Comm 151: Exam #2 (Terms)
Wright (2009): What is the Role of the Moderator?
"The Role of the Moderator" = Focusing specifically on moderators in government-run discussion sites. Goal is to keep "citizen engagement focused and in consequently ensuring that such engagement adds value to services, to policy, and to citizens," but fears of censorship, distortion, and restraint of speech (especially favoring government). - Legitimate censorship? when messages are deleted "that do not meet specific, and open, rules for debate that have been discussed and agreed upon by a range of stakeholders." - [Not really addressing case where rules were unduly restrictive]
Ellison et al 2014:
"explore how individuals are using the site to maintain social relationships and how these activities relate to perceptions of social capital"... especially re: bridging social capital. - Expect more bonding social capital with strong friends - Since you have so much in common with strong bond friends, might find out more novel information (bridging) from weak tie friends the larger the network = more bridging scial capital
Free riding is particularly a problem with...
"goods" that aren't excludable ex: national defense, minimum wage, city parks, good public policy, clean air, etc. vs. non-excludable (= People can choose not to contribute and you can't stop them from enjoying the item)
Communication Decency Act's Section 230(c)
("Good Samaritan Act") immunized companies for content shared by users on their services
How has online discussion enabled collective good?
- By definition, takes more than one person to have a conversation. a) Online, lots more potential for valuable interaction - Valued not just by immediate participants, but by "third parties" and readers later [ever find solution to vexing computer problem?] * discussion forums = places where users who are able to bring together a large group of people to create change who might not have meet or have been able to collect and change something without the internet ex: forum of users who were all having issues with a specific car and organized to call for a recall on the cars b) But... Lots of opportunity to muck things up. - Again, lots of possible connections to irritate/annoy/ destroy (ex: trolling). - Facebook, snapchat, etc. solve by cutting out the "third parties" who might otherwise benefit (or annoy) discussants... it's privatizing the interactions.
Gardiner et al 2016 (Dark Side of Guardian Comments)
- More blocked comments - Looked at targets and topics of blocked comments = Found many to associate with world news opinions, environment, fashion, Israel/Palestine, rape
Consumers and moderations on websites.
- Most sites use consumers as fire alarms (versus reviewing all content like "police patrols"): flag content and file complaints, "shaping the norms that support a platform's brand" [but note article's deep concern with employees tasked to this job] - Authors not fans of "counter-speech," which put costs on users, not companies.
The transitions between private and public domains as described by Bimber et al.
1) Argues this captures "second-order communality and changed dynamics in control over information, as well as the ability of people to exploit technology for performing basic collective action functions in the absence of traditional organization and accumulated resources" 2) Sees noncollective (or "precollective") actions as equivalent to Olson's latent groups. Key Q is how porous & easily crossed the boundary is between public and private action. 3) Old mass comm tech made it very expensive to do so (although cheaper at the interpersonal level?); new media cheapen it [but note Lupia and Sen's caution regarding impact of letter-writing campaigns] - ex: cheap/free ads when a friend shares a product or funny commercial on social media
What are the "two foundational assumptions" of collective action that Bimber et al. reconsiders?
1) Binary choice whether to participate/not 2) Role of formal organization
Key Wikipedia Questions:
1) Is Wikipedia a trustworthy source of information and will it be able to sustain itself over time? 2) How is the dominance of smartphones in modern society impacting Wikipedia in the present and future? 3) Especially in academic settings, such as college campuses, is Wikipedia a credible source of information? - Empirical tests: favorable compared to Britannica - Battle against inaccuracy and vandalism; increasing barriers to new edits - Contributors (for English site) decreasing
How has CMC affected social selective incentives?
1) Large communities of like-minded individuals can communicate instantly 2) Computers can help organize and track relationships, and dole out status (or punishment) online. - ex: liking/commenting on someone's social media posts (reward), unfollowing or blocking someone (punishment), handing out "badges", promoting others through sharing their posts 3) Facebook and other online social/discussion spaces. - creates more "friends" 4) Still some problems when money gets involved (Huffpo sale vs. unpaid contributors). And same tech might make "going it alone" a better alternative.
Name two things that undermine good online discussion (bad behaviors)
1) Noise...Over-consuming bandwidth of discussion (includes attention dimension) or spreading bad information. - Wasting people's time and attention (or insulting them). - Volume is "Too loud" 2) Not contributing at all ("lurking"; asking but not answering questions, "underprovision"). Relates back to Olson. - Volume is "muted"
What are 3 different ways that moderators can remove content from discussions according to wright?
1) Open Censor (deleting messages deemed inappropriate, normally against predefined rules and criteria. Feedback is given to explain why, and an opportunity to rewrite is provided), 2) Covert Censor (deleting messages deemed inappropriate, but without explaining why), and 3) Cleaner (removing or closing dead threads, hiving off subdiscussions into separate threads)
Different roles in the Wikipedia Bureaucracy
1) administrators 2) account creators 3) autopatrollers 4) bots 5) bureaucrats 6) checkusers 7) edit filter managers 8) file movers 9) importers 10) IP-block exempt 11) Oversighters 12) Ombudsmen
Name two types of moderation as stated by Wright 2009?
1) content moderation Downing Street site (British PM) in 2000. Difficult to find balance between abuse and legitimate criticism of gov't (presented cases of deleted messages that seemed legit). Also removed "stale" topics or messages receiving no reply after 3 days (very few policy staff available to respond). Mostly gave no feedback or indication of deletion. Vague rules (but posted before moderation). Widespread criticism for censorship. 2) interactive moderation E-democracy forum [only 579 total posts, 152 censored]. Review before publication and moderators giving feedback and suggestions for topics. Stricter rules (and less traffic?) led to greater policymaker involvement. No effect on policy, though? *neither of these cases seem to have scaled well*
What are 2 different ways of moderating content according to Buni & Chemaly 2016
1) fire alarms - Most sites use consumers as fire alarms (versus reviewing all content like "police patrols") - flag content and file complaints, "shaping the norms that support a platform's brand" [but note article's deep concern with employees tasked to this job] (ex: 4chan) 2) moderation army (police men) - Contrast Facebook's massive moderation army (estimated at more than 100k workers, plus many automated tools) to 4chan, where "users are instructed against violating US law but are also free to post virtually any type of content, as long as they do so on clearly defined boards" (ex: Facebook)
Problems with collective action:
1) free riding 2) coordination costs
3 ways large groups can act collectivly
1) homogenous: = if group is similar and agrees on things this cuts coordination costs (but used to be hard to assemble these homogenous groups 2) selective incentives: = incentive applies selectively to individuals depending on whether they do or do not contribute toward collective good. - you get people to work toward a collective end by selectively benefiting those who actually contribute ex: PBS pledge drive tote bag; AARP discounts; Zoo stickers for car window; brick or plaque or building name at university. - Government coercion is a selective disincentive. 3) "privileged" group: = some ("Fat Cats") care so much about outcome they're willing to subsidize others - we can rely on the few who care so much about something that they make change and everyone else can then benefit ex: Hughes Las Vegas TV station; Flickr power law
2 ways CMC has changed the ability to create and run groups
1) locating group members is MUCH easier = Common or homogenous interests, regardless of geography [Especially uncommon or socially unacceptable interests (ex: pro-anorexia support group)] - a lot easier now with CMC to find connections and groups with others 2) Much easier for them to communicate and coordinate their actions - Cheaper organizational costs and higher noticeability. - Old style: Annual conventions or mass postal mailings (newsletters/ journals/etc). Institutions. Exclusionary. Slow, expensive, or both. - Shirky: Build cooperation into infrastructure; coordinate as byproduct - Replaces planning with coordination. 3) also a lot easier to observe communications between people ex: viewing people interact on social media
What are 4 main duties of a moderator as discussed by Wright 2009?
1) welcomer/greeter 2) conflict resolver/problem solver 3) conversation stimulator/ supporter/ summarizer of debates 4) open censor/close censor/cleaner
"Dunbar's number":
= "suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships... in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person." - Link to assumed limitations on social selective incentives in Olson. - Computers can help us overcome these limits.
Collective Action
= An action taken by a group of like-minded individuals to achieve a common goal "life is a group project"
Fox and Vendemia 2016
= Examine "Selective Self-Presentation and Social Comparison Through Photographs on Social Networking Sites" (self-reported, not actual behavior) Surveyed representative national sample of SNS users.
Olson's power critique (Lupia & Sin)
= Groups don't arise easily or automatically - groups don't rise and push back as much as they are pushed "unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self- interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests." Problems: 1) free riding 2) coordination costs
2010: Syllabus Revisions
= Groups with designated leaders (with grade delegation) - current system - implied more collective action results: - worked because there were selective incentives
Wikipedia
= Nonprofit, volunteer-run organization that's free to us Pros: - stays pretty up to day - is free - easy to stay relevant and change content over time Cons: - people can change/edit things too quickly - trolls
2009: Syllabus Revisions
= Set up a discussion forum; gave points for suggesting new articles and projects, and for commenting on others' suggestions. - had them suggest exam questions and gave points for responding to and suggesting articles and projects results: - complete chaos - people put too much info that was bad, not meaningful and of less quality - put non constructive suggestions - did not think out their suggestions or comments - put bad articles
Trolls
= Term comes from "Trolling with flamebait" or "trolling for newbies" - in the fishing sense, not fairy tales [flames are insulting posts] - Provocative posting intended to produce frivolous responses. Baiting. * Intend to get attention, disrupt discussions, or generally increase noise * * Seek sense that they can control actions of others. * - Often seek approval of peers or third parties. ("if you don't fall for the joke, you're in on it") Becoming more common to use term to refer to shills ("also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization"-Wikipedia)
"Pluralist" theory
= Viewed politics as the result of fights between organized interests Like billiard balls... groups banged into each other; outcome predictably reflected forces - Pretty optimistic view of American politics: Didn't need to worry about corruption or tyranny too much because believed groups would form to fight policy if it hurt them too much. - believed that society is self correcting and that if you upset the right people they will fight back to fix and better a certain policy - dominated prior to Olson and others
Social Capital
= ["a form of capital that describes resources embedded in social relationships and interactions within a network"]
Central problems of Wikipedia as told by Simonite 2013?
= dominating unrepresentative editors & barriers to new talent (killed talent pool for possible new editors). Policies, slap-downs, and complexity. - Trying to reward contributors ("Thank" button); steer newbies to easier tasks; visual editor interface (vs. hand-code) [but turned off by default] - Aggregation sites like Twitter & Facebook easier to use (but private resource)
Interest groups
= groups organized to pursue common interests - Different than businesses/firms (contracts & hierarchy) or markets (buyers and sellers interact through transactions)
One solution for the issues with distributed information processing and review
= have some people read stories/posts and evaluate them for the group. Like a jury of one's peers. a) "Moderation" in the sense of debate moderator = purges trolls, praises good comments. Division of labor.
selective incentives
= incentive applies selectively to individuals depending on whether they do or do not contribute toward collective good. - you get people to work toward a collective end by selectively benefiting those who actually contribute ex: PBS pledge drive tote bag; AARP discounts; Zoo stickers for car window; brick or plaque or building name at university. - Government coercion is a selective disincentive. includes social selective incentives (ie: respect and honor, or ostracism or shame) - Cheaper, but Olson only sees these working in small groups because large groups wouldn't be able to organize enough to finance the costs.
Social Networking Sites:
= internet "communication platforms that support socially relevant interactions among contacts (i.e., 'Friends')" online.
Which age group is more likely to support censoring offensive statements about minorities?
= millenials (ages 18-34) are more likely to want to censor offensive statements about minorities - the silent and boomer generation feel like you should not censor these things
What must be done in order for selective incentives to work?
= people have to be rewarded or punished depending on whether they've contributed toward the collective good - Gotta find out who's naughty or nice, but in large groups, individual contributions don't noticeably affect outcomes Solution: in-depth, costly monitoring of contributions and then dole out rewards or punishments: IRS, auditors, receipts, reports, time-cards. Problem with solution: Had to have huge bureaucracies.
2008: Syllabus Revisions
= set up a syllabus wiki & asked students to help me improve it - Wiki version where students could edit/submit changes directly on a syllabus site - wanted them to add their won knowledge results: - no one did anything because no one saw benefits - failed horribly
Simonite 2013 discusses...?
= the possible decline of Wikipedia Notes ambition & success of Wikipedia (and people's [and Siri's] reliance on it, & smashed competitors) * Volunteers (decreasing since 2007) must defend against vandalism, hoaxes and manipulations.* - Also have to increase quality and breadth (Pokemon & porn covered well; female authors & sub-Saharan Africa not)
According to Dunbar (2015) how was Facebook or social media affected how we can manage our social arrangements?
= we are now able to obtain and maintain a greater outer layer of friends for cheaper = also allows us to observe other's relationships more
Wikipedia Wars
Articles are supposed to be written from a "neutral point of view" [one of "5 pillars"] - But my view is neutral: Yours is wrong. - Big "edit wars" on lots of controversial (and even noncontroversial) topics - Guo (2016) shows some evidence of moderating effect of editing (word choice) ex: - Is "Cloverfield" the name of the military casefile, or the monster, or both? [Netflix might have solved that one] - Should we call it gasoline or petrol? - Should a tropical cyclone that formed on December 30, 2005 and lasted until January 6, 2006 (Tropical Storm Zeta) be placed in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season article?
Free Riding
Benefiting from a public good while avoiding the costs of contributing to it ex: people taking advantage of the "honor system" subway (purchase tickets and stamp them yourself on train car. No turnstiles or gate employees, so potentially faster and more efficient) - If one person chooses not to pay, it doesn't noticeably affect train system's ability to function ("I'm not really hurting anything") - If everyone thinks that way, system collapses Problem: you're always better off if you DON'T pay and still get the item (instead of paying and getting the same item) assuming you aren't plagued by guilt
How has CMC affected Olson's assumptions that "most individuals do not have the time needed to maintain a huge number of friends and acquaintances"?
CMC has created things such as social networking sites that now allow humans to maintain and create a larger network of friends (an extended social network is now much easier to establish and maintain)
Paid Editors (Osman 2014)
Change in policy allowed paid editors to change Wikipedia if they clearly disclose their affiliations and potential conflicts of interest ex: people taking down or editing bad/incriminating info for their bosses - Controversial: might decrease credibility of site - Might legitimize "wikiwashing" [MANY cases of interested party changing articles to benefit themselves or a client/ employer. Congressional staff are famous for this] - But openness; paid outside editors might devote more time to improving content; abuse has been detected before
Facebook's massive moderation vs. 4chan
Contrast Facebook's massive moderation army (estimated at more than 100k workers, plus many automated tools) to 4chan, where "users are instructed against violating US law but are also free to post virtually any type of content, as long as they do so on clearly defined boards" 1) Volunteer "janitors" can view reports, delete posts, and submit ban and warn requests, and can consult with supervising moderators. Lot of awful content posted. 2) Reddit co-founder: "open policies stifling free expression; people avoid participating for fear of their personal and family safety." Tension between core of free speech supporters and broader market.
Buni & Chemaly 2016
Examines "secret rules of moderation" [history doesn't mention Usenet, though] Rosen argues [platforms like Facebook and Youtube] have "more power in determining who can speak and who can be heard around the globe than any Supreme Court justice, any king or any president." - Free-speech decisions moved "to the private, corporately managed corners of the internet where people weigh competing values in hidden and proprietary ways." Rosen concern that gov'ts will abuse. Youtube policy evolution was gradual; articulated policy in 2007 that banned "depictions of pornography, criminal acts, gratuitous violence, threats, spam, and hate speech" (but no guidelines on newsworthiness). - Graphic death of Iranian protester (Neda Agha-Soltan) led to policy change (button warning of graphic content); political impact
Be the Mod Projects
Findings: = Generally agreed with the site moderators' decisions, opting to block comments that were blatantly offensive to broad groups of people or to specific individuals (i.e. racist or sexist remarks). But noted delicate balance between disparaging comments that do little to advance a discussion and unpopular viewpoints that nonetheless merit representation. Own decisions could be biased by political affiliation, emotions, and even perceptions of the news outlets' partisan leanings.
Change My View projects
Findings: = Students were moved by arguments and surprised by civility. - appreciated openness and respect - people were surprisingly very civil in discussion - very diplomatic Issues: Seemed like the article overstates rapidity of response (some needed a couple days of exposure to get responses)
Comments on Comments Project
Findings: Found similarity in policies of different online news organizations (generally prohibit hate speech, advertising, and copyright infringement). Overall quality varied, but unclear whether that stemmed from audience, policies, or enforcement mechanisms. Trade-off between automated versus human-performed comment moderation. - Also, Facebook plugins seemed to reduce anonymity resulting in more civil discourse overall.
What does Olsen tend to assume about collective goods?
For most non-governmental goods, Olson tends to assume collective goods are "rival" (more people eating the pie leads to my piece of the pie being smaller). - Talks explicitly about dividing dollars.
Ways CMC has changed the use of selective incentives?
For selective incentives to work, people have to be rewarded or punished depending on whether they've contributed toward the collective good (need to have huge bureaucracies to greatly monitor the contributions of people and then dole out the rewards or punishments) = Computers can take the place of bureaucracies (likes, upvotes) - computers made it faster to reward or punish people for what they are or are not doing - Storing, indexing, tracking information quickly is a big strength of computers. - Allows "psychoMILT" to contribute his one photo to Flickr w/o bureaucracy
What is the most turned to news channel for the 2016 election?
Fox News
How has CMC created new types of collective goods?
HUGE pool of goods are NOT rival (excluding tiny bandwidth costs) 1) My enjoyment of website doesn't prevent you from enjoying it. 2) Can create text, music, video, recipes for own reasons, but almost instantly give it away to the world (public good). Examples: Open source/free software, Flickr photos, discussion forum knowledge, most information
Capacity and Issues of distributed information processing and review
In large activity (or particularly large discussion), everyone can't read every comment without being overwhelmed
Wright 2009: What are the Moderators Duties?
Influence... a) who is participating: Welcomer (bringing in new participants, either citizens or politicians/civil servants), Greeter (making people feel welcome) b) How participants' conflict are managed: Conflict Resolver (mediating conflicts towards collective agreements), Problem Solver (referring questions to relevant people for response) c) Content of discussion: Conversation Stimulator (posing new questions and topics, playing devil's advocate in existing conversations), Supporter (bringing in external information to enrich debates), Cybrarian (providing expert knowledge on particular topics) or Summarizer of debates d) Removal of content from the discussion: Open Censor (deleting messages deemed inappropriate, normally against predefined rules and criteria. Feedback is given to explain why, and an opportunity to rewrite is provided), Covert Censor (deleting messages deemed inappropriate, but without explaining why), and Cleaner (removing or closing dead threads, hiving off subdiscussions into separate threads)
IMDB Message Boards
McNear (2017) discusses IMDB's decision to shut down message boards (de facto comment sites for movies) a) Popular with dedicated users b) Also popular with trolls (rile up Harry Potter fans; conspiracy theories; organized downvoting based on race or gender) - Prior advice re: Trolls: "When you fight with a troll, he wins. When you reason with a troll, he wins. Any time that you give a troll attention, he gets exactly what he wants. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them." [Users could individually ignore trolls] Trigger: racist reaction to film; also migration of similar discussion to other social media sites.
Views on wikipedia: mobile vs. main sites
Mobile and main sites are now basically tied.
Frenkel and Maheshwari (2018)
NYT: "Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News" Follows prior changes to feed that emphasize posts, videos and photos shared by friends and family. Users will be asked to rank sources they most trust (and recognize). Concerns: Partisan sources might be trusted more; some countries might ban/censor trusted sources. "Punting." Believes it is difficult for people to truly evaluate and judge the quality and correctness of an article - some may think an article is of higher quality because the article's views are similar or in line with that readers own beliefs
Wikipedia Challenge Projects
Overall: Most article edits were deleted/changed within the project's three-day window (even more flaws fixed later). Even factually valid and "good" contributions were often deleted (style vs. substance?). Overwhelming majority of surviving edits were made to relatively obscure articles. [Please fix any imperfect edits you made now]
Issues with IMDB Message Boards
Popular with dedicated users Also popular with trolls (rile up Harry Potter fans; conspiracy theories; organized downvoting based on race or gender) Trigger: racist reaction to film; also migration of similar discussion to other social media sites.
What is the primary purpose of trolling?
Provocative posting intended to produce frivolous responses. Baiting. *Intend to get attention, disrupt discussions, or generally increase noise* - want to get people to change the topic, get distracted, and disrupt the discussion Seek sense that they can control actions of others and that they can get attension
Rustin (2014)
Real-world implication: "Is it right to jail someone for being offensive on Facebook or Twitter?" [Current British law apparently says yes (based on prior law about insulting telephone operators?), but some are pushing for change] Gives example of offensive FB post commenting on stabbing death of a teacher. Newsome was convicted under 2003 British Communications Act with having sent "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing nature" and jailed for six weeks. Many other similar cases (and also cases where celebrities and activists were harassed online), leading to concern of chilling of free speech. Former prosecutor says "There always used to be a protected space, so you could say things in private you could not say in public. With social media there is no protected space, and that's what there needs to be a debate about." - because its on social media (more permanent medium) its treated differently than if you said offensive things in person
Bimber et al.
Reconsiders "two foundational assumptions" of collective action: 1) Binary choice whether to participate/not 2) Role of formal organization View traditional analyses as subset of possible outcomes. - Reframe as a "set of communication processes involving the crossing of boundaries between private and public life." - Subsumes free-riding logic and organization-building under larger "private-public boundary spanning"
Social Networks
Social Networking Sites: = internet "communication platforms that support socially relevant interactions among contacts (i.e., 'Friends')" online. Relationship to [Oxford Anthropologist Robin] "Dunbar's number": = "suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships... in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person." - Link to assumed limitations on social selective incentives in Olson. - Computers can help us overcome these limits.
History of subreddit "Change My View" from Heffernan (2018)
Subreddit Change My View started in 2013 by 17-year-old Kal Turnbull, who was concerned that all of his friends thought like he did. Wondered "what does someone actually do when they want to hear a different perspective or change their view?" a) Enlisted moderators from "the most fair-minded regulars" who weed out toxic comments AND low-effort agreement and jokes and submitters who are willing to be persuaded. b) Submitter "required to respond within three hours to brook respectful challenges to their view" or the board moves on (can also move on if the submitter never bends). If mind is changed, recognize (celebrate) comment that changed it. *Notes being right isn't rival: Both persuader and persuaded benefit*
the % of social media users who say their political discussions are more or less _______ compared with other places people might discuss politics
The discussions are: a) less respectful (53%) but also the same (39%) b) less likely to come to a resolution (51%) but also the same (41%) c) less civil (49%) but also the same (41%) d) less focused on policy debates (45%) but also the same (43%) e) less politically correct (41%) but also the same (47%) f) less informative (34%) but also the same (49% g) more angry (49%) but also the same (43%) *many users see social media as an especially negative venue for political discussions, but others see it as simply "more of the same"*
Simonite (2015) Wiki AI
Using machine learning to try to offset editor decline by developing semi-automatic tools to delete problem edits - Existing bureaucracy viewed as intimidating and complex (as are Wikitext editing tools). ORES system ("Objective Revision Evaluation Service") judges whether an edit was made in good faith (making it easier for editors to see and undo the most damaging changes). - Trained on examples of past edits - Hope that system will allow more time for interaction/ coaching of new contributors (vs. just deletion)
Methods of Ellison et al:
[Self-report] Survey of "nonacademic staff at a large Midwestern U.S. university (N=614)" looking at Facebook Relationship Maintenance Behaviors (FRMB) and social capital.
Wikipedia stats
a) 7.5 billion page views [English] in Nov 2017 (most recent data). (billion less than 9/15) b) 31.3k active editors (down from 36k in 2011) - (11% "very active" >100/month). - 3.3 million edits/month (down from 3.5M). c) 5,523,005 articles in English - Encyclopedia Britannica: 65,000 articles for $995 (print now dead). 120k online articles ($70/year subscription)
How Does a Wiki Work?
a) Anyone can create articles without needing tech skills. - [More trouble] Can change articles other people created. - Everyone can be a writer; everyone can be an editor b) Other people have higher powers of administration - Can lock articles from edits, revert them, delete them, and ban particular users. Many roles...
Methods of Dunbar 2015
a) Asked to roughly estimate # of... - Support group=close friends (around 4 people) - "Sympathy clique"=people they would 'consider going to for advice or sympathy in times of great emotional or other distress' (around 11-14) - Broader friend network between 100-200 (around 14% had more than 300) - Larger networks for women & young (although not in inner two layers of network). Expanding exploratory network vs. fixed. b) Notes change in FB function (managing social arrangements); observability. c) Comm frequencies mirror offline equivalents for network tiers [time scarce] d) Suggests role for relationship maintenance, vs. expansion.
Collective Invite Projects Findings
a) Businesses and other organizations use Facebook events as a means of advertising (and making money) rather than tools for collective action. b) Also hard to determine who benefits—and how—from events and gatherings. c) selective incentives varied by population size
Issues with using moderation to sollve problems with information processing and review
a) But groups with fairly homogenous views might upvote based on those views & suppress other views. b) Subset of saboteurs/trolls with contrary interests
What are some of the "troublesome tradeoffs" that Buni & Chemaly address in there article regarding the moderating the media online?
a) Content flagged as violent — a beating or beheading — may be newsworthy. b) Content flagged as "pornographic" might be political in nature, or as innocent as breastfeeding or sunbathing. c) Content posted as comedy might get flagged for overt racism, anti- Semitism, misogyny, homophobia, or transphobia. d) Meanwhile content that may not explicitly violate rules is sometimes posted by users to perpetrate abuse or vendettas, terrorize political opponents, or out sex workers or trans people. e) Trolls and criminals exploit anonymity to dox, swat, extort, exploit rape, and, on some occasions, broadcast murder. Abusive men threaten spouses.
How Might CMC Make Discussion Easier?
a) Easier to gather interested people together than FtF ("Many to many" discussion) - Especially on obscure topics. ex: forum of users who were all having issues with a specific car and organized to call for a recall on the cars b) Scales very well: Thousands (or millions) can talk online for very little money; adding more people is basically free [total contrast to FtF]. - Easy for tons of people to simultaneously enjoy benefits (or harms) of discussion.
Online Activism Projects Findings
a) Emotional or personal posts seemed to achieve the most success. b) Many feel uncomfortable expressing political beliefs online, and that a small subset of your friends constantly share opinionated posts. - strong division between who shares opinionated posts and who does not - most people do not share strong political beliefs on their social media sites
SNS and Social Capital
a) FB might increase Social Capital - Links, shared values, understanding within a society that enable people to trust & help one another. Social investment with expectation of future reciprocity. - Commenting on a friend's post/liking as an "investment" in relationship b) SNS might be especially good at fostering "bridging" social capital (more diverse "weak ties" might foster novel information and broadened worldviews) vs. "bonding" social capital (stronger, more developed ties of trust, support, and intimacy).
Lih (2016): What's next?
a) Notes broadening scope (multimedia repository Wikimedia Commons, museum collaborations, and Wikidata shared open access database) - Particularly excited by Wikidata's potential as a central database hub of the Internet, linking structured knowledge. b) Flat or decreasing page views? Might be Google/Siri/others presenting Wikipedia info without needing page loaded. c) Notes relative absence of video content & 3D objects/VR, and also conflict between Foundation and editors.
NYT: Small Screen
a) Phones as consumer, vs. productive, devices - Phones aren't great input device - Good for twitter; bad for footnotes - Expectation of typos - hard to create info on mobile * tech cuts costs of maintaining / servicing people relationship b) Phones might be more prominent tool for developing world c) Might change input types (easy flagging of errors; add photos) - Maturity of Wikipedia (existing stockpile of articles) might allow function shift to modifying
Dunbar (2015)
a) Separates limits into cognitive and "costs of servicing relationships." Efficiency of online comm might cut costs of maintaining/servicing people's relationships b) Disaggregates friends into different layers; argues focus on inexperienced teenagers obscured nuance; strongest tie layers. - Empirically, argue each layer tends to be about 3x larger than the one above it (5, 15, 50, 150, 500 (acquaintances), 1500 [face ID]). ex) Uses two large structured random samples of the UK population and the number of friends listed on Facebook as the test metric.
How can Discussions make us smarter?
a) Smart: "Efficient; vigorous; brilliant. Marked by acuteness or shrewdness; quick in suggestion or reply." b) Talked previously about Memex-like data-storage/ memory/indexing function of the web. - But you can have a photographic memory without understanding something. c) Memory is nice, but distributed thinking and analysis is really exciting. - Division of labor in thinking exists, but has been slow (conferences, journals, organizations like universities) *Web allows more people to contribute more quickly* 1. potential for collective analysis that outstrips the abilities of any single individual 2. Also potential for idiots to make us dumber/waste our time
According to prior research, SNS might be especially good at fostering what type of social capital as opposed to another type of social capital?
a) better at "bridging" social capital - bringing together more diverse "weak ties" - might foster novel information and broadened world views
Findings of Ellison et al:
a) more "actual" FB friends --> more bridging social capital than low "actual" FB friends; b) more FRMB --> more bridging social capital (regardless of the number of actual friends).
On Facebook people say they mostly follow... a) people they know personally b) a mix of those they know and don't know personally c) people they do not know personally
a) people they know personally 66% of people stated they follow mostly people they know as opposed to Twitter where 48% of people follow mostly people they do not know personally
What is one of the main impacts of social media on increasing social capital?
a) social media allows us to continuously interact with others, and the more you are enabled to interact with others the more likely you are to build trust with them
Olson's assumptions about individuals and their friends:
assumed that "most individuals do not have the time needed to maintain a huge number of friends and acquaintances" and that the number of people in homogenous groups will be small because of geographic and time constraints. - believed you needed homogenous groups if you wanted a large group of people to partake in collective action
On Twitter people say they mostly follow... a) people they know personally b) a mix of those they know and don't know personally c) people they do not know personally
c) people they do not know personally on Twitter, 48% of people say they follow mostly people they do not know
Societal revolution
communication innovations are leading to a societal revolution, particularly in the ways we can achieve goals = tech is affecting how people work together and changing the way people think
Olson's conclusion on what helps groups act collectively
concludes that "in the absence of special arrangements or circumstances", large groups of individuals will NOT act in the group's best interests mainly because in large groups, people are tempted to free ride and individual efforts are: 1) Too small to noticeably affect outcome 2) Too small to effectively monitor and punish/reward (related to above) 3) Too small to think about (opportunity cost) 4) Too costly to coordinate, or achieve consensus among group for course of action (Shirky's TED lecture really makes this point)
How have discussion forums helped collective good?
discussion forums = places where users who are able to bring together a large group of people to create change who might not have meet or have been able to collect and change something without the internet ex: forum of users who were all having issues with a specific car and organized to call for a recall on the cars
Wiki World Traveler Project
general findings = English versions tend to be much more accurate & updated (although mostly US-focused articles).
social selective incentives
ie: respect and honor, or ostracism or shame = being respected based on your actions or choices - also works with shaming people because of their choices ex: white feather given to those men who did not volunteer in the war - Cheaper, but Olson only sees these working in small groups because large groups wouldn't be able to organize enough to finance the costs.
ORES system ("Objective Revision Evaluation Service")
judges whether an edit was made in good faith (making it easier for editors to see and undo the most damaging changes).
What are the changes between students favorite websites?
other classes used to love Facebook but now there is a trend to like Youtube.
Issues with large groups and collective action
people are tempted to free ride and individual efforts are: 1) Too small to noticeably affect outcome - people don't see how their contributions will create a noticeable outcome ex: wondering if others rowing in a large boat are actually rowing 2) Too small to effectively monitor and punish/reward (related to above) - too many people to monitor in a large group - people have the opportunity to slack off 3) Too small to think about (opportunity cost) - is something that small even worth your time 4) Too costly to coordinate, or achieve consensus among group for course of action (Shirky's TED lecture really makes this point) - hard to get people to agree on something and then even harder to agree on how to actually go about carrying out an action
What are the pros of reading content on mobile phones?
phones or mobile devices might be a good tool or the main tool for obtaining info in developing worlds
What are the pros of using AI to monitor content online?
using AI to flag or delete or monitor content online good because computers are experts at looking at patterns to see if an edit is in good faith or bad/trolling * hoping that AI can now allow editors to focus more on building a community and other larger issues than just trying to monitor content
Big Picture theme of today vs. Olson's theory
we have transitioned from Olson's beliefs and theories due to technology - computers reducing how cheap it is to communicate and interact with each other fundamentally changed how we are able to work with one another
CMC's effect on collective or group action
you always have to work with people but communication technology and communication costs has change
Problem with Free Riding
you're always better off if you DON'T pay and still get the item (instead of paying and getting the same item) assuming you aren't plagued by guilt
