I haven’t watched the documentary, but I’m antecedently skeptical of claims that social media constitute an existential risk in the sense in which EAs use that term. The brief summary provided by the Wikipedia article doesn’t seem to support that characterization:
the film explores the rise of social media and the damage it has caused to society, focusing on its exploitation of its users for financial gain through surveillance capitalism and data mining, how its design is meant to nurture an addiction, its use in politics, its impact on mental health (including the mental health of adolescents and rising teen suicide rates), and its role in spreading conspiracy theories and aiding groups such as flat-earthers and white supremacists.
While many of these effects are terrible (and concern about them partly explains why I myself basically don’t use social media), they do not appear to amount to threats of existential catastrophe. Maybe the claim is that the kind of surveillance made possible by social media and big tech firms more generally (“surveillance capitalism”) has the potential to establish an unrecoverable global dystopia?
Are there other concrete mechanisms discussed by the documentary?
The implication is that it’s becoming increasingly difficult for people to establish what the truth is. This undermines democracy and the ability to build consensus. I think we will see this play out with the results of the US election in November and the extent to which people believe and accept the result.
I don’t know this literature well and am not quite sure what conclusions to draw. My impression is, however, that some claims of the dangers of fake news on social media are exaggerated.
I would be interested to see any evidence on whether citizen knowledge has increased or not since social media formed. People often assert this but don’t argue for it and the long-term trend isn’t that clear.
I’m not sure this answers your question but the Edelman Trust Barometer has been tracking levels of trust in societal institutions (government, business, NGOs and media) for the last 20 years. The trend shows a widening division between the “Informed Public” and the “Mass Population” using the following definitions:
Informed Public
500 respondents in U.S. and China; 200 in all other markets
Represents 17% of total global population
Must meet 4 criteria
Ages 25-64
College-educated
In top 25% of household income per age group in each market
Report significant media consumption and engagement in public policy and business news
I haven’t watched the documentary, but I’m antecedently skeptical of claims that social media constitute an existential risk in the sense in which EAs use that term. The brief summary provided by the Wikipedia article doesn’t seem to support that characterization:
While many of these effects are terrible (and concern about them partly explains why I myself basically don’t use social media), they do not appear to amount to threats of existential catastrophe. Maybe the claim is that the kind of surveillance made possible by social media and big tech firms more generally (“surveillance capitalism”) has the potential to establish an unrecoverable global dystopia?
Are there other concrete mechanisms discussed by the documentary?
The argument that concerned me most was that disinformation spreads 6 times faster than the truth.
The implication is that it’s becoming increasingly difficult for people to establish what the truth is. This undermines democracy and the ability to build consensus. I think we will see this play out with the results of the US election in November and the extent to which people believe and accept the result.
There are some studies suggesting fake news isn’t quite the problem some think.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3316768
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107731
There are also a number of papers which are sceptical of there being pervasive social media “echo chambers” or “filter bubbles”.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/87402/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563216309086
Cf also this recent book by Hugo Mercier, which argues that people are less gullible than many think.
I don’t know this literature well and am not quite sure what conclusions to draw. My impression is, however, that some claims of the dangers of fake news on social media are exaggerated.
Cf also my comment on the post on recommender systems, relating to other effects of social media.
I would be interested to see any evidence on whether citizen knowledge has increased or not since social media formed. People often assert this but don’t argue for it and the long-term trend isn’t that clear.
I’m not sure this answers your question but the Edelman Trust Barometer has been tracking levels of trust in societal institutions (government, business, NGOs and media) for the last 20 years. The trend shows a widening division between the “Informed Public” and the “Mass Population” using the following definitions:
Informed Public
500 respondents in U.S. and China; 200 in all other markets
Represents 17% of total global population
Must meet 4 criteria
Ages 25-64
College-educated
In top 25% of household income per age group in each market
Report significant media consumption and engagement in public policy and business news
Mass Population
All population not including informed public
Represents 83% of total global population