It's probably much worse. For instance, FB doesn't just suppress things it dislikes; it promotes those it does. You see a feed of posts from your friends, and assume this is a natural sampling of their opinions. In fact, you're getting a sample that's been curated to skew towards the opinions Facebook wants you to have. Over time, social pressure has its effects, molding your own opinions to match the perceived opinions of your group . This is accentuated by the algorithm boosting posts you write that it likes, thus getting more engagement for your good boy posts, and providing positive reinforcement whenever you articulate beliefs that align with organizational goals.
One strategy I expect them to use in the future is to directly edit people's posts. You think you made a post challenging climate change; when you look at the post, that's what you see that you wrote; anyone else who sees it, sees the version edited by the AI to make it seem as though you support climate change.
Yes, exactly. I didn't try to think through all of the implications of what extents they could take this to, I just had a sense if they could do what I was seeing there were no limits.
So basically nothing contra-narrative anyone says on this platform and a handful of others can be used to help dismantle the cathedral, only to prop it up by: a. revealing yourself as a dissident voice and taking on the risks associated with that (shadow-banning for small fish, cancelation for big fish); b. giving agents of propaganda an easy way to "pewn" you for the enjoyment of bad actors and other blue-pilled spectators alike; c. giving anyone who uses this form of pre-packaged, state-sanctioned propaganda the quite dystopian opportunity to reinforce the behavior of not thinking themselves into a perceived higher social ranking based on how many likes they can accumulate by pewning radical dissidents; and d. causing anyone with opposing viewpoints a sense of frustration and isolation in their attempts to navigate the murky information waters that surround some of the most convenient places to interact online, making them question if they should post at all or remain silent since, well, what could be the point of posting in an environment like that...I hadn't realized the extent to which these blue-pilled folks have been being used. I know what I'll do if FB recommends that I attach their propaganda to anything I might post in the future...I'll sit back in my white button down work shirt and say, "I've got a better one. How about I give you the finger and you give me my phone call."
It's probably much worse. For instance, FB doesn't just suppress things it dislikes; it promotes those it does. You see a feed of posts from your friends, and assume this is a natural sampling of their opinions. In fact, you're getting a sample that's been curated to skew towards the opinions Facebook wants you to have. Over time, social pressure has its effects, molding your own opinions to match the perceived opinions of your group . This is accentuated by the algorithm boosting posts you write that it likes, thus getting more engagement for your good boy posts, and providing positive reinforcement whenever you articulate beliefs that align with organizational goals.
One strategy I expect them to use in the future is to directly edit people's posts. You think you made a post challenging climate change; when you look at the post, that's what you see that you wrote; anyone else who sees it, sees the version edited by the AI to make it seem as though you support climate change.
Yes, exactly. I didn't try to think through all of the implications of what extents they could take this to, I just had a sense if they could do what I was seeing there were no limits.
So basically nothing contra-narrative anyone says on this platform and a handful of others can be used to help dismantle the cathedral, only to prop it up by: a. revealing yourself as a dissident voice and taking on the risks associated with that (shadow-banning for small fish, cancelation for big fish); b. giving agents of propaganda an easy way to "pewn" you for the enjoyment of bad actors and other blue-pilled spectators alike; c. giving anyone who uses this form of pre-packaged, state-sanctioned propaganda the quite dystopian opportunity to reinforce the behavior of not thinking themselves into a perceived higher social ranking based on how many likes they can accumulate by pewning radical dissidents; and d. causing anyone with opposing viewpoints a sense of frustration and isolation in their attempts to navigate the murky information waters that surround some of the most convenient places to interact online, making them question if they should post at all or remain silent since, well, what could be the point of posting in an environment like that...I hadn't realized the extent to which these blue-pilled folks have been being used. I know what I'll do if FB recommends that I attach their propaganda to anything I might post in the future...I'll sit back in my white button down work shirt and say, "I've got a better one. How about I give you the finger and you give me my phone call."
Well said, but at what point does one simply declare Facebook a lost cause?