{"id":1630,"date":"2018-02-08T16:52:14","date_gmt":"2018-02-08T03:52:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/csidemedia.com\/gryphonclerks\/?p=1630"},"modified":"2018-02-09T09:39:35","modified_gmt":"2018-02-08T20:39:35","slug":"fixing-social-media-part-2-what-you-and-i-can-do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/csidemedia.com\/gryphonclerks\/2018\/02\/08\/fixing-social-media-part-2-what-you-and-i-can-do\/","title":{"rendered":"Fixing Social Media Part 2: What You and I Can Do"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my <\/span>previous post<\/span><\/a>, I sketched out a way of potentially reducing the current issues with the <\/span>structure<\/span><\/i> of social media, by taking it back in the direction of the internet\u2019s open roots and reducing the control exerted by large, unaccountable, for-profit corporations. <\/span><\/p>\n

I can\u2019t actually implement that. I could maybe do the technical side, at a stretch, but creating the critical mass of adopters that would be essential for it to succeed, against the resistance of powerful incumbents, is far beyond my ability or the ability of anyone I know. <\/span><\/p>\n

So what can you or I do to improve social media if we can\u2019t do much about its structure? What influence do we have? <\/span><\/p>\n

Well, we have some influence, however small, over the <\/span>content<\/span><\/i> of social media. Specifically, we decide what we share, how we comment, and what we react to. And since shares, comments, and reactions are the three ways in which a social media post gains traction and influence, this isn\u2019t an insignificant power, if we choose to use it wisely. <\/span><\/p>\n

In this post, then, I want to suggest some <\/span>principles that we can follow to improve the quality of social media in our immediate zone of influence<\/b>. <\/span><\/p>\n

Posting and Reacting<\/span><\/h3>\n

Let\u2019s start with posting and its little brother, reacting. (On Facebook, your reactions are broadcast to your network, so it\u2019s similar to sharing the post; on Google+, your network only sees your reactions if you haven\u2019t turned that setting off, and most people have done so. Among other things, this means that I feel more free on G+ to \u201clike\u201d things that not everyone in my network will agree with, without worrying about what they\u2019ll think.) <\/span><\/p>\n

On social media, few people create content, and much of the original content they do create is about themselves, not about issues. (Which is fine; one of the reasons I’m connected to people on social media is that I care about what’s happening in their daily lives.) A larger number of people curate content, sharing articles or \u201cmemes\u201d either from websites they frequent or from other social media users in their networks. Usually, we share things that we feel strongly about, and that we agree with; and the easiest strong emotions to arouse with a piece of content are outrage (at the actions or opinions of people who are \u201cnot our people\u201d) or self-righteous smugness (at the actions or opinions of people who are \u201cour people\u201d). If you can find one of \u201cyour people\u201d hitting out at one of \u201ctheir people\u201d it\u2019s a two-for-one. <\/span><\/p>\n

A lot of sharing on social media, in fact, is aimed at proclaiming our membership in a particular group. By proclaiming faithful group membership through the things we share, we can get affirmation from the other members of the group (in the form of further shares, reactions, and comments) and feel less alone in a hostile world. <\/span><\/p>\n

The natural effect, though, is to amplify outrage, smugness, and division. I hope we can agree that smugness and division are inherently bad things to amplify, and that outrage is only worth amplifying in two circumstances: if it\u2019s outrage about something that\u2019s <\/span>actually happening or has actually happened<\/b>, and if our outrage leads to <\/span>effective action for change<\/b>. <\/span><\/p>\n

Those two criteria are not often met, though. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cFake news\u201d is a term that\u2019s had a lot of use over the past couple of years. It\u2019s sometimes used as a mere slur against coverage that\u2019s unsympathetic to the speaker\u2019s \u201cside,\u201d but there are more objective definitions of \u201cfake news\u201d. It ranges from outright falsehoods presented as news (sometimes under the cover of \u201csatire\u201d), through conspiracy theories that impose a false narrative on real events; extreme spin and distortion; the omission of context or nuance to the point of reversing the significance of a fact; and biased opinion presented as facts. <\/span><\/p>\n

A pair of data scientists trained a fake news detector<\/span><\/a>, and discovered in the process that it\u2019s actually easier to train a real news detector. They called it <\/span>Fakebox<\/span><\/a>. What it detects is whether a sample article is \u201cwritten with little [sic] to no biased words, strong adjectives, opinion, or colorful language\u201d. In other words, it looks for an objective, factual tone–the kind of article that <\/span>doesn\u2019t <\/span><\/i>tend to compel people to share it on social media. <\/span><\/p>\n

So, if you don\u2019t have the technical resources to set up a Fakebox server, how might you decide whether to share something or not? <\/span><\/p>\n

Well, firstly, is it <\/span>substantial<\/b>? Does it present or consider more than one viewpoint? Does it explore the topic in depth? This test basically rules out the \u201cmemes\u201d which many people on social media share as readily as I click \u201cLike\u201d on a cat photo. I don\u2019t mind (up to a point) the inspirational-quote ones or the jokes; I\u2019m talking here specifically about the ones which lay out something that sounds like a fact, or a series of bullet points that sound like facts, but don\u2019t provide any way of checking the claims for context or accuracy. <\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s essentially impossible to convey a significant amount of truth in an image with just a few words, and when these memes are fact-checked, they tend to range from outright falsehoods, through inaccuracies, to aspects of the truth presented without enough context to really understand them in a useful way. I haven\u2019t done a study, but my intuition is that they skew towards the \u201coutright falsehood\u201d end, often by what they omit, but sometimes by what they claim. Whenever I see a new one do the rounds, I wait for the fact-check, and it almost without exception confirms my suspicion that they\u2019re, at best, misleading. I never share them, even the ones that match up with my existing beliefs, and I urge you to consider adopting the same policy. <\/span><\/p>\n

Secondly, before sharing something, <\/span>check its tone<\/b>. Does it amplify helpless outrage? Or does it amplify hope? Outrage is compelling, and in sharing it with your friends, who will agree with it and reinforce that you\u2019re not alone, you feel slightly less helpless; but if all you\u2019re doing is spreading the helpless outrage, it\u2019s not a net gain. <\/span><\/p>\n

Thirdly, does what you\u2019re sharing <\/span>give a helpful way forward or suggest action you can take<\/b>? I listened to a fascinating podcast a while ago about some <\/span>research done on China\u2019s social media platforms<\/span><\/a>. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people were not censored for expressing outrage against, or even insulting, government officials or government policy. What got them censored was <\/span>calling for action<\/span><\/i>. The Chinese government has apparently concluded that expressing outrage is no threat to them, as long as nobody does anything. <\/span><\/p>\n

This suggests that amplifying a sense of helpless outrage on social media will only help to preserve the situation, and the system, you find intolerable. <\/span><\/p>\n

Before you share, ask yourself: Would the Chinese government bother to censor this?<\/span><\/p>\n

Fourth, does what you\u2019re sharing <\/span>draw us together by our common humanity<\/b>, or focus on what divides us? Does it locate all the problems outside your group, reinforcing a sense of <\/span>them<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>us<\/span><\/i>? This is a question for liberals as well as for conservatives; liberals are far from immune to the temptation to excuse their own people for what they condemn in the \u201cother\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

I have a lot more respect for articles that are criticism coming from inside the house. There is, of course, a place for criticism of groups you don\u2019t belong to; part of the reason you don\u2019t belong to them is that they stand for something you disagree with. But an article that implicitly (or even explicitly) places all the evil somewhere else is inevitably covering over a blind spot. <\/span><\/p>\n

That doesn\u2019t mean you can\u2019t share it. But it does imply a duty for you to uncover that blind spot and comment on it, critiquing the failings and omissions of your own people according to the principles you claim to hold. If you\u2019re actually acting out of principle, and not simply based on group membership, you should be able to do this at least some of the time. <\/span><\/p>\n

In general, though, I suggest that you <\/span>focus on and amplify what you love and what you hope, not on what you hate and what you fear<\/b>. Terrible things are happening, but wonderful things are also happening, and they get a lot less exposure <\/span>even though they\u2019re more common<\/span><\/a>. If you feel you need to talk about things going wrong (which is an important topic, as long as it\u2019s not the only topic), do so by talking about people who are doing something about them. <\/span><\/p>\n

If you can\u2019t find anybody who\u2019s doing anything, maybe <\/span>you <\/span><\/i>should do something. <\/span><\/p>\n

Commenting<\/span><\/h3>\n

Let\u2019s talk about commenting now. \u201cDon\u2019t read the comments\u201d is generally good advice for websites (and excellent advice for YouTube); comments on social media, depending on who\u2019s in your network and who you allow to comment, can be more positive and helpful, but they can also rapidly degenerate into insults and point-scoring. This is especially the case on controversial topics, the kind of thing that is based on amplified outrage–which is another good reason not to amplify outrage. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"robot\"<\/p>\n

One of my basic principles for social media comments is: don\u2019t interact with posters who can\u2019t pass the Turing test. The Turing test is the famous social conversation test which sets out to distinguish a person from a machine. There are a lot of \u201cbots\u201d around on social media, posting stereotyped comments based on keywords in order to draw attention to their business or cause, or amplify some particular form of outrage. Some of these are software-based, and some of them are implemented in the form of a human being typing on a keyboard. If you can\u2019t tell which one it is, don\u2019t talk to them. <\/span><\/p>\n

If you are talking to a person, though, talk to them like a person, not a member of a group whose members are interchangeable. My wife had an experience recently of commenting on an acquaintance\u2019s post, which was a classic amplifier of outrage against a group of which she happened to be a member. Another poster who I know is an actual person jumped in and ranted at her based on a stereotype of who she was, bearing little connection with reality. It didn\u2019t result in a fruitful discussion. <\/span><\/p>\n

An exchange of insults achieves nothing. Instead, <\/span>look for common concerns and common humanity<\/b> with people who differ from you. Consider the recent story of a well-known comedian who engaged with <\/span>a man who coarsely insulted her on Twitter<\/span><\/a>. She looked beneath his insult for the person and found someone in pain, and they ended up having a productive exchange; in fact, she helped him with the life situation that was part of what was behind his bad behaviour. <\/span><\/p>\n

If you must have a discussion with someone you disagree with on social media (and I don\u2019t advise it, in general), look for things you agree on, and appeal to shared values. Show how those shared values lead you to the conclusion you\u2019ve reached. If you can\u2019t find shared values, there\u2019s not much point in discussing. <\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019ll add: Don\u2019t argue to win. Have some humility, and be prepared to learn and admit when you\u2019re wrong. I\u2019ve found that as a rule in life, whenever I go off on a rant, I almost always find I\u2019m mistaken about something in the situation; sometimes about everything. <\/span><\/p>\n

Summary<\/span><\/h3>\n

In summary, helpless outrage over misinformation; self-righteousness; and affirming group identity at all costs are not a good basis for basically anything. But they\u2019re what social media tends to encourage. <\/span><\/p>\n

We can help to change that if we approach our social media usage more consciously. <\/span><\/p>\n

So here\u2019s my social media pledge: <\/span><\/p>\n