The common theme of the readings set this week felt like, "Beware social media." Each article was interesting, but came with a cautionary message about online activity.
It came as no surprise that more people get news from Twitter and Facebook. Also, it's no surprise the type of information seen on either site or the ages that predominantly click on news with each one. What I'm curious about is why the over 35 crowd didn't source news from wither as often as the under 35 crowd did? Is it due to ingrained habits of finding news with legacy media? Is there research showing that SMS users over 35 approach Facebook and Twitter from a different perspective due to not having grown up with them?
The research outlined in "The Science of Protecting People's Feelings" seems at odds with, "Political Polarization in the American Public." How can society be so polarized yet people inherently equalize group members? Is the contradiction because the polarized groups don't interact unless arguing? Do members of each side find opinion equality within their distinct groups? Examining the current political candidates would suggest no, as would the inability of Congress to agree on much.
I believe not all opinions are created equal, and not everyone's feelings should be protected. I think one needs to support opinions, but not everyone needs to agree. I'm reminded of the previous ethics discussions over Utilitarianism. If everyone's opinion is weighted equally, how is utility maximized?
It's easy to see polarization in the American public, and it's nice to see data supporting the common knowledge. The Pew Research study skimmed over the idea that people often politically self-identify differently from where they are placed politically when tested. Why? That topic deserves further study. Just spitballing, but here's some ideas about why this is the case:
1) Testing bias - The questions were written in a way that affected respondent's answers
2) Researcher bias - The researchers defined categories differently from public perception
3) Protecting feelings - Respondents answers fell prey to biology. They de-emphasized personal opinions like the other reading outlined.
4) Fear - In private, people often espouse opinions opposed to what they publicly state. Sometimes this is due to fear of what other group members will say or do. since the questionnaire is anonymized before publication, respondents may have felt more comfortable being honest.
5) Self-awareness - Maybe Americans simply lack self-awareness and assume group membership based on others around them.
The list could go on, but each point could be studied.
"The Social-Network that Tricks Your Mind." Wow. If you want to make a posting go viral, read this article for strategic options. It also appears our personal networks are subject to framing and gatekeeping. The real question for me is: WHO CARES? It's Facebook. Haven't people figured out that "trust but verify" is the way to go here? I understand that the illusion of a widespread belief may affect ideas and behavior in some individuals, but that only throws support to the idea that NOT everyone's opinion matters. The majority illusion connected to Facebook isn't a new problem. Pre-Interntet, an even higher level of trust was required. For example, there's studies showing that people who watch crime shows and breaking news feel less safe than those that don't. Remember in the 1980s how Russians were thought to be strong, uncivilized and an enemy of all people? If anything, habitual Facebook users should scour the net for more information.
"If you use Facebook to get your news, please..." Great article. In fact, I posted it to my FB wall (or whatever it's called). The problem I have with this one is I don't think most people exclusively use Facebook anymore. Various SMS bombard users with content constantly. I know not every user clicks on everything, but still. No matter how self-isolating someone becomes, it's hard not to hear opposing views.
Facebook researchers say FB is not polarizing in, "Facebook use polarizing? Site begs to differ." Well... they blew all credibility with their 2014 mood study. If they illegally researched then, how can they be trusted now. Facebook's goal is money. Ignore any marketing ploys and read FB's Security & Exchange Commission reports. I did. Follow this link to read an article I wrote about FB in 2012:
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth291807/m1/5/
Sorry about the previous near-rants. Admittedly, I have an anti-FB bias.
Wile completing the reading assignments, I came across this WP article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/11/the-huge-implications-of-googles-idea-to-rank-sites-based-on-their-accuracy/
I think if Google were to move from research to application, this could solve many of the problems mentioned in this week's readings. Of course, people would still need to perform their own research, but how common is it to look at Google's first hit for answers? How could would opinion change if Google and other search engines changed to accuracy based? As a global society, we'd be better off.
No comments:
Post a Comment