This is a terribly important call for research on actual impact of misinformation online *and* in media from @duncanjwatts, @DavMicRot & @markusmobius. Too much fear & too many regulatory interventions are being dreamed up on presumptions without data. pnas.org/content/118/15…
The panic over "fake news" is likely overblown: 5k academic papers & countless panels on the topic since 2017. Yet as they show, consumption of news--let alone fake--is small and more on TV than online. pnas.org/content/118/15…
The social scientists propose a structure for sharing & collaborating on data an&d infrastructure & communicating effectively w/the public. We desperately need this work to be funded & need pressure on many parties, starting with platforms, to share data. pnas.org/content/118/15…
Without such data & research, regulatory interventions in the internet--impinging on our freedoms--are being designed based on fears & guesses. See all the talk about filter bubbles, then read this (the answer to the title, based on much research, is no): amazon.com/Filter-Bubbles…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've just read former Australian PM @MrKRudd's barn-burning book, "The Case for Courage," a grand polemic against Rupert Murdoch, "the cancer on our democracy that is the Murdoch media monopoly." A few key quotes in a 🔥🧵:
"Murdoch manipulates our democracy in multiple, sometimes crude and occasionally subtle ways.... In Australian politics, Murdoch's power is near-complete.... We are beginning to see the radical Americanization of Australian politics." - @MrKRudd
"Murdoch works overtime in cultivating a climate of national anxiety, fear & anger.... They overwhelm our natural sense of optimism, enterprise & generosity of spirit, transforming us instead into a frightened & fractured people--a nation of us versus them & fuck everybody else."
.@benyt should get his facts straight. I've said often: I receive nothing personally from any platform. I say what I say because I believe what I say. I defend the net against media's moral panic. Ben didn't like my calling him on doing Murdoch's bidding.
My university gets funding from Google and Facebook to fund scholarships, training in product and leadership, and projects in disinformation and quality in news. The New York Times also gets funding from Google and Facebook.
And now I'm going to get back to a next book project -- seriously -- on media's moral panic and war against the net.
NJ's vaccination rollout has been so F'd up. These accounts are needed only because signing up is impossible. Govts should be actively reaching out to & signing up underserved communities; it's their fault. nj.com/coronavirus/20…
This article enraged my wife, who spent a few weeks doing everything possible to get extended family who were eligible vaccine appointments. She was able to only with the advice of volunteers on Twitter & Facebook, who are criticized in the report. 1/
My wife texted: "Inner city issues are transportation to the site, getting time off work, returning for 2nd dose, vaccine hesitancy. They need to get it to community centers, churches, local pharmacies. I think without the J&J it's harder to serve these populations." 2/
I far prefer blogs to email newsletters & podcasts, which are about creator control, walled gardens of a sort. Blogs are open & thrive on links & conversation. Newsletters & podcasts are creators demanding attention: editorial ego & entitlement, no? 1/ nytimes.com/2021/04/11/bus…
I know, I'll be accused of being an old-fart blogger. Stipulated. I confess Twitter ruined me as a blogger & I don't pay the attention to mine I used to. Still, I appreciate and miss the generosity, collaboration, conversation of the form. 2/
Before you @ me--I know you will--there are newsletters I love, subscribe to & pay for & podcasts I subscribe to & support. I'm a podcaster myself (@TWiT). I'm not decrying all newsletters & podcasts. Instead I'm lamenting a loss & worrying about a stampede & a glut. 3/
No, The Times own version of its strategy is flawed. Without the huge audience that free brought, The Times would not have been able to convert the number of readers it has to subscription. nytimes.com/2021/04/10/bus…
See: digitalriptide.org/chapter-4-the-…
Later, the same story demonstrates the point: You have to have large sampling (read: free) to convert people to subs (read: paid).
Frustrating that the story about the WSJ barely touches the GOP elephant in the room: Murdoch's politics and the right's racism. This is his bully pulpit. nytimes.com/2021/04/10/bus…
Interesting. German lawyer and writer Ferdinand von Schirach (grandson of Baldur) proposes six new fundamental rights for EU citizens. Let's review. 1/ you.wemove.eu/campaigns/for-…
Article 1: Agree.
Article 2: What does "digital self-determination" mean? What is "harvesting" data other than emotional reference? What amounts to manipulation: education? religion? propaganda? fraud? Where is the line? 2/
Article 3: Human beings must make key decisions? What are key decisions? Algorithms make decisions about air traffic control, investment, and so on. Humans aren't capable of calculating some choices. This is another emotional characterization. It is a symptom of moral panic. 3/