Read on Twitter
Couple of rather strange articles lately arguing that Groups Are Bad And Everything Should Be Public.
First disinfo scholars Nina Jankowicz & Cindy Otis, arguing against Facebook Groups (17 June) https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-groups-are-destroying-america/
First disinfo scholars Nina Jankowicz & Cindy Otis, arguing against Facebook Groups (17 June) https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-groups-are-destroying-america/
Then sociologist Will Davies - who wrote the very good book 'Nervous States: How Feeling Took Over the World' - with a somewhat less good take on why WhatsApp groups are bad. (2 July) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/02/whatsapp-groups-conspiracy-theories-disinformation-democracy
Of course groups on both channels have been vectors for polarisation and disinformation, and there's a need to address this.
What's a bit bewildering about these pieces, though, is that they speak as though groups *only* have negative dynamics, and are used for wrong.
What's a bit bewildering about these pieces, though, is that they speak as though groups *only* have negative dynamics, and are used for wrong.
Davies talks about WhatsApp groups in terms of 5G conspiracies, political violence in India, "breeding suspicion" when used by politicians, & groupthink when used by your local community.
People want a place where they're not overheard, he says - so they can share hateful views.
People want a place where they're not overheard, he says - so they can share hateful views.
Davies' piece is missing any substantial consideration of why people might want to gather & communicate in small/medium size groups (default human community scale you say? Never!)
And it's missing anything very clear on the world he would prefer to see instead.
And it's missing anything very clear on the world he would prefer to see instead.
I think his dislike of the "prospect of a society organised as a tapestry of overlapping cliques" is based on a desire for "a common public world – based upon verified facts and recognised procedures".
But then he needs to consider the ways public social media is a hellsite too.
But then he needs to consider the ways public social media is a hellsite too.
The Facebook Groups piece is generally better, as it does at least lay out some sensible principles for reform:
- Nix Facebook's recommendation engine promoting extremist Groups
- "Radically increase transparency around the ownership, management, and membership of groups"
- Nix Facebook's recommendation engine promoting extremist Groups
- "Radically increase transparency around the ownership, management, and membership of groups"
But there's also this jeremiad against privacy:
"If a group exceeds 5,000 people it should be automatically set to public, so that any FB user can participate. That way, these groups can be observed by the researchers & journalists on whom FB now relies to police its platform."
"If a group exceeds 5,000 people it should be automatically set to public, so that any FB user can participate. That way, these groups can be observed by the researchers & journalists on whom FB now relies to police its platform."
Again, no consideration of WHY groups might be private -- viz, the public sphere is often extremely hostile to minorities.
You just *try* running a trans support group out in public, without getting harassed into the ground by trans-haters.
You just *try* running a trans support group out in public, without getting harassed into the ground by trans-haters.
Honestly, both pieces of work just seem to have a real void where their understanding of COMMUNITY should be.
I am a member of Facebook Groups that generate ~astonishing~ community solidarity, and they do that BECAUSE they are closed.
I am a member of Facebook Groups that generate ~astonishing~ community solidarity, and they do that BECAUSE they are closed.
But I guess editors don't really want thought-through both sides considerations, or the argument that "community life is inherently messy".
"Blame Facebook for everything" is the much stronger pitch.
"Blame Facebook for everything" is the much stronger pitch.
