I will not be posting for the next couple of weeks. Cindy and I will be traveling in southern Africa during this period of time. For several years now, I have offered comments on a blog devoted exclusively to the travels of our retirement years. I am uncertain as to the type of connectivity I will have for some portions of this time, but there should be plenty to photograph and write about. Later.
The election of 2016 taught us just how damaging targeted political ads can be. Political ads are a huge business and an important part of political campaigns, but the ads that appear on social media come with several serious problems. The most significant problem, in my opinion, is that voters are not aware that they have been targeted for what they see based on their past behavior and biases. Since targeted ads are not identified as such, the assumption that everyone is receiving the same information is damaging. You are being shown what someone believes will manipulate you without your conscious awareness of this intent.
I just read that Senator Wyden has proposed banning targeted political ads on social media. You would receive ads, but these ads would be ads distributed to all. I am skeptical that this proposal will receive serious consideration. A compromise I think would help would be to require that any political ad require the identification of the funding source. This is similar to what you experience on television. While not always informative because political action groups often have generic and positive-sounding names, at least consumers would have the opportunity to search for information about the organization responsible for the ads they view.
A second and more serious problem with the targeted ads and actually any political ad or meme is the sharing of this information. It is likely our friends share our biases and the constant sharing of content with a common theme within a group of similarly oriented individuals is that those in the group again fail to be exposed to content with a different orientation. Magnifying this problem is the tendency of sharing the content that is most likely to get attention and shares/likes. Hate and extremism are great ways to get attention.
Two of my online acquaintances recently contacted me to make certain I made the effort to view the NetFlicks documentary – The Great Hack. Both said something interesting in contacting me with this recommendation. Both said they were so upset after viewing the program that they could not sleep. Strange reaction, but it certainly encouraged me to take a look.
The Great Hack explores the role of Cambridge Analytica in the U.S. presidential election of 2016 and in the Brexit controversy in Great Britain (trailer). I slept fine after viewing, but not because the content was not disturbing. I have followed this issue closely and read multiple books and articles about the specifics. I label the problem as one of bad actors taking advantage of surveillance capitalism and I have written frequently about this topic. Politicians are a great example of this type of exploitation.
What I have found interesting is that so few people I know seem upset about this problem or maybe even believe that it exists. I tend to think they don’t understand, don’t educate themselves, and prefer not to think deeply about their own behavior as it relates to purposeful media manipulation. Perhaps a video presents the same information in a way that engages the viewer and is more likely to have an impact. Hence, if you have NetFlix, put this documentary at the top of your list.
One of my tech friends and I have been writing back and forth considering what people might do to protect themselves from being influenced with their awareness. I hope this is really the problem. I have begun to think of the surveillance capitalism approach as “telling me the story I want to hear”. Our choices over time allow these companies to identify our views of the world and feed these biases with the information we are most comfortable consuming. Accepting we are biased is part of the problem, but the major problem that is being exploited is that we are mostly unaware that this weakness is being used against us and this is happening while we think we are receiving informative content.
Here is the list I offered my colleague:
The documentary has had a noticeable impact as those implicated have begun to discount the message even threatening legal action.
Moscow Mitch? I had thought that the Democrats were above resorting to Trumpian tactics, but I guess they have figured out what works. Moscow Mitch is trending and it appears the Dems have finally found a way to get McConnell’s attention.
I think this is sad. What I read online makes me both sad and angry. I spend a large portion of the last part of my career encouraging educators to take advantage of the authentic audience the Internet and social media allow to offer kids and adults a way to participate in public discussions. I don’t blame the Internet for what has been revealed about human behavior and standards. I have come to the realization that this is they way people have always been. It was just not as evident. Christian evangelicals embracing a pussy grabber, allowing children to be taken from parents and locked up at the border, and now Moscow Mitch.
Ilhan Omar is my representative. I voted for her and I voted for Hillary. My kids were more involved in her campaign. She won easily in our Minnesota district. I was aware of the conspiracy theories associated with Omar’s citizenship and admit I have no evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, the conspiracy theorists have not offered any evidence allowing the Republicans in our district to actually contest the granting of her status. Until proven otherwise, this seems very similar to claims made about Obama.
I bring Omar up because I do follow issues that bring her name to the news services. Ever make the effort to read the comments that are added to these stories? Few comments have anything to do with the issue at hand, but people assume they have the right to say all kinds of disgusting things about Omar. Who are these people? How were they brought up and how were they educated? Do they actually have any facts and even if they assume they do is this really the kind of statements they would be proud to show their mothers, fathers, or kids?
I know some of the people I read making these kinds of statements on Facebook. I follow them because I went to high school with some and I know they at least completed that level of education. I see them write on a page associated with our high school things about the teachers they admired or who made a difference in their lives. Then, I see other things they say. I wonder if their teachers would be proud.
I am more than eager to engage with people online. I will openly say when I think they are wrong and more recently when they are forwarding things to their friends and readers that are factually wrong. I don’t say anything when they say things that are disgusting, racist, etc. I try to be factually accurate in position that I take and if called on a position I want to debate the position based on facts. This is the position that I take.
Back to Moscow Mitch. The label was applied because he has failed to bring legislation to the floor addressing Russian interference in the last presidential election. If you are the majority leader, why would you fear bringing important legislation forward. These are important issues and if you are in the right (at least is the way our political system works), your majority should reject the legislation. Easy enough. I have two thoughts on this matter. The discussion of such issues is evident to the public. Talking about Russian interference is an uncomfortable topic for the President as the facts are clear that it did happen and at least some of his campaign members were interacting with Russian actors in coordination. With all of the other things going on, it could be best to not have the public reminded of the facts of just how Trump ended up as the President. Then, of course, the Republican Senators would probably not want to go on record following this public discussion of voting against a bill intended to harden U.S. defenses against cyber intrusion. Such rejection would be hard to explain and embarrassing. Or, perhaps, since the Moscow Mitch bill which happens to be bipartisan might even attract a few Republican votes.
There is a new term being popularized by educators. The term is lateral reading. In a way, lateral reading is a response to a term popularized by politicians – fake news. Lateral reading proposes that in an era where what you read from what one might assume were responsible sources seems off or weird, one should open another tab in your browser and search on the claim. This is not the only way to fact check (an older term for the same thing), but it concrete and should make sense to anyone familiar with using an Internet browser.
I came across this post from Slate that offers an example of the results of lateral reading or fact checking expressed as a web page. It lists both claims made and what can be found via a simple search to demonstrate that the claim is false. Now, it is true than many of what turn out to be false claims used as examples were authored by the present President, but if you need examples of claims that can easily be shown to be false he offers an easy source to mine.
I was listening to a podcast from the TWIT.tv network [https://twit.tv/] and started to think about a conversation between host Leo Laporte and tech commentator Jeff Jarvis. They were discussing the ugly state of social media and how the present trend seems to have corrupted the original idealism of shining light on issues for the good of all. Leo said that he had become disgusted and given up closing his Facebook and Instagram accounts. Jarvis argued that “good guys” leaving would not solve the problem because many innocents would stay on and be influenced by the perpetrators of hate and fear.
Jarvis came up with an expression he said came from the corruption of UseNet [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet]. As I remember his statement, it was something like “when all of the flowers are driven from the garden, all that will remain are the weeds”.
I am not at the point of abandoning my social media presence, but I am very concerned by what I read. I am connecting with a wide assortment of folks – tech influences, family members, college profs from my working days, people I have not seen since high school, but who have connected to me for one reason or another, a few politicians, etc. Out of this mix I experience the good and the bad (very bad). Sometimes when I encounter a meme I find particularly disturbing (often shared), I search back to see what else the original author posts. There is some real trash out there.
I am not certain what it is. Perhaps it is my past life as an academic and researcher in which I assume I should engage to argue a point to convince someone else of their misguided impressions. Perhaps it is simply outrage when I encounter someone perpetuating racism, misogyny, or outright lies. Depending on my mood, I have this urge to reply. Once you go down this rat hole, there is no end. Still, what about those flowers someone must defend?
Recent events (the attacks on Ilhan Omar) have finally forced me to some kind of decision. This is it. I must ignore the comments that I find offensive as much as I can. There is a free speech issue and taking on every person wanting to spew hatred is beyond my endurance. If you disagree and have the stamina, I encourage your full attention to this task. Good folks have free speech rights too.
What I have decided I won’t tolerate are statements that are demonstrably false. There is a claim I agree with usually attributed to Patrick Moynihan – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts (I think this is close). I intend to respond when I encounter something I can cross-check to determine as false.
What to say? The issue with truly evil people is that they don’t really care. The real problem is the interconnection among people that social media encourages and the disinformation amplification that occurs. False statements spin about within a network and are repeated over and over. So many people doubt that Russian disinformation and their bots could actually influence an election. How many false statements could they produce? The issue is not necessarily the original false messages, but the sending of such messages to individuals prone to believe them and to pass them on to others with a similar view of the world.
So, what do you say? I want a statement I can cut and paste when I encounter the type of statement I feel I have a right to address. Here is my first effort.
If you are willing to promote memes without fact-checking, it would make sense to include in your circle of online friends some who do make the effort. In this case, I will play this role. The statement you have posted is known to be factually incorrect. You could end up spinning in a circle of lies you and others come to accept.
This could work for both Twitter and Facebook, but I decided maybe perceived as elitist. People wanting to believe something take any opportunity to discount a challenge to their actions.
How about something that is simpler?
The statement you have just circulated has been shown to be false by reputable fact-checkers. I thought you would want to know.
Reputable fact-checkers. I like Politifact [https://www.politifact.com/] and Snopes [https://www.snopes.com/]. Both services offer a judgment and explain what exactly about the claim is incorrect. I want to be sure of my facts.
Save the flowers
P.S. I am not certain I have the energy to apply my strategy to Donald Trump. His falsehood rate is too high. Here is the Snopes analysis of his comment about the popularity of Omar and Ocasio-Cortes [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-and-aoc-polling/}.
It is informative and scary to pay attention to how our personal models of the world inform and sometimes bias our cognition. This morning I see this image on my walk to the coffee company and my mind immediately labels this image – adult mower teaches its young. You probably don’t get this until you take a second look. Yes, the mowers are not actually interacting, but the cluster of little mowers around a much larger mower fits with some general model I must have. Part of human intelligence is driven by pattern recognition. An important part of human intelligence (metacognition) is also recognizing that situations we place in a category have not been accurately located. Humor sometimes depends on the recognition of these interesting misplacements. There is a lesson here. Some assignment of situations to concepts are not appropriate and the more general model needs to be refined. Be aware that your experiences and background influence how you interpret new inputs. Not all Muslims and women who cover their heads are terrorists.
We picked strawberries today. Each of us filled two gallon pails. As I crawled down the row, I was thinking about how long I could do this and what I might make if the farmer was paying me. When we finished, I did some online research. It looks like I would not have been able to make $15 which nows seems a bare minimum wage.
There are lots of folks and kids who face this kind of labor to try to make ends meet. Hard to imagine. Hard also to understand those who think those who take on this kind of work are taking their jobs. BTW – Lindy’s Berries and many other farms hire ag workers.
Too many folks take to social media to complain and I don’t want to be known as one of these people. I would like to offer this as a personal suggestion.
I frequently walk through one of the parks in Richfield on my way to write at a nearby coffee shop. Minneapolis/St. Paul has spectacular parks and ours is no exception. However, in recent years the grounds keepers of our park have decided to stop mowing the hillside I walk past. I am a big fan of natural grasses and forbs, but not overgrown lawn grass. Take the opportunity to convert this hillside to native prairie.
We attended the parade for the 4th in Siren, WI. Here are some images from a small town celebration.
The local veterans group presented the colors. This is an older group and the guy carrying the U.S. flag was struggling at the end.
The local band made an appearance.
There were few military vehicles and those that made an appearance were being used for other purposes.
Most parade entries throw things for kids. There were a couple of unusual offerings. I am guessing that cheese curds are unique to Wisconsin. The fire department and the local water purification service offered water. You had to run if you were not interested.
Tractors are standard entries in midwestern parades. The bigger the better.
What would be a parade without clowns.
Enjoy your 4th. It is a great country – tanks or not.
