There are no magic solutions to these fundamental issues: 1) How strongly should an online identity be tied to a real-world identity before somebody can speak? 2) Do you believe that gatekeepers should police the bounds of acceptable online discourse? 3) If so, what bounds?https://twitter.com/marcambinder/status/940336730141548544 …
-
-
Agree
-
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. At least on FB we are dealing with humans using techniques to amplify their impact. Those questions are basic tradeoffs for any effective solution.
-
They're detectable with a lot less advanced models than what FB spends money developing for face recognition or ad targeting...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Anonymous personas are the problem when combined with Big tech. We didn't have Russian manipulation of voter sentiment in 2008 or 2012. It took Facebook -which doesn't validate identities and would likely fight regulation requiring that- for anonymity + social to be weaponized
-
They didn’t meddle in the election because Facebook exists. The majority of their operations targeted regular news media. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
-
.ru manipulation of open democratic societies existed long before facebook, yet its effectiveness was limited. but once FB started 'connecting communities' without validating identity, they externalized risks on rest of us. Result: .ru agitprop everywhere, like an infection
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.