Do Facebook's Algorithms Pose a Public Threat?

 

Friend Xerxes is concerned about people falling into self-confirming information silos on the Internet, because of Facebook’s algorithms. The result, he fears, is that bizarre conspiracy theories are spread widely without ever being contradicted; and violence may result. He speaks of “A rising tide of people in this country [who] apparently believe … that they are called overthrow the established powers-that-be. By any means. Including physical insurrection.”

There does seem to be a general decline in civil discourse. Let’s assume the theory is true. 

Logically, people falling into limited information silos is equally likely on either the left or the right—or, for that matter, in the middle. At first glance, any of these is equally troublesome. 

But if we are talking of the potential for overthrowing the establishment and for violence, the bigger problem is on the left. “The right” is, by and large, conservative, and conservative means wanting to maintain traditions. Accordingly, the right is the one group least likely to attempt any kind of insurrection or radical change of government or how we are governed. They might want to throw the current rascals out, but it would be by established, constitutional means. If our form of government had changed recently, this might not be so—the right might then want to go back to an earlier constitution—but both the US and Canada have been stable for unusually long periods of time. There is not a constituency in the US for a return to the monarchy, or in Canada for a return to direct rule from London. Currently, as Xerxes himself notes, no visible group on the right wants an insurrection to change our system of government.

This is not true of the left. The left is by definition seeking change. Black Lives Matter wants a radical change in a society it calls “systemically racist.” Antifa does too; the advocates of critical race theory do. In my riding, last election, the ballot included candidates from both the Communist and the Marxist-Leninist parties. A bit quaint in 2021, but these leftist groups too, in principle, want to radically change our system of government, by violence if necessary.

So if the issue is social instability, to “overthrow the established powers,” the practical argument is entirely for breaking up silos on the left.

You might object that fascists are a counter-example, a rightist group that advocates overturning the establishment and violent revolution. But fascists are deader than Marley’s ghost. Unlike Communists, they do not appear on any ballots anywhere. And there is nothing actually placing them on the right. Historically, they are a Marxist movement, “right-wing” only in comparison to the Leninists. Others have called them the “radical centre.” Historically, the conservatives were their chief opposition, and they have many more views in common with the contemporary North American left than the contemporary North American right. Arguably, the present government of China is fascist.

The specific conspiracy theories Xerxes cites hearing in his daily rounds sound as though they come from left-wing sources. Something about the Queen, Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden being clones; that sounds like a garbled version of David Icke’s thesis that they and other world leaders are aliens. Icke is New Age, and was the national spokesman for the UK’s Green Party. Xerxes’s barber is against cops and immigrants. Being against cops is a position lately promoted aggressively by the left. Neither left nor right is against immigrants currently. This was historically more a left-wing position, as a supposed threat to labour; the current right wants to stop illegal immigration. Xerxes cited the anti-vaxxers. The anti-vaccine movement began on the left, and was primarily leftist as recently as a year ago. The right is anti-vaccine mandates currently, but only over the last few months. 

At a minimum, you are not going to stop any of these movements by breaking open the right-wing information silo. If they are not exclusively on the left, they are found in more than one silo. 

To be fair, there are conspiracy theories on the right: QAnon, Pizzagate. There are just a lot more on the left, and on the left they are more generally accepted: the idea that rich capitalists control everything, for example, or corporations, or “Big Oil,” or “Big Pharma,” or the “whites,” or the “patriarchy.”

The left is also more inclined to violence. Some PPC local official threw gravel at Justin Trudeau in the recent Canadian election; violence at a low level. Some people trespassed last January 6 in the US Capitol building. Nobody told them to do it, and their actions were immediately condemned on the right. Compare Maxine Waters, elected Democrat, calling on her supporters to “get more active, get more confrontational.” Compare Antifa, calling for physical assaults on “Fascists”—meaning, in reality, anyone they disagree with. Compare Black Lives Matter rioting, looting, burning, and killing last year; and Kamala Harris endorsing their actions, then bailing out those arrested. The PPC official, by contrast, was immediately expelled from his position.

So should we step in and shut down left-wing news outlets? This strikes me as exactly the wrong step. Conspiracy theories thrive in the absence of full information, as the “information silos” thesis itself suggests. Rumours take over. Reducing access to any news source therefore makes conspiracy theories more likely, and plausible. Perhaps the Facebook algorithm should be adjusted. While it is obviously desirable in general to try to predict what the audience wants to see—that is the whole point of a search engine--political slants might be omitted from the equation.

And if you stop and think, at worst, we are in a better situation than before the Internet. All of us were then trapped in the same information silo, without any choice, a silo determined by the fairness doctrine, the need for media corporations to appeal to the largest audience, and the relatively small number of people who work in the mainstream media. A smaller number than we perhaps realize: due to time pressures, social pressures within the profession, intellectual timidity, and a fear of taking risks, most media took their cue on any new story or controversy from a handful of outlets. 

This made it easy to manipulate the news, and popular opinion. Conspiracies were more possible, and conspiracy theories more plausible. 

Whether the algorithms automatically direct us there or not, we now have full access to any information source we choose. We can now, for the first time, hear all sides, not just some arbitrarily selected one or two, and make more informed decisions.

In sum, if civil society is becoming less civil, it is not because of the Internet.

AOC Detects Zuckerberg's White Supremacist Bias

This grilling of Mark Zuckerberg by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez illustrates my contention that the mavens and magnates of Silicon Gulley are not really interested in censorship or controlling our politics. They want to invent things and make money. The problem is that the left will not let them. Being located where they are, in the SF Bay area, it is only the far left from whom they generally hear. They hear a constant public outcry, and, not wanting to get involved in politics, they feel the need to do something in response, so as not to alienate their customer base. Not being political, they have little idea there is another side of the issue.

Ocasio-Cortez, for example, berates Zuckerberg for not censoring more aggressively, and accuses him of having dinner parties with “far right figures.” So what is his necessary move, in order to disentangle himself from politics? He is then forced to be political, to try to figure out who counts as “far right,” and shun them. Ensuring he does not hear their views on this issue…

There is no way out.

Ocasio-Cortez actually refers to calling white privilege a hoax as a “conspiracy theory.” That is a perfect inversion: it is the notion of white privilege that is a conspiracy theory. It is like saying that denying the accuracy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a “conspiracy theory.” But this logic is too convoluted for an innocent to handle. Zuckerberg is out of his field; precisely because he is not a political animal, he is easily buffaloed by this sort of bullying.

This is the current problem not just among techies, but artists. They are not engrossed in politics; they want to create. The left will not let them do so; the left will politicize everything, to the point that, in order to pursue their own interests, they must be seen to conform to every new demand for political correctness.

Ocasio-Cortez gives a helpful primer here in how the technique works. She refers to The Daily Caller as a “publication with well-documented ties to white supremacist organizations.” This guilt by association could be as easily used against any individual or organization. The six degrees of separation rule makes this inevitable. All of us have ties to “white supremacist organizations,” or organized crime, or convicted mass murderers. But now she forges on with the notion planted that the Daily Caller is itself white supremacist. The Daily Caller was founded by Tucker Carlson, and features writing from such figures as Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, and Alan Keyes. It is about as white supremacist as the New York Times.

She then extends this guilt by association by one further degree: Facebook and Zuckerberg are now also white supremacists, it seems, because they rely on a fact checker who also works for The Daily Caller.

It now follows that anyone who uses Facebook has documented ties with white supremacist organizations. And so it goes.

Joe McCarthy would never have been so bold or so reckless in his accusations.

The coup de grace: AOC then tries to force Zuckerberg to denounce the Daily Caller’s fact checking, on the grounds that it has “ties to white supremacist organizations.” If he will not do this, presumably this confirms that he is indeed a communist. Sorry, flashback; I mean a white supremacist.

Ocasio-Cortez here is denying the existence of facts. She is implying, and demanding that all accept, that left-wing and right-wing facts are different. She must believe that “the facts” are simply whatever she or anyone thinks will advance their political goals.

It is impossible to have a rational dialogue on such a basis. The modern left is a cancer on the body politic. And on the culture.

Pity Poor Mark Zuckerberg. Really

Many on the right are upset, as am I, by the rising tide of blacklisting and censorship. Most recently, just yesterday, Facebook has banned Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer, among others. This blacklisting has gotten so obviously out of hand that even Donald Trump has weighed in with a protest.

But I think those who are blaming Mark Zuckerberg, and Twitter, and Google, and Patreon, and so on, for these bans are missing the forest for the trees. I think perhaps these businesses deserve some sympathy. They are probably not guilty as often charged with seeking to impose their own opinions on the world-- but of moral cowardice. A far more common moral failing.

It seems most likely to me that people like Zuckerberg, who have spent their lives accumulating extreme wealth, are really, in the first place, far more interested in making money than in politics. This is, moreover, their fiduciary duty as employees and proprietors. On that basis, they would surely really much prefer to continue hosting wildly popular content contributors like Watson, or Yiannopolis. Each makes them a lot of money.

But what if other people are threatening to boycott for hosting them? That sounds like a money-losing proposition. Bad PR. Angry customers.

The natural knee-jerk of a businessman is to keep the customers satisfied. He or she hears a complaint, and they figure they need to respond.

People on the left are of course going to be enraged at and want to shut down precisely the voices that are most effective, to which they cannot adequately respond. And so the process quickly gets draconian.

What Facebook and Twitter and the rest are doing now is still short-sighted and foolish. But it is understandable. They are businessmen. Politics is not their game. They just want to steer clear of it, they are not interested in it, and so they are blind to the dangers they are walking into here. Poor fools.

All he wanted was peace in our time.

So long as they stayed neutral and just let anyone post, they could plausibly deny any responsibility for what is posted. They would have had to stand tough and be principled, though, and they were not, in fact, principled. They just wanted to make money. But the instant they started policing things, as they have emphatically now, they actually and foolishly accepted legal and political responsibility for anything that appears on their platform. By anyone. Including posted comments by every lunatic capable of breathing through his mouth. That is going to become political and legal suicide going forward. There can be no end to it. Everyone is going to be furious at everything, and expect them to do something about it. And as soon as they do anything, another group is going to be at least as furious at the censorship.

Worse, as more and more legitimate opinions, and content people want to see, gets thrown off their platforms, they are almost forcing some competition to emerge and take over their market niche. And be able to compete by featuring established big names like MacInnis, Milo, Watson, Loomer; bigger names and more interesting content than are available on YouTube or Twitter. Because by the logic of the outrage boycotts, it will be the most compelling content and the biggest names that are targeted for boycott. Witness what happened with Fox News in the television marketplace. Witness the newspapers dying. Witness even how much less interesting Rebel Media has become since they bent to pressure by dumping Faith Goldy, Lauren Southern, Gavin MacInnis—all their stars. For an easier ride at the next shareholder’s meeting, these social media companies are signing their own death warrant.

Government intervention in the market is generally a bad idea. This is the classic situation in which it is a good idea. Government intervention can sometimes help everyone. The classic example is drugs in sports. Probably few athletes want to risk their health by resorting to performance-enhancing injections. But if a few do, everyone else must, or be left out of the playoffs. Their career is ruined. So it helps everyone if they are banned, and a regimen of testing imposed.

This situation is not the same, but similar. As a business proposition, probably no business wants to start censoring. But they feel forced to by the current market pressure. If, on the other hand, government passed a law positively requiring them to host all comers without politics being a factor—the rule could be that nobody could be denied a platform for any speech that is legal—then Facebook or Twitter could proceed with their business, the making of money hand over fist, without needing to soil themselves with politics. Everybody wins.

Except, of course, the scoundrels who want to silence opinions they cannot refute. But they will lose in any case.

Remember that famous quote, commonly misattributed to Mahatma Gandhi, but nevertheless eternally true: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

I never said it. I just lived it.

What we are seeing currently, nasty as it has gotten, is stage three. The left is no longer able to ignore opinions they disagree with. They are no longer able to ridicule them. Now they are fighting them openly and aggressively. In doing so, as Gandhi realized, they visibly surrender the moral high ground in the eyes of the general public.

Very soon after this, they become pariahs. They become as respected as, say, European imperialism is now, as a result of Gandhi’s campaigns, or discrimination against blacks is now, as a result of Martin Luther King’s. This is the road down which the modern left is frogmarching. People are starting to pop red pills literally left and right.

Foxhunt News Network

Rumours are percolating of a new news network being formed in the US. Some say Steve Bannon is not simply going back to Breitbart, but that he has backing to launch a Breitbart News Network. Gavin McInnis, in leaving Rebel Media, says he will soon be able to announce something big, somethingh multimedia, “including television.”

I would be surprised in these rumours are not true. There is a huge business opportunity for someone here, and someone with money, surely, is smart enough to take it.

Fox News has demonstrated that there is a huge otherwise unmet appetite for news coverage and commentary on the right. They have been able to regularly dominate all other channels in viewership.

But recently, Fox has left themselves hugely vulnerable to competition on their right. Concerned about losing advertisers, they have been tacking left and dropping some of their most popular TV faces and most experienced executives.

Leaving them free agents for anyone else to scoop up who wants to challenge Fox for their audience.

In management, aside from Bannon, they could grab Bill Shine. Dropped by Fox May 1.

Bill O’Reilly, the network’s top star, is available. They dropped him over claims of sexual harassment. I suspect his fan base is still there. It was the advertisers who dropped him. Taking him on despite the allegations would, to a certain audience, cement the new network’s bona fides as the voice of the right. Bob Beckel is similarly free, for similar reasons. Sean Hannity has said on air that he was not sure he could stat with Fox if they fired Bill Shine. They fired Bill Shine. Judge Andrew Napolitano has reason to feel the network has not been loyal to him; they pulled him off the air.

Were a new network to snag all of these, they would immediately set themselves up as the “new Fox,” and probably snag a huge proportion of the established network’s viewership.

It seems reasonable to assume that, given the viewers, sooner or later the advertisers would follow.

There are also a lot of female stars that Fox has let go. But there the new network probably faces a choice: if they go with O’Reilly, they probably forfeit the female stars, who generally say they left because of a climate of sexual harassment.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs, O’Reilly is far more valuable.

Up north, the recent troubles of The Rebel have shaken free some figures with appeal below the border. Gavin McInnis most notably: he was The Rebel’s star attraction. But aside from him, there are a couple of female stars shaken loose from the firmament who could well supply this need to emulate Fox: Lauren Southern and Faith Goldy are also free agents. They have the sort of visual appeal, shall we say, that worked so well for Fox for years.

Glenn Beck was dropped long ago, but was wildly popular when he left. He has been running his own little media empire, The Blaze, but it seems to have had its problems recently. He might be persuaded to climb aboard. I think he has a huge constituency on the religious right.

Mark Steyn is all set up with a studio, and has been using it freelance. Perhaps that is what he prefers. But he could make a huge addition.

There is also, of course, Milo Yiannopoulos. He is a big draw, and he, like Bannon, is vaguely associated with the alt-right. They were old colleagues at Breitbart. He could be the poster boy for the proposition that this new network spoke to a constituency that considered Fox too hidebound and establishmentarian.

Granted, he was too hot for even Breitbart to handle when he left a few months ago. But that was a Bretibart without Bannon; his view may differ. Yiannopoulos has apologized for what seems to have been a slip. I could see him working out for them, so long as they kept him cordoned off from the rest of the lineup.

There are a huge number of lesser-known figures who have made a mark on YouTube, and so have built up a constituency, which they could now bring to such a new network. Pewdiepie, most notably. He is not a political figure, but he nevertheless was pilloried in the media and fired by Disney for political reasons. He is the number one most popular YouTuber, and has cause now to want to join a new network to take his persecutors down. And then there are a batch of YouTube commentators: Steve Crowder, Sargon of Akkad, Stefan Molyneaux, and so forth. These are the folks the alt-right, and, more broadly, younger conservatives, listen to. Bringing on board a selection of them in addition to Yiannopoulos could establish the new network as the up and coming thing, and tar Fox with being old and sclerotic by comparison.

Surely someone is smart enough to seize the opportunity.

Nothing necessarily political about it. It would just be good business.

Even this is just the beginning of the opportunity. What Fox News has demonstrated to be true of television is also true of almost every other medium. Book publishing, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, are all vulnerable at the moment to being quickly destroyed by new competition building from a customer base on the political right. New ventures in each of these fields could be built out from the TV venture.

Multimedia indeed.