Emily Turnage
Gamification of Social Media
The topic I decided to research for my next blog post, inspired by part of John Oliver’s “Trump Vs. Truth” episode of Last Week Tonight, is another hot-button topic as of late - fake news, and fake news sites. It’s everywhere, seemingly; accusations of ‘fake news’ have been tossed around by our Executive branch with startling regularity. But what I want to talk about are not the allegations #45 has made against networks like MSNBC and CNN; what I want to address are sites that, with the current political climate, have seen more and more traffic as of late. Sites like InfoWars and Breitbart, that pride themselves on articles like “There’s No Hiring Bias Against Women In Tech, They Just Suck at Interviews” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy”. InfoWars has touted such “news” stories that claim that thousands of muslims celebrated during 9/11 in New Jersey - these are the sort of sites our Executive branch favors, and this is especially worrying.
In order for a site to call itself a “news site”, it must have some form of credibility. The issue is that, on social media sites, there is very little fact-checking that goes on by the site itself when a link is posted. This, in and of itself, seems somewhat fair - it’s hard for Facebook or Tumblr to individually skim sites and ensure that they’re of a certain merit to be shared. But the spread of these sites is much more dangerous than it initially seems; figures like “three million undocumented immigrants voted in California” became mainstream “alternative facts” for conservatives just after the election, and all due to sites like Infowars immediately jumping on unverifiable statements from social media, and reporting them as absolute fact. The fact that these sites are touting themselves as “unbiased truth” while spewing lies and xenophobic, sexist rhetoric is unconscionable, and it is for this reason among others that Facebook has begun working to create “social infrastructure for community — for supporting us, for keeping us safe, for informing us, for civic engagement, and for inclusion of all” as stated by Mark Zuckerberg himself. They hope to combat misinformation, hopefully from sites like the ones previously mentioned, and help to foster a “whole picture” view of the social and political climate of users. Perhaps banning these sites outright would be an infringement on free speech. But free speech, as outlined in the Constitution, is merely a protection from being punished by the government for the things you say - and even that has its limits. It has no bearing on private companies like Facebook or Twitter, that have the ability to prevent certain sites - ones that spread “alternative facts” like wildfire without a care for the people it may affect - from being shared on their sites. As XKCD comic #1357 put so eloquently - “If you’re yelled at, boycotted, have your show cancelled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren’t being violated. It’s just the people that are listening think you’re an asshole, and they’re showing you the door.”
1 Comment
We discussed rogue government Twitter accounts in class on Wednesday, and it really struck a chord in me as I was reminded exactly why these accounts are deemed necessary for the people who create them: to combat a governing body that, as of recently, directly opposes the spread of real, factual, scientific knowledge. The fact that a gag order was placed on any and all Government twitter accounts related to science or nature, i.e. the NPS, NASA, etc. is the first, horrifying step into censorship that our government has taken.
The question has been posed: are these Twitter accounts in the wrong? Is their appropriation of official governmental logos detrimental to the organizations themselves? I am inclined to say no. As it is, Governmental twitter accounts besides the @POTUS account went largely unnoticed by many; it is only now, with the gag order in place and the rogue accounts proliferating, that people are made aware that these have existed. Not many would confuse “alt” accounts for official accounts, as all ‘alt’ accounts clearly state so in their names and descriptions; they are not claiming to speak for the government, but for people who are being actively silenced by it. By calling attention to these sort of accounts by attempting to silence them in an official capacity, the government is actually signal boosting the sort of messages that the rogue Twitter accounts are trying to spread - that science, especially climate science, is too important to simply be brushed aside with no fanfare. The fact that these government officials - both current and former - would stand up to the regime currently in power says everything about the people who currently run our country: that they’d rather stew in their “alternative facts” and climate change conspiracies than face real, hard truths. Furthermore, the agendas that the Twitter accounts are posting about are simply ways to become active in our country’s republic - something that needs to happen in order for democracy to function as it should. By promoting knowledge and involvement in the political process, these accounts bring attention to ways that those who would already follow them - disenfranchised Republicans, and anyone left-leaning - ways to actively fight against the corruption seeding itself from within the executive branch of our government. By promoting these agendas, these Twitter accounts are promoting involvement in the democratic process - something that everyone should be able to agree is important and necessary. And if that results in less xenophobic, anti-science rhetoric and laws being passed? Perhaps that’s simply a bonus. Net Neutrality. It’s a hot-button topic lately, and the term has been thrown around with increasing frequency since our new Commander-in-Chief took office. Net neutrality, as stated in this Business Insider article by Jeff Dunn, is based around the principles of “no paid prioritization, no throttling, and no blocking.” This means, in short, that cable and internet companies cannot deny you the ability to go to certain sites unless you, or the site, pays them for more bandwidth. The crux of Net Neutrality is the internet’s status as a public necessity - like electricity or water, in which prices cannot be hiked up arbitrarily in order to wring more money from the people who need them, which is to say, everyone. But the question remains - is the idea of net neutrality grounded in reality? Do people have a right to internet access?
I stand firm on the ‘yes’ side. Perhaps twenty, even ten years ago, this wasn’t the case; as it is now, though, so much of the world hinges on online activities. “But the internet is a privilege! It’s purely for entertainment!” you might say. On the contrary, while it might not be vital to life like water or electricity might be, it gives people access to near-unlimited networking - something that is almost a necessity, nowadays. For example, many jobs now only post hiring ads on their websites, or on job bulletin sites like Monster.com or its competitors; it’s cheaper and easier to advertise that way, and more people will see that than a sign on a window or a post on a physical bulletin board. Many students - and even people in certain jobs - are required to have internet access in order to complete work- and school-related tasks. The internet is a vital source of near-endless information, and like libraries, should not be privatized and cordoned off to all but those who can pay for it. The internet is a right. Access to information is so necessary for being involved in the world that it would be a disservice to society at large to privatize and monetize it further than it has already been. So why is this a concern now, all of a sudden? The new leader of the FCC, Ajit Pai, opposes the 2015 Open Internet Order - a bill passed in order to protect the three principles outlined earlier. Pai’s approach has been described by multiple sources as “light touch”, meaning he wants government regulation of ISPs to be as hands-off as possible, trusting them to regulate themselves rather than by the rules imposed in the order. As these companies have demonstrated by way of attempting to circumvent the laws by offering specialized programs to “favor certain streaming services over others”, they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. The fight for net neutrality should not be decided by the ISPs themselves, who stand to profit obscenely off of its repeal. One of the articles we read for class, “Code I’m Still Ashamed Of”, struck an interesting chord in me as I read it. The story is a simple but powerful message on the thorny subject of advertising – in particular drug advertisement, a business that perhaps should not be as booming as it is - and what role a developer or designer plays in steering the things they create away from unethical business practices.
On the one hand, it’s easy to lay all the blame upon the programmer(s) themselves. They should have seen the outcome before doing the project, and should have done something to prevent it. Programmers should be impartial, able to correct or dismiss projects that have the potential to cause harm. But the truth is, while hindsight – especially for this particular case – may be 20/20, in reality I don’t believe it’s often as clean cut as this, especially when dealing with the pressure of a high paycheck and higher-ups breathing down your neck. Perhaps disobedience or refusal to create what is wanted – even if what is wanted is unethical, like a site that recommends a drug to all participants without mention of the risks or side effects – could affect work in the future, giving someone a negative reputation regardless of the intent of their refusal to work. People, by nature, have an inclination towards obeying authority – just look at the Milgram experiment, in which people’s tendency to follow commands issued from an authority figure is pushed to the limit. For what it’s worth, questioning authority is important – it’s how the world revolutionizes itself. But many may not choose to do it if it may affect their livelihood – should the developers be the ones punished for the client’s less-than-savory vision of the end product? I think it is unfair to place the blame squarely on the developer’s shoulders; at least as far as being hired goes, designers and programmers are often ultimately at the mercy of the people who’ve employed them, for better or for worse. Instead, I think the focus should be on the status of advertising – and, really, technology as a whole – and the proper education of not only those in the profession, like us, but everyone on the dangers such a tech-saturated world can present. Used correctly, technology is a bastion of truth – the entire world’s knowledge and creativity at one’s fingertips. But because it is new, and so rapidly evolving, the world of education struggles to keep up with it properly, which leads to insidious companies taking advantage of the less-technologically-versed, whether it’s through unethical advertising or other means. Teach those who choose to use technology the dangers, and prosecute more harshly those that would try to take advantage of them. Of course, this is all hypothetical. In an ideal world the bad people who profit at the expense of impressionable teens would be punished, and no one would ever advertise drugs – prescription or otherwise – or other dangerous things without the proper warnings in place. But by taking steps toward ensuring that companies themselves are not employing unethical business practices, perhaps we could begin to make ethical dilemmas like the one presented in “Code I’m Still Ashamed Of” less prevalent. The article is available to read here: https://medium.freecodecamp.com/the-code-im-still-ashamed-of-e4c021dff55e#.2km8dht6o |
AuthorI am a senior studying Communication Design, with an emphasis in Game Design. I like playing video games, writing, and yelling too loudly about things I care about. Archives
May 2017
Categories |