Facebook’s self-regulatory contortions in the wake of “fake news” and trolling scandals have gone on, with little visible effect, for months.
Now Twitter founder and chief executive Jack Dorsey has announced his company is going to try a different tack — but Dorsey’s approach is arguably even more far-fetched than Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s: It is an attempt to view Twitter’s social mess as an engineering problem.
Dorsey on Thursday last week on Twitter said that the medium has been home to “abuse, harassment, troll armies, manipulation through bots and human-coordination, misinformation campaigns and increasingly divisive echo chambers,” and that it is not proud of how it has dealt with them, so it would try to find a “holistic” solution through attempting to “measure the ‘health’ of conversation on Twitter.”
The metrics, designed in collaboration with outside experts, would presumably help redesign the service so that all the bad stuff would be gone without the need for censorship.
That is not how Facebook chose to handle a similar problem.
For starters, it did not ask anyone for advice: Zuckerberg’s listening tour of the US does not count because he did not specify as clearly as Dorsey what he was looking for.
Facebook just devised a number of possible solutions, such as working with fact-checkers to identify “fake news” and focusing on content from friends rather than publishers; it even experimented with putting publishers’ content in a separate newsfeed — a test it has just ended, because users apparently did not want two feeds. It has also volunteered to reveal more information about who bought political ads.
It is not clear whether these moves have done anything to fix the problems: I still have my tens of thousands of fake “subscribers” who showed up after I was active in the 2011 protests in Moscow and, as far as I have seen, questionable content from highly partisan sources is also still there.
All that has happened is that, according to an analysis of Nielsen data by equity research company Pivotal Research Group, time spent by users on Facebook was down 4 percent year-on-year in November last year, and its share of “user attention” was down to 16.7 percent, from 18.2 percent a year earlier.
Twitter, faced with a 14 percent decline in time spent and a decrease in “attention share” to 0.8 percent from 1.1 percent a year earlier — and consequently described by Pivotal Research Group as a “niche platform” — needs to do something to draw people to it, not repel them. So software developer Dorsey’s need for a bottom-up re-evaluation of how his software has been working is understandable.
The starting point has been provided by a non-profit called Cortico, which grew out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab. It is working on a set of “health indicators” for the US public sphere based on four principles: shared attention (to what extent are people interested in the same subjects?), shared reality (are people using the same set of facts?), variety (are people exposed to different opinions?) and receptivity (are they willing to listen to those different opinions?).
If there is a transparently developed, openly discussed set of measurements to determine the “health of the conversation” on Twitter or any other social network, the networks could — instead of grappling with macro problems like “fake news” or “harassment” — break down their responses into micro actions designed to move the metrics. Then they could report to the public — and to regulators — that the conversation is growing healthier.
The biggest problem with this approach is a bit like the one with the World Bank’s Doing Business ranking, routinely gamed by authoritarian regimes’ officials who want to hit their performance indicators.
According to this ranking, it is easier to do business in Russia than in some EU countries, despite the absence of real guarantees that one’s business will not be expropriated by a greedy law enforcement officer who happens to like it.
Metrics are useful to managers, because they give them a specific goal — moving a gauge by any means at their disposal. For the same reason, they can be useless to the public, who will get what they see, which is not necessarily the same thing as what is measured.
A secondary problem is that conversation cannot really be engineered algorithmically. Not even the Oxford Union rules of debate can be 100 percent successful in ensuring a civil dialog, especially if the entities engaged in it are often anonymous and not always human.
Dorsey has chosen to ignore the obvious problems — his platform’s dedication to full anonymity, the permissibility of multiple accounts for the same individual, the openness to automation — and take the roundabout route of trying to create a scorecard on which Twitter can be seen improving.
This dashboard could be impressively high-tech, but human — or half-human, as the case may be — conversation really is not.
“Social engineering” is a term for the low-tech manipulation of people into doing something they did not plan to do, such as revealing their personal data or blowing up publicly so they can be shamed. Trolls are good at social engineering.
Today, I banned several accounts with almost no followers, whose owners were trying to insult me. I do it every day. It is unpleasant to deal with them, but under Twitter’s current rules it is also unavoidable.
A brief look at the responses to Dorsey’s thread (“You’re lying,” “‘This is not who we are’ translates to ‘This is EXACTLY who we are,’” “I’d tell you what I really think of you, but you’d kick me off”) is enough to see what sort of conversational space Twitter is.
Metrics? I am sure they can be designed to show that these comments are 77 percent “healthy,” and, for the next Dorsey thread, to show an improvement to 79 percent.
The point is worth repeating here: Until it is clear who is talking on the social networks, just as it is almost always clear in traditional media, and until there are real consequences to insults, harassment and intentional lies, the conversation cannot be healthy.
It is a bitter pill for the networks’ engineer founders, who tend to think that technology and data can fix any problem, but a solution can only be found by putting people in the same environment that exists in face-to-face conversation or in the “legacy” news media — one that makes outbursts and lying legally, and socially costly.
Leonid Bershidsky is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion Web site Slon.ru.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath