Social media, response ranking.
Discussion
Bit of a rant, sans swearing, TLDR, doesn’t understand how social media works.
Let me start, by laying my cards on the table, PH aside, I did not engage with any form of social media, that is until recently, when Mrs DG, encouraged me to participate.
Now, I should have seen this coming, the levels of misinformation are just staggering, what I didn’t realise was how this was being perpetuated.
Someone post complete cobblers, you then post trying to correct the cobblers, however, the cobblers gets ‘many likes’ its ranking is higher than the correction irrespective of time, thus fuelling more cobblers.
Maybe I should get over myself and just realise no one is interested in my posts; or grow up and disengage from it all, all though that seems a shame having just started using it.
Let me start, by laying my cards on the table, PH aside, I did not engage with any form of social media, that is until recently, when Mrs DG, encouraged me to participate.
Now, I should have seen this coming, the levels of misinformation are just staggering, what I didn’t realise was how this was being perpetuated.
Someone post complete cobblers, you then post trying to correct the cobblers, however, the cobblers gets ‘many likes’ its ranking is higher than the correction irrespective of time, thus fuelling more cobblers.
Maybe I should get over myself and just realise no one is interested in my posts; or grow up and disengage from it all, all though that seems a shame having just started using it.
Inaccurate information is everywhere.
Just think every time you see a news article with things you know to be inaccurate about a certain topic, or myths people repeatedly state even here. Then think that’s going to be the case for 99% of articles and opinions, it’s just generally we don’t know enough about a particular topic to recognise the inaccuracies.
Just think every time you see a news article with things you know to be inaccurate about a certain topic, or myths people repeatedly state even here. Then think that’s going to be the case for 99% of articles and opinions, it’s just generally we don’t know enough about a particular topic to recognise the inaccuracies.
Dingu said:
Inaccurate information is everywhere.
Just think every time you see a news article with things you know to be inaccurate about a certain topic, or myths people repeatedly state even here. Then think that’s going to be the case for 99% of articles and opinions, it’s just generally we don’t know enough about a particular topic to recognise the inaccuracies.
I’ve been around long enough to know this. I just wasn't prepared for the scale of it.Just think every time you see a news article with things you know to be inaccurate about a certain topic, or myths people repeatedly state even here. Then think that’s going to be the case for 99% of articles and opinions, it’s just generally we don’t know enough about a particular topic to recognise the inaccuracies.
What prompted this, were post on a social media in Asia, related to travel in Laos and Cambodia. What I couldn’t understand, was peoples inability to differentiate between reality and fiction.
This all stems from a movie/film ‘No more bets’ which has had a significant effect on tourism in the area.
Source; Lifestyle Asia.
https://www.lifestyleasia.com/bk/entertainment/mov...
This all stems from a movie/film ‘No more bets’ which has had a significant effect on tourism in the area.
Source; Lifestyle Asia.
https://www.lifestyleasia.com/bk/entertainment/mov...
bigandclever said:
Social media in 'load of old b
ks' shocker 
Agreed, but what surprised me was, replies on this particular platform are not ranked by relevance or time, but by something, as fickle as likes.ks' shocker As an example, someone posts a video about dancing ‘some reply about the dancers techniques’ few likes generated; ‘others reply about the dancers, physical attributes good/bad’ many likes, that now drives the conversation.
That I guess is how most social media works. As I said in my opening post, I’ve had little exposure to this type of content.
I get content creators, asking for likes and that generating traffic, didn’t realise, contributors comments would dictate the way a conversation would go!
I’m definitely very naive in this space.
I've been involved in it for a long while. You just have to play the game, sadly. It's about learning how the algo works.
It is ridiculous how misinformation can spread and lead to idiots making poor decisions (UK riots, anyone?) and it will continue as long as SM businesses are driven by profit (ads) over accuracy.
As someone mentioned, take any topic you know well and see what some random journo without a clue comes up with; now magnify that as suddenly everyone is a journo. Throw in a bit of AI to stir up the misinformation.
At least there is some rudimentary fact checking these days but that is still limited. I could post some random st not related to covid and it won't be fact checked.
The authorities needs to make people more accountable for bullst. I mean, if you post a lie about someone, it's covered by liable laws so you may end up out of pocket but there are plenty of things you can post about that could have a negative impact on someone and isn't covered by the law and there's no fact checking done by anyone.
That said, some things do tend to govern themselves - for instance, if someone rants about a local business, if it's down to their own stupidity and not typical of the business, many people will post good things about said business.
It is ridiculous how misinformation can spread and lead to idiots making poor decisions (UK riots, anyone?) and it will continue as long as SM businesses are driven by profit (ads) over accuracy.
As someone mentioned, take any topic you know well and see what some random journo without a clue comes up with; now magnify that as suddenly everyone is a journo. Throw in a bit of AI to stir up the misinformation.
At least there is some rudimentary fact checking these days but that is still limited. I could post some random s
t not related to covid and it won't be fact checked.The authorities needs to make people more accountable for bulls
t. I mean, if you post a lie about someone, it's covered by liable laws so you may end up out of pocket but there are plenty of things you can post about that could have a negative impact on someone and isn't covered by the law and there's no fact checking done by anyone. That said, some things do tend to govern themselves - for instance, if someone rants about a local business, if it's down to their own stupidity and not typical of the business, many people will post good things about said business.
I have a great explanation for this....
30 years ago every pub had a strange old man who sat in the corner. He spoke about conspiracy theories, aliens, 9/11 being an inside job or whatever, and everyone went "Steve, you've had too much to drink, now fk off home". And he went home, and that was that.
The internet is like a big pub. However, now instead of being sat in the corner mumbling to himself he meets someone else (from the next pub), who also shares the same views. Suddenly instead of ridicule he has someone else agreeing with him. Together they convince each other they're right and have seen the light.
Once they've found 4 or 5 people they form a little club, "validating" their beliefs.
They then start getting interest from other people who wouldn't have ever spoken to Steve, but when there are 10 or 20 people all convincingly explaining that this is what it is, it's more believable. Now instead of a drunk man sat in the corner by himself you have a cult.
30 years ago every pub had a strange old man who sat in the corner. He spoke about conspiracy theories, aliens, 9/11 being an inside job or whatever, and everyone went "Steve, you've had too much to drink, now f
k off home". And he went home, and that was that. The internet is like a big pub. However, now instead of being sat in the corner mumbling to himself he meets someone else (from the next pub), who also shares the same views. Suddenly instead of ridicule he has someone else agreeing with him. Together they convince each other they're right and have seen the light.
Once they've found 4 or 5 people they form a little club, "validating" their beliefs.
They then start getting interest from other people who wouldn't have ever spoken to Steve, but when there are 10 or 20 people all convincingly explaining that this is what it is, it's more believable. Now instead of a drunk man sat in the corner by himself you have a cult.
Yes, I get the responses above, but could some of that not be circumvented, by how responses are delivered digitally.
As I posted, when it comes to social media, I’m naive, not stupid. I’m fully aware media is full of inaccuracies, bias or has an agenda to fulfil, it’s always been that way; it’s up to the recipient, to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
My initial post was concerning, how some platforms organise the response of those who post, PH, does this chronologically, others by relevance to the subject. However, some list by the number of likes (thumbs up) a respondent may get.
That encourages respondents, to post content that attracts likes, whereas those posting facts just get lost in the noise. Therefore, the reality becomes heavily distorted by those seeking affirmation, by posting cobblers.
As I posted, when it comes to social media, I’m naive, not stupid. I’m fully aware media is full of inaccuracies, bias or has an agenda to fulfil, it’s always been that way; it’s up to the recipient, to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
My initial post was concerning, how some platforms organise the response of those who post, PH, does this chronologically, others by relevance to the subject. However, some list by the number of likes (thumbs up) a respondent may get.
That encourages respondents, to post content that attracts likes, whereas those posting facts just get lost in the noise. Therefore, the reality becomes heavily distorted by those seeking affirmation, by posting cobblers.
It's actually worse than that.
People pay for 'likes'.
From my former business, I get emails daily offering me services to make my social media look good, give me positive reviews and get my videos viewed.
If you try to explain to young people how good the internet was about 20 years ago, they think you're drunk.
People pay for 'likes'.
From my former business, I get emails daily offering me services to make my social media look good, give me positive reviews and get my videos viewed.
If you try to explain to young people how good the internet was about 20 years ago, they think you're drunk.
This is the kind of thing bots in Russia and China exploit to push their agenda on western websites. Post something edgy, get it pushed to the top, and downvote comments questioning it so no one sees them. After a while the echo chamber effect sorts out the rest. The best thing to do is disengage.
Personally, I think it's rather terrifying!
On the one hand, a lot of this is as old as the first hominids to develop the capacity to communicate with each other - after all, as Mark Twain famously said, "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed" - but it was one thing to read a paper and look at the spin you'd expect from whichever paper it was, but nowadays alleged 'facts' are propagated at such speed by the Internet, both in terms of comments themselves being quoted and requoted, but also with those 'facts' being incorporated into other - often highly respected - writers' posts where they gain an ever stronger veneer of respectability because it becomes so hard to actually know when and where to fact check the original source.
This would be bad enough, but the next question is who fact checks the fact checkers? I remember seeing a post on Facebook at the height of Covid claiming that MHRA (our equivalent of the FDA) had faked the tests on the Covid vaccines because the government wanted to look good by having the fastest rollout in Europe". Now, you can of course question whether or not that's true, innocently false or an example of deliberate misinformation. Facebook decided it was the latter, and posted an fact check clarification under it. You might think that's great, but that linked to a page detailing how the MHRA tested the vaccines... written by the MHRA.
As Mandy Rice Davies said, "Well they would say that, wouldn't they"?
From that rejection of a self-interested position, though, we moved forward to Michael Gove's "people have had enough of experts" which creates a truly Orwellian position that undermines all experts on the grounds that their very expertise on a topic is enough to make them untrustworthy!
This is then all massively exacerbated by the defence taken by the SM platforms for not moderating content that they are neutral publishers, not opinionated editors. Except, as you've rightly pointed out, their algorithm very much is editing, and creating lots of echo chambers.
Personally, I suffer from very much a mixed blessing in that (probably driven by my ADHD) I can often get absolutely obsessive about fact-checking, to the point where I now deliberately try to avoid any SM or News websites before work (look how successful I've been today!) because if I don't, it's not uncommon for me to discover it's suddenly lunchtime and I've totally lost track of time going down a rabbit hole because I've seen a 'fact' that just seemed a bit surprising.
Now, it's bad enough to completely lose all track of time and find I've spent quite literally hours doing that without realising, but it gets even more frustrating if I post a correction, because people will automatically assume I'm vehemently ideologically opposed to the position I fact checked and react accordingly. In some cases, of course, I am opposed to the position, but in plenty of others, I really truly don't even have an opinion on the subject! It was just something that triggered my urge to fact check, and I often may still not have an opinion on the matter one way or the other!
Still, as I said at the start, this has been going on since forever, and the world hasn't ended yet, has it? One thing we can be pretty sure of, though, is that Mark Twain never made that comment about misinformation at all, as nobody has been able to trace it further back than 2007!
On the one hand, a lot of this is as old as the first hominids to develop the capacity to communicate with each other - after all, as Mark Twain famously said, "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed" - but it was one thing to read a paper and look at the spin you'd expect from whichever paper it was, but nowadays alleged 'facts' are propagated at such speed by the Internet, both in terms of comments themselves being quoted and requoted, but also with those 'facts' being incorporated into other - often highly respected - writers' posts where they gain an ever stronger veneer of respectability because it becomes so hard to actually know when and where to fact check the original source.
This would be bad enough, but the next question is who fact checks the fact checkers? I remember seeing a post on Facebook at the height of Covid claiming that MHRA (our equivalent of the FDA) had faked the tests on the Covid vaccines because the government wanted to look good by having the fastest rollout in Europe". Now, you can of course question whether or not that's true, innocently false or an example of deliberate misinformation. Facebook decided it was the latter, and posted an fact check clarification under it. You might think that's great, but that linked to a page detailing how the MHRA tested the vaccines... written by the MHRA.
As Mandy Rice Davies said, "Well they would say that, wouldn't they"?
From that rejection of a self-interested position, though, we moved forward to Michael Gove's "people have had enough of experts" which creates a truly Orwellian position that undermines all experts on the grounds that their very expertise on a topic is enough to make them untrustworthy!
This is then all massively exacerbated by the defence taken by the SM platforms for not moderating content that they are neutral publishers, not opinionated editors. Except, as you've rightly pointed out, their algorithm very much is editing, and creating lots of echo chambers.
Personally, I suffer from very much a mixed blessing in that (probably driven by my ADHD) I can often get absolutely obsessive about fact-checking, to the point where I now deliberately try to avoid any SM or News websites before work (look how successful I've been today!) because if I don't, it's not uncommon for me to discover it's suddenly lunchtime and I've totally lost track of time going down a rabbit hole because I've seen a 'fact' that just seemed a bit surprising.
Now, it's bad enough to completely lose all track of time and find I've spent quite literally hours doing that without realising, but it gets even more frustrating if I post a correction, because people will automatically assume I'm vehemently ideologically opposed to the position I fact checked and react accordingly. In some cases, of course, I am opposed to the position, but in plenty of others, I really truly don't even have an opinion on the subject! It was just something that triggered my urge to fact check, and I often may still not have an opinion on the matter one way or the other!
Still, as I said at the start, this has been going on since forever, and the world hasn't ended yet, has it? One thing we can be pretty sure of, though, is that Mark Twain never made that comment about misinformation at all, as nobody has been able to trace it further back than 2007!
Without going into in-depth detail, last year there was a film/movie released, titled ‘No more bets’ the story centered around a group of individuals who are kidnapped and forced against their will, in an internet fraud centre.
While the film/movie is clearly a work of fiction, many seem to consider it reality; this has had a devastating effect on tourism for some SE Asian countries. One blogger, posts a lot about Laos, many of the replies relate to what might befall you if you visit the country.
Because of the popularity of the film/movie, many respondents post from their experience of the film/movie, that generates likes, likes generate a higher ranking, therefore, the content heavily distorts reality.
Some SM platforms encourage this as it drives a higher level of traffic. I know this will be unpopular (as we all like an unregulated internet) but maybe the ranking of respondents, should be tightly regulated to reduce the spread of misinformation.
While the film/movie is clearly a work of fiction, many seem to consider it reality; this has had a devastating effect on tourism for some SE Asian countries. One blogger, posts a lot about Laos, many of the replies relate to what might befall you if you visit the country.
Because of the popularity of the film/movie, many respondents post from their experience of the film/movie, that generates likes, likes generate a higher ranking, therefore, the content heavily distorts reality.
Some SM platforms encourage this as it drives a higher level of traffic. I know this will be unpopular (as we all like an unregulated internet) but maybe the ranking of respondents, should be tightly regulated to reduce the spread of misinformation.
You're off your nut if you think that film has had any material effect on travel numbers. This doc explains it better than I could why Chinese domestic tourism is going gangbusters to the detriment of foreign travel, wherever it is.
https://www.eiu.com/n/in-charts-chinas-outbound-to...
https://www.eiu.com/n/in-charts-chinas-outbound-to...
bigandclever said:
You're off your nut if you think that film has had any material effect on travel numbers. This doc explains it better than I could why Chinese domestic tourism is going gangbusters to the detriment of foreign travel, wherever it is.
https://www.eiu.com/n/in-charts-chinas-outbound-to...
That is an excellent and well reasoned piece, I certainly can’t argue with.https://www.eiu.com/n/in-charts-chinas-outbound-to...
“You're off your nut if you think that film has had any material effect on travel number”
Meanwhile, a hashtag that translates to “why people are unwilling to travel to Thailand” earned 420 million views on Weibo and was a top discussion topic on the social media site last month, with some users saying they were afraid of being lured into scam factories, while others cited that the visa process at that time took too long.
Source: CNN
Source: ThaigerPuangpet Chunlaiad, Office Minister of the Prime Minister, raised concerns with Chinese Ambassador Han Zhiqiang about the potential impact of the Chinese film 'No More Bets' on tourism in Thailand. The meeting took place at the Government House yesterday, November 27.
Puangpet expressed her concerns about the movie’s portrayal of fraudulent activities, human trafficking, organ trading, call scams, and high-profile abductions. She noted that elements of the film were written in Thai and sparked criticisms on China’s social media site.
Yep you’re right, no effect at all.
I said no material effect.
You also managed to miss this bit .. "In response, the Chinese ambassador said he did not think the movie would have a negative impact on the number of Chinese tourists, especially during the Lunar New Year celebration early next year, according to the statement."
And maybe clarify what a weibo hashtag view count actually is.
So .. misquoting, misleading and misunderstanding. Welcome to the magical world of social media
You also managed to miss this bit .. "In response, the Chinese ambassador said he did not think the movie would have a negative impact on the number of Chinese tourists, especially during the Lunar New Year celebration early next year, according to the statement."
And maybe clarify what a weibo hashtag view count actually is.
So .. misquoting, misleading and misunderstanding. Welcome to the magical world of social media
I’m sure you have a far better understanding of this, than I do. However:
The Thai’s have raised their concerns about the issue.
The ambassador is hardly likely say “I think it will have a negative effect”.
Have you seen the film/movie, It does paint a fairly poor picture of neighbouring countries.
“And maybe clarify what a weibo hashtag view count actually is.” TBH, no idea.
Maybe you can explain, including why it’s insignificant.
Possibly peoples concerns are unfounded, as the Article you highlighted points to changing patterns in travel.
The Thai’s have raised their concerns about the issue.
The ambassador is hardly likely say “I think it will have a negative effect”.
Have you seen the film/movie, It does paint a fairly poor picture of neighbouring countries.
“And maybe clarify what a weibo hashtag view count actually is.” TBH, no idea.
Maybe you can explain, including why it’s insignificant.
Possibly peoples concerns are unfounded, as the Article you highlighted points to changing patterns in travel.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff