Rebalancing
I don’t post my thoughts here (or anywhere else) very often. I have no desire to join the cacophony of opinions, the never-ending vacuous chatter, the proselytising and the brow-beating. and I don't need to be validated by people I don't know. If I wanted to sell more books, I probably should care about these things and spend a lot more time conjuring up mindless trivia to cast into the unfillable hole, but I won't do it because, well, I’m uncomfortable with the whole concept. I will stay secure in my obscurity and hope that my twenty-thousand or so readers won’t abandon me because I take no part in the twitterscape or whatever the latest mind-invasive channel of toxic rhetoric and fakery is currently 'trending'.
But (there had to be a 'but', right?), I will 'publish' one thought here that has been tormenting me. I won't promote this post or manipulate others into sharing it or whatever the current way of creating memes may be. If this idea has merit, it will live, if not, it will be instant history.
In our hyper-mediated world where those who live in the most economically developed and powerful democracies vote and make life- and world-changing decisions based on the information they are presented with, I propose that there should be, written into legislation, a Right to Balanced Content.
We don't have this right at the moment because the content that is presented to users/readers/viewers/listeners through their chosen media channels is customised and shaped by algorithms that have been designed to maximise consumption. This is the business model of the social media channels and all commercial media outlets from printed newspapers to broadcast and streamed media. These outlets work hard to maximise their content consumption because their advertising and subscription revenues depend on consumer engagement and growth. I'm not blaming them or finger-wagging. Of course they would try to increase their users and keep them for longer - it's their job. These media companies exist in a highly competitive commercial landscape and they employ talented people who are tasked with increasing revenue through user acquisition and engagement. This need for retention results in algorithms that feed their users/consumers with more of the same content they have already consumed because that’s what’s proven to maximise engagement.
And that simple, indeed obvious, strategy is damaging our societies and leading vulnerable individuals into mental illness.
If the only opinion you ever heard was slanted towards an ideology that was founded in fear or hatred and if you were constantly exposed to the same rhetoric with no exposure to an alternative viewpoint, what effect would it have on you? OK, you say, I’m an informed, curious, intelligent adult with the ability and motivation to look for counter-arguments and make my own decisions about what I think. I’m sure you are. Do you think that everyone is the same as you? Look around you. Read your own feeds and information resources. Make up your own mind about that.
I suggest we need legislation that forces the media channels - all of them - to balance their output and, in the case where algorithms are presenting information to users based on their previous consumption, to deliberately intervene with a balanced or counter view. This is not censorship. That never works, it only drives alternative views underground where the echo chamber is cavernous and pernicious. This is about forcing the media channels to be balanced and unbiased when their business model is skewed toward the exact opposite. They will not do this voluntarily because the direct result of presenting people with information or views they do not think they want to see or hear is to reduce eyeball- and ear-time. But if something like a Right to Balanced Content is not imposed upon the media channels then I think the ultimate result will be that more-of-the-same algorithms will divide and fragment our societies beyond repair.
Could there be an informed debate about this? Could something change? I hope so, and hope is important because things are not looking too hopeful right now.
But (there had to be a 'but', right?), I will 'publish' one thought here that has been tormenting me. I won't promote this post or manipulate others into sharing it or whatever the current way of creating memes may be. If this idea has merit, it will live, if not, it will be instant history.
In our hyper-mediated world where those who live in the most economically developed and powerful democracies vote and make life- and world-changing decisions based on the information they are presented with, I propose that there should be, written into legislation, a Right to Balanced Content.
We don't have this right at the moment because the content that is presented to users/readers/viewers/listeners through their chosen media channels is customised and shaped by algorithms that have been designed to maximise consumption. This is the business model of the social media channels and all commercial media outlets from printed newspapers to broadcast and streamed media. These outlets work hard to maximise their content consumption because their advertising and subscription revenues depend on consumer engagement and growth. I'm not blaming them or finger-wagging. Of course they would try to increase their users and keep them for longer - it's their job. These media companies exist in a highly competitive commercial landscape and they employ talented people who are tasked with increasing revenue through user acquisition and engagement. This need for retention results in algorithms that feed their users/consumers with more of the same content they have already consumed because that’s what’s proven to maximise engagement.
And that simple, indeed obvious, strategy is damaging our societies and leading vulnerable individuals into mental illness.
If the only opinion you ever heard was slanted towards an ideology that was founded in fear or hatred and if you were constantly exposed to the same rhetoric with no exposure to an alternative viewpoint, what effect would it have on you? OK, you say, I’m an informed, curious, intelligent adult with the ability and motivation to look for counter-arguments and make my own decisions about what I think. I’m sure you are. Do you think that everyone is the same as you? Look around you. Read your own feeds and information resources. Make up your own mind about that.
I suggest we need legislation that forces the media channels - all of them - to balance their output and, in the case where algorithms are presenting information to users based on their previous consumption, to deliberately intervene with a balanced or counter view. This is not censorship. That never works, it only drives alternative views underground where the echo chamber is cavernous and pernicious. This is about forcing the media channels to be balanced and unbiased when their business model is skewed toward the exact opposite. They will not do this voluntarily because the direct result of presenting people with information or views they do not think they want to see or hear is to reduce eyeball- and ear-time. But if something like a Right to Balanced Content is not imposed upon the media channels then I think the ultimate result will be that more-of-the-same algorithms will divide and fragment our societies beyond repair.
Could there be an informed debate about this? Could something change? I hope so, and hope is important because things are not looking too hopeful right now.
date
newest »
newest »
Try YouTube and search for 'Confirmation Bias Tim Minchin: BACK' for a brilliant take on the subject.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote a very nice piece on Patrick Moore and 50 years of the Sky at Night. Strangely, Arthur couldn't get the piece published in any paper in the UK at the time. Why? Because Patrick (typical Patrick) had during the same week made some very politically incorrect statement about women - and he was persona non grata. I managed to get Arthur's piece published in Astronomy Now - and the Editor kindly wrote the article in his name without even giving me a mention. That's the way of it :)
Slabscape: Linktrigues
Click to start and hang on for the ride
- S. Spencer Baker's profile
- 58 followers
It's a step in the right direction, however, balance isn't achieved by banning the circulation of misinformation (because that drives it underground and fuels the belief that the 'state' is suppressing the 'truth'), but by providing alternative viewpoints, verified information and the opportunity to make well-informed decisions.
Also, achieving balance isn't just a matter of giving all opinions equal weight. For example, the BBC's overriding attempts to remain impartial can result in an inaccurate and misleading presentation. The veteran journalist and broadcaster, Emily Maitlis recently highlighted a glaring example of this when she delivered the MacTaggart Lecture in Edinburgh (available in full on YouTube). She said; “It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it, but by the time we went on air, we simply had one of each. We presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”