I like this. And you’re quite right, it’s reasonable to suggest that the incentives structure in the platform economy produces a certain type of discourse and, by way of it’s ‘environmental undertow’, privileges populist-style rhetoric and conspiracy theories.
Interference - which does happen, and has been empirically proven (slowly, and therefore very partially) - works best when it is opportunistic. I would cautiously suggest that state actors further east, who share a better muscle memory than those to the west, of how to operate under autocratic conditions, are better at it. They know to move slowly, and not too obviously (*cough* Musk *cough*).
They obviously see the affordances offered by the platform industry, as well as America’s (and therefore, sadly, the West’s) fetish for ‘connectivity’ and, alongside it, the assumed entitlement to exposure without consequences. Anyone with normal risk perception understands that connectivity increases exposure, and those who understand what navigation of authoritarian structures without losing one’s head or succumbing to sudden, terminal conditions entails, certainly understand it. The entire media environment presented by the platform economy puts us at risk that neither begins, nor ends, with state or non-state actors that exploit that risk (which I think is what you’re saying). Even if we addressed the particular actors causing trouble now, the incentives produced by the platform economy in its current form would invite, or even generate, new ones.
Ergo, the root problem is the incentives structure.
And the root of that, is how we arrive at the metrics that underpin monetisation. And the root of that, is how we model digital publics (whether ‘real people’ or not). And there are serviceable, if as of yet untested alternatives that are not based on identity.
There is so much wrong things we are doing - so many right things we aren't. But hopefully putting it into a non-woo woo equation will help people so we can get round the conspiracy requirements.
Our only chance to build better is to understand what’s not working. And that is Not Easy when looking at such a sprawling, naturalised, pervasive communications system as the platform environment. AI is not helping; those pushing it are often high on their own supply and more than a little in love with the feeling that they are doing something unfathomable.
None of this is unfathomable. But we do lack good, concrete descriptions of the processes that shape, or rather distort, our public sphere. The providers of these platforms understand their side - monetisation, scaling, influence etc. - perfectly well, but seem wilfully unable to see the full picture. Or maybe they stared into the darkness so long, it stared back.
Either way, Europe and the UK will need to address this; not just morally or ethically, but logically and, on from there, constructively. We can’t just throw our hands up and hope for a platform industry that relies on the problem to continue, to fix it. And models or descriptions are critical to moving beyond vibes.
aah ok. I have adhd and use it to translate my notes from my remarkable tablet for normal people. you are moe than welcome to not read my articles, I write them for charity, please feel free to not follow me.
I like this. And you’re quite right, it’s reasonable to suggest that the incentives structure in the platform economy produces a certain type of discourse and, by way of it’s ‘environmental undertow’, privileges populist-style rhetoric and conspiracy theories.
Interference - which does happen, and has been empirically proven (slowly, and therefore very partially) - works best when it is opportunistic. I would cautiously suggest that state actors further east, who share a better muscle memory than those to the west, of how to operate under autocratic conditions, are better at it. They know to move slowly, and not too obviously (*cough* Musk *cough*).
They obviously see the affordances offered by the platform industry, as well as America’s (and therefore, sadly, the West’s) fetish for ‘connectivity’ and, alongside it, the assumed entitlement to exposure without consequences. Anyone with normal risk perception understands that connectivity increases exposure, and those who understand what navigation of authoritarian structures without losing one’s head or succumbing to sudden, terminal conditions entails, certainly understand it. The entire media environment presented by the platform economy puts us at risk that neither begins, nor ends, with state or non-state actors that exploit that risk (which I think is what you’re saying). Even if we addressed the particular actors causing trouble now, the incentives produced by the platform economy in its current form would invite, or even generate, new ones.
Ergo, the root problem is the incentives structure.
And the root of that, is how we arrive at the metrics that underpin monetisation. And the root of that, is how we model digital publics (whether ‘real people’ or not). And there are serviceable, if as of yet untested alternatives that are not based on identity.
There is so much wrong things we are doing - so many right things we aren't. But hopefully putting it into a non-woo woo equation will help people so we can get round the conspiracy requirements.
Our only chance to build better is to understand what’s not working. And that is Not Easy when looking at such a sprawling, naturalised, pervasive communications system as the platform environment. AI is not helping; those pushing it are often high on their own supply and more than a little in love with the feeling that they are doing something unfathomable.
None of this is unfathomable. But we do lack good, concrete descriptions of the processes that shape, or rather distort, our public sphere. The providers of these platforms understand their side - monetisation, scaling, influence etc. - perfectly well, but seem wilfully unable to see the full picture. Or maybe they stared into the darkness so long, it stared back.
Either way, Europe and the UK will need to address this; not just morally or ethically, but logically and, on from there, constructively. We can’t just throw our hands up and hope for a platform industry that relies on the problem to continue, to fix it. And models or descriptions are critical to moving beyond vibes.
My model - i hope makes things easier and less scary. you don't need to regulate speech after all. just treat platforms like tobacco companies.
Written by AI ...
what is?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexander-seger-b31351154_resolution-ai-activity-7410615054468870144-ihHl?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAACUSBhUB-Spzgst0vP91IryU_SUggXAIkas&utm_campaign=copy_link
The article obviously (structure and ductus of chatgpt).
Accountability attaches to ideas, not keystrokes.
aah ok. I have adhd and use it to translate my notes from my remarkable tablet for normal people. you are moe than welcome to not read my articles, I write them for charity, please feel free to not follow me.