Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Time to unfriend Facebook? - From Science
Science editorial:For the past 18 months, communicating the findings of science to the world has hit what sometimes seems like an all-time low. Nevermind the years of failure in convincing much of the public about climate change; the pandemic has revealed shocking ineptness by the scientific establishment at conveying messages about masks, vaccination, or the dangers of consuming horse drugs and aquarium cleaners—even in the face of a rising death toll from COVID-19. One puzzling element of this crisis is how social media has been skillfully exploited by antiscience forces. Given all of this, what is the right move for science communication as it relates to social media? Unfriend Facebook or beat it at its own game?
A few months ago, New York Times reporters Cecilia Kang and Sheera Frenkel published An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook’s Battle for Domination, in which they explored how the world’s largest social network, Facebook, fills its coffers by exploiting the viral spread of misinformation while trying to convince everyone of its noble mission to connect the world. Kang told me that she believes the algorithms and business practices of Facebook and other social media companies that encourage misinformation erect huge barriers, keeping people from paying attention to authoritative scientific information. Her ideas for combating this begin with understanding two kinds of misinformation that propagate through these powerful social networks. One is the news that is blatantly wrong. These posts are sometimes taken down but mostly flagged by Facebook’s algorithms with a disclaimer, which most people ignore. This has only a minor effect on stopping their spread. Kang sees an even bigger problem: the misinformation that arises from conversational posts among individuals. This kind of informal misinformation is frustrating because it’s not easy to police the people you know from saying crazy things on Facebook. The result is that both kinds of misinformation tend to rise to the top of Facebook’s news feeds because they get more engagement than posts about recent research findings reported in scholarly scientific articles or even in the mainstream press.
Communicating about research in real time is hard because science is always a work in progress, with caveats and answers that are not always definitive. That doesn’t translate well to social media or Facebook’s algorithms that determine which posts to promote. “Oftentimes that kind of content just does not work well in terms of engagement,” Kang said, “because it’s not the kind of stuff that people will immediately try to share.”
The antiscience opposition doesn’t care about the caveats. Kang pointed out that “super figures” on social media, such as Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino, have built up a loyal following of people who will believe them no matter what.
more ...
A few months ago, New York Times reporters Cecilia Kang and Sheera Frenkel published An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook’s Battle for Domination, in which they explored how the world’s largest social network, Facebook, fills its coffers by exploiting the viral spread of misinformation while trying to convince everyone of its noble mission to connect the world. Kang told me that she believes the algorithms and business practices of Facebook and other social media companies that encourage misinformation erect huge barriers, keeping people from paying attention to authoritative scientific information. Her ideas for combating this begin with understanding two kinds of misinformation that propagate through these powerful social networks. One is the news that is blatantly wrong. These posts are sometimes taken down but mostly flagged by Facebook’s algorithms with a disclaimer, which most people ignore. This has only a minor effect on stopping their spread. Kang sees an even bigger problem: the misinformation that arises from conversational posts among individuals. This kind of informal misinformation is frustrating because it’s not easy to police the people you know from saying crazy things on Facebook. The result is that both kinds of misinformation tend to rise to the top of Facebook’s news feeds because they get more engagement than posts about recent research findings reported in scholarly scientific articles or even in the mainstream press.
Communicating about research in real time is hard because science is always a work in progress, with caveats and answers that are not always definitive. That doesn’t translate well to social media or Facebook’s algorithms that determine which posts to promote. “Oftentimes that kind of content just does not work well in terms of engagement,” Kang said, “because it’s not the kind of stuff that people will immediately try to share.”
The antiscience opposition doesn’t care about the caveats. Kang pointed out that “super figures” on social media, such as Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino, have built up a loyal following of people who will believe them no matter what.
more ...
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
First there was the Cambridge Analytica scandal and now we're learning that the site isn't just inciting hate among Americans, but in other countries as well. What does it take?? 
