Internet companies creating political divides?

[SomeRandom]

Okay, I’m not saying this is an intentional nefarious plot, by any means. Just potentially an unfortunate consequence.

Algorithms implemented by various companies like Google, YouTube and even social media are specifically designed to cater to your history. What you search and therefore what content you consume. But given how often we’re casually online these days and how much of a specific echo chamber Google does create by design, do you think that perhaps people (perhaps particularly those who grew up with a phone in their hand, heh) might find themselves a little cut off from information from the “other side?” Thereby creating a bigger chasm by default?

Say if you say only watch “right wing” content, how often will the algorithm throw in a counterpoint for you to ponder?
What will the future landscape hold? Will sections of the internet be harder to access for many and therefore create their own “echo chamber” by default. Intentionally or not? I mean the ads on our homepage alone echo our previous predilections already. What potential consequences will this (obviously not intentionally nefarious) echo chamber mean for youngsters? Will it become that much harder for information to be accessed?

Note this is merely a thought exercise, not meant to be taken as some alarmist conspiracy theory.

 

[HonestJoe]

Social media was never intended to be a news source, certainly not an exclusive news source, so this is only an issue if someone chooses to source all of their information in this way. That’s no different to someone getting all their news from organisations which pander to their existing socio-political preferences, telling them what they want to hear rather than what they necessarily need to hear. I think there is a limit to what we can do to help those people. If a media source were somehow forced to provide a more balanced view to everyone, such people would probably stop using them (and/or attack them for being biased). I’m sure we’ve all encountered someone so set in their ways that even if they’re directly presented clear and definitive proof that they’re wrong, they will not be able to accept it.

 

[Stevicus]

Okay, I’m not saying this is an intentional nefarious plot, by any means. Just potentially an unfortunate consequence.

Algorithms implemented by various companies like Google, YouTube and even social media are specifically designed to cater to your history. What you search and therefore what content you consume. But given how often we’re casually online these days and how much of a specific echo chamber Google does create by design, do you think that perhaps people (perhaps particularly those who grew up with a phone in their hand, heh) might find themselves a little cut off from information from the “other side?” Thereby creating a bigger chasm by default?

Say if you say only watch “right wing” content, how often will the algorithm throw in a counterpoint for you to ponder?
What will the future landscape hold? Will sections of the internet be harder to access for many and therefore create their own “echo chamber” by default. Intentionally or not? I mean the ads on our homepage alone echo our previous predilections already. What potential consequences will this (obviously not intentionally nefarious) echo chamber mean for youngsters? Will it become that much harder for information to be accessed?

Note this is merely a thought exercise, not meant to be taken as some alarmist conspiracy theory.

The irony of all this is that the internet was supposed to have made communication easier (which it is), and people have access to a wider variety of news and information sources - something which was unheard of 30-40 years ago.

The reason why people remain in "echo chambers" is because they're deliberately choosing to do so.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay, I’m not saying this is an intentional nefarious plot, by any means. Just potentially an unfortunate consequence.

Algorithms implemented by various companies like Google, YouTube and even social media are specifically designed to cater to your history. What you search and therefore what content you consume. But given how often we’re casually online these days and how much of a specific echo chamber Google does create by design, do you think that perhaps people (perhaps particularly those who grew up with a phone in their hand, heh) might find themselves a little cut off from information from the “other side?” Thereby creating a bigger chasm by default?

Say if you say only watch “right wing” content, how often will the algorithm throw in a counterpoint for you to ponder?
What will the future landscape hold? Will sections of the internet be harder to access for many and therefore create their own “echo chamber” by default. Intentionally or not? I mean the ads on our homepage alone echo our previous predilections already. What potential consequences will this (obviously not intentionally nefarious) echo chamber mean for youngsters? Will it become that much harder for information to be accessed?

Note this is merely a thought exercise, not meant to be taken as some alarmist conspiracy theory.

No need to. Just try finding specific right wing information using search terms and such respectively.

It's not a conspiracy. Most of the media is alt left and worse even. I'm pretty sure some very powerful and influential people are behind it all. The bias is so blatant, it's almost impossible to think it's not a conspiracy.

 

[SomeRandom]

Social media was never intended to be a news source, certainly not an exclusive news source, so this is only an issue if someone chooses to source all of their information in this way. That’s no different to someone getting all their news from organisations which pander to their existing socio-political preferences, telling them what they want to hear rather than what they necessarily need to hear. I think there is a limit to what we can do to help those people. If a media source were somehow forced to provide a more balanced view to everyone, such people would probably stop using them (and/or attack them for being biased). I’m sure we’ve all encountered someone so set in their ways that even if they’re directly presented clear and definitive proof that they’re wrong, they will not be able to accept it.

Of course. I do not mean to say this is inevitable. I just mean that with today’s information available I see people becoming more complacent. I’m not saying these people will consume Twitter as a news source. But kids are largely supplanting news with YouTube channels (to be fair a lot of news channels have legitimate YouTube accounts.)
I’m not saying we need to panic, but merely posing the question, does this have the potential to funnel information in a certain way?

 

[SomeRandom]

No need to. Just try finding specific right wing information using search terms and such respectively.

It's not a conspiracy. Most of the media is alt left and worse even. I'm pretty sure some very powerful and influential people are behind it all. The bias is so blatant, it's almost impossible to think it's not a conspiracy.

Could you give examples, if you don’t mind?

 

[SomeRandom]

The irony of all this is that the internet was supposed to have made communication easier (which it is), and people have access to a wider variety of news and information sources - something which was unheard of 30-40 years ago.

The reason why people remain in "echo chambers" is because they're deliberately choosing to do so.

I largely agree with you. But technology is fast becoming echo chambers in their own right.
I once clicked on a JBHIFI link like ages ago (for reference that’s a retail store selling DVDs, games and tech.) I’m still receiving ads in the form of email. I don’t think this is a conspiracy, I think that algorithms are generated around things we click. But this could unintentionally build its own echo chamber, because it’s largely based on marketing techniques, really.
But you Americans have literally made politics a sport
In my randomly generated google news feed today, I saw that Cadbury released a block of chocolate as a sort of half and half deal, in order to promote diversity. Normally I wouldn’t care. But it was the top story for some reason. The “article” linked was a bunch of twitter reactions, as the author mused. Now me, I took it as just a fluff piece,
Silly click bait. If someone is very much into the “anti SJW” crowd (and I was once one of those people) it acts as confirmation bias. Perhaps I’m selling my brethren short, but on a much bigger scale, could this have the potential to sell a few people on their ideas, so to speak?

 

[Stanyon]

Interesting video:

 

[Twilight Hue]

Could you give examples, if you don’t mind?

Try it and see for yourself.

Google liberal bias: study shows 40% of search results lean left | CanIRank

The google search engines are rigged and it's not hard to see for yourself by typing in a few search terms and see where the algorithms leads you to.

YouTube is no different and the algorithms are even more biased I think...

Trump is right: More than Facebook & Twitter, Google threatens democracy, online freedom

Same thing as the regular internet just type in a few Search terms and look where the algorithms lead you to.

I find I as well as other right supporters have discovered is you have to search twice as hard to find what your looking for then most other people on the left when they're doing searches for their own debates and comments .

Like I said earlier , I have little doubt there are somewhere, a number of wealthy and influential people who are bankrolling all this in support of the Socialist left on most media sources and outlets.

It can't be a coincidence especially when you realize you have to work several times harder to locate information supporting the right as opposed to the left. It's too noticeable to ignore.

 

[Woberts]

Like I said earlier , I have little doubt there are somewhere, a number of wealthy and influential people who are bankrolling all this in support of the Socialist left on most media sources and outlets.

Fascist lies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

ry it and see for yourself.

Google liberal bias: study shows 40% of search results lean left | CanIRank

ZOMG! It's less than half! Run for he hills!

 

[Ellen Brown]

Okay, I’m not saying this is an intentional nefarious plot, by any means. Just potentially an unfortunate consequence.

Algorithms implemented by various companies like Google, YouTube and even social media are specifically designed to cater to your history. What you search and therefore what content you consume. But given how often we’re casually online these days and how much of a specific echo chamber Google does create by design, do you think that perhaps people (perhaps particularly those who grew up with a phone in their hand, heh) might find themselves a little cut off from information from the “other side?” Thereby creating a bigger chasm by default?

Say if you say only watch “right wing” content, how often will the algorithm throw in a counterpoint for you to ponder?
What will the future landscape hold? Will sections of the internet be harder to access for many and therefore create their own “echo chamber” by default. Intentionally or not? I mean the ads on our homepage alone echo our previous predilections already. What potential consequences will this (obviously not intentionally nefarious) echo chamber mean for youngsters? Will it become that much harder for information to be accessed?

Note this is merely a thought exercise, not meant to be taken as some alarmist conspiracy theory.

This is a chilling reality. I think it is significant that Facebook, the DNC and others took Tulsi Gabbard out of the picture. I still hope she gets in at some level to be mentored as to the ways of the political life.

I just read a very frightening story about the manipulation of the public. This is set in the future, but I think a lot of it happens right now. This will take a day to read, and is very good. Deimos

 

[SomeRandom]

Try it and see for yourself.

Google liberal bias: study shows 40% of search results lean left | CanIRank

The google search engines are rigged and it's not hard to see for yourself by typing in a few search terms and see where the algorithms leads you to.

YouTube is no different and the algorithms are even more biased I think...

Trump is right: More than Facebook & Twitter, Google threatens democracy, online freedom

Same thing as the regular internet just type in a few Search terms and look where the algorithms lead you to.

I find I as well as other right supporters have discovered is you have to search twice as hard to find what your looking for then most other people on the left when they're doing searches for their own debates and comments .

Like I said earlier , I have little doubt there are somewhere, a number of wealthy and influential people who are bankrolling all this in support of the Socialist left on most media sources and outlets.

It can't be a coincidence especially when you realize you have to work several times harder to locate information supporting the right as opposed to the left. It's too noticeable to ignore.

I dunno. I mean I know there’s a lot of “leftist” media. Especially in the states. You lot take politics way more seriously than everyone else. Just an observation.
But I wouldn’t say it’s harder for right leaning voices on YT. I had to go out of my way to disconnect from the right on YouTube. I used to follow a lot of the “YT skeptics” back in the day, so the algorithm kind of lead me into the alt right stratosphere by default. I disengaged with them on purpose, realising their toxicity and how it was negatively affecting my reasoning ability. So called Breadtube (no I don’t know why it’s called that either) kind of wrangled back a lot of the discourse spotlight. I don’t think that was the algorithm, though. I think that’s because the so called “alt right” community more of less imploded and became whiny snowflakes. Or at least they became even more whiny. Now the “dreaded left” mock the Anti side for being overly sensitive SJWs. Which I’ll admit to finding amusing, in a garbage fire kind of way.

Though it was certainly bizarre when a bunch of ****posting interned edgelords seemingly joined UKIP in England. Sure, I followed it just to watch it burn. But still. Wtf? (I know that story is irrelevant, but it’s so bizarre I just had to mention it.)

 

[SomeRandom]

This is a chilling reality. I think it is significant that Facebook, the DNC and others took Tulsi Gabbard out of the picture. I still hope she gets in at some level to be mentored as to the ways of the political life.

I just read a very frightening story about the manipulation of the public. This is set in the future, but I think a lot of it happens right now. This will take a day to read, and is very good. Deimos

I wouldn’t be afraid, dear Ellen. Politics have always played dirty. But I do think news media, with its hyperbolic presentation, probably does affect the public in a negative manner in general. Control sounds a little too conspiratorial, but public opinion could be influenced to a certain degree, sure.
Thanks for the reading suggestion, will check it out after work.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I dunno. I mean I know there’s a lot of “leftist” media. Especially in the states. You lot take politics way more seriously than everyone else. Just an observation.
But I wouldn’t say it’s harder for right leaning voices on YT. I had to go out of my way to disconnect from the right on YouTube. I used to follow a lot of the “YT skeptics” back in the day, so the algorithm kind of lead me into the alt right stratosphere by default. I disengaged with them on purpose, realising their toxicity and how it was negatively affecting my reasoning ability. So called Breadtube (no I don’t know why it’s called that either) kind of wrangled back a lot of the discourse spotlight. I don’t think that was the algorithm, though. I think that’s because the so called “alt right” community more of less imploded and became whiny snowflakes. Or at least they became even more whiny. Now the “dreaded left” mock the Anti side for being overly sensitive SJWs. Which I’ll admit to finding amusing, in a garbage fire kind of way.

Though it was certainly bizarre when a bunch of ****posting interned edgelords seemingly joined UKIP in England. Sure, I followed it just to watch it burn. But still. Wtf? (I know that story is irrelevant, but it’s so bizarre I just had to mention it.)

Actually I could care less about politics if you really want to know. ;O) I just enjoy the debating here, and do follow my expressed opinions , but I'm not entirely into politics Lock Stock & Barrel in my non-internet life.

I much more enjoy talking and debating about religion and the philosophical side of things, pretty much the Forte of the Forum , but being politics right now are at the forefront of people's interest, I have no problem swinging the old Bushido sword in the political forums each opportunity that arises that strikes my fancy.

Some people could reasonably argue that the left is the viewpoint of most people in the country, hence a reason why most of the hits on the internet are left leaning .

I could agree with that, but the fact that the search terms themselves keep steering left and much more difficult finding hits that support the right diminishes the former in my opinion, and leads me to ascertain that the algorithms themselves are structured in favor of the left. It certainly comes across that way from my personal experience so far on various media sites and like that we are considered a divided nation with about half Pro left in various capacity , and half pro right in various capacity. That would lead me to think search term hits would be pretty much even.

It's probably a reason why there are so many references with Fox News for the right and CNN news for the left. It's not hard to ascertain that there are algorithms in both favoring each political position respectively.

 

[SomeRandom]

Actually I could care less about politics if you really want to know. ;O) I just enjoy the debating here, and do follow my expressed opinions , but I'm not entirely into politics Lock Stock & Barrel in my non-internet life.

Ahh touche. I could care less about politics. But American politics is odd to me. Because the divide is so very wide and both parties are rather extreme. Our main parties would translate into "center left" and "center right" when translated into American politics. So American debate kind of fascinates me, but it's also often an even bigger circus than my country's politics. I think the most anyone actually cared about politics in my country was the recent SSM postal vote. But I suspect it was almost more of a sort of purge rather than a debate held in good faith.

I much more enjoy talking and debating about religion and the philosophical side of things, pretty much the Forte of the Forum , but being politics right now are at the forefront of people's interest, I have no problem swinging the old Bushido sword in the political forums each opportunity that arises that strikes my fancy.

Fair enough. I share your preference.

Some people could reasonably argue that the left is the viewpoint of most people in the country, hence a reason why most of the hits on the internet are left leaning .

Maybe.

I could agree with that, but the fact that the search terms themselves keep steering left and much more difficult finding hits that support the right diminishes the former in my opinion, and leads me to ascertain that the algorithms themselves are structured in favor of the left. It certainly comes across that way from my personal experience so far on various media sites and like that we are considered a divided nation with about half Pro left in various capacity , and half pro right in various capacity. That would lead me to think search term hits would be pretty much even.

That hasn't been my experience. But then again, I'm not American. So maybe that changes things, I don't know.
I do recall watching a lot of otherwise rational (if caustic) so called YouTube skeptics morph into Anti Feminists who then teamed up with the Alt Right. Though I think many have since largely severed ties with the movement. They seemed pretty liberal before all the catfighting, so they probably became disenfranchised by the more emboldened right rhetoric that cropped up. I dunno. But like I said, due to those early subs, I was sort of "grandfathered" into very right leaning YouTube content. I'm very liberal, (though center left in Americanstan speak) so I just assumed that I was supposed to listen to the other side. But the algorithms offered less and less counterpoints. So I ended up having to look for myself. And I realized that the divide had seemingly increased. Also that I was internalizing too much of the rhetoric, because I went in with the wrong frame of mind. It was a game to me. So I wasn't being my normal "I need to immediately google this thing someone told me to see if it's true or if there's alternative info" self. To my everlasting shame.

That's not to say I didn't see unfortunate, as you Americans would dub it, "Leftist bullying tactics." I actually did. In the affectionately dubbed BookTube, which I would say is left leaning (but more introverted, because book nerds) there were some very unfortunate drama. Nothing world changing, or anything. But there were certain controversies that made me say, wait what?
But I suspect it was just a bunch of young adults being a little too enthusiastic to call out "problematic" books or users.
Like one of my fave BookTubers Steve. Who was essentially harassed due to a comment he made about "fake reader girls." Which was a bit tone deaf, to be sure. But after watching him a little more, I think it was more of a "probably should have worded my opinion better" kind of deals. Because he seems very open minded, if a little curmudgeonly. The Carve the Mark "controversy" was so baffling, a very progressive BookTuber stepped in to tell "the mob" to calm the f down. And even ended up reading the book, just to see what the hell got everyone in such a silly tizzy. That was popcorn worthy garbage entertainment, if ever there was. Because in Australia, the controversy was more "wow, look at all these Americans overreact to this book lol"

Silly innocuous nonsense, to be sure. But entertaining on the train commute if you have nothing else to do.

It's probably a reason why there are so many references with Fox News for the right and CNN news for the left. It's not hard to ascertain that there are algorithms in both favoring each political position respectively.

Okay, this I am genuinely curious about. Are Fox News and CNN like actual news stations? I mean obviously you guys would have a standard generic nightly news or whatever.
But like over here, we have the generic nightly news.
And then it branches off into "News and information Programs." And you can tell which side of the political fence each program falls on. But apart from some news reading, it's not really the same as the literal nightly news. Like A Current Affair is obviously more sensationalist and honestly easily trolled. 4 Corners is the same but with a more professional veneer. And probably not as sensationalist, at least at times. The Project is more of a panel discussing news events, with I guess to you guys, "obvious liberal bias."
But these shows are not necessarily treated the same way an actual news program is. They're more like sub categories. Because there is more debate and more I guess political bias in each. Whereas the nightly news is very neutrally telling the audience that a thing happened.
So is it the same with Fox News and CNN?

(Also, doesn't Disney now own Fox News essentially?)

 

[HonestJoe]

Of course. I do not mean to say this is inevitable. I just mean that with today’s information available I see people becoming more complacent. I’m not saying these people will consume Twitter as a news source. But kids are largely supplanting news with YouTube channels (to be fair a lot of news channels have legitimate YouTube accounts.)

I’m not saying we need to panic, but merely posing the question, does this have the potential to funnel information in a certain way?

There are people who do consume Twitter as the news source though. There problem there isn’t the source though, it’s the general attitude. That applies regardless of which medium a person is using. In the past, lots of people would only ever read one newspaper and thus be influenced by their political bias. I’m not arguing that this isn’t an issue, I’m arguing that it isn’t a new issue and not the fault of the big bad internet or evil internet companies.

 

[SomeRandom]

There are people who do consume Twitter as the news source though. There problem there isn’t the source though, it’s the general attitude. That applies regardless of which medium a person is using. In the past, lots of people would only ever read one newspaper and thus be influenced by their political bias. I’m not arguing that this isn’t an issue, I’m arguing that it isn’t a new issue and not the fault of the big bad internet or evil internet companies.

Well I would agree with your premise that just getting information from one source is nothing new. And indeed, it is rather problematic, as it does not allow you to challenge your own worldview. Which, imo, is intellectually stunting. It does not allow you to flex those critical thinking skills and conditions you to think that you’re right.

Trust me, I fully agree that that is not a good thing.

But here’s what I’m saying. The algorithms employed by the internet are based on very aggressive marketing techniques. They want you to feel comfortable, they want to ensure that you enjoy everything that you consume. I’m not saying that’s a nefarious plot to divide people, it’s just based on the convenience people expect of their technology. The internet is literally just doing what people ask of them. But here’s the thing. Both scenarios have a level of choice. A person choosing to only read one newspaper in the past, would presumably see other newspapers being sold next to or near their favourite source. That’s not necessarily the case if one casually employs google and may for any number of reasons uncritically accept the recommendations. Because I mean why would google lie to you, after all? It’s a search engine, not an entity, one may think.
So is there less informed consent, so to speak, in casually relying on the algorithm?
And indeed, with the absolute deluge of information we have, will a person always necessarily realise the “bad” information from the good? Especially as the information is not confined to borders as much as it used to be. What if a person doesn’t realise the reputation of a source, because they are not from the country that source is from and thus unfamiliar with perhaps the propaganda techniques that source might be known to employ?
Well then you could argue, that person just needs to vet their sources by an additional google search. (And I agree, this should be standard practice.) But will people be willing to do that in today’s age of expected instant gratification? And indeed, if the results, based on traffic, only start to “push back” against the source are further down the page, does that go towards discouraging people short on time perhaps. I’m not saying that’s an excuse, but people are impatient. So the inter webs doesn’t really encourage us to do more footwork (not that that’s their job. But you know, people be people.)