Tag Archives: Social media

Who is to say?

The Internet caught us with our defences down. With AI in the mix, things will probably only get worse, whether we fully buy into Yuval Noah Harari’s doomsday predictions or not. We can make a mess of this world all on our own, with or without a sentient AI.

We are losing contact. Contact with real, live people and the non-virtual reality. We are also slowly but surely losing one of the most important building blocks of human progress – our trust in what we have learned, what we see and what we hear; in fact, our trust in almost everything and everyone.

The common denominator of the Internet generation is not a specific birth date. To me, all those who have experienced the commercialisation of the Internet from the 1990’s onwards are part of the Internet generation. Their lives have changed fundamentally as the services and technologies that rely on the Internet have woven themselves into virtually every aspect of modern life, especially in Western democracies.

Along with the good came the bad. While it became easier to spread and find substantiated information, it became just as easy to spread alternative “facts”. While it became easier to form bonds through shared hobbies and interests, it also became easier to band together to spread hate speech and to participate in illegal activities, including virtual warfare.

Somehow we have lost ourselves in this world wide environment. People google their way to “knowledge” indiscriminately. Everyone is becoming their own expert on all things. The way things look has become more important than the way they truly are.

Suddenly, one plus one doesn’t necessarily equal two. It only takes someone on the internet who professes to know that two is just a hoax – the real answer is three. Who can argue with that in a manner that those who choose to believe such a statement would understand?

New ideas travel fast over the Internet, but so does resistance to them too. While the Internet has provided new opportunities for many, it has also brought losses to many. Jobs have been lost, shared beliefs and values have been torn apart – the list is long.

In turbulent times people look for strong leaders. Saying you are strong does not make you strong. Strength is not about acting as if you have all the answers. Yet Donald Trump and J.D.Vance have once again proven that people confuse bullying with strength. Voters are ready to be swept away by a rhetoric that changes with the audience and often has little basis in substantiated facts. They don’t care whether the answers given are the same that were given a year or even a week ago. As long as people hear what they want to hear, they are happy. Even if they know that the promises made are not in line with earlier actions, or that some statements have already been proven to be outright lies.

This is actually very human. The less we trust, the more we trust blindly, because we still need to trust in something. It is easier to just close your eyes and hope for the best.

I am not into blind trust, but I do hope that reason will prevail: that the American people will not opt for a President, who has openly promised to act as a dictator.

However, the presidential election alone will not solve the basic problem: Substantiated facts are becoming irrelevant.

How is one to govern and build a good future, when well-researched facts are treated by a growing number of decision-makers and voters as just one more fact among an increasing number of unsubstantiated alternative facts. Many of which are freely offered on the Internet by disruptive players – both domestic and international.

On that note, I once again urge everyone to leave X and return their Teslas. Elon Musk personifies all that can go wrong, when you misuse technology and power.

How does a democracy that allows people to freely do that function? Maybe the answer is that it doesn’t. Maybe we won’t have to wait for a catastrophe wrought by climate change or nuclear weapons. Maybe we are living the catastrophe already without fully realising what is happening.

Can we truly even trust ourselves? There is so much conflicting information. Should we do something? What can we do? Is it too late to stop this – whatever it is? No one seems to be in charge. It would be so easy to let someone else decide.

Which is exactly how dictators are born. Be they Trump, AI or any other party to whom or which we surrender our decision-making rights. It is easier so – until it isn’t, but by then it is too late.

My take on all of this: If you are lucky enough to live in a country where voters still have some say in decision-making, focus on keeping your future right to vote safe from wannabe dictators. The rest can be dealt with later.

NOTE: The earlier version of this post contained a double paragraph, so I am reposting it.

#democracy too

We all know there is no such thing as normal people or normal actions. No two normals look alike. Your normal looks different from mine.

Still, I feel confident in my statement: Normal is out. We are bombarded by so much information that it takes something beyond our own concept of normal to drag our attention away from our comfy interaction with like-minded people in our chosen information silos; the ones provided by courtesy of the Chinese, Elon Musk, international investors or local media providers.

All too often it takes something negative to catch our interest.

In a media overload world, a happy life is seldom interesting unless it involves a mind-boggling rags-to-riches story or is achieved after serious, preferably health-threatening, setbacks. Great grades and a stellar job record do not a good story make. Ruining your successful career spectacularly – now that is clickworthy. Genders are interesting mainly if there is an internal or external struggle or an equality issue involved. Faith is newsworthy if it involves celebrities or leads to violence or oppression rather than good deeds.

If you want to be heard, make sure you are not too normal, whatever that means in your target group. You can opt for a memorable hair style like Boris Johnson, an interesting age gap marriage like President Macron and his Finnish counterpart, Niinistö, or you can ride the minority van, with skin colour, gender or sexuality as your strength. Unusually good or bad looks never hurt either.

Actually, any of the above alone may not make the cut these days. The world is looking for something more – and more – whatever that is.

Even a fish has to be quite out of the ordinary to grab our attention. Hence my featured image, which also symbolises my take on the effects of social media. It’s an ugly picture.

No wonder everyone is out there riding their own “ism” be it fanaticism, racism, or some other ism. Even Putin and Trump have realised that plain old crazy is not enough; you need to spice it up with wars, conspiracy theories and isms.

Sadly, my favourite news media, Helsingin Sanomat, all too often falls into the trap of letting social media algorithms take the driver’s seat, while HS takes the backseat with its semi-analytical follow-ups on the latest “talk of the town”. It’s the easy way out in search of clicks: Tailgate social media regardless of whether the issues trending on it are truly worth the coverage journalistically. It’s also the way to get caught up in warped agendas driven by social media savvy parties instead of doing your own thinking and legwork.

I am aware that I am crying for journalism as we have known it – and still know it, when my favourite news media is at its best. Things change. Maybe traditional journalism is fated to take the backseat. But why seat yourself there voluntarily?

As far as the Chinese are concerned, the more mindless the TikTok content and its followers become, the better. In China itself, TikTok is not allowed. Elon Musk, in turn, makes no secret that X is now his – to do with as he pleases – and rules do not please him. Social media platforms do not care a jot about fact-checking, good journalistic practices or democracy. They pose as a way to become heard, but their algorithms make sure that not everyone is. Why help them?

Our view of what is to be considered a fact may change as we learn new things. That is as it should be. However, thanks to social media, more and more people seem to be buying into the thought that facts are only a matter of opinion; just pick your own alternative fact and go with it, no proof required. The same trend seems to apply to the rule of law; if it doesn’t “work” for you, just ignore it and do as you wish.

As like finds like by courtesy of social media algorithms, fiction becomes fact to so many that no fact-checking can halt the process. Western democracies are slowly being trained to a life of panem et circences (bread and circuses). With AI in the mix, the stories will only get wilder and wilder and so will probably the voters along with them.

As the lines between possible and impossible, true and false, and right and wrong become blurred, it becomes increasingly tempting to vote for someone, who – ably aided by algorithms- sells you an exciting story and promises you both bread and the full circus experience. It’s such an easy solution: Just jump on the circus wagon, forget your troubles and doubts and hope for the best.

How did billions of people end up being led by their noses without protest? What about free will and independent decision-making? When did we lose this War Over Minds to evil algorithms? Is the damage irreversible? How far are we gone? When all is said and done, will our sense of real and unreal, true and false, right and wrong be totally lost?

The way things are going, we will vote ourselves out of democracy before we know it. For all the wrong reasons – just because we can.

The fight to save Western democracies starts at home. You may not have to risk your life in the physical sense, but you must be ready to make sacrifices that may feel life-changing. Leave your social media accounts – at least the ones that are clearly led by parties beyond all control. You will not beat them by joining them.

Let the fight begin #democracy too!

Wait – I realise I am not on TikTok, X, Instagram or Facebook. No algorithms will push this message forward. Then again, even if I was, would they really push it? You can see where this is going. It is, indeed, an ugly picture.

Leaders and followers

Important fights are being fought today – and have been fought throughout history – in the name of social, political and economic equality. Many of them for causes that I support; not only with words but with actions.

However, being a niceoldlady and an old school liberal, I have a tough time buying into some of the fighting methods. All too often the fighters are so caught up in the righteousness of their cause that they are intolerant in the name of tolerance, harass in the name of non-harassment and at times even call for glaringly unequal treatment in the name of equality.

To be clear, when denouncing calls for glaring inequality, I don’t mean calls for measures that can help minorities catch up with the head start that years of inequality have given those in positions of power. Sometimes such catching up can best be facilitated through measures that in themselves are unequal treatment including, but not limited to, quotas.

However, lines have to be drawn somewhere. Mine are drawn pretty much at the point where French writer Pauline Harmange proudly states: ‘Mois les hommes, je les déteste’, which basically translates to ‘I Hate Men’. This is not just a catchy title for her pamphlet as one might assume; it is the prevailing sentiment throughout her essay. The thinking being that you are allowed to blatantly hate those that have done you wrong, if you are in a minority.

Even if one were to buy into that theory, the problem remains that not all men have done Harmange, or women in general, wrong. Still Harmange feels free to profess to hate men in general. I am not into hating, but should I profess to hate something, it would be sweeping generalisations and hate speech.

Then there are those, who feel free to rewrite history and interpret past actions with total disregard for facts and truth just to prove their point. My favourite newspaper recently carried a major story on women as software engineers. To make a short story longer, the writer took all sorts of liberties both with facts and their interpretation.

As if gender equality wasn’t a good enough cause on its own merits, the writer saw a great conspiracy in the fact that Finnish card punchers in the early 1960’s and 70’s were predominantly female, while a majority of the early 70’s software engineers were male.

As one commentator pointed out, card punching (a computer-related job, which in itself required great concentration and careful execution, but had nothing to do with software engineering) was as closely related to software engineering as my online banking is. In order for the software to work properly, the inputted information has to be correct, but that does make the one who punches or types in the information a software engineer.

Instead of acknowledging this, the article writer sweepingly alluded that the female card punchers could be considered the first software engineers, and that the hiring tests for software engineers were different from those for card punchers in order to favour men. The fact that the jobs were totally different – hence the hiring tests were different too – did not fit into her storyline. Therefore it was disregarded.

The writer then proceeded to speculate that the use of the term software was related to the fact that the early card punching “software engineers” were women and hence the programs were considered easy to produce i.e. ‘soft’ as opposed to the term hardware, which referred to something difficult and hard.

And here I was, thinking that the use of the term hardware originated from the mid 15th century concept of small metal goods i.e. referred to the physical components of a computer.

The sad thing is that with less emphasis on proving a point by any means – right or wrong – and more emphasis on getting the facts right, the article would have been interesting. Instead, it became a sorry example of how a good article can turn bad and a good cause can be undermined by blatantly disregarding facts.

Finland was actually training both male and female software engineers as fast as they could be hired in the early 70’s. The real story to tell would have been, why the number of female software engineers didn’t increase in proportion to the early numbers. That story did not make its way to the surface past the alternative facts, so it has yet to be told.

Wrongs do not a right make. The spreading of hate and unreason – or just alternative facts and untruths – do not promote equality; they promote hate and unreason as well as an increasing disregard for facts and truth.

Yet my favourite newspaper chose not to correct the story, but to argue that by reading the whole article a discerning reader would realise that card punchers were not software engineers, despite what the title of the article and the alternative facts presented in the early paragraphs of it claimed.

Since when did good journalism mean that the sorting of facts from fiction was to be left to the reader?

Social media has a tendency to make mountains out of molehills, but it also has the power to highlight wrongs that deserve our attention, yet they might never have come to our notice through old school channels. Most people recognise that things may be blown out of proportion, or less thoroughly researched, on social media sites. Which is why it’s so important that traditional media continues to take a more factual and in depth approach.

Originally newspapers where just that – papers with the latest news. With the growth of electronic media as well as the internet and social media, newspapers didn’t have the means to keep themselves in the forefront as news breakers. Instead, they focused on the context and the background of news.

Today social media darlings with little or no journalistic background are invited to write for newspapers in order to keep up with times and win over the next generation of readers. Unfortunately, fact-checking seems to be the first to suffer from this development.

Why give up your true competitive advantage? In addition to its adherence to time-tested journalistic ethics and standards, the reliability of its fact-checking process has so far been the true value-added of my favourite newspaper. Both are missing on social media.

Life is messy. Life is complicated. Life is seldom Instagram-ready or Twitter-formatted. Social media can serve as a podium for all sorts of voices: from silly to wise, from scary to nice, from hate to love; but we still need the context and the background.

A good newspaper is all about getting the story right and interesting enough – not about making sure it’s catchy and instantly trends whatever the cost. There will always be leaders and followers. A good newspaper does not let itself fall into the latter category as times change. It finds new ways to build on its competitive advantage instead of eroding it.

Divine intervention

Years ago my four-year old son came home from his day care centre in a huff. Someone at the centre had taken on the daunting task of explaining God to four-year-olds. My son’s take on the matter was that God resided in heaven and heaven was somewhere in the clouds.

If the story of Amazon kicking Parler off Amazon Cloud had broken that day, my son would probably have seen it as divine intervention.

However, as that story was to unfold some 40 years later, my son’s mind was instead wrapped around the – in his mind totally impossible – idea that people searched for God. How could that be true, he questioned. There is no ladder tall enough to reach the clouds.

On a more serious note, when global mega-actors like Facebook, Twitter and Amazon finally restrict the results of their own actions – their enabling of the spreading of fake news, hate and violence – there is nothing divine about their intervention. They are just scrambling to safeguard their backs.

It’s like the call for non-violence that Trump finally made. Too little, too late, and guided purely by self-interest.

None of these people should have been given the power they have today: not Trump, not the decision makers of Facebook, Twitter and Amazon. I think we all see it clearly, but have no idea what to do about it.

Yet the problem needs to be addressed. There has to be a reasonable way to make sure that social media giants can’t act as gods of free – or censored – speech on their platforms without any real outside control. Owners come and go, platforms easily remain, whether benign – or not.

It’s not only about allowing calls for hate and violence on worldwide platforms. It’s just as much about the ability to suddenly turn the off-switch on a president, however misguided he may be. None of these decisions should be solely up to a few decision makers, whose primary loyalty is to their investors.

Since self-restriction is difficult, there has to be enough outside pressure to ensure that the fine line between free speech and criminal, systematic misguidance is drawn by institutions that have been set up for that purpose with due process.

No border safety measures and defence programs are more important than this. The ever-existing missile threat may prove to be a small problem compared to the threat posed by the potential to subtly and systematically spread disinformation to billions of people.

This has to become a priority for decision makers, however long their to-do lists already are.

Trump did teach us something valuable. The Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has the right of it: We need to look infinitely harder at who we elect, including examining the candidate’s character and ethics.

However, since this is easier said than done, we also need to look infinitely harder at how lying and bullying could become the presidential norm overnight.

My favourite newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, published a remarkably thorough info package on the what, where, when and why of the Epiphany of Trump’s Presidency.

I am not referring to the Christian holiday Epiphany – although the dates do coincide. I am referring to the storming of the U.S. Capitol; the sudden manifestation of the essential nature of Trump’s presidency: Self-inflicted chaos.

One of Helsingin Sanomat’s excellent articles explained how the angry dissent that Trump built on has been steadily growing online since the early days of the web. What the article forgot to mention is that extremist groups become big much more easily, when they have access to big platforms with algorithms that speed up their growth.

Trump could write the manual on “How to lie and bully your way to the White House”, but he could not have succeeded in creating the chaos of today without Twitter and Facebook.

It’s time to move on and make sure that votes still matter, that good government still matters. We need international co-operation and legislation to ensure that reason prevails on and off social media in the future.

Note: My featured image is an excerpt from Angeles Santos’ painting “A World”. Since the painting is from 1929, it’s safe to say that is was never meant as a commentary on Trump or social media. But somehow it fits our world today. Sadly, my camera never caught the whole painting.

A Dunbar moment

You have probably heard of Dunbar’s number. It’s all about the size of our brain and our relationship groups. To be exact, it’s about the size of our neocortex relative to the rest of our brain. Continue reading →

Now trending: hate and self-interest

Hate and self-interest are trending. Internet and the social media have provided the nasties with the means to find each other and create outlets for their bigotry.

Since they are truly nasty, in a way that this old lady doesn’t care to be, they do not hesitate to use these tools aggressively and successfully. Continue reading →

Facebook,Twitter, you and I

We are all being manipulated I am told. Not only by people, but by social bots, the software programs that mimic human behaviour on social media.

Angela Merkel worries that fake news providers and social bots will manipulate the German election. The Washington Post seems to know that Continue reading →

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: