American people, he was said to have a contemptible and staining influence on citizens. I hear no such outcry now from these very same people.
I think that is the most stunningly dishonest and harmful message of all.
Here are 2 considerations: 1. Freedom of speech has limitations--like incitement to violence. These persons should be prosecuted in federal courts.
2. Advocacy is allowed yet progressive advocates could "shout" louder and better and thus drown them out. I don't want my voice eliminated by those who hate my views & so I don't want their voices eliminated--however hateful I find them. But our echo chamber should resound with more benign attitudes & advocacy. Their views have always existed and will not stop existing, but their ugliness should be so obviously deviant that they stick to their corners with whispers that cause no threat.
The ban on the sale of military grade weapons was allowed to expire by President Bush in 2004. We may want to look at that again.
@ThinkOverThink
The failure to deal with Clinton on principle led over time to Trump. When Hillary brought out the Access Hollywood stuff, it fell flat, because she sacrificed her moral authority on that issue. The Trump years have seen two and three shootings at this scale a year, which is not inconsistent with the multiple shootings in given years during Obama's time. The point remains, the increase that this most coincides with is the rise of social media, and I would argue, not the increase in use, but the increase in the types of damaging and self-perpetuating language and thought exchanged there.
This makes a case for a form of regulation. The Internet and social media are different things but both could use a dose of adult supervision. The Net is quickly settling on a least common denominator utility status and like all utilities, it operates with the concent of the governed. So regulating the Net, which the People paid for through research grants, shouldn’t be hard. In theory. Much the same is true of social media. It competes often with broadcast media which is licensed for the public good and some form of that license should obtain for social as well. Of course, what’s standing in the way is a lessaiz-faire GOP unwilling to regulate even a rabid dog. Perhaps another reason to vote?
2
There is an inherent imbalance at work here, because while in the West we sit back and wait for the social media apps to police themselves -- which they manifestly fail to do -- in Russia and China and Saudi Arabia etc., those apps are censored, as are all media. And so we're left with the Russians and Chinese and Saudis, etc., actively loading information, and disinformation, into the minds of our electorates, while they control the media their populations are allowed to hear and read. And the Russians, in particular, have specialized in manipulation of divisive memes, in Europe as well as the USA, resulting in the emergence of divisive, nativist leaders and movements, like Trump, Orbin, UKIP, PiS, AfD, M5S, etc., etc.
1
"We have met the creature and it is a monster. I shudder to think what the consequences will be."
What distinguishes the Internet from former means of mass communications is that all those previous ones had a filter that could be and often were used to prevent divisive and destructive messaging or promote it, but the source was usually clear.
The Internet, by avoiding filters, has provided a means for any person to express whatever views they hold without restraint which has made clear something that has long been known as observed by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, which I paraphrase, "The fault dear Brutus is not in the Internet but in ourselves."
2
The technology that allows people to communicate to any set of audience, to search and filter out others' thoughts does seem frightening. In a time when we have no confidence in the thoughts of "the others", it is easy to forget the dangers of limiting certain people's ability to voice their opinions. And it is dangerous, not only because of the dangers that such a slippery slope can ultimately lead us to, but that we are here not only because we have heard too much, but because we have not listened. Not the type of listening that catalogs, minimises and dismisses, but the type of listening that fails to categorise speech as good or evil, and instead have the persistent courage to engage with them.
If you believe technology to be an organic response to the needs of people, then the internet is an inevitability. The frustration that, through this tool, there can be such great depression in unity and complexity of thought is understandable.
But rather than tearing down the technology only to have suppressed thoughts be exploited by dictators to do the type of justified killings that numbs us through their sheer magnitude, let's just take a moment to understand why our thoughts are here. Let's forget how speech or thoughts are hateful and try to understand the circumstances, to comprehend the conditions of violent thoughts. If the internet can be a vessel for hate, can it not also be for compassion and the organisation of common good?
1
It's not "the internet" that's the issue, right? It's the apps and websites that have corrupted the internet, creating division where connection was the concept. If we argue against "the internet" and lose those connections, we'll have moved dangerously into the domains of authoritarianism.
7
It is not true there cannot be rules made now that would ameliorate hate. A simple one is no threats of violence. Harm and hurt are the culprits, the fruit of our freedom's failure. The freedom will remain for good and ill. But free speech must be limited in forums that influence masses. And measures that eschew violence are a fair and beneficial action choice.
4
Ms. Swisher you are the best addition to the Times in some time. Not only are your observations nuanced and horrifying but your writing is brilliant and as my millennials daughters would say “savage”- in the best possible way.
4
So, this statement you made is completely false, that “Tech made no real rules, claiming the freedom from any strictures would be O.K. in what is the greatest experiment in human communications ever.” All they are (or were- censorship has begun) doing is applying first amendment concepts to the private spheres of the internet. That experiment is what fortifies our country. I’m beginning to feel that it’s in fact the threat of censorship (as historically proven) that is the far greater threat, and how quickly yourself and others forget what our society is based on. It’s disgusting what’s going on, but to suggest that censorship is the way is to suggest the founders got it wrong. These new sites are essentially the public domain, but because they are private they can censor. That may be the real issue to to work on here. Domain companies preventing people from speaking - whomever, strikes me as the much more Orwellian idea to be afraid of. Our system has a cost but has worked.
5
@Respond
It’s facile to sing the praises of free speech. Virtually everything is good, or at least not too bad, in moderation. And the sad fact is that there is virtually no moderation of hate on the internet.
You are witnessing the destruction of civilization as we know it, in large part due to the unbridled spread of right-wing lies and hatred on the internet, with a carefree what-me-worry attitude. What will replace it is anybody’s guess, but things certainly don’t look promising at the moment.
@Respond I recognized from the very beginning of social media's influence, the trouble we'd find ourselves in today. I was a laggard indeed, being dragged into cyberspace kicking and screaming. I believe it's the reason congress doesn't work anymore (kids don't know how to converse and listen to each other (make the sausage if you will) and the reason why no one over 55 can find a job-- the hiring system is completely inefficient stupid now. But that's a topic for another day. While I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Swisher's observations, I am equally troubled by what is now called for to fix and police the problem. Who gets to decide whose opinion gets heard and whose gets deleted? Who has a voice? We used to have editors, processes, time tested systems for eliminating untruths, hate speech. Who controls the information now? I agree with joyously we may be on the brink of Orwellian in going after individual sites and screeds.... sigh... it depresses me terribly bc I saw it coming. This time I hate being right. I told you so! is all my inner 13 smarty pants can muster.
As a 60 year old guy who has been traveling the world since the age of 20 and still do, I had the same hope. As a result of personal experience I fully realise that as soon as people spend time together they find out they are more alike than not.
What it boils down to is most humans have a tribal instinct, some much stronger than others. What a good and true leader does is expand that tribe to the greatest extent. A good CEO makes the company the tribe and stops the tribes from forming inside the individual departments in a business. The tribe becomes Apple not the iPhone division or engineering or sales.
A national leader includes all citizens in the tribe not just his followers and as such expands his followers. Unfortunately this is a rare ability and history is littered with the failures. In the interconnected world in which we live the tribe has to be the human tribe, I get it that I’m the exception having lived the life I have, but somehow we have to at least start the conversation of how we will make this happen. At 60 I’m somewhat pessimistic I will see much change in my remaining years but I still have some hope.
10
Ms. Swisher, it is very evident to me that we human beings are ill-equipped for the creation of the hyper-connected life the advancement of technology delivered.
This technology has dehumanized us because words no longer need to be spoken face to face. They can be expressed through a device, a machine that has no human face that offers one the ability to figure people out or, cloaked as anonymous.
8
I agree with the sentiment but would suggest that Kara Swisher makes one mistake in this write-up. I would advise that you do not conflate the Internet (the 'Net) with Social Media companies. They are not one and the same.
The Internet is probably the greatest invention the human race has ever devised. It is literally the Library of Alexandria reborn; and a quantum level higher in sophistication as well. I suppose it goes without saying but almost anything you need, any knowledge you seek, can be found within it. Social Media merely uses the 'Net as the main mechanism in implementing their business model. They sit within the domain that is the 'Net. This is the distinction. They are not the 'Net.
That said, this recognition allows for the potential reining in of all social media type platforms, and of all the abuses ascribed to their client/user community. But it will take government to do this since they will not do it themselves. Government will have to step in and regulate them, severely if need be, in order to redress balance and restore order.
If this kills, or rather maims, the golden goose for those companies then I say so be it. In not stepping up to address the challenges created by their business model Social Media's business leaders prove they do not deserve to continue to profit from it. Regulation and legal structures to secure the safety of the citizenry needs to created, and now is the time to start doing it.
John~
American Net'Zen
16
Failure of capitalism?
Failure of technology?
How about failure of education?
Would an educational system that taught the basics of critical thinking at all levels and still had basic civics courses that did not impose beliefs but emphasized instruction on what we have in common as well as our differences at least mitigate the most negative aspects of social media?
Would some general knowledge of history, at least as shared evidence of conflict as a constant of the human condition
and the devastating consequences of violent resolution of such conflicts, offer further mitigation?
Would more widespread understanding of the laws and democratic institutions that are devoted to nonviolent resolution of differences, in pursuit of a common good, enable an internal filter in most individuals that might be preferable to mandated external filters enabled by AI?
17
It may sound saddening but as any public space, internet social gatherings need a police force. The biggest illusion of all, the same that fueled the 2008 bubble and crash or today's hate speech spiralling out of control is that of self-regulated markets and agoras. Sure, bottom-up dynamics are irreplaceable, but so is top-down law and order enforcement. The big problem is where to balance them.
6
Technology is no different from fire. It is neutral and amoral with respect to human society. Like fire, it can be used both for good and bad. The people who developed and introduced the internet and social media did so originally with good intentions, but dark intentions have now crept into the way technology is being used. It is such a pity that the vitriol and hatred is being spread by those who find that they can use such power tools at their disposal. I hope that some form of control can be exerted by those who have goodness in their hearts.
11
@Poh S. Lim
Some internet and social media pioneers had good intentions, but most wanted to make money and win. So they do not mind dark intentions that make them money in one way or another. If the whole Internet were run like Wikipedia it would be much easier to handle the dark intentions.
7
@sdavidc9
Wikipedia has quite a lot of dirty laundry, too.
Thanks to ms Swisher for excellent reports .We watched the recent frontline report on Facebook cluelessness and, of course, unrepentant greed. I have cut off all social media apps because I saw how insanely simple it was to sell me to unknown others. Twenty years ago a friend, a brilliant white hat hacker, warned us that there is no privacy.
7
The problem with the internet is that it is anonymous, hiding real people, while enabling vitriol. The internet cannot be a force for good, when it cherishes its ability to link people without linking people.
6
Surveillance economics drives this with incentives to circulate the attention-grabbing. Unfortunately, natural selection's gift to us are minds attuned to fear. Everything else follows.
3
"We have no idea how to deal with this situation, except to watch it play out over and over again, and allow it to kill us cell by cell."
Well, no....
We could start by requiring people to register using their real name and contact details in the same way we ask people to register to own and operate a vehicle or a weapon. When people are accountable and visible, penalties for "hate speech" and "verbal assault" can be applied by government.
I heard someone the other day say "while we should be concerned with protecting every citizen's freedom of speech, nowhere in the constitution does it say we should provide them with a network that enables it". I agree. If you can't be responsible within such broad boundaries of public discourse, you shouldn't be there.
15
@Carl That is exactly what Facebook and Google+ tried to do a few years ago—did you notice any improvement? No, me neither. In fact they had to dial back those policies in light of complaints from, for example, victims of domestic abuse who Facebook then helpfully flagged up as “people you may know” to their abusers. And from professional drag artists who wanted to run accounts in their stage names without revealing their real names. And so on.
1
At the bottom of every single one of the burning fires we are in the middle of is the breakdown of fundamental social ethics.
Whether it is money in politics, rampant unethical behavior of politicians, poor customer service by greedy corporations, lessened overall quality of service, lessened value, shabby treatment, more frequent contaminations of foods and medicines, software and hardware that is released well before it is fully baked and safe for consumers to use, auto recalls... The list of things is very long and, yes, it includes the web.
The web is a mirror of our society. Thinking of it as some kind of savior is akin to praying to some kind of idol. American men and women made the web in their own image (yes, I know, Tim Berners-Lee is Swiss).
Blaming MbS, monster that he is, is letting a whole list of unethical greedy Silicon Valley barons off the hook. The truth is that neither the founders of Google, Facebook, or Twitter have the maturity, temperament, or training to run their own companies in a way that both benefits them and the world at large. On the other side of them stand the politicians who STILL haven't bothered to educated themselves enough on the issues to regulate the web.
Then, there's us... We didn't listen to Edward Snowden and we allow Facebook to run roughshod.
--
Business Ethics: From Milton Friedman to Ronald Dworkin
https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/09/25/from-milton-friedman-to-ronald-dworkin-economics-for-hedgehogs-socialethics-on-blog42/
9
@Rima Regas
Correction: concerning Tim Berners-Lee...
"(Yes, I know,...)"-- but you actually don't(!), evidently -- thus inadvertently undermining all of your otherwise excellent observations because yet another denizen of the web isn't concerned with checking facts!
For the record:
"Born London, England, 8 June 1955. Married to Rosemary Leithand" -- this is according to the excellent pages and links concerning all matters "WorldWideWeb" and then some, including the extended biography of TBL -- although his recent articles and ongoing projects to help 'fix' the Internet are more relevant to this editorial:
https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Longer.html
http://www.webfoundation.org/
https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/#Talks
Some years ago I co-edited a Jubilee volume in honor of a professor who had been teacher and colleague of those writing in the volume.
Another professor, prominent, but not really connected to the person being honored was not invited to participate.
He got very angry and began writing emails to me. As was his custom he copied his entire very large address book on his vituperative missive. This of course was intended to stir up opposition to me and keep the matter burning.
A friend suggested that I answer the old-fashioned way: write my response on paper only and send it by mail. And indeed I did. I refused to take it to the internet.
My nemesis soon got tired. Not much fun or action the old way.
22
The internet has (or had) so much potential for a friendly, uncomplicated way for people to communicate, even socialize, but instead we have a middling tool riddled with liars and manipulators fouling the waters. The providers of Facebook are business people and have no instrisnic interest in facilitating pro-social communications, just enough to draw people and make them dependent on it, the only game in town really. A capitalistic tool, oh we could do so much better.
5
You bring up only the most extreme levels. But this kind of abuse is everywhere.
Cyberbullying in elementary school and high-schools. Stalking, revenge porn, cyber vigilanteism. It all works together.
And it isn't just the Righ. It is the Left too. In a lot of ways, Donald Trump is a reaction to the Left. Trump and the hyper-partisan culture we live in is a reaction to the way people have lost jobs, broken careers, had lives ruined for making a stupid joke or saying a stupid word in passing and then the hoards of online righteous indignation that follows.
It is a reaction to how Sean Hannity or Paul Krugman (Krugman is more knowledgeable but lost all his integrity last election) can no longer even pretend to be even remotely unbiased.
And frankly, it is a reaction to a new media both conservative, and liberal that refuses to take a serious look at itself in the mirror, because "opinion" makes more money than "fact" in this post newsprint world.
6
@Dundeemundee Opinions are still very important and facts are largely socially constructed according to the latest research in philosophy (NTTimes article a few days ago).
It's just as many are arguing, that there's a socially responsible set of rules and then there are people who think it's ok to skip these rules and spill their hateful and hurtful feelings all over someone just because they are online and not face to face where they stand the risk of getting punched in the face or hauled off to jail.
@Dundeemundee: The media does extremely well dealing with facts. The President lies. The media cannot keep up with all of his lies. WaPo has it above 5,000 lies since becoming president.
A country that truly wishes to be a democracy cannot function if there is not trust and no one can trust a liar.
It's not complicated. We're all living with a liar. And we're all being abused. And gaslighted by his entire administration.
The right wing news media that is obviously state propaganda - FOX, Breitbart, Rush, Alex, etc. - is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. Odd that an immigrant named Rupert Murdoch has had so much to do with damaging Western democracies.
1
Krugman owns his bias. He writes a column in, y'know, the Opinion section.
Hannity, however, tries to play it both ways: Voice Of Truth when it suits him, entertainer when it doesn't.
You say things happening on social networks are metastasizing and are “preventable”. While eliminating bots and concrete provable misinformation can be done, restricting opinions no matter how objectionable is a slippery slope. Are we asking Facebook to assume the role of big brother? Do we really want Mark Zukerberg deciding on a daily basis what speech should be censored? If society has a problem with the type of thought citizens are sharing, Congress should set rules consistent with the constitution and enforce them. We also need to teach people to evaluate all information critically whether it comes from Facebook, CNN or Fox News its all of slanted to a certain viewpoint.
3
Sigh. This was happening on UseNet back in the early nineties. It’s not exactly a new phenomenon.
The problem here is not the internet. Most media violence takes place in movies and television, not to mention quite a few other places where money is made from scenes of people hurting each other.
A society that enjoys watching people being cut up with chainsaws should not be surprised that some of its members get a kick out of shooting people in churches and synagogues.
Not. Surprised. At. All.
13
When the money you make trumps ethical choices then there is no going back. Silicon Valley decided from the jump that profit trumped principle.......it is the ethos of business and they aren't going to abandon that ship until it starts taking on water.
There were folks that sold gunpowder back in the musket days didn't ask what side you were fighting for......they just wanted to know if the payment would clear.
3
I'm curious about how you thought the internet would stop hate? Giving people a pseudo anonymous platform to spread their word seems like a recipe for disaster from the beginning. And while you might be right that hate trends more than kindness, and evil doers can find their people, the level of transparency has also brought a real level of public intolerance and shaming that wasn't available before. If we look at all the instances of racists calling the police on blacks who are simply living their lives, there is a new found awareness that this type of hatred exists and part of daily life. I doubt the calls are a new phenomenon, but the public shaming is. We can now battle it collectively. That is, of course, if we choose to care and not just scroll down to the next sad story.
4
In most cases, you should not read online comments. If you must use twitter, use it as a referral service to stories and subjects the interest you, nothing more.
Get off of facebook and instagram...the former is a tar pit and the latter someone described as a sort of fashion show where people present their curated selves, not real moments but reductions of moments.
Read a book, go to an art gallery, learn to cook.
But don't waste another moment of your life waging culture wars with anonymous combatants.
If it doesn't make you happy or make you money, don't do it.
13
Seems to me, we are entering a new Dark Ages. Who would have thought that at a time of bourgeoning information, ignorance and superstition would triumph.
6
How very naive. The internet and “social media” needs heavy government regulation. Rule #1 - only verified users with verified profiles Rule #2 - put a virtual firewall around the US internet and keep bad actors out.
Why are we allowing foreign voices to influence US elections ? Because most senators and representatives are too old and don’t understand how the internet works. Thanks for keeping us safe
4
The internet commoditizes everything. Its a race to the bottom. Kara of all people should know that, she literally wrote the book on the subject. While idealism built the web, greed destroyed it. What's truly crazy is how fast that happened...
4
And I guess the inventors of television thought it would be used for informing and educating the public. Instead we have Fox News and the Walking Dead.
4
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Jonathan Swift, 1710: "Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…"
12
@Grant Edwards Excellent! If only there were more well read people like yourselves, we'd all benefit! Can I quote you.. LOL
Thoreau on the invention of the telegraph: “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate."
Alas, if we had only unimportant missives about which to worry. Not viewing myself as at all social, I have never knowingly used social media. (To my surprise youtube is now considered to be such. I never thought about making a video or even about how to do so- I just enjoy some hate -free movies, tv episodes, and college course lectures.)
Perhaps more social types should use not the telegraph but the telephone (please no robocalls), email (please no spam),
and snail mail (please no junk mail)
4
The web is a public utility. Giving it to the profit motive to determine its use is stupidity, folly.
5
The younger generation is growing up fully embracing digital media as a way to "hate on each other," as they like to say.
I am a college professor. A couple of years ago it was brought to my attention that students were taking to Twitter, during class time no less, to spew hatred towards fellow classmates. In one notorious incident, a student started tweeting hateful comments about student who was sitting a few seats away from her. Again, this was during class time!
We old-timers haven't a clue the extent to which young people today*promote* electronic communication as a way to be mean to each other.
6
@Metaphor: At the University of Maine, classes are offered for free to people over 65. I finally got to that magic number and took a class in the English Dept on Bob Dylan. Only offered once. I was so very excited because Bob's work is very important to me. And I was excited because I would be able to observe young people and interact with them.
Well. I was totally blown away by how very 'not there' they were. How they didn't really want to talk. How they were constantly looking at their phones. The prof asked one, early on in the class, about her opinion on the assignment, reading On The Road. Well, she sighed. I really didn't like it. I could tell I didn't like it in the first few pages so I didn't read it. WHAT? My jaw literally dropped. And the prof just sort of accepted it.
The prof told me that in the graduate level seminars students would not talk so they changed it to make it more lecture than dialectical work. Really. How awful. How sad.
4
The naïveté of this is stunning.
8
There were people being killed and there was hatred before the internet. The assassination of Lincoln. The Kennedy brothers. The mass shooting at University of Texas in 1960's, still one of the worst in US history. Attempted assassinations of President Ford and President Reagan.
This column (and accompanying column by Frank Bruni on same issue) raise valid points about how the internet has supported some of this same hatred but is it really all that different or we just know more about it?
Does seem ironic that the Pentagon (specifically DARPA) helped create the internet. Yes, their creation has provided for the long desired mass surveillance of all (including US citizens), as demanded by the national security state/alphabet agencies, but has simultaneously furthered foreign intervention in the US (beyond prior spy craft & beyond prior illegal campaign donations, such as Chinese to DNC in 1996). Their creation has allowed for rampant hacking; cyber-crime; and support for the trends mentioned by Ms. Swisher and Mr. Bruni. Perhaps in the eyes of those who helped sponsor & create the internet, this is all just "collateral damage," the necessary trade-off for the mass surveillance they demand (and lie about, for example Obama NSA Director James Clapper, who perjured himself on the issue). The compromise for "defense."
But ultimately it seems tragically that some elements of hatred just develop as part of human nature, and always have, through the millennia.
11
Silly you.
Hate has been a central element of the human consciousness since we descended from the trees and started making serious nuisances of ourselves. Why assume that a means of communication would change that?
17
@Richard Luettgen
is it an "assumption" that the written and printed word may be tools for education and enlightenment in a civilization? Do you see or believe in any historical progress in the understanding and amelioration of hatred, which you regard as "a central element of the human consciousness," or perhaps a regression? Twitter tweets sent by a US president that disseminate and condone hatred reach millions of recipients instantaneously, and further amplified by the visual and social media can certainly bring out the worst in some human beings.
5
I honestly don't understand why people are even on Facebook or Tweet at all. It all seems rather childish and a very large waste of time. You all should close your accounts. You are not interesting at all and no one really cares what you have to say or what your do. Try e-mailing your family those photos of your enchiladas. Also, celebrities are morons paid to be liars. It is their profession.
12
@Chris--you know what? I've never used Facebook or Twitter (conscious choice) but your blanket dismissal not only of the platforms but also their users is unkind and rather cruel.
I basically gave up On social media and haven’t used twitter or Instagram in more than a year ... life goes on
7
Actually we know how to deal with this. Setting limits to freedom of speech, when speech has obvious hate and anti-democratic motivations. Europe has similar laws.
Platforms are responsible for the content they facilitate, and indirectly for the despicable actions this content incite. It is about time we as a people put an end to this nonsense.
3
@DM
But I don't trust you to determine what is hate. Many on the left consider "The Bell Curve", for example, hate. I don't, and I sure don t intend to let you keep me from reading it. Many consider Trump's remarks about immigration hate. I don't.
There are obvious examples of hate--such as advocating the killing of Jews or police officers--but the devil is in the details. And aside from the obvious cases, there is no broad consensus on what constitutes hate.
There is no accountability on the web, so mentally ill propagandists and liars have the upper hand. Good luck trying to put the jeannie back in the bottle. If a complete inveterate liar and conman like Trump can become President, we are doomed.
4
For me, the benefit-cost ratio of the internet went negative when it was clear that a foreign government could meddle in another country's democratic election. Email, real-time inventory, on-line shopping, working in your pajamas - all of it can be swept away. It isn't worth the price.
Then, providing an audience of a billion for cretins who once had only a mimeograph machine and telephone poles for their venom is just toxic, murderous icing on the yellowcake.
Old saying: A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
6
The only solution is to boycott social media. It’s easy- I stopped using Twitter and Facebook a while ago and don’t miss it one bit.
15
@Phillyboy61 Go one step further and delete your accounts.
4
And that accomplishes?
That is their business model. Ill-intentioned actors use lies, hate, anger, resentment and fear to manipulate the behavior of users. Nothing works as well as the dark and divisive emotions. Sounds just like the Trump campaign, no? Trump is the ideal social media candidate. Folks like the MAGA shooter know his rallies and campaign ads are anti-Semitic even if Ivanka and Jared don't. His sly "globalist" means "a cabal of rich and powerful Jews." His hints that somebody is force is behind the caravan means "the Jews are importing brown people in order to replace us." Ms. Swisher puts it nicely when she says that social media platforms are designed so that the awful travels twice as fast as the good.
4
The Nazis lost - they were losers then and are still losers now.
4
Ms. Swisher is well positioned to identify and promote workable solutions to this problem. Maybe in her next piece she could suggest some ideas rather than engage in hand-wringing.
4
You thought wrong, Ms. Swisher. Your entire generation of computer-addled swindlers sold us all a bill of goods.
15
@Joe. And we waited in line to buy it.
6
Free speech is free.
If you want to know what someone thinks, listen to what they say, when they are free to say anything.
3
Oh paleeze: "Social media platforms — and Facebook and Twitter are as guilty of this as Gab is — are designed so that the awful travels twice as fast as the good. "
Since you are such an expert on all things cyber, perhaps you'd like to quantify exactly how precisely these platforms are configured to advance "awful" over the "good. " Maybe they use special algorithms to selectively determine what subjects generate the most clicks. Sort of like the newspapers in the old days; "if it bleeds it leads." Nevertheless you are alleging that Facebook et al are intentionally mucking up social networks with the deliberate escalation of negativity because its apparently profitable.
2
@sobroquet
You wrote: "...alleging that Facebook et al are intentionally mucking up social networks with the deliberate escalation of negativity because its apparently profitable.".
It's true. It's profitable, in a similar way that controversial news is profitable "think "breaking news!!!!". From a business point of online views, clicks, views, page refreshes, shares, etc. all generate advertising inventory. That inventory gets sold. More sales = more money. It's programmatic, morally agnostic and there's very little if any human moderation. And, as public companies, they actually have an obligation to their shareholders to make money, the more the better. So it's not that social networks aim to sow conflict for conflict's sake, but more conflict = more money in the end. They could certainly neuter the content, and there are reasons pro and con that. In my view they seem to be trying to find the balance between social responsibility and the desire to make money.
1
Pity the First Amendment absolutist who is just now discovering that free expression isn't all that it's cracked up to be. That "speech, speech and more speech" isn't a solution to hate speech. Or that the "sunlight of the public square" disinfects nothing. They're just cliche's; empty of meaning and an afront to the reality of human social relations.
Today, Hitler wouldn't need Joe Goebbels and the Ministry for Public Enlightenment. He'd have Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Instagram. Propaganda has been privatized and the spoils go to the demagogue with the most 'followers' - literally. Reason, intelligence, nuance cannot compete with the latest bilious rant from America's Reactionary Idol who would save us from the Caravans.
The internet is the full flower of runaway consumerism. A world of pornography: the sex, commercial and political kind, is only a few keystrokes away. Behind the mask of cyber anonymity, I can finally achieve an apotheosis of self-actualization, giving full voice to all the darkness of my Id.
10
I once believed in the free marketplace of ideas. I'm afraid John Locke's notion of a place where truth would win out has been drowned in the cesspool that is social media in the 21st century.
6
Gresham, not Locke, got it. In the marketplace of speech, bad currency pushes the good out of circulation.
3
@Lorem Ipsum Or, as I have ruefully remarked about our current leadership on more than one occasion, in a screaming match experience and wisdom are devalued and the person with the biggest megaphone wins.
4
How many people over the past 150-200 years have thought that communication technologies--radio, TV, internet--capable of worldwide reach would lead to peace, harmony and reduce social conflicts? This has been incorrect, for the most part.
The greatest terrorist threats to the US are not from poor people in Central America walking across Mexico--the threats are are home-grown: "The Real Terrorist Threat in America," 30 Oct 2018 by Bergen and Sterman ( https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-10-30/real-terrorist-threat-america ). From that essay:
"This new terrorist threat cannot be addressed with an overwhelming focus on jihadist ideology. Nor will a travel ban address a threat rooted in domestic politics and the Internet’s conveyance of global issues into American homes. Instead, today’s terrorist threat requires effective law enforcement, a real discussion of the dangers of lax gun laws, policies to regulate the ways social media has helped spread violence, community resilience, and a reckoning with the forces driving U.S. and global politics increasingly toward radicalism."
This is going to take hard, bipartisan work from people who want to promote "peace and tranquility," marginalizing politicians who would weaponize the internet and its social media for their own self-interest. The creature we've created is a monster. We need politicians whose main goal is not to feed the beast.
5
Dear Kara,
You naïveté about the internet is most touching. When I first joined the internet when it was limited to researchers and universities, I found pornograhy (from scanned private collections) and surveillance videos of shootings in the first month. anti-Semitic
Rants on usenet (the first web forums) soon followed mixed in with UFO believers and purported time travelers. The World Wide Web has always attracted the dark underbelly of the American mind. Now you are shocked, shocked to find it everywhere on the web. It always was out there. And the Web has always amplified it. When we change, the web will change.
16
@Dennis. God, that's a depressing thought.
6
The author pretends there are obvious solutions to this problem, but when proposals are actually put forward, critics have very strong cases that censorship efforts will be disastrous.
1
Look at what MSNBC, CNN, and FOX are and tell me why anyone would think the Internet was going to be any better. The “news” channels have contributed greatly to dividing Americans—who themselves seem eager and willing to be divided into identity groups, with MSNBC and CNN daily demonizing FOX and its watchers and then vice versa. And for what? For the fulfillment of the more virtuous purposes of the First Amendment? No, to make money for shareholders. Did anyone think the Internet wouldn’t likewise be “monetized” to the fullest extent?
At least at the Coliseum the citizens of Rome had the guts to see people killed up close with steel. We fight with each other on a virtual battlefield without even the courage to use real names in most cases.
45
@Duane Coyle I don't think the monetization of the internet is a root cause of the vile underbelly. Before Tim Berners-Lee created the web, those people were out there. They placed classified ads, held meetings, handed out fliers. Or in the case of the KKK spoke to each other in code to maintain secrecy.
6
@RSB. They were isolated. There wasn't an audience of billions at the click of a mouse. (Or a rat, as the case may be.)
16
A couple of years ago I took a trip to the darker side of the internet to see what was out there. After a very short time, I ran away as fast as possible and dumped the email I used. It was like swimming in a sewer. And I wasn't even close to the dark web. Very scary places, very scary people.
79
It all comes back to the base problem again and again - 40 some odd percent of the American populace are godawful people, racist and misogynistic. Politicians and businessmen want their votes and money and will not do anything to alienate them. The internet just makes them more visible in their dark lairs.
16
The fix is easy. Mandate that every post includes the poster's name and contact information.
Anonymity clearly brings out the worst in most people because they are not accountable to the greater community.
Watch politeness reign when people have to own up to what they say.
19
Really? The major players on Tweeter are well known actual people. It has not kept Tweeter (or Facebook) civil. The society is uncivil. The web is just a mirror of our own darkness.
3
@IanC You took the words right out of my mouth.
From a technical standpoint it should not be overwhelmingly difficult to identify and then eliminate fake profiles.
Given the political forces in the US who benefit most from the all-too-often-literal misuse of the internet in general and the social media in particular - do I really need to name names? - the problem will be overcoming the crush of fake-fact-based argumentations, many based on bogus constitutional interpretations (right to privacy, freedom of speech), that the GOP (oh gosh, there I said it) will surely unleash.
3
I'm stunned anyone would think otherwise of how the internet would result considering how popular media addressed it even before the internet as we know it became mainstream. In 1988 the film Betrayed with Debra Winger and Tom Berringer mentions the use of online bulletin board systems (BBS) as a method for hate groups to coordinate and communicate. In 1988, I was a 21 year old who, at the time was experimenting with BBS and doing research on BBS and FTP sites as a student. The striking thing for me then was the probability that the fiction portrayed in the film was probably based on fact, gleaned from law enforcement and that this emerging technology in the mid to late 80's was already being used for these terrible purposes. The striking thing for me now, as a 51 year old is that this is a surprise to anyone.
34
The convergence of internet "social media" and a President who advocates hate, violence, and racism is a frightening combustible bringing out an end result of hate. If we had leadership advocating tolerance instead of open racism and violence the internet might never have become a broad vehicle for negative blustering. When the President is a demagogue bringing out the worst in people you have a result like Pittsburgh. There has always been racist hatred in this and most all other countries. We saw what happened in the 1930's when "leadership advocated those terrible aspects of humanity. Let that not happen again!
6
What in human history would have led any thinking person to believe that the internet, unlike every other preceding communications innovation, would be a 'force for good/tolerance/....'?
9
@richard Printing was (and arguably still is) a force for good and tolerance. Electronic media (radio, TV, internet) are not.
3
I liked the sense of truthfulness in this article.
3
Isn't it better to be able to see the people you hate? Pushing them underground only makes it so they can act in the shadows.
3
@Kaygee
We act in the shadows when we use pseudonyms, don't we?
3
@Chris Kox
Not if I'm speaking in public forums.
"Whataboutism" isn't a horribly useful tool, by the way.
Closely following social media (in gen'l), the printing press and the radio on a list of the most socially disruptive communications tools and applications in history, I would have to put Peter Thiel's 'Like' button. In tandem with its applications as dopamine dispenser and progenitor of democratically-destabilizing mimetic contagion, it enables mass epistemic failure by teaching people to associate what is popular with what is right or true.
Weaponized social media platforms pervert democracy by suborning reasoned opinions to the perception that a belief is widely held. As Bertrand Russell wrote in Skeptical Essays 'the fact that an opinion is widely held is no reason to suppose that it is true'. There might still be some residual truthiness in this notion, but I note that its not an idea that's trending...
There is a line between the benevolent rule of the majority, which the Founders thought was essential for republican government, and the clamor of the mob, which they knew was a threat to it.
“In the past, censorship worked by blocking the flow of information. In the twenty-first century, censorship works by flooding people with irrelevant information. [...] In ancient times having power meant having access to data. Today having power means knowing what to ignore.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow
14
@Justin Sigman
Too bad Trump won't (can't?) read this. He does so like to say "but many people are saying... ."
3
You certainly were naive but so are most people about the deep depravity humans are capable of in deed much less in thought. I take the exact opposite view of the problem, though, and believe it is better to allow the crazy violent musings of these people to be heard rather than driven underground. Then, at least, we know what we're dealing with. Better to monitor offensive speech than to censor it. Having another generation of highly sophisticated naive people will be less likely. And maybe we'll know when the next nut is coming for us.
8
@Frunobulax If someone is "monitoring" the hate speech, they are sure doing a lousy job. Sayoc and Bowers' vile and nutty "musings" were out there on the world wide web, but who knew they were coming for "us"?
The Hutu govt of Rwanda used radio broadcasts to demonize the Tutsi minority, transforming ordinary ethnic bigotry into mass murder. Without propaganda there cannot be genocide. What social media has done is provided yesterday's fringe hate groups a cheap and accessible platform for distributing their vile ideologies. No longer fettered by "the media" broadcasters, the FCC or the cost of producing content, they are free to spread their corruption into every household in the country.
The bitter fruit of this great experiment in unmediated mass communication is violence, violence and more violence. Over the next fifty years as the seas rise, the crops fail, and world teems with displaced migrants, that experiment will unleash a cataclysm.
3
I remember a dozen years ago that Steve Jobs was asked a similar question.
He answer (which I cannot remember exactly) was close to something like sadness.
The good news, is that most of these keyboard warriors are harmless, typing away in their mother's basement.
1
One of the major problems is anonymity. It’s a fundamental problem, all the way down to the design of internet protocol. Insist that people publicly acknowledge their speech and identity and much of the hate speech will recede to the crevices where it belongs.
4
You say it's preventable? Do tell.
2
We are in the second Gilded Age. There has to be a limit on the liberty of these tech barons. If there is not, then they will make money while we all lose our liberty. Once we get a progressive government again, it will be time to step in and regulate. Hate speech is not legal and the platforms should pay. The Times cannot publish hate speech and not expect ramifications, why should social media platforms?
9
Hate speech is legal, up to the point a person seriously urges others to commit a crime. In fact, until one urges imminent harm to people or property, hate speech is constitutionally protected. There may be social consequences for hate speech, but one has to go a long way before one can be charged criminally.
@Duane Coyle I see your point, but hate speech is always intended to harm. This is why we can't preach discrimination in society. Any type of hate speech infringes on liberty, thus it is not protected by the Constitution. I suppose it is arrogant of me to disagree with the Supreme Court on this point.
@Duane Coyle I see your point, but hate speech is always intended to harm. This is why we can't preach discrimination in society. Any type of hate speech infringes on liberty, thus it is not protected by the Constitution.
Kara,
Why is this any of this a surprise?
We've known Facebook and Google's profits were driven by spying and invasions of privacy from the beginning.
Hate groups have used the Internet to gather and distribute their lies since the time people could build their own web pages.
Did everyone just ignore these truths—and the potential dangers—because they thought Facebook stock would make them rich? Was it the fear of being called a hypocrite for calling out tech's own hypocrisy on Facebook?
I'm stunned when technology professionals and the reporters that cover them are "stunned" about how it's all gone so wrong. How many pieces of dystopian science fiction warned us about all of these scenarios? Of Big Brothers and charismatic liars and media manipulators...
There is still a way to start fixing this: But it means holding Facebook and Twitter and Google accountable. It means regulating their platforms until the flow of hate speech stops.
I'm sure the shareholders and venture capitalists won't be pleased. But if a few billionaires can't afford their third vacation house, so be it.
Silicon Valley's reckoning with the truth and their own complicity must happen now.
And we must ignore SV's usual scare propaganda messages about "stifled innovation" as well as the persecution of alleged luddites that don't share their profit-driven visions of the future
Silicon Valley has conned us for long enough. The future is here. And thanks in no small part to them, it's a disaster.
14
@Shel
We have yet to come to terms with the staggering degree of control the major platforms exercise over political speech and what it means for democracy.
More and more of our public conversation is unfolding within a dwindling coterie of sites that are controlled by a small few, largely unregulated and geared primarily to profit rather than public interest.
As David Foster Wallace observed, the proliferation of ideologically consistent media echo chambers, "creates precisely the kind of relativism that cultural conservatives decry, a kind of epistemic free-for-all in which 'the truth' is wholly a matter of perspective and agenda." The screaming outrage monkeys that occupy certain political threads on Twitter, reddit and Facebook put this observation on steroids.
Comments sections are the quickest way to lose faith in humanity...
5
“You must live life with the full knowledge that your actions will remain,” Zadie Smith wrote. “We are creatures of consequence.”
Thanks for that. Operative language, and the best thing I’ve read in awhile.
5
Ironic when people say ending anonymity would clean up the net, when we have the president of the US using social media (Twitter) to inflame bigotry and hate and to demonize and bully others.
11
'I Thought the Web Would Stop Hate, Not Spread It'
Liberals are truly naive.
Did you know people before the internet? please, tell me how they were kind and caring. No?
But you thought that behind the veil of anonymity they would turn into kind loving folk?
Amazing.
Leaving your blue bubble once in a while will open your eyes
3
And thanks for making this a red vs. blue issue too. Can we at least try to talk with each other about issues without immediately casting generic political aspersions?
7
@AutumnLeaf; True; every day I see examples of selfish behavior sometimes I see it in the mirror but day in and day out I have the pleasure of interacting with really great, interesting, friendly people. Open your eyes; it's not all bad out there.
I live in a red enclave. I keep my eyes open and my head down, partly because I don't know who's carrying.
Thanks for the suggestion! Gun bless you!
2
before the internet, was the telephone an instrument of hate? what about snail mail? does the internet simply provide newer and more efficient means of communications for better or worse?
can mail fraud laws be updated for the internet age?
3
Oh Ms. Swisher, much of "the creature" is us, for we feed the beast. Fifty-eight to seventy-two percent of all face-to-face, spoken communication is nonverbal, and those nonverbal variables are almost completely lost in internet, virtual communications. These SNS/internet, so-called 'communications' push users into an emergency-present, wherein users believe they need to respond quickly and emotionally; much as they do in a face-to-face argument and/or conversation. Yet the 'other' isn't physically present; only the virtual exchange is, and so fifty-eight to seventy-two percent of what-would-be nonverbally-informed communication is lost and thus open to radical misinterpretation. The medium, as McLuhan suggested, has become the message, and so, to avoid both misinterpretation and push-back against errant interpretations of virtual-messaging, more informed of their audience, and more aware of what's missing in the medium they're using, and certainly one needs to be more precise in writing. I am afraid the late Daniel Schorr was correct when he intimated that 'faster communication would only lead to faster misunderstandings,' and yet the medium 'pushes' most users to not think first before responding. Thus, the responses of hate and violence are the logical, actionable corollaries to non-thinking before responding. That's what's feeding the internet beast: the ever-present, emergent, but virtual NOW. We have built yet another, very toxic Tower of Babel.'
4
@JD
In fact, I was just "pushed to SEND" and made errors in my original commentary. Missing a subject, it should have been:
'The medium, as McLuhan suggested, has become the message, and so, to avoid both misinterpretation and push-back against errant interpretations of virtual-messaging, digital communicators need to be more informed of their audience, more aware of what's missing in the medium they're using, and certainly both more precise and less emotional in writing.'
I apologize.
3
E pluribus schisma
Social media has made us anything but social; it's made us uncivilized.
11
Preach, Kara! These tech companies didn't invent violence, hatred and bigotry, but they sure gave it a turbo-charge.
10
This is not "what the internet has come to". Hate has been part of the internet from its inception. Usenet was always a fertile source for hatemongers. Where do you think the term "alt-right" came from?
The hate on the web long antedates everything cited in the article. It even antedates the term "World Wide Web".
The New York Times policy of advance moderation of comments has resulted in civil discourse that is actually civil.
All governments should enforce the Genocide Convention and promote policies similar to those of the New York Times across the board by enacting legislation holding content providers responsible for the comments on their sites that (a) support conspiracy to commit genocide or (b) make direct and public incitement to commit genocide; both of which are punishable offenses under the Genocide Convention.
6
Ms. Swisher, if you have never seen the 1956 sci-fi classic "Forbidden Planet", it anticipated our current situation — and your "monster" — by 50 years.
5
Have you seen the vile rhetoric from Fox about the group of Central American migrants? Worse than Gab, because people with names and authority spew it. No different from Goebbels, for that matter. The technology accelerates it, but it does not cause it.. Forty years ago, people of conscience were shocked by Rush Limbaugh, who began doing his fascist schtick by making fun of people with AIDS. Now he is one of thousands. Because fear & anger & ignorance are lucrative, and an easy way for people with power to manipulate voters.. It will continue to get worse unless we can face the fact that some things--democracy, media, politics--should not be for sale.
50
I can only add that, pre-internet, the only venue I regularly encountered this sort of hate speech was the bathroom walls of Jersey Turnpike rest stops. I remember the soaring rhetoric of internet visionaries of the 1990s, how access to Information (yes, in their minds it was capitalized) would usher in, at last, a proletarian Utopia. How utterly predictable that the brilliance of thousands of IT scientists and engineers would afford the hate-filled little minds of the bathroom scrawlers a shiny new public platform with which to regale us. And such an opportunity to connect with Friends! Oh yes, it's everywhere now. Thanks to the Internet Revolution I don't even have to bother with the car.
8
Social media is the trojan horse of democracy.
Engineers - mostly young white boys - with zero or little education in the Humanities (where human nature is deeply explored) created this Frankenstein. Somehow they manage to keep child porn and terrorist activity off of their platforms, so the answer to unleashed technology may not be just more technology. Social media activity ("but we're just a platform!") has driven murderous mobs in places around the world. If any industry is begging for a heavy hand of regulation, this one is it.
12
We are all susceptible to the pull of viral ideas. Like mass hysteria. Or a tune that gets into your head that you keep on humming all day until you spread it to someone else. Jokes. Urban legends. Memes. Crackpot religions. Tribal epistemology. Marxism. No matter how smart we get, there is always this deep irrational part that makes us potential hosts for self-replicating information. But with social media and the Disinformation Age, everyone becomes a vector for mimetic contagion of everything that is plaguing Western Civilization: alterity (reactionary movements), fake news/misinformation, tribal epistemology, intolerance of the Other...
The world is changed; we within it are also changed...
37
@Justin Sigman
If anything, the Internet reflects how little humanity has changed over the millennia. These tribal inclinations, brooding resentments; the reactions and rampant falsehoods and quackery have always been there, lying low, dormant or underground, but they are certainly part of the sewage of our shared humanity. I think it is safe to say that a large portion of our shared genes are junk in more ways than one.
3
@Justin Sigman Ah, yes, Marxism, that irrational ideology that workers deserve a living wage and the government should ensure that private citizens are not enriched at the expense of everyone else. Throwing that in with fake news and the rise of fascism is telling in a way I don't think you meant it to be.
1
As laudable as the writer's original hope was, she is a perfect example of what I call "the technology idealists/fetishists". Like all revolutionaries they believe that electronic technology, their preferred god, has brought society to a unique moment and presto we will transition into an ideal society--utopia is within reach.
The crooked timber of humanity is constant, and like everything else, technology will be used in ways good and bad.
Instead of hand wringing about online hate speech-- and demanding restrictions on speech-- why don't we focus on what is the real problem-- that a hateful man could have access to a semi automatic weapon which allowed him to translate his hatred into tangible, immediate tragedy. If he couldn't buy his semi automatic rifle and 5.56 rounds-- which incidentally was designed to kill people and has no other purpose-- this would not have happened.
There will always be anti semites/ anti muslims/racists/ sexists/ nazis/ radicals-- they are everywhere across the world. Them getting unfettered access to weapons designed to kill people is the central problem in the USA.
In a reversal of NRA slogan: It's not the thought that killed people in a place of worship, it was the gun he was carrying.
24
@A. Roy
Yes, but - the WSJ had a story about synagogue security in Europe. Despite gun laws stricter than anything contemplated in this country, many European countries feel obliged to provide police protection and armed security for synagogues.
Committed killers get guns in Europe and will get them here.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-europes-jews-worship-comes-with-a-heavy-dose-of-security-1540846059?mod=e2tw
@Tom Maguire
I am not opposing synagogues having armed security. It is of course tragic that intisemitism has returned with such force that such a step would be necessary. But having armed security doesn't negate the need for controlling semi-automatic weapons.
I am sure that the U.S military will be able to post a tank in front of every important building, but that doesn't mean we should be able to walk into a sports goods store and be able to buy a howitzer with a cursory background check.
Take all the mass shootings in the last few years-- there have been a variety of causes from kids in need of mental health care, to racists, homophobes, anti semites and a gambler who, without any internet radicalization, decided to slaughter people for unfathomable reasons. The one constant has always been unrestricted access to semi automatic weapons which allowed these sick individuals to act on their madness. Isn't it simpler to address that one critical common point in every mass murder?
4
@A. Roy Amen. Hate isn't likely to abate, but we can take away instruments of the execution (pun intended) of hate.
Kara, I direct your attention to Sartre's Réflexions sur la question juive, or "Anti-Semite and Jew" in the English translation.
Evil will not go away, and it usually comes out of the mouths of the most charming and charismatic, like Milton's Satan, "farthest from him( God)…. at least we shall be free….and….may reign secure."
I spent 40 years in law enforcement and intelligence, and find little reason to be hopeful.
3
Kara, I know you were on the scene in San Francisco back in the late 90s, so was I. I was working for some of the companies you covered, and I had some of the stocks you were reporting on. It was a heady time.
We are ALL disappointed with how the world wide web turned out, but are any of us surprised? Do you remember what the web was like back then? Do you remember all the disturbing results you would find in your Yahoo! search? All the ads for male enhancement, porn and prostitution?
The internet is a place where anyone can hide behind a veil of anonymity and do or say unseemly things. This never changed. The only difference is about a billion more people are going online.
What's most disappointing to me is not "that the web would stop hate" but that the web, in fact, is PROFITING from hate.
186
But I bet hate speech against straight white men doesn't bother you one bit, does it? Or mockery and hate speech against white seniors, or hate speech against straight white women who actually LIKE their husbands, or maybe hate speech against Israelis who back Bibbi....
3
@me Thanks for making her case.
1
In the 1970s I saw a "60 Minutes" piece on how some women were claiming pornography wasn't protected by the 1st A. Porn is all over the internet and I don't see anyone trying to stop it.
The framers of the using our natural rights as the building blocks of the constitution could never have imagined how technology would change the world.
Hate speech and the spreading of it is never going away. The people that spread hate speech will be here long after we are gone. Maybe using a media that will replace the internet.
For now, all I can do is not listen to hate speech and change the page.
2
@mrmeat
History has proven that the mob is not often very wise. Where did we get the notion that mass participation in communication and civic discussion was wise? Certainly, the founders understood the observations of Plato, Polybius and Montesquieu about the inevitable decay of democracies into mobocracies. The gave us the deterministic formula that democracies devolved into mobocracies elect demagogues, the instrument of their own destruction. No democracy in history has been known to evade this pattern, which is why our system of ordered liberty (aka Republic) was carefully crafted to avoid such an eventuality.
How embarrassing would it be, if we in these generations of living Americans were found by the next to have destroyed our own patrimony because we could not behave like citizens on Twitter and Facebook?
4
Is it finally time to call Zuckerberg et al the latter-day remorseless robber barons that they are? Capitulating to censorship abroad, eagerly going in person to flatter foreign dictators, and then remaining aloof at home while trying to cloak their profit motive in a guise of constitutional virtue. Is it enough yet?
173
@Blair-Indeed. Zuckerberg has become the useful idiot for Russia's Putin, the Philippines' Duerte, and Myanmar dictators. And he helped promote our own home-grown dictator-wanna-be via Brad Parscale's social media campaign that tapped FB data to send out 50,000 posts and ads per day using Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outlets in the 2016 election run-up. As Trump continues to lie, demonize others, and promote incendiary acts up to exhorting followers to violence--consider the powerful monied men with outsize influence who enable him (a partial list):
- Fox media empire baron Rupert Murdoch controls the Trump fantasy narrative on Fox and sells lies and racist swill as fact.
- National Inquirer publisher David Pecker, killed Trump scandals, gave him premium positive/coverage repeatedly, and slandered Hilary Clinton.
- Hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, a known racist, bankrolled Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart, Steven Bannon's hate rhetoric, and ideologically narrow appointments to the WH. Mercer believes:
* The U.S. began to go in the wrong direction after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s;
*The only racist people remaining in the U.S. are black;
*White people have no racial animus toward African-Americans anymore, and if there is any, it’s not something the government should be concerned with.
Media saturation and manipulation all in a days' work when money can be made.
7
In the early 2000's, the parading of American freedom and sexual liberation prompted many in the middle east to feel hostile and carry out excessive acts of violence.
Today, the democratic party is waging a civil war by insisting adamantly that Americans who are not entirely comfortable with modern day social issues are bigots, racists, deplorable, etc, etc.
Stop ostracizing people just because they lack some of the life experiences that have cultivated your progress view of the world. Give people a chance to reach the conclusions you have on their own. People learn best when someone isn't breathing down their neck...
5
Ms. Swisher, you have been ignorant or dismissive of history. You cannot yell "FIRE" in a move theater but you can metaphorically do exactly that on the Internet and more. You can spread lies at the speed of light.
Way fewer laws and civilities apply or matter on the Web.
We humans are trying hard but we are flawed and what many people with power wind up wanting, is more power. Ignoring the teachings of Jesus is no problem, especially it seems, when you are among those who read about on Sundays.
It's a story as old as the Bible.
The problem is that everybody sees themselves as a truth teller, a comedian, or an advocate while their opponents hear them spewing hate. If you read any of the 10,000 articles the Times has written about Trump over the past two years, the clear message is the Times hates Trump and his supporters. The Times writers see themselves as truth tellers and advocates of the Democratic Party, but the hate for Trump and his supporters is obvious. Whether its calls to confront Trump supporters in restaurants or Hillary’s call for incivility or just the theme of character destruction, everybody is pushing hate these days because both sides think hate works, hate motivates campaign contributors and voters. Hate sells. Don’t act so surprised.
2
@Rick
Trump hates and his supporters hate right along with him, in some cases even more than he does.
Reporting on those obvious facts is not the “clear message” you would twist that reporting into.
Me too, Kara. I thought with the Internet they'd never be able to pull phony nonsense anymore because so many people would know the real story and out them. Ha!
But then, I also remember in 1977 when Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to the conscientious objectors from Vietnam. I said, "Boy, they'll never be able to pull off one of those unnecessary wars where we send troops to the wrong place ever again!" Ha!
Iraq invasion, anyone?
Yes, when Carter took office, if I heard The Who sing, "And we get on our knees and pray we don't get fooled again," I'd think -- Thank goodness those days are over.
4
Well M.s Swisher, like Bill Gates and so many other tech leaders you did a blue sky optimism on the miracles of technology and none of you had the liberal education or the sense of history and culture to even suspect the dark side of technology that was lurking there all the while. Now all these young people and many others too are addicted to their stupid smart phones and never developed or lost social skills they once had. Technology most assuredly did not stop hate it in fact made it easier. The world wide web is a mixed blessing at best. In prominent positions folks like you should have seen this coming. The height of naivete.
5
Decades ago we started increasing trade with countries that don't share our democratic values. The idea was that -- like the inevitableness of gravity -- as trade increased so too would the pull of democracy.
Look at how wrong that thinking was. What we've accomplished is to enable former communist countries -- which we feared and despised -- to turn into totalitarian fascist economic powerhouses. And now, instead of us dragging them to the paradise of democracy, we've left them with all the will and ability in the world to try to weaken and break our democratic, pluralistic, open societies.
The way out of this meddling, dangerous, disgusting fascist-world-order mess is the same solution as we should have enacted some 50 years ago: To access our markets, FIRST you have to win over our hearts. It's time to make democracy invaluable and non-negotiable.
65
@Think Strategically
This is nonsense. Russia is not an economic powerhouse. The Marshall Plan helped the world stabilize and grow, and we have not (yet) had another World War. If your infrastructure is destroyed or nonexistent, it is hard to feed your people, light your homes, provide indoor plumbing or provide a stable political structure.
Democracy has plenty of its own faults, despite our popular mythologies. We need worldwide engagement--that does not mean giving North Korea everything it wants. It does not mean the dangers of fascism will disappear, here or elsewhere.
1
Anyone who thinks the internet - or any new technology - would change things is naive at best. It is instructive to read pieces from the dawn of transnational and particularly trans-Atlantic telegraphy about how there couldn't possibly be any more wars, because any miscommunications could be quickly resolved and it would therefore - obviously - be peace on earth. The positive impact of telegraphy on war-waging almost certainly outweighs any wars that it prevented.
Technology exposes - and more troublingly, amplifies - human nature. It doesn't change it.
9
The Web has made it possible for anyone to publish, anonymously, whatever they want without benefit of editorial oversight. It has brought the cost of publication to zero, and eliminated editors and personal accountability. What could possibly go wrong?
129
@Jonathan The Times has editors and oversight and look at the left wing propaganda rag it has become.
3
@Jonathan: Back in the 1990s, I told my college students that the Internet was like a restroom wall--anyone with a pen and the time could write whatever they wanted on it, and when was the last time you saw anything worthwhile written on a restroom wall? Now I realise that I can't remember the last time I've seen anything written on a restroom wall. Where could all the vitriol have gone...?
4
It appears that being on a comment board is a lot like driving in a car... people feel protected and therefore empowered to release their inner animal.
5
I have a pretty good familiarity with history. I have yet to get a reasoned explanation of why Jews are so disliked by many Christians. I do not want to get into a theological discussion about saviors, prophets and the like. If that's what it is, spare me.
My non-theological guess and I could be way off, is based on the history of Jewish migration into Europe. I don't know when it began, but, I presume it was after the decline of the Roman Empire and continued through the European Renaissance.
I have finished the first volume of Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples. He very briefly mentions the English kings use of financial assistance from Jewish lenders. I think he spoke in a neutral tone, but, at the time, the King's enemies may have developed a hostile view to this support and it just carried forward.
I wish the 4 officers, in Pittsburgh, a full and speedy recovery. And hope they spend a little more time at the range.
Some commenters have pointed out the lack of moderation in public media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. To turn a bit closer to home: Try checking out the comments sections of publications other than the Times. Even for very good publications, the comments sections often get overwhelmed by trolls. NYT lightly moderates its forums, and it really shows in terms of the quality of posts I see here (excluding my own for now!). I still see diverse opinion (perhaps surprisingly so in the NYT Picks, which appears to seek diversity rather than suppress it). But little to none of the dive-bomb trolling I see elsewhere. I'd love to see the Times do a piece about how they run their comments sections. I'm interested, not just from the perspective of openness, but also to get some understanding of the resources required to maintain a truly civil forum online.
13
Every democracy on earth is falling into alterity (reactionary movements) because of our new communications paradigm. When mass-communication required media outlets and politicians to serve as information gatekeepers, they could moderate the tone and nature of civic debate. Today, politicians are just another celebrity Twitter-pundit, and there is no media outlet that captures a fraction of market-share for Information. That comes from multiple sources, curated by confirmation-biasing algorithms on Smartphone and Facebook...
When the news distribution formula was Gatekeeper - Public, standards, codes of ethics and libel laws served to ensure quality of information and an appropriate tenor for public debate. Now that news dissemination is peer-to-peer, its the mob teaching the mob: stoking fears and prejudices by spreading memes, fake news, youtube clips and conspiracy theories. With mass--misinformation aided by the technologies of the Disinformation Age, the clamor of the mob turns republics into their antithesis: mobocracy. Mobs empower demagogues. Demagogues are the death of democracy.
Every democracy on earth is losing established political parties and breeding reactionary movements (far-left and far-right). Yesterday, Brazil elected SuperTrump and Merkel resigned as her party leader. Things fall apart; the political center cannot hold against demagogic populism, the product of an ongoing revolution in communications technologies.
4
KARA , you have been reporting on the internet for years and understand it’s workings as well as those who are responsible for its platforms. if you say they could improve the platforms with more thought and money I believe you.I am not on social media but it scares me that so many who are filled with hate can reach so many who are receptive to conspiracy and ready to demean the “other”.No doubt the social media should invest some of their billions in making their platforms more civil and less toxic.
3
The Terminator, The Matrix, etc. etc. - they all had it right, even if the details aren't same. We created the machines that killed us and they can only subsist with our destruction.
1
When you build a communications system over an existing power structure, that power structure will inevitably shape how that system develops. In the case of the internet, building a system where there are little to no rules makes this problem even worse, as the vacuum created by the lawlessness rips down any barriers for the existing power structure to take over. This took the form of neoliberal capitalism (profits and marketization above all) and heteronormative traditionalism (misogyny, homophobia, racism, transphobia, etc.), which are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. Thinking anything else would come from the internet out of this system is, frankly, delusional.
4
All very interesting and I agree! But then we can all reach you on twitter @karawisher and also on facebook with both links helpfully provided at the bottom of the page.
So what is that all about? I refuse to take criticism of social media seriously when it comes from the very people who enable it.
Last sentence of this post should have read, "And so I Kara Swisher hereby reject twitter, facebook, and all other social media."
Because until you all do that, you are just part of the problem. Delete your accounts.
4
The truth is that most people are very emotionally violent. I find that those who comment on the New York Times are the most respectful. Those on the Washington Post are vicious even if you didn't vote for Trump but don't agree with everything they say. It is scary. Most of those on the Wall Street Journal will like your comments on any subject if is true, and almost all of them are men, few women who comment on the Wall Street Journal. However, the ones issue is guns, and in the comment section on the Wall Street Journal, there is very little common ground with common sense gun laws, and I understand where they are coming from as I grew up out west, even if I don't agree with them on all issues relating to guns. No, I believe that the majority of people are not decent, kind, or honest, and would have at each other if they wouldn't get caught. The internet has only made people's feelings let loose, as most people can't be honest in public, but on the internet, they let go, and bash you relentlessly.
34
@MaryKayKlassen-I've noticed this too especially on Yahoo! however, I'm not convinced all posters are American.
2
@MaryKayKlassen: I believe what you are noticing is the Times' and the Post's differing editorial policies in action. Though both newspapers moderate reader comments for civility, the Times has much stricter standards for what it will allow to be published. The Times also does not open every article to reader comments, whereas the Post does. I see the logic of both approaches from the standpoint of supporting public discourse. But in the comments section of even the most innocuous article in the Post you will find mile-long threads of poorly spelled, sniping insults, while most comments in the Times are civil and well written. I imagine the reader comment moderators of the Times spend endless hours winnowing out all manner of dreck so that only the highest standard of public commentary is published and preserved for posterity. The Internet age seems to have placed free speech and editorial oversight on opposing sides, but the management of ethical editors ensures public discourse that is not only free and robust, but civil.
38
@MaryKayKlassen
The comments posted on the NYT website are respectful because they are moderated. It’s one of the main reasons I still subscribe after emailgate 2016. The moderators let some of the crazy through, but almost none of the slime. No media website is safe. Even the small New England town where most of my family lives, where everyone would rush to be the first to help you get your car out of a snowy ditch, has regular hatefests in the newspaper comments.
29
During the 2016 election I came to realize that my social networking accounts had become toxic. In and of themselves, they are just places to communicate. However, what was being communicated was disturbing especially from people I thought knew better. I was pretty naive to think the better angels of people would bring us closer. It appears that we Americans have gone to our corners and fortified ourselves with our beliefs; real or imagined. I relieved myself of these accounts and I'm better for it. It's bad enough just reading newspapers. I wish us all luck, we're going to need it.
3
@L. Beaulieu
I think when decent people get chased off these platforms, necessary voices for moderation and decency get extinguished from what is now the forum in which our national civic dialectic is taking place:
'Things fall apart; the center cannot hold
The best have lost all hope, while the worst are filled with violent intensity.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born'
6
These hate filled kooks have always been here. It's just that they have been physically isolated from one another. Social networking platforms create a virtual meeting place where they can gather as if all in one room. The marketing tools of Facebook and Twitter allow their hate garbage to be amplified spread across the globe instantly.
There is no way to police these platforms short of having everything filtered through an editor. They are not set up for that. That's not their business model. They aren't newspapers, they are money making clickbait and targeted advertising companies. They make a lot of money.
What these platforms reveal about us is that anonymous, hide behind the keyboard, speech takes place without the tempering effects of direct public contact. In traditional hunter gatherer societies, the group collectively enforces good behaviour with the threat of ostracization. Get kicked out and risk death out on your own.
In our modern world, the haters risk nothing. There is no cost to creating and spreading their hateful words. In fact, they celebrate that they can produce their garbage.
I fear we are doomed. By losing the direct connection of interpersonal contact, humanity's inner demons have been unleashed. Where does this lead? Chaos and violence. Looks like we are there. Put down the phone, raise up your eyes and talk to each other. I would much rather have this conversation with everyone on my block, but they are on their phones.
104
@Bruce Rozenblit
Great points. It used to be that every town had it's kook, but now those kooks can find echo chambers on the Internet to reinforce their wacky, and sometimes dangerous, ideas.
Given the sheer amount of "information" on the Internet, you can find just about anything to reinforce your preconceived notions, and most people are not aware of confirmation bias.
I think one step needs to be holding people accountable for spreading falsehoods, especially if they result in someone getting hurt. Look at the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs a while back: The guy was enraged over a video purporting to show doctors talking about selling baby parts illegally. But the video was fake, so why are the liars not held accountable?
14
@Phobos-The U.S. would do well to model policies after the UK and the European Union.
8
You are so right. This is a case of technology evolving so fast, then being weaponized, before most people knew what happened. Trump goes on and on about fake news because he knows it cold - it got him elected. With Facebook becoming the main source of news for many people, and having little to no controls on the content, the very sick far right crowd saw this opening and rode a freight train through it, with Trump on board. PBS is broadcasting a superb piece on this right now, "The Facebook Dillema". The second part is tonight. Watch it and weep.
30
The WORST consequence is that this mass spreading of hatreds is drowning us just when we have our very last chance to dampen the forces of climate change that will devastate human civilization.
Instead, its drowning of us in hatreds give us dominance by Trumps, who accelerate forces of climate change.
Our human civilization is in a death spiral.
26
You want to lessen hate speech on social media, particularly on platforms like Twitter? Get rid of anonymity. It won't eliminate hate speech, of course, but it would help. If people had to verify their identities before creating social media accounts, they might think more carefully about what they post. (Supposedly, such verification is already happening to weed out Russian trolls.) Of course, social media companies will never get rid of anonymity because it would cut into their profits. And in our late capitalist system, profits always, always "trump" morality and ethics.
127
@jrinsc Best idea I've heard from anyone. I only post under my own name - as you can see. I try always to be a respectful communicator, but there is no question that having my name attached to what I post makes me take a second look at absolutely everything I write before I push Submit. Next step after anonymous posts - dark money out of politics. Stand up and be recognized for whatever it is you claim to support.
53
@jrinsc
Unfortunately, shame doesn't stop anybody anymore from spewing vile comments. My local paper got rid of anonymous posts, and there are still people who go to name-calling as the first response. I don't comment there because a FaceBook account is required to comment, and I refuse to join FB.
15
@Diane Helle - Thanks, Diane. But, of course, I'm a hypocrite posting under the name jrinsc!
7
At the risk of stating the obvious, the darker aspects of humanity will always emerge and sometimes thrive is any new paradigm, regardless of the idealism of the creators. One only need to look at the Bolshevik Revolution mutating into Leninism and Stalinism. Once the internet escaped the realm of government research and became the gold mines of the free market, the rules of the marketplace empowered all aspects of human darkness. Our only choice is to be consistently vigilant in suppressing hateful uses of this technology.
8
Ms. Swisher shpuldn't be surprised that thugs like Mo Bone Saw are shown extra favoritism just because of their fat bankrolls. The capitalist component of the internet bows to its ONLY rule: ROI. I've often likened the "wide open" internet to the human mind: quite capable of both great creativity, horrible cruelty, and everything in between. As the internet has become monetized, altruistic concepts have vanished or been subsumed, as the more easily capitalized base desires (sex, violence, etc.) have commanded investment and business activity. In this country Citizens United has allowed "dark money" to move into and control the election process, and with that it's been relatively easy for international "investors" to exert real influence on our politics through bribery. Mo Bone Saw is, in some ways, like John Gotti: just a little too narcissistic, too obvious, too clumsy and too oblivious to understand the consequences of his self-created international visibility.
As long as capitalism is the driver of the internet, we can expect more of the same.
6
I wonder if allowing anonymity is a real enabler of collaborative hate speech. I understand all the reasons to allow anonymity but wonder if the costs might be outweighed by the benefits. Trump does not care if he is identified as the source of hateful racist comments, but will all his followers be willing to openly ally themselves with the things he says in public?
19
"I Thought the Web Would Stop Hate, Not Spread It"
What data brought you to this conclusion?
"Today’s Darwinists will tell you that the task of humanity is to take charge of evolution. But ‘humanity’ is only a name for a ragtag animal with no capacity to take charge of anything. By destabilizing the climate, it is making the planet less hospitable to human life. By developing new technologies of mass communication and warfare, it has set in motion processes of evolution that may end up displacing it."
John N. Gray
8
Hatred on the internet such as racism, religious discrimination?
It seems all the rage in America, indeed in all "enlightened" society, to talk about hatred on the internet and what to do about it, but oddly I have never heard an adequate description of what love is supposed to consist of with racial, ethnic group, religious, etc. problems.
In other words, supposing we play down hatred, well what does love look like and what is the ultimate outcome socially that we can expect of this hypothetical love? Here is what I see basically stated and expected by society in the playing down of hatred: That we all tolerate one another, that we are supposed to allow this and that race and ethnic group and religion, etc. to flourish, to just grow willy-nilly in a multicultural riot.
That is love? That is mutual hypocrisy. The truth is nobody wants to give up their racial, ethnic group, religious, etc. categories, these are too fundamental to identity for most people. So playing down hatred and increasing love is to just enter a stalemate and a delaying of conflict process, but the potential for conflict always remains.
If our public intellectuals, politicians, want to really speak of overcoming hatred and loving, they would speak of overcoming religion completely and having people as rapidly as possible interbreed, and they would call for creation of racial and ethnic categories transcending the current ones.
At the very least we deserve an honest definition of what love looks like.
1
@Daniel12
You can also define the opposite of hate as empathy, understanding the other and finding common ground to build on.
4
The “Dark Ages” had its pathogens, like the plague, that spread like wildfire and quickly wreaked chaos and destruction. The Spanish flu wiped out millions, a mere century ago.
Now we have a new species of pathogens - we call it ‘viral’ content, after all, in recognition of the way it spreads.
As we’ve already seen, allowed to spread unchecked, an ‘internet virus’ can lead to madness and chaos. Different ecosystem, similar spread of contagion, similarly disastrous results.
We were able to quarantine Typhoid Mary to stop her from spreading her illness through contact with others. Alas, inflammatory hate speech is more difficult to contain - and may, in fact, be protected under our currently operative Constitution.
I predict there will be millions of casualties before we discover a cure. And the cure may prove to be worse than the disease.
5
It was Vergil who reminded us that the descent to Hell is easy. For some reason there are those among us who refuse to believe there is darkness in our natures, in spite of thousands of years of history and the need to keep experimenting in government. It is the rare tool that someone has not turned against his neighbor.
7
Recently, Ms. Swisher was broadcast in a segment of Frontline on PBS on Facebook. She was interviewing Mark Zuckerberg on a stage at a forum. MZ was raining sweat as he panicked about her questioning him about FB's operations and ethics.
Keep up the great work! Question all of these gazillionaires.
They're all greed heads and money monsters.
188
@MS As I watched Mark unleash a sweat that could have drowned Marco Rubio, it struck me that he was either the most naive person who ever lived, or monumentally stupid. Either way, there's bigger trouble ahead unless some adults intervene and persuade Facebook's management to cash out and move on.
11
@MS-"How was a political data firm with links to Trump’s 2016 campaign harvest private information from more than 50 million Facebook profiles without the social network’s alerting users? Facebook's answer deny deny deny, threaten the London paper if they published the truth, and suspend accounts of Cambridge Analytica, Mr. Kogan, and Mr. Wylie who 'fessed up'. FB can't claim to protect the privacy of users, because they sell data on their users."
Source: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mark-zuckerberg-russia-trump-cambridge-analytica-useful-idiot-040802856.html
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/15192
2
@MS
I also watched the Frontline documentary over the last two nights. I was shocked--and probably shouldn't have been--at the wilful negligence and denial by Mark Zuckerberg about the malevolent uses of Facebook. Like other Silicone Valley billionaires, he has a blind libertarian view of technology which happens to conveniently align with profits--more clicks is more information vacuumed up by Facebook and thus more opportunities to advertise and generate more profits.
James Madison and our other Founding Fathers already knew that true direct democracy is flawed--it can be over-run by demagoguery and majority tyranny over the minority, so thus they designed our representative republic system so that it intentionally divided power and intentionally slowed down the process of government to enhance reason over emotion. These new social network platforms now are so large that they bypass these checks and appeal directly to people at the emotional level. Malevolent actors have realized that these social network platforms are a hack right into the core of our open society.
3
If tech companies are the problem, then what’s the solution? The government? The same government here that separates kids from their parents at the border, that’s defining entire types of people out of existence, that views “Black Identity Extermists” as a greater problem than White Supremicists? Or the government of Myanmar? Or Hungary? Or Brazil? Maybe the ultimate problem here isn’t technology itself. Or government. Maybe it’s human nature.
7
@Scott
The only solution is government. It is a vacuum created by government that is fostering the state of things. To say that this particular administration is incapable of policing hate speech is both true and irrelevant. The only institution capable of making platforms responsible is a legal system. Make laws that withstand first amendment scrutiny that say Facebook, Twitter, etc. are liable for the consequences of what they host, and they will make it their business the clean things up in no time. The question is whether our political system is capable, now that the right and left have joined hands in making money the real ruler of the country. Since Google's name now means a googleplex of dollars, it may be impossible to police it.
5
I share your disappointment, but we both should have seen it coming. Those who hate, but fear rejection by the wider community have always sought anonymity. The window smashers. The telephone heavy-breathers. The note passer who claims ignorance of its source.
To speak out against the flow of things takes courage. Those who speak sentiments they know to be objectionable seek the camouflage of anonymity... or the immunity of high office.
8
I've known and admired Kara since back in the days when she covered AOL and the tech world for the WSJ, as did Walt Mossberg. Little did we know then that we'd someday wish for the days of the connected world envisioned by Steve Case. AOL was THE social media of its day and there were no hate groups percolating through it. The chat rooms were regulated by AOL's TOS, terms of service, which were enforced. Steve envisioned the connectedness, community, connection part of his 6 c's. He knew that the internet without connectedness, was just an open space. And, yes, AOL did succumb to having to sell increasing rates of AD space, they still do. However, protecting ones data was, from day 1, a prime directive. In fact, I have my AOL screenname still and to this day have never had my AOL data hacked. And AOL at large has never been hacked as far as I know. That's an indication of the good bones it was created with. I watched Part 1 last night and was shocked to see that FB never allocated head count to maintain subscriber privacy, except where subs opted-in to allow others to see their content. And how could third party software contracts not restrict how data was used. and re-distributed. I can imagine a 3d party developer asking what restrictions there were on re-using a Fb subscribers' data, newsfeed interests, etc. And that same 3d party developer not quite sure he heard correctly when they were told, "None, you can use our subscribers data however you'd like".
10
My team was once required to develop a department-wide performance metric. We were essentially a marketing group however our revenue streams were all indirect. The higher-ups viewed our efforts as a budgetary black hole. Money goes in, what comes out? We couldn't track sales dollars so what do we use instead? That was the basic math problem.
The communications director, without really understanding or researching what he was doing, sold the budget people on web site traffic as our baseline metric for performance. I absolutely flipped out.
The reason is simple. If you go to the board with web traffic as your measure for success, the board will always want to see increasing web traffic. Mr. Communications just tied the entire department to improving website performance at the expense of everything else. Regardless of whether it's appropriate in the present or smart for the future, we were now tied to boosting website traffic. Period.
Not surprisingly, Captain Communications was in control of creative web development. It was a raw power grab outside the internal hierarchy, plain and simple. Walking the decision back though was next to impossible. They are now on a 10 year trajectory thanks to one employee.
I feel like social media fell into the same trap when placing so much influence on user accounts. It was expedient at the time but extremely misguided. Now they're looking at massively overhauling the entire business model. You can see why Zuckerberg is uncomfortable.
3
@Andy
More importantly, that Facebook et al get revenue a)from the number of people on their service and b)the data they can sell on those X billions of users.
@Andy: "I feel like social media fell into the same trap when placing so much influence on user accounts." Well, in the business models of these platforms, it is the *users* who are the "product" (more specifically, user *attention*). The platforms are selling user attention to advertisers. Perhaps the problem isn't the focus on user accounts, but on creating the expectation that participation should be *free*. With users themselves not being a direct source of revenue, what other business model is left for the Zuckerbergs of this world?
1
Should telephone companies have to police their lines when they're used for hateful communications? Should the USPS, UPS & FedEx have to ensure that nothing hateful goes through their services, or that a gun to be used in a mass shooting was caught before it was delivered to the recipient?
Free speech isn't always pretty. History shows it can't be extinguished no matter what medium carries it. I am horrified at what's happened lately, but censoring people and platforms, even if done by private companies, won't and can't work.
6
@David Appell You cannot use telephone lines to broadcast your views to a large audience or connect with other hateful people in any large or meaningful scale. Social media is an entirely different platform and hardly analogous to USPS or telephone lines.
4
@David Appell: I didn't see anyone calling for censorship. Rather, the author and commenters are wondering how freedom of expression can be exercised responsibly. When you make a phone call, you are reaching just one person (usually), and at the very least the phone company knows who you are (and typically the recipient of the call does, too). As a result, consequences of your action get associated with you. Most social media platforms remove having to deal with the consequences of your expression from the equation. That's a key part of the problem, and there are probably ways to deal with it that don't involve censorship.
2
@David Appell
Telephone companies don't reach millions with one click. The postal delivery companies you mentioned carry packages shipped to an address, except for mass mailings. More difficult to reach millions as easily using those methods.
1
I am of a different view. I don't want to suppress, remove, or attack those we deem as "hateful". I believe in free speech. Not just actual law (or consitutional right) but the spirit of engagement.
But my reasoning is two-fold. I don't want them to go underground. I want them out in the open. No 'dark web' for them. Light tends to expose and cleanse.
Furthermore, what I deem hateful others may not, and vice versa. I don't want others making that determination for me. This case may be extreme but who is drawing that line.
9
@Kaye Johnson: I agree with your plea for openness, but it has to go farther than just providing open forums. What's different about most social media platforms vs. real-life interaction is the lack of consequences for one's actions, largely due to anonymity. In the proverbial Town Square—probably the kind of setting the framers had in mind regarding free speech protections—you can say what you want, but your actions have consequences, not just for others but also for you, because you have to *be* there to speak, and your speech is associated to some extent with your identity.
Every right carries with it the need to exercise the right responsibly. Social media is enabling exercise of the right to free speech without responsibility. We are all taught that the 1st amendment does not give one the right to yell, "Fire!," in a crowded theater. But what stops someone from doing that if they feel sure they won't be identified and held responsible for the consequences of their utterance?
4
@Kaye Johnson You should rejoice then, because that's exactly what's happening in America. Clearly, we're doing a great job cleansing. I'm sure after a few more decades of airing this garbage out, we'll be nice and pure little angels again.
4
@Tom I tend to agree. But the consequences seem to be one-sided. Therefore, the incentive is to stay anonymous.
It does not have to be this way. Social media sites could erase hate from the online world, but choose not to for financial reasons. This is all about greed - not "freedom" or "idealism."
17
The world has always been like this, and always will be. And the alternative endings that some philosophies and religions have promised have only succeeded in reproducing this world in their efforts to change it.
1
A middle aged, blue collar worker told me a few years ago (pre-Trump) that it was a mistake to make the internet public and available for business ventures. He said then that it was causing problems and will do so going forward even more. I think I agree with his opinion - it should have stayed in the government's hands. It has caused too many problems and these do not outweigh the benefits in my opinion. It should be taken away from the public and business world. Things were fine before the internet was let loose on society. Maybe we should start over, go slow and figure out how to manage it better. I would guess that business interests saw the financial possibilities and the rest is history. Let's take it back and say it was a poorly executed experiment - back to the drawing boards.
1
@daylight
I understand your sentiment, but you can’t just close Pandora’s box once it’s been opened. It’d be like one day saying, “Yeah, cars were a bad idea. No more of that, guys.”
Not only would people go berserk, but it’d absolutely tank the economy, business, and industry.
4
There is no independent government in the US of A, and what we have only looks out for the good of businesses. The people are screwed.
3
If the operators of these networks don't do anything to stop the abuse of their networks, it's up to the users to stop using them. They have other options, and just like voting, they have to exercise them. If they do nothing, they are basically accepting the consequences. People do not NEED to use Facebook, Instagram, and twitter, and if they feel those networks are contributing to the hate and violence, they either do something about it or essentially endorse it.
12
Insightful read. I remember when I invested in pre-IPO Facebook hearing that a Russian VC firm was one of their earlier investors. I found that interesting but this was pre-Trump/Russia and beyond that initial eyebrow raise I thought nothing of it. Today, though, as Kara points out, we have a flood of money in the form of sovereign wealth funds and limited VC partners that is the equivalent of dark money funding political action committees, only worse because these other sources' have the potential to influence and know and exploit the developments of products such foundational products as Facebook and their many bells and whistles (think facial recognition) that can be exploited to have potentially really significant negative implications for our society. The link between foreign investors both private and sovereign and tech finance needs a good hard look by the national security establishment IMHO.
16
It the end, in this culture and unfortunately too many others, it's all about the Benjamins.
The reason none of these platforms will do anything to attempt to get a handle on all this vitriol is that it'll cost them customers. To appropriate a statement once attributed to a basketball player about his apolitical stance on certain topics, homicidal bigots notice advertisements, too.
This is the logical extension of what happens when you take a Calvinist, Social Darwinist, rapacious libertarian capitalist mindset--one that has reached its purest form in the United States, but is certainly not limited to it--and apply it to what should be thought of as the public commons. Eventually, or not so eventually, something's gonna go boom.
And the only concern of those with the mindset is to make sure they don't have liability.
Which, of course, means that the only way to get some sort of grip on the situation is to make sure no one who used the commons--who uses the public airwaves, OR the internet infrastructure--lacks potential liability. And that can only be done at the level of government, both nationally and internationally.
Europe seems to be at least willing to have a discussion about where the limits and liability may be. We should have the courage here in the US to do the same.
64
At this point, certain aspects of the internet (social media, "news" sites," and so on) are basically the digital equivalent of the NRA.
Both profit as vectors of poison, paranoia, and death. "The awful spreads faster than the good" indeed.
Someday, we will see protests not only against the "gun lobby" but also against the tech lobby. The one sells the tools of death and paranoia, the other one spreads the ideas that spur the motivation to use them.
15
I wish I knew how to remove hate from our lives. Hate is often learned at an early age from those who raise us and it is hard to remove later in life. The opposite sides of the hatred have to sit down and talk to each other, find common ground in which to defuse the negative feelings. Do Americans have the fortitude and empathy to accomplish this? I don't know.
19
The Frontline 2-part report on Facebook had part 1 last night. It's a stunner, about how young idealism about openness and connection of the whole world got blindsided by pressures of commercialization that sold out users to third-party predators. You can stream part 1 for free. Part 2 is tonight.
107
@gary e. davis
I'm sure Zuckerberg has taken enough money out of Facebook and put it elsewhere so that he could easily limit its use to shared photos of cute puppies and kittens and still be filthy rich. But he won't because greed takes over and he probably has already bought his getaway island somewhere!
10
@gary e. davis
Thanks!
@gary e. davis- Yep. Money speaks: "Facebook rakes in billions of dollars in profit each quarter — $7.3 billion in the last quarter of 2017 — while sucking advertising dollars away from digital media companies that do actual journalism, like Vox and Mic and Buzzfeed."
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mark-zuckerberg-russia-trump-cambridge-analytica-useful-idiot-040802856.html
2