10/24: Machine Politics

[smiklin]

Comment below with questions or thoughts about the reading for this week's workshop.

Please make your comments by Wednesday 11:59 PM, and upvote at least five of your peers' comments on Thursday prior to the workshop. You need to use 'thumbs-up' for your reactions to count towards 'top comments,' but you can use other emojis on top of the thumbs up.

[SiyuanPengMike]

Thanks a lot for this inspiring chapter. Indeed, with the development of technology, the power of social media became stronger and stronger. We shall never underestimate the influence of propaganda of all kinds of media. However, some unofficial media might spread wrong information that could fake people. Thus, sharing a similar idea with @zeyuxu1997, is constraints on the internet crucial for us? Or we should fight for freedom of speech in all aspects?

[Anqi-Zhou]

Thank you for the present in advance. I noticed you have mentioned several examples about the identity-centered Liberalism, which are very interesting. Seems you think Trump gives the public an impression of being true by the way he expresses his feelings and opinions. So what you refer to are the words in his Twitter? So he creates his own identity or personality impression? Could you give the explanation of "identity-centered liberalism" more precisely?

[wu-yt]

As technologies like machine learning and AI continues to develop, the capability of technology is no longer limited to bots that post fake comments. Now AI can already swap faces and create fake videos and fake audios, and this power can only be exclusively accessed by powerful individuals or institutions, and ordinary people can receive the negative impact. How does this change the politics in general and how does it influence the power for individuals to speak their true voice?

[Yilun0221]

Thank you for the presentation! I really enjoy reading the materials. My question is when people gradually try to use algorithms and machines to solve some problems in political life (such as corruption/information opacity, etc.), is it necessary that some people try to use these methods to manipulate politics? How can these situations be regulated?

[hanjiaxu]

Thank you very much for the readings! I like this week's readings a lot because, without specific domain knowledge, I was able to understand the authors' main point and actually learned many ideas from the readings. I actually was able to remember some concepts from a very different field of mine when I do readings like these comparing to journal articles. If it is a very dense journal article from a very different field, not only it is very difficult for me to understand the main concepts in a timely manner but also the questions that I brought up are often very basic and less meaningful. I just hope that future workshops would provide readings for different groups of audiences. This is just a random thought based on my own experience, it may not speak for the group.

For the questions about the reading, I definitely resonate with what the author proposed in those two articles. I'm also wondering what do you think about the boundary of the "fake news" and let's say "authentic news" because in a sense I think that every news has a perspective? In the U.S. for example, although there are many media with different political ideas, and people still seem to choose to watch whatever reflects their political ideology or other ideologies. Even with more legislation as you proposed in the reading, people would still have their choice for what they watch or read. However, if legislation means more control over the message that is delivered, that sounds like an authoritarian government.

[ShanglunLi]

Thank you for providing such an interesting paper to read. Since developing countries are vulnerable to developed countries' social media actions, since they are technically behind developed countries and they are not very knowledgable on defending against attack through online media. Thus, does a policy restricting on the Internet seem necessary?

[lyl010]

Thanks for your presentation! I'd like to pick up on a point in your book, that when people's unreached places are reached by the mass media, they would like to believe in the story and throw themselves into that emotion. But is this unreached place understandable by people? Can we know what is unreached by us?

[SixueLiu96]

Thanks for your presentation! It is a wonderful article about the rise of the internet and a new age of authoritarianism you depict. I can completely see how the ubiquitous social media has saturated our public lives. Also, it seems that everyone will receive the information equally and quickly. My question is, what do you think of the behavior that public opinion mainly based on social media is much more easily manipulated by powerful forces? With the development of technology and innovation, our opinions on social media are carefully examined by other party, and what I concern is will this largely impair our freedom of speech and ability receiving unbiased information? Thanks a lot! Really looking forward to your talk!

[boyangqu]

Thanks for your presentation! Social media is definitely becoming very powerful in recent decades, and it has a heavy political influence. Would you think restriction and constraints on the Internet necessary in dealing with this situation, or are the right to all information and values lie in that information that one could get from the internet more important?

[yutianlai]

Thanks for your presentation!My question is that since social media is specific to the digital era, what solutions could be taken to reduce the hostility, false information or dangerous ideology on social media? For instance, Would it be possible for any education institution to education digital citizens since their early age the way to distinguish different information, how to properly voice their own opinion, etc. so as to take the most out of social media.

[ziwnchen]

Thanks for the presentation! I'm particularly interested in your description of how mass media and mass culture modeled the top-down, one to many power structures of mass society. Do you know any empirical studies about this theory? Is it possible to validate this hypothesis based on today's social media data?

[keertanavc]

Very interesting readings! As you might already know, social media companies are not subjected to the same ethical and legal standards as say the print media or even the oil industry. These companies play an increasingly important role in our society - they shape our daily discussions, our political views and even the formation of our identities. But they have failed to keep sensitive data secure, have undermined democracy, and have facilitated the spread of misinformation among other things. Since social media is already so ingrained in the society, it is here to stay (at least for a while). So what would be the top three policies that you would propose to keep them in check while ensuring that free speech is in no way impaired in these platforms?

[luyingjiang]

Thank you for your presentation. It was mentioned in the article that Mark Zuckerberg said "our greatest opportunities are now global—like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science. The most important thing we at Facebook can do is develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us.” I was wondering how the freedom of speech necessarily lead to peace and understanding? Is it possible that the internet become a weapon of choice for those who wish to spread authoritarianism? There are many real cases happening around us. These "just" netizens who hide behind the fake ids on the internet spread hostile words towards someone without any evidence. Internet can be a place with free opinions and ideas, but sometimes a place with malicious attack. How Facebook or other social media is going to do to reduce this kind of risk? What is the standard of a "good” contribution by people?

[fulinguo]

Thanks for the presentation. My question is that from research perspective, how the research in the effects of social media in politics have combined or could combine with the psychology studies, as the people's reaction to social media might largely relates to their own thoughts, personal traits or other psychological laws. Could you elaborate more about this? Thanks.

[Yawei-Li]

Thank you for joining our workshop this week! From your opinion, how would the trend of social media influence democratization progress in authoritarian countries? Will they finally be controlled as tools of propaganda? What influence would social media have on authoritarian governments and their leader's actions?

[bazirou]

Thanks for your presentation! Political issues do need some fresh blood to come in and bring about changes. My question is, due to the extent of algorithms and models being used in political fields, how can you specify exact models to some specific problems? In other words, how can you select the right model? Thanks.

[TianxinZheng]

Thanks for your thought-provoking article. I believe that all the social media are inherently controlled by some benifits groups, so they can never be real "neutral". Sometimes social medias themselves are trying to affect people's views, say, using some specific recommendation algorithms without making their users even realized. How do you think this would affect democratization progress

[JuneZzj]

Thank you for the presentation and the readings. The sentence that impressed me was about the communication methods which creates the authoritarians today is something we used to defeat them. I thought about if it is possible that something is doomed to happen like that in the history. One thing is created to defeat another, and it becomes something new to be carefully thought of. Also, how can democracy truly redistribute social welfare and improve people's well-being in the era where the mess media allows public persons speak with their own personal idiom. What can normal people like us do to help to achieve democratic society. Thanks

[cytwill]

It is shocking to see how social media becomes a sort of tool to help form authoritarianism. The article of "The rise of the internet and a new age of authoritarianism" has described many occasions where the extremism tried to build up their influence through Facebook or Youtube. So I guess the measures to identify and restrain this tendency are the things that really matter.

My questions:

1. What have people done to prevent the prevalence of authoritarianism on the Internet so far?
2. How did scholars analyze or define whether an online community is potential to advocate authoritarianism? (Any quantitative methods or models?)
3. What are the specific challenges people have faced in fighting online authoritarianism?

[jtschoi]

Thank you for the presentation in advance.

While it may not be directly related to your articles, I could not help but wonder what method of mass communication is ideal / optimal (however unlikely) in your minds. It seems that the currently-popular methods have their own pros and cons in terms of communication cost, formation of ideas, and more. It also seems that technology is leading the forms of communication, and not the other way around (although it is not to say that this relationship is one-way). If so, will we ever reach an optimum?

[jsgenan]

I've enjoyed every minute reading the article! Looking back on the history that Americans fought fascism with the national movement of democratic personality corrected my previous thinking that the recurrence of authoritarianism is inevitable. However, I did not foresee where the article is going from reading the historical recaps. You seem to imply that the decentralized network has lost its defense against alt-right since its core "individualism" is being used by its dead enemy for justification. And the only reason it hasn't collapsed is those hierarchical institutions are guarding the normality of the world. Would you believe, had there been an Internet supreme court, it would design the right level of censorship required of a liberal online world?

I'd like to point out the observation that fascism is highly correlated with economic difficulties, which seems missing in your essay. Yes, the propaganda of neo-nazi is becoming more engaging and more related to people, but part of the reason is their followers have the same feelings. Would you agree with this observation? If so, is fascism a recurrent theme with the economic cycle?

[caibengbu]

It is really interesting to see how everyday media content is saturated by propaganda. However, more and more technology improvement are emphasizing the idea of decentralization, say blockchain. The example with Fascism is interesting but that happened back in time when the media realm is completely different. With a completely different environment, in what way do you think similar agendas will appear in our everyday life? How can we stay not mobilized?

[yalingtsui]

Thank you for the presentation. Amazing work. I admit that the internet plays a more and more important role in public issues. What are some best practices to make social media better for democracy? Are the successful practices replicable in other scenarios with a similar context? How do we deal with the "fake" or “radical” public voices?

[nt546]

Thanks in advance for the discussion! Algorithms are ubiquitous in today's time. What do you think their role is in 'Machine Politics'? Also, could they provide some strength to anonymous discussions that people resort to avoid the possible aftermath from speaking out their minds?

[adarshmathew]

The readings listed here present an interesting overview of the history of propaganda in totalitarianism (reminded me of Hannah Arendt's writing[1]) and the re-assertion of personality politics in this decade.

My question: You speak of the import of institutions in democracies, of our distrust in them in spite of the protections they grant us against totalitarianism. What would democratic institutions and norms that govern social media and built to protect against totalitarianism look like? How would you (re)build such an internet?

The absence of meaningful, principled governance has been critical in understanding the mess that we're in now. Firms have built a remarkably robust surveillance apparatus that monetizes our attention, prioritizing clicks and viral engagement, creating the very ego-centric political climate we see now.[2] This is baked into their business model. Citing the Max Lerner quote from your chapter 'Where did all the Fascists Come From?':

"Capitalism has developed to the full the techniques of advertising and high-pressure salesmanship in order to get unwanted products into the hands of buyers," wrote popular left-leaning columnist Max Lerner in 1939. "Is it any wonder that those techniques have been taken over by the fascists? Is it any wonder that Hitler should have done us the honor of borrowing our most highly prized manipulative techniques in order to turn them to purposes we never dreamt up? In terms of the swaying of mass emotions Nazism may be summarized as the application of American capitalist techniques to German and middle-class docility."

Anti-trust proceedings against Facebook[3] and Google[4] are a start, but what about larger questions of governance around data protection, disinformation, abuse, and a host of other issues? These cannot be left to the techno-utopian engineers of Silicon Valley, especially when they're building tools that are used at a global scale, and often with little regard to what happens in the developing world.

Thank you for your talk.

[1]: Hannah Ardent, On the Origins of Totalitarianism https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7662360-in-an-ever-changing-incomprehensible-world-the-masses-had-reached-the [2]: It's the (Democracy-Poisoning) Golden Age of Free Speech https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-new-censorship/ [3]: 47 attorneys general are investigating Facebook for antitrust violations https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/22/47-attorneys-general-are-investigating-facebook-for-antitrust-violations.html [4]: U.S. states plan Google antitrust meeting next month in Colorado https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-antitrust-google-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-states-plan-google-antitrust-meeting-next-month-in-colorado-sources-idUSKBN1X12PX

[Yiqing-Zh]

Thank you for your presentation! It is interesting to learn about the influence of social media on authoritarianism. It is true that authoritarianism could take control more easily in the digital era. However, I think social media is just a tool that does not play a key role in this issue. Even long before computer was invented, rulers were able to spy and intervene in people's activities and thoughts in an efficient way. So I am wondering whether it is more proper to establish an institution to guarantee that social media will not become tools to promote authoritarianism compared to purely supporting institutions, which to some extent, stand on the opposite side of social media or similar technologies.

[mingtao-gao]

Thank you for your presentation in advance! This reading provides me many insights on how we should vie mass media today from history as a lesson. Although this reading mainly focuses on political issues regarding the use of mass media and mass culture, I think nowadays social media influences people in a similar pattern. It reminds me to think more deeply when accepting the outputs of social media. My question is what are some means that people encompassed with social media in modern society can take to prevent the loss of "conscious personality"?

[anqi-hu]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Two questions:

1. How would you describe what your ideal public sphere today would look like that is nothing close to what we are "handed" today? Do you think these hypothetical conditions aren't what we are seeing for a reason?
2. You mentioned that "... a democracy must do more than allow its citizens to speak. It must help them live"-I believe that's the shared goal of many of us living in the modern days. How exactly do you envision a platform achieving this?

[Panyw97]

When associating the development of machines and digital industries with politics, the aims of those facilitators become more concrete. Like you mentioned in the essay:

Like Wiener, Zuckerberg envisions a world in which individuals, communities, and nations create an ideal social order through the constant exchange of information—that is, through staying “connected.”

Those facilitators intended to create new worlds with new rules, which matches their own inclination of politics. Despite the large profits their projects made for them, those engineers, digital companies' founder would also be benefited from fulfilling their political goals. And most of them are beneficial to our society, helping us get rid of totalitarianism.

[AllisonXiong]

Thanks for the inspiring article! For me, the interaction of political ideology and advance of technology is a new perspective to see the history. Here is what confused me: the communalists advocated a community which is computed and organized by computer, and they advocated a collective consciousness. However, they encouraged people to express their own experience and put stress on self-identity. Is there a conflict between these two goals?

[ellenhsieh]

Thank you for presenting this exciting article! The power of media has become more and more powerful just like you mentioned in the article. People are susceptible to what it advertise and promote. In the end of your article, you talked about that expressing our thoughts on those media platform is necessary for our democracy. However, I am wondering that wouldn't the governments and politicians also want to utilize this powerful tool to control citizens' thoughts?

[bensoltoff]

@wanitchayap or even if it does not lead to the adoption of new laws or governmental policies, it can still effect meaningful change that falls under the definition of "democratic rule". Consider the #MeToo movement and the resulting criminal charges/investigations against public figures such as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, as well as elected officials (several members of Congress resigned as a result of public airings of alleged incidents of sexual harassment or improprieties). Democracy is not just the act passing new laws through an elected legislature, but encompasses all aspects of democratic rule including respect for the rule of law. Enforcing existing statutes/norms against sexual violence falls under "democratic rule" in my view, and I'm not sure we would have seen these actions occur absent that social media movement.

[goldengua]

Thank you for the exciting article. You mentioned that The Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements have demonstrated the powerfulness of social media to liberate us from the fiction, but the attention brought by these movements will have little impact if the changes they call for are not resulting in enforceable laws. Therefore, social media could never be able to do the difficult, embodied work of democracy. However, there have been cases where social media forces the Chinese government to change its laws for milk product. I was wondering in what circumstance social media will have more impact on democracy and why social media movements succeed while others not.

[huanye]

Yes I agree with Fred Turner's point that new technology in digital age may appear to come with a new age of authoritarianism. But I wonder if the rise of the internet is merely correlated with the new age of authoritarianism. Can we say the the authoritarianism is caused by or completely due to new technology in digital age? We may need data to further support this causal examination.

[smiklin]

I really appreciated the historical and ideological context of some of the challenges of the social media that we are facing today.

Beyond the many important and difficult questions posed by the students, about censorship, fairness, power inequality etc, I also wanted to think about what the implications for social science research are. First, in terms of studying social media itself, I think research is uniquely positioned to illuminate patterns of power etc. in the 'new public sphere.' Second, we should also be careful not to see 'technology' as the answer to all of our problems in research, and make sure to not come to value 'big data' and specifically 'social media research' over other approaches. As in politics, research 'on the ground' is immensely valuable.

[jamesallenevans]

@WMhYang I think the issue you raise about the limits of policing is a good one. As you may have noticed, I tried to push this issue in discussion with Fred and others by asking about the partial process of simply policing bots, which are obviously inauthentic persons, but this doesn't address that many people (the 50 Cent Party/Army) are expressing views of other for hire, and, of course, the natural process of influence by which some come to channel the views of others. Is it even possible to curate the authenticity of experience online? Likely not, but I do believe that algorithmic approaches to hunting for diversity can nevertheless help us as individuals identify, hear, and amplify--if we want--the diversity of voices speaking online. This will likely become an arms race. As we and others find new ways to identify distinctive voices, others will find ways of masking sameness and make the same arguments seem varied to come to the same conclusion. But I think that we need to enter this arms race if we want to avoid having social media controlled by centralized interests.

[jamesallenevans]

@wanitchayap I actually asked your question in the workshop and Fred and others answered as if the voice was from me ;-). He argued that even though there are genuine cases of democracy-enhancing activity online, that there are an equal (or greater) number of authoritarian, oligarchic, etc.-enhancing activities online--that the medium of the web does not favor democratic movements. I agree with you that it nevertheless seems available to those movements and your Thai case was a vivid one. The question that I would ask is are there any media that favor the kind of bottom-up movement you describe? Possibly the WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link), precursor to the internet where titillating multimedia could not be hijacked by interests because of its locality and everything was text. But this was short-lived and gave birth to the very thick system of the internet... So is it persistently possible? Perhaps not.