Why would you say that?
One of the questions at the centre of this project is Do we need to change our attitudes to publishing online? The term ‘publishing’ tends to create thoughts of the gatekeepers of the printing press, with ability to transform you into the next JK Rowling. The reality is we all publish every single day, submitting an array of media from text and images to audio and video, in the form of tweets, posts and statuses. If you so much as post a comment on social media, you are publishing online.
Arguably the most prominent social media platform is Facebook.
With over two billion active monthly users, it has rapidly transformed over the past
decade or so from a directory of your friends, to a source of news,
entertainment and much more. Its success is founded upon the idea that everything
is better with friends, as well as several definitive innovations, most
famously the News Feed.
Once upon a time, Facebook’s News Feed was simply a reverse
chronological list of things our friends published online. However, with
increased usage it soon became apparent that the amount of information in the
feed could be so overwhelming, usage would likely dwindle.
Today, Facebook’s news feed is entirely algorithmic, showing
users a synergy of advertising, content from friends and suggested content from
other popular or sponsored sources. Facebook’s much guarded algorithms are
estimated to be sixty million lines of code in length – no Facebook engineer,
let alone you, could be reasonably expected to comprehend the News Feed’s opaque
nature, let alone control what should be displayed.
But the algorithms can be nudged and steered. Franklin Foer
in World Without Mind (2017) documents one of Facebook’s trials:
Facebook
attempted to manipulate the mental state of its users. For one group, Facebook
excised the positive words from the posts in the News Feed; for another group,
it removed the negative words. Each group, it concluded, wrote posts that
echoed the mood of the posts it had reworded. This study was roundly condemned
as invasive, but it is not so unusual. As one member of Facebook’s data science
team confessed: “Anyone on that team could run a test. They’re always trying to
alter people’s behaviour.”
This is an important example of Facebook’s insidious power
to alter our behaviour. Whether it is fellow publishers attempting to influence
us at the ballot box or the platforms themselves managing our perception of our
friendships, services like Facebook are far from benign, able to influence our
thoughts and actions.
Even if the company behind the platform isn’t noticeably
pulling the strings, consider how the language, emotions or information in
content you see involuntarily in the News Feed may be affecting you.
So do we need to change our attitudes to publishing online?
I would argue a key consideration is whether that attitude is entirely our own
or a caricature of ourselves, influenced by the tools we sleepwalked into trusting.
Comments
Post a Comment