Confirmation Bias and the internet

shoshanim999

Thu, Apr 20 2023, 11:17 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Yes, but that's not what OP is talking about.

If 90% of food bloggers think cookies are better with butter, and 10% think cookies are better with oil, then only 10% of cookie recipes will have oil. If only 10% of the cookie recipes you see have oil, that means there isn't internet bias. What you see is an accurate reflection of the opinions in society (or at least, among the segment of society that publishes its opinions online). It's not 50-50, but it's an accurate reflection of a reality that isn't 50-50.

What OP is talking about is a situation where what you see does not reflect the balance of opinions online. Eg 80% of news reports support Ukraine, 20% support Russia, but because someone - let's call him Dave - has hit "like" on three pro-Russia articles, he now sees 90% articles that support Russia and only 10% supporting Ukraine. What he sees is not an accurate reflection of the opinions in society - it's a warped version created by the algorithm. He lives in a fake, algorithm-created world in which most people agree with him.

That's a problem.

I think you're confusing "the science" with "the media" or maybe "the politicians." No actual researchers were making claims anywhere near that bold (there were studies showing that some vaccines reduced transmission, but that was actually true and is still true - it's just that they didn't reduce transmission of all variants. which researchers never claimed they did).

Ok, I can agree with most of what you say. People repeatedly watch content they already agree with and it only serves to reinforce they existing views. The algorithms essentially censor opposing viewpoints. Although I think most of us would say we try to listen to other perspectives and give them consideration.

But here's my question. You say "it's a problem" that people often look at content that they already agree with because that's what the algorithms are sending them. I agree, that's a problem and there's probably not a good solution. We can't force people to do honest research.

But then we have the government actively manipulating content to make things even more extreme and biased. We have a government actually create a "ministry of truth". So just incase anyone was trying to use their brains and understand both sides, the far left government puts a stop to it. Consider that today's administration proudly says they work with Facebook and other social media companies to censor and suppress what they decide to be misinformation. So if you think the algorithms are a problem, what do you think about our government willfully making things worse and doing their best to brainwash people by banning content they don't want people to see?

Do you tolerate this? Are you outraged? I would think that anyone who'd say the algorithms are a problem would agree that this administration has compounded the problem exponentially.

ora_43

Fri, Apr 21 2023, 3:21 am

shoshanim999 wrote:

So if you think the algorithms are a problem, what do you think about our government willfully making things worse and doing their best to brainwash people by banning content they don't want people to see?

I think it's a very difficult situation. It's established fact that foreign governments are running social media campaigns aimed at setting Americans against each other. So obviously I think the government needs to do something about that.

And on the other hand, it's very tricky to have any one group getting to decide where truth lies. Everyone has their own biases.

Similarly, it's very hard to find the balance on free speech. If you let people say literally anything, including blatant incitement against others, you end up with fewer human rights not more. But again - who gets to decide where the line is between incitement and opinions that are simply distasteful to the majority?

Basically, I think you're leaving out a crucial part of the picture that turns this from "government = Teh Evul" to "between a rock and a hard place." Personally I'd lean toward less government interference, but I also don't think the government can stay out of it completely. Which, ftr, isn't entirely a new development, unless anyone wants to argue that the US government would have allowed Russia to openly run anti-American ad campaigns on US soil in the pre-internet era.

shoshanim999

Fri, Apr 21 2023, 7:55 am

ora_43 wrote:

To be honest, I think your response here is indicative that you are a victim of the algorithms discussed in this thread. You seem to be suggesting that the government finds itself in a delicate situation trying to allow for free speech as best they can while also preventing blatant hate speech.

The facts couldn't be further from that. Government censorship today is about promoting their agenda in order to maintain control and power and squashing dissent. If I want to post on social media that many scientists say that masking kindergarteners is a bad idea, it would get censored. If I wanted to say that in my humble opinion the 2020 election wasn't fair because of....whatever, it would get censored. If I wanted to say the H Biden laptop is legit and J Biden knew about it, it would get censored. If I wanted to say someone I know seems to have suffered a vaccine injury, it would get censored.

Do you honestly believe government involvement in these issues is about preventing hate speech?

Last edited by shoshanim999 on Fri, Apr 21 2023, 9:54 am; edited 2 times in total

#BestBubby

Fri, Apr 21 2023, 8:05 am

ora_43 wrote:

All those " Russian disinformation" claims by
Democrats were LIES.

The Biden laptop story is Russian Disinformation.

Russian Disinformation helped Trump win

The Wuhan Covid lab leak story is Russian Disinformation.

The government cannot censor American citizens, even if we really are repeating Russian Disinformation.

Only thing government can do is to prove the alleged "Russian Disinformation " claims are false.
(Which they can't do because they are true)

jkl

Fri, Apr 21 2023, 9:14 am

Fox wrote:

The Internet does a good job answering our questions. The problem is that we have to know precisely what question to ask.

This! Also to add though is that you need to have a foundational understanding of the topic on hand. I find that the Dunning Kruger effect has really taken a hold on society now in the internet age. People read a handful of papers and now believe they are experts on a subject. They overestimate their knowledge on it.

I am trained in one science field and see this happening quite often. I actually experienced this just last week with an aquaintance. Without going into too much details, the conversation was about DNA, and he was building his case based in the fact that humans have about 30 trillion cells in our bodies. He was bringing papers he read on the internet to support his position and explaining to me why it all makes sense. I asked him one question - Are you aware that not all human cells have DNA? I.e. blood cells make up 70% of our cells, and red blood cells don't contain DNA. Skin and hair cells don't have DNa either,so there would be no such number as 30 trillion in any of his equations. I suggested he take back that info and redo his 'research' with this in mind, and see if he still comes to the same conclusion.

This happens repeatedly in all areas. If you don't have core foundational info, you often lack the ability to find holes in theories ir recognize when you're going down a rabbit hole.

ora_43

Fri, Apr 21 2023, 9:30 am

shoshanim999 wrote:

To be honest, I think your response here is indicative that you are a victim of the algorithms discussed in this thread. You seem to be suggesting that the government finds itself in a delicate situation trying to allow for free speech as best the can while also preventing blatant hate speech.

The facts couldn't be further from that. Government censorship today is about promoting their agenda in order to maintain control and power and squashing decent. If I want to post on social media that many scientists say that masking kindergarteners is a bad idea, it would get censored. If I wanted to say that in my humble opinion the 2020 election wasn't fair because of....whatever, it would get censored. If I wanted to say the H Biden laptop is legit and J Biden knew about it, it would get censored. If I wanted to say someone I know seems to have suffered a vaccine injury, it would get censored.

Do you honestly believe government involvement in these issues is about preventing hate speech?

You literally just said all those things. Should we start the countdown until The Government comes in and erases this post?

shoshanim999

Fri, Apr 21 2023, 9:59 am

ora_43 wrote:

You literally just said all those things. Should we start the countdown until The Government comes in and erases this post?

So you're saying that just because the extent of government control doesn't go to extremes where they try to control content and discussion on imamother, we should give them a pass for trying to control the main platforms of discussion and sharing such as Facebook, twitter and others?

I agree, they don't control content here. But they are evil for trying to brainwash the country on other big tech platforms with hundreds of millions of users.

Are you outraged by this?

shoshanim999

Fri, Apr 21 2023, 10:06 am

Trademark wrote:

I don't know why this thread was made so political...

Deliberate misinformation or government control is a total different topic.

I hate to break it to you, but you also show signs of clearly being a victim of the algorithms you mentioned in your op.

It seems clear that your political opinions are somewhat shaped by the algorithms. You seem reluctant to discuss that the Biden administration has an actual brainwashing campaign used in the very same way the algorithms you referenced, where by hundreds of millions of viewers around the world are only allowed to view content that our government allows them to see.

If you are concerned about internet search algorithms, it stands to reason you would be terrified about this. Are you?

Trademark

Fri, Apr 21 2023, 10:23 am

shoshanim999 wrote:

Which political opinions?

I did not make a single political statement or engaged with any political posts on this thread!! This is total projection from your side.

When I opened this thread I wasn't thinking of politics at all, I was thinking along the lines of health and medicine, when people make "research" online and are convinced of certain "facts." The internet is used for way more than just politics. I wanted to have an interesting discussion (hence it being under interesting discussion, not politics.) about that, and some posters just feel a need to shoehorn politics into everything.

Just because you're so political doesn't mean everyone else is. Some people don't even think about politics at all. Surprised

(and PS if you really want to know I'm right leaning and like to listen to the daily wire hosts for example.)

Banging head