Hacker News Reader

> China's seemingly made a point of outsourcing their most polarizing algorithmic decisions to the rest of the world but not to their own population

Exactly. We're a decade into the social media experiment now, and it's absolutely clear that it in its current form it doesn't make us smarter, it doesn't make us happier, and it doesn't bring us closer. If anything, it makes people sick and it weakens the social fabric. The proposed solution of "more free speech better" is clearly not working in the face of organized, AI-fueled, nation-state manipulation efforts.

Hacker News is made up of people with a birds-eye view of social media technology. Most of us understand how it works and who operates it. I think it's important to know what an incredible position this is to be in, and to remember that most people aren't like us. Most people can't just say, "screw it, I'll get my information elsewhere."

I think we'll improve over time, but we're at least a generation away from any kind of widespread media literacy. What do we do in the meantime?

>I think it's important to know what an incredible position this is to be in,

The old saying goes that knowledge is power; everyone here with deep knowledge of computers and the things they enable really are in a blessed position.

Thank you for this comment. I would like to add that social media and foreign manipulation thereof has been demonstrated to be spectacularly capable of affecting peoples' mental states and beliefs and by extension our stability as a country. We haven't figured out how to deal with it yet in a way that balances with our values of free speech and enterprise but a platform with tiktok's pervasiveness taking orders directly from the Chinese government is a huge, bright and shining risk that our government knows it needs to address.

Not to mention the data collection.

Exactly. We've already seen the damage that foreign manipulation can cause when they're exploiting the cracks of FB, Twitter, etc. It doesn't take much imagination to think about what the art of the possible is when you can control the system itself.

history repeats itself. what did the folks in the 1890s do when hearst controlled the newspapers?

> China's seemingly made a point of outsourcing their most polarizing algorithmic decisions to the rest of the world but not to their own population

Exactly how most social media execs handle it with respect to their own kids.

Yes, telling parents (who are the voters) that actually they should just be doing a better job monitoring their kids activities online seems like a losing political strategy!

Maybe it's not a binary choice. Parents can do a better job monitoring their kids and the state can make it mildly harder for kids to spend all day on social media.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that parents would want to hear the former message from their elected representative

We could also educate the parents/adults. I feel like a lot of these issues come from the fact that the newer generation(s) have so much more knowledge of what they're using than their elders. Society has changed things and implemented safeguards in the past (seatbelts, driving laws, etc.) Yet for some reason the social media discussion always ends up only presenting two options: Censorship or anarchy.

Education has a low chance of success on adults. However, kids can be educated. But social media prevents this

It doesn't need to be successful on everyone, and you're right that we should also be teaching the kids in order to eventually have a population that's less susceptible to trickery. That said, there was a point when the average citizen couldn't read. When there were no driver's ed classes or requirements. Hell, attitudes can change among adults and that would do a lot: Look at the approval rates for gay marriage and interracial relationships. The gay marriage jump is notable because it happened in a short enough period of time that it is an indication that people who were already adults changed their minds.

We can educate or change things at the population level, we just lack the political will to do so and it's disincentivized for the people in power to orient their efforts that way. I think it's worth taking a good hard look about why our Overton Window has ended up where it has on these issues.

There are also other ways to cope rather than outright bans or anarchy. We could study the physiology of the harm caused and require algorithm changes to demonstrate they don't cause biological panic reactions. We could require some knowledge in order to access social media rather than gatekeeping by age (for the record, I don't think this would work and it's probably not legal in America, but it's interesting that nobody seems to discuss it), etc. Even something as simple as requiring a representative age sample for groups addressing these problems so that we can have the perspectives of both those of us who grew up chronically online and people who have to adjust to this weird new techno world they don't understand since both groups need to live in society.

We could also go meta and ask why education has a low chance of success in adults. What of those variables could we influence? Would an economically secure population be easier to educate? Etc.

Yes, I think you’re right. Might not be a great strategy for the geriatric politicians to tell a generation of parents who are the first generation of parents who have ever had to navigate anything like this, that they just need to do better.

Looking at how the US reacts to a company winning at the media game, China's iron fist regarding foreign companies entering their market retroactively feels par for the course.

And it kinda signals to other countries they really should put critical effort in lowering dependence on the US and chalenging the dominance if they ever intend to thrive.

Hi from the rest of the world!

> Foreign adversaries have learned exactly how to weaponize our free and open internet against our own people.

Do you think that we should ban all the Chinese apps and also all the American apps?

Possibly. But, many countries are formally US allies, with deep security integration. So an American owned application is not as threatening as a Chinese owned application.

America also generally allows businesses and media from foreign companies to take part, whereas China has no such reciprocity.

Security arrangements are real things that can't be merely handwaved away as something that "should" not exist in one's ideal world.

Put more bluntly: Even the likes of Facebook and Google are, ostensibly and ultimately, operating for western interests.

The likes of Tiktok operately strictly for Chinese interests, and Chinese interests do not align with western interests.

Western media firms don't operate for 'western' interests. Fox and friends, for instance, are actively trying to undermine western civilization[1], and I'll be damned if they are doing it for my own good.

They operate for their own interests, which are almost always directly at odds with the interests of the people who actually live in the west.

[1] I have exactly as much evidence for this as you do for your claim.

You are missing the point or twisting it to put your political view above another. Go back to the start of the thread and try again

As your former president eloquently explained, "USA first" is the current US doctrine. Why should the other countries accept US influence short of not having the choice as it would have pretty deep repercussions?

The game of cutting off foreign players is a luxury only the few countries can afford right now, making it look like everybody else supports the US is disingenuous.

The current age of global peace is wonderful and pleasant. It is also young and fragile. Other countries can choose who they wish to align with, I hope most liberal democracies will find the United States to be a more reliable ally than China or Russia.

The price of association with the US is, as you say, US influence; however, US influence is much less restrictive and oppressive than many other major players today and historically. Our EU allies regularly criticize us in public forums; North Korea does not have the political freedom to criticize China and Belarus does not have the political freedom to criticize Russia to the same extent that United States' allies do today.

It's high time for global players to wake up from the ideal world where everyone can get along with zero tariffs or restrictions. The United States must do what is in her best interests and other states should follow her lead. I believe it is the US best interest that the world is more free, and should that eventual goal require some restriction of hostile foreign entities' freedom to operate on US soil, so be it.

This is a 'us or them' dichotomy that only makes sense if you need a perpetual enemy.

Most countries criticize the US _and_ China _and_ Russia _and_ North Korea, make trade where they need to and make a balancing act with alliances and relations between all of these countries.

> It's high time for global players to wake up from the ideal world where everyone can get along with zero tariffs or restrictions.

The US have engaged into perpetual tariffs and restrictions from the day it had the power to do so. Are you assuming other countries thought they could stop that ? Or what are you even talking about ?

> Foreign adversaries have learned exactly how to weaponize our free and open internet against our own people.

The way you weaponize the network against a populace is by censoring it. In this regard, Congress is the one doing that.

begrudgingly agree on all points. the gamestop/amc stock manipulation in 2021 demonstrated how vulnerable western society is to a social media campaign that, at first glance, appears benign. even if china wasnt involved with that incident - which began on chinese-owned reddit - it demonstrated that governments are at risk to any social media company with diverging goals.