Social Media & Influence
Can social media influence an outcome as big as elections? It's yes, according to post-election analyses here in the United States after Donald Trump scored a surprise upset win over Hillary Clinton. People argued that Facebook's News Feed is the world's best echo chamber and filter bubble, presenting users with an endless stream of information they are more likely to agree. But how much of it is true? And how much of it is Facebook's (or Twitter's) fault? I am inclined to say, nil. And the reasoning is simple, I don't get my news from Facebook and so shouldn't you.
I know it's easier said than done. But think about it. In fact, a study conducted by Facebook researchers last year found that "the company's computer algorithms don't create an echo chamber but rather reflect the information bubble users already make for themselves." But unfortunately as Facebook has grown in popularity, so has its power as a platform for news distribution. And I feel that's where the root of the problem lies. In a race to anticipate what people want, social media's embrace of artificial intelligence technologies to algorithmically tweak our news feeds and timelines to what it thinks we like as opposed to showing everything (including what we don't like) is probably why there has been such an uproar.
It's evident that on a social network like Facebook, user engagement trumps truth. A post that sees the most engagement (aka "viral") is most likely wind up on our news feeds as opposed to another that doesn't witness the same level of engagement. Also people share something on social platforms not necessarily because they are accurate, but because they triggered some sort of a strong emotion in them. In such a case should Facebook change its algorithm? Should it introduce some sort of a filter? Should we even like any page (which amounts to creating a filter bubble)? Should we as 'unbiased' people create a second Facebook feed to curate contrary opinions not to our liking? I guess it will an interesting space to watch.
[Updated with links to a Facebook study conducted last year.]
I know it's easier said than done. But think about it. In fact, a study conducted by Facebook researchers last year found that "the company's computer algorithms don't create an echo chamber but rather reflect the information bubble users already make for themselves." But unfortunately as Facebook has grown in popularity, so has its power as a platform for news distribution. And I feel that's where the root of the problem lies. In a race to anticipate what people want, social media's embrace of artificial intelligence technologies to algorithmically tweak our news feeds and timelines to what it thinks we like as opposed to showing everything (including what we don't like) is probably why there has been such an uproar.
It's evident that on a social network like Facebook, user engagement trumps truth. A post that sees the most engagement (aka "viral") is most likely wind up on our news feeds as opposed to another that doesn't witness the same level of engagement. Also people share something on social platforms not necessarily because they are accurate, but because they triggered some sort of a strong emotion in them. In such a case should Facebook change its algorithm? Should it introduce some sort of a filter? Should we even like any page (which amounts to creating a filter bubble)? Should we as 'unbiased' people create a second Facebook feed to curate contrary opinions not to our liking? I guess it will an interesting space to watch.
[Updated with links to a Facebook study conducted last year.]
Comments
Post a Comment