
Is the social media bubble about to burst? - john58
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/is-the-social-media-bubble-about-to-burst-a3799421.html
======
kartan
People miss the main point. The democratic voting of two countries was
manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms. And
this happened with collaboration, direct or indirect, from Facebook.

Privacy concerns are an important motivator. But we have already things a lot
more tangible than that.

I like the concept of social media, of sharing moments with people I know but
I don't have day to day contact, of communicating with my family that is in
another country. But the way it's implemented is scary, and it has lasting
world-wide consequences.

I would not mind paying X$ monthly to have quality social media. But this
can't happen while it competes with free social media where your data is the
product. Regulate the market, force it to move in a more healthy direction and
let new companies grow and drive inside the new game rules, and make the old
ones to adapt.

~~~
herbst
I don't get the thought that additional unauthorised propaganda somehow
changes the outcome of a voting in a negative way.

In other words who says the authorised propaganda is better or more true. The
are doing the exact same and the deeper the pockets the deeper their social
media influence is.

Why is it Suddenly ok that propaganda has to be authorised to be 'valid'

It's all just additional information. Isn't it the peoples job to build their
own image? Do we really want to regulate what perception people get of
'things'?

I hope someone can follow what I am trying to say...

~~~
jiveturkey
> additional unauthorised propaganda

not just that, but also that it's personalized so in theory more effective

> changes the outcome of a voting in a negative way

indeed, i don't know that that has been shown to be true.

but keep in mind there are two powerful ways to influence:

1) sway a fence-sitter's opinion 2) get a believer to vote who otherwise
wouldn't have voted

~~~
herbst
How was it more personalised than 'legal' propaganda? Is there any reason to
believe they used different methods? Why wouldn't politics make personalised
ads as well? (as everybody does when using FB ads anyway)

Both points you mention also are valid for 'legal' propaganda.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Why wouldn 't politics make personalised ads as well?_

You don’t see the difference between a politician buying ads for themselves
and a foreign company illegally using foreign persons to carry out campaign
activities [1] ?

[1] [http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-
cambri...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/ct-cambridge-
analytica-foreign-campaign-advisers-20180325-story.html)

~~~
627467
Practically speaking, are we calling UK company "foreign" on this topic? What
is so foreign about this interference? Hows is propaganda, domestic or foreign
a new element in elections?

How about political funding? Does that not qualify as foreign interference in
elections when politicians get foreign funds?

~~~
learc83
>How about political funding? Does that not qualify as foreign interference in
elections when politicians get foreign funds?

In most countries this is illegal. Foreigners generally can't make campaign
donations.

------
JumpCrisscross
There is really just one solution and it’s gaining traction in D.C.: Facebook
must be broken up. The second component, an American GDPR, is a harder sell,
but we can do that state by state.

~~~
lev99
What is a GDPR?

~~~
grzm
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation)

------
tneely
Facebook, maybe. Social media? No way. I feel the connections it brings us, or
helps us maintain, are too important to lose. If Facebook can't do it right,
someone else will step up to fill the gap. Hopefully with a less malicious
business model.

~~~
pmlnr
> I feel the connections it brings us, or helps us maintain, are too important
> to lose.

I felt the same way about IRC rooms. They are gone now.

~~~
jpindar
Are they? For half the year I spend hours every Sunday on an irc channel full
of football fans. That connection is important to me, since the level of
discussion there is higher, (and more civilized, due to active moderation)
than most forums.

------
megous
Social media is very scary if you don't look only at the relatively educated
western populations. Easy way to spread and amplify plausible sounding lies
with little correction or oversight in third world countries, where people
don't understand the context of what social media is or how it is different
from normal media, how it all works, how easy is to photoshop stuff for pretty
much anyone... It's troublesome.

Even some officials in UN are fearful of Facebook inspired genocide these
days. Rwanda was radio telling people to go killing the Other. Now it is
Facebook in some countries. Myanmar, Sri Lanka, India,...

The difference compared to radio is that it should be possible to prevent
incitement to kill/hurt people for Facebook operators even if it would mean
shutting it down in particular country, so there's culpability of the Facebook
co. Facebook is not just a dumb pipe, they clearly police the content.

One day we may wake up to a reality of tens of thousands massacred muslims (or
whoever) after people take it to the streets after some particularly
successful hate week going viral on Facebook. As of today the riots are so far
localised.

------
bazzlexposition
Is Facebook some magical force that removes all critical thought from a
persons brain? If you want to blame Facebook for being fooled into thinking
NewOrgScienceNews.cn is a reputable paper, nothing is going to help you.

If you even believe that NYT or WaPo or any other news organization is
infallible, or shouldn't be approached with a critical eye, you are an idiot.

And if you believe a company that makes billions of dollars providing a free
service in exchange for user information has your privacy concerns in mind,
you are really deluded.

------
deeg
It wasn't that long ago that we were lauding the Twitter Revolutions. I don't
think social media is going anywhere but it will certainly change.

------
cannedslime
It bursted long ago. It don't know exactly when it happened, but people went
from actually using sites like facebook (Posting about their lives, kids,
dinners etc) to just using facebook etc. as a IM platform and meme feed, like
we have had alternatives for since forever.

------
herbst
I think the idea that we need to replace Facebook is wrong to begin with.

I want to believe that more and more people value privacy and social networks
will more and more be like private chat rooms again.
Slack/Discord/Wechat/Telegram and soon Hangout again are the best examples.

~~~
411mrc
The social graph of the world is too important to put in the hands of a
company trying to monetize it. It needs to be decentralized and open source.
Diaspora looks interesting in that regard, but I think the solution is a least
a few iterations away from that.

~~~
herbst
I still believe there is simply no need for that ultimate social graph.

I believe it will die down in order to make place for more decentralised
approaches for connections are not a visible public reference.

Any social graph could be the religion registers back i the nazi days all over
again.

Privacy is getting more important even for the non it individuals.

~~~
lev99
Maybe a 100% complete social graph is not required, but I suspect social
graphs to be more and more important. Facebook is not a 100% social graph
anyway. I keep business relations to LinkedIn and my Chinese contacts do not
use Facebook.

People in highly connected points of social graphs provide a valuable service
to society, and are using technology to monetize on their contribution. The
people are a mix between a tribe leader and a thought leader. They bring
people together and help spread ideas. Even in a very monetized network,
Youtube, experts believe Influencers receive less compensation than they would
with similar audiences in the old media [1]. This undervalue suggests a market
imbalance that should correct it self with time. As more money comes into the
field the competition will increase and the quality of the product will
increase. That is why I think social graphs will become more and more
important.

[1][https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelthomsen/2015/07/11/pewdi...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelthomsen/2015/07/11/pewdiepie-
doesnt-make-anywhere-close-to-what-he-should-be-making/2/)

------
sprash
I already made 5k shorting facebook. Shares could easily fall below $30. Easy
money.

------
kosei
If ever there was an example of Betteridge's law of headlines...

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

