ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

Social media is it Toxic Bubble...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by halo_jones, Jun 26, 2016.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Funny how you mention duff?
     
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  2. [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I hadn't realised this was an area of expertise you had. Would you care to make a contribution or a relevant observation, or are you just a thick cnut?

    I know where my money would go


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. The point is though - what consitutes being "naughty"? In today's touchy-feely England you can be accused of being a "hater", bigot or all host of 'isms' just for farting in the general direction of somebody who feels sensitive or feels as though members of a special interest group ought to feel sensitive about something.

    The government have done a pretty good job of damping down / silencing opinions on matters they'd rather ignore for quite some time now - until the point it's no longer tenable.

    Then there are the supposed respected media outlets...wheel out the BBC! Yesterday they interviewed Kate McCann and not only endorsed her opinion and version of events as being the only possible correct one but - Fiona Bruce also expressed her own shock at the fact there were people "online" expressing alternative opinions. (Kate referred to them as 'haters'). The BBC is banging this drum and several others with the storyline that the only virtuous thing is to dance to that particular beat. Too many people fall for it - not surprising if being labelled a 'hater' would likely cause them loss of sleep.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. The simple answer is whatever you want it to be. How these things work is you build highly complex rules bases that enable the application to arrive at decisions, based on the rules that are defined by whoever 'the power that be' is. What you would have to define is what constitutes 'naughty'. Decisioning engines/cognitive intelligence is really about enforcing compliance, in what ever shape that compliance is. One example of rules governing compliance is the law. Its straightforward to programme the law in the form of rules then execute the rules on big data, seekign out non compliance.

    @Himmler74 - you must have a take on this? Care to share?
     
  6. Exactly and - the law is different in different countries and, most other countries are not as 'touchy-feely- as we are wrt sacred cows and moulding opinions. This is why it was just lip-service and virtue signalling by the MP who brought this up and demanded "more must be done!". It's unenforcible unless - the government locks down our internet like Saudi / China / North Korea etc. Hmm... I see a few coincidences and parrallels here though... how long until anything not "on message" is blocked for 'our own protection'?
     
  7. They can take TOR out of my cold dead hand.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. That hasn't stopped the US asking for people who are not US citizens, who have never been to the US, and whose actions are not illegal in the jurisdiction they are in, to be extradited to face charges in US courts for crimes in contravention of US laws purely on the grounds that the alleged victims were US citizens.
     
  9. Even if the country/free speech issues could be overcome, I don't understand what they expect.

    On Facebook, more than 250 million users log in every single day. More than 700 thousand pieces of unique content are shared every minute. To police that is impossible.

    Ultimately, we can have social media with a bunch of nasty stuff on, or no social media.
     
  10. Cognitive computing is impressive, but it's not intelligence or anything close to it. It can't determine whether a piece of content falls within a set of subjective rules with any degree of accuracy. And if it could, people would just alter their language to get around it.
     
  11. Hmmm..it would however be possible to form a "watch list" of people in order to pre-moderate though - lots of ways of compiling such - such as asigning a quotient based upon what you have "liked" "disliked" on various platforms be it FB or the dailymail website...
    Would be a bloody long list and even @Auld-Yin might end up getting his callup papers from GCHQ for a few stags at modding.

    As in everything else though - it's often more simple to throw the baby out with the bath water and ban certain things outright for our "protection".
     
  12. Thanks for that; very informative, and deeply horrifying too. The essence of all that's said seems to be that, for now, the relevant networks are using their algorithms for two purposes: to enhance the user experience in a way which he/she may not know is happening; and as a secondary purpose (or more probably as the principal aim) to increase use of the program by making opinion seen on it more attractive, thereby enhancing profit. The side-effect (which is, if not ignored by the networks, is at best dismissed as unimportant) is that attitudes on a large scale can be changed or directed. This is Control, writ large.

    I know nothing about Facebook (I have a page, but think I've actually posted anything on it two or three times in five years), but comment (and rant, after a few whiskies) frequently on the national newspaper and some other sites. The phenomenon of filter bubbles (usually more 'intern/volunteer-moderator-enhanced' than their public rules would suggest) seems to be considerably more evident the further the editorial stance is from the 'centre' of any politically-based debate, whether Left, Right, or whatever. This shields those using those networks from dissent, which is, as the speakers on both of those videos suggests, horribly dangerous. I suppose I should be glad I'm not in any position to have to formulate legislation in the field.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. I've mentioned before...I've noticed on the DM site - every now and again certain comments have a disproportionate number of votes one way or another considering the time they had been published and viewable. It would not surprise me at all if someone is sat somewhere thinking :"We want this to appear to be the popular opinion so lets make it look that way..."

    Similar trick didn't seem to work with a couple of recent high profile voting events though...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Can't link to it but take a look at a site called FakeGreenArrows which shows interesting things

    Vast number of unlikely votes (for Daily Mail readers that is) suddenly appear.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  15. Good ol' Milo. Banished to the outer wastes for a comment which was actually the basis of a British Parliamentary proposal some years ago, when a goodly number of our esteemed MPs wanted to lower the age of homosexual consent; nothing motivationally ulterior about it at all, just as one or two now seem keen on the idea of making 'poppers' a Boots open shelf item. The hypocrisy is the most offensive thing...
     
    • Like Like x 1