Social media may be ‘fundamentally at odds’ with science

[Patrick]

Researchers warn that social media may be ‘fundamentally at odds’ with science

https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/10/resear...th-science

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo0668

A special set of editorials published in today's issue of the journal Science argue that social media in its current form may well be fundamentally broken for the purposes of presenting and disseminating facts and reason. The algorithms are running the show now, they argue, and the systems priorities are unfortunately backwards. In an incisive (and free to read) opinion piece by Dominique Brossard and Dietram Scheufele of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the basic disconnect with what scientists need and what social media platforms provide is convincingly laid out.

"Rules of scientific discourse and the systematic, objective, and transparent evaluation of evidence are fundamentally at odds with the realities of debates in most online spaces," they write. "It is debatable whether social media platforms that are designed to monetize outrage and disagreement among users are the most productive channel for convincing skeptical publics that settled science about climate change or vaccines is not up for debate." The most elementary feature of social media that reduces the effect of communication by scientists is pervasive sorting and recommendation engines. This produces what Brossard and Scheufele call "homophilic self-sorting" -- the ones who are shown this content are the ones who are already familiar with it. In other words, they're preaching to the choir.

I think this shows the pervasive aspects of the algos that social media has put in place.

This will need to be addressed properly before public trust in the scientific process flourishes once more.

[Diana]

Just one comment. Trusting the scientific method is not the same as trusting scientists or science orgs. Social media and their algos is certainly a huge problem in the world today which encompasses a wide spectrum of issues.

I find the comments of the article a bit one-dimensional. Debate among educated scientists is part of the scientific method for sure, and debate on social media regarding science is not strictly in line with pure scientific inquiry and is sometimes completely off the mark (though freedom of speech guarantees we can talk about anything however ignorant); but, what is not canvassed is the sometimes closed-mindedness, monetary incentivized, pressure to reveal certain findings, in some scientists, who are relating the "data" to the lay world. 

My guess is that most intelligent people do trust science (as far as we can given that science evolves such as Newtonian physics to Relativity) and the scientific method, in its pure form. The issue of trust in what the findings are of the "experts" and the studies (easily skewed) is altogether different.

...It is debatable whether social media platforms that are designed to monetize outrage and disagreement...

This is of course used in news-entertainment and is a basic idea in advertising as well ("there is no bad advertising," in other words, even if something inspires hate it means people are still reacting and remembering something).

Social media platforms are businesses so of course they monetize whatever they can. I don't imagine FB caring about people and interconnectedness as much as how good the business model is for being financially successful. And this says nothing about the political relationships they may be enmeshed in.

---

Okay, so that was more than one comment.

[IndigoSalvia]

Just one comment. Trusting the scientific method is not the same as trusting scientists or science orgs. Social media and their algos is certainly a huge problem in the world today which encompasses a wide spectrum of issues.

I really like this point you make. 

My dear teenager comes to me, and shares a piece of news he has seen on social media. With this generation, often times peers may be seen as experts. This is my opportunity to teach critical analysis, much to my teen's chagrin. 

I took a class in graduate school which was Logic and Critical Thinking. Hands down, my favorite class. IMHO, it should be taught much earlier on. So I have taken it upon myself to teach my kid how to critically look at quantitative and qualitative data, the source, the methods ... pull back the curtain and see what's behind it. 

One can manipulate data to convey almost anything one wants. While some may be doing this consciously for monetary reasons, etc. Others may do it unconsciously just bringing in their own biases. 

Recently, my son brought me an article, which was laden with emotionally-charged language that clearly intended to spark an emotional response. 

Separating the science from the scientist ... There is the fly on the wall observing and then relating what it observed. Certainly, what the "fly" interprets and presents will contain the fly's biases. We are all flies on the wall here. 

And then let's add the veil for good measure, and what we think we know is not even the whole story. 

Subjectivity and resonance is IMHO kinda the name of the game here in 3D. What do I gravitate toward? What do I move away from?

[Vestige]

It has become incredibly difficult for me to trust mass media, or, rather, it has become easy for me to mentally flag mass media articles within which I perceive methods of dishonesty and coercion and motives of division and harm.  

The article that you have linked, Patrick, titled, The chronic growing pains of communicating science online, authored by Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele, published on science.org, and sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, seems to be to be a particularly pernicious example of the kind of article that I would mentally flag.  
I am aware that I have levied a harsh evaluation on this article - that is, that I have implied that the article, and perhaps even its authors and its sponsors should not be trusted, unless one wishes division and harm in their own life or in the lives of others.  This is the evaluation I am making, but I offer this as my opinion only.  

The overall impression I have of the article, specifically, is that the article is designed to appear as if it is championing honest and compassionate discourse and free dialogue, especially as regards scientific information, yet I perceive that the real goal of the article is to regroup or reinforce institutional power over public opinion and thereby persuade the public to act on the whims of an elite minority. ...

Many scientists-turned-communicators continue to see online communication environments mostly as tools for resolving information asymmetries between experts and lay audiences. As a result, they blog, tweet, and post podcasts and videos to promote public understanding and excitement about science. 

This is certainly, on the surface of it, a benevolent goal.  After all, could we not say that this is an underlying goal of L/L Research, too?  The Confederation speakers remain humble, presenting themselves as siblings or friends who are simply a little more experienced rather than as central authorities.  However, certainly they do have this experience, they do have valuable information to offer, and they offer it so that we can better understand our cosmic situation, better understand ourselves and each other, and thereby make an informed decision on how we might wish to serve the Creator.

So, again, the article does begin by presenting this laudable goal.  I am even willing to believe that the article's authors and sponsors believe in and are genuinely invested in this goal.  However, I perceive that either the envisioned manifestation of this goal--the metrics of success, let's say--has been distorted, or the methods of reaching the goal have been distorted, or both. ...  

[C]ompetition for public attention has produced at least three urgent lessons that the scientific community must face as online information environments rapidly displace traditional, mainstream media.

• Implication: Mainstream media should NOT be displaced.
  
• Implication: Members of the scientific community must (at least, to remain 'in good standing,' let's say) uphold and champion mainstream media.
  

One challenge is for scientists to break free from informational homophily. Since the early days of the internet, the scientific community has had a very spotty track record of harnessing the full potential of online communication tools to reach beyond an audience that already follows science and meaningfully connect with those who disagree with or feel disconnected from science. This includes conservative-minded people on climate change; religious audiences on tissue engineering and embryonic stem cell research; and Black, Indigenous, and people-of-color communities on the current pandemic, for example

• Implication: Current 'audience' is not enough.
  
• Implication: Disagreement or disconnection with (mainstream views on) science must be corrected.
  

That is, I don't read this passage as saying, "the scientific community could better understand and connect with an underserved audience."  
I read the passage as saying, "Our control over the flow over information has failed to persuade or silence dissident opinions.  We must reorganize our resources and efforts to convert or dissolve these three highest-risk groups."

[Vestige]

This next passage is, in fairness, mostly positive, as it seems to genuinely promote unity ... except, note the middle statement:

Scientists’ homophilic self-sorting online has another, more subtle siloing effect. Social media platforms have provided a temptation for science journalists, scientists, and other science-affiliated actors to follow and retweet each other in an online environment that looks very different from the rest of society. A survey of 2791 US adult Twitter users by the Pew Research Center in 2018 indicated that those most active on this platform are younger (almost a third of Twitter users are under 30 years old), are more likely to identify as Democrats and have at least a college degree, and have higher incomes than US adults overall. Most perniciously, this has allowed scientists to live in their own science-centric bubbles on social media platforms, sheltered from often sizeable cross-sections of citizens that feel disconnected from the scientific community. Meanwhile, scientists share each other’s tweets and—when their instincts get the worst of them—ridicule audiences that they see as “against us” on issues like climate change or evolution.

This statistic may or may not be true, but its juxtaposition with the supposed criticism of divisive and disrespectful behavior patterns is likely to create confusion.  Allow me to highlight the components as I did with the previous passages:
    • Claim: The "science journalists, scientists," and other affiliates have created an insular environment 
    • Claim: This insulated science-minded group is hostile to non-members who oppose said group
    • Claim: This same group is younger  |  Implication: This group is youthful and healthy
    • Claim: This same group is wealthier  |  Implication: This group can easily obtain food, shelter, etc.
    • Claim: This same group is more educated  |  Implication:  This group 'knows better'
The passage seems to be juxtaposing negative behaviors (separating from others, ridiculing others) with superficially-positive outcomes or traits (health, wealth, intelligence).  
Now, these claims may not represent all individuals in the alleged group.  And, certainly, the implications I saw contained in the passage may not be perceived by all who read the article.  Health, wealth, and education can all be neutral gifts, used for negative or positive ends.  Yet, I do not see this balance in the passage.  The passage seems to be, again, superficially critical of the negative behaviors while containing the subliminal message that these negative behaviors come from an elite group, and so perhaps if one were to adopt their behaviors they could become elite too, or that by adopting their traits (becoming wealthy enough, smart enough, whatever) you gain the privilege to partake in these behaviors. ...
It is debatable whether social media platforms that are designed to monetize outrage and disagreement among users are the most productive channel for convincing skeptical publics that settled science about climate change or vaccines is not up for debate
It could be that the intention here is still a fair evaluation or criticism of these behaviors--that is, promoting outrage, or forbidding free and fair dialogue--but once again, the subliminal message seems to be one of agreement.  There is no attempt to strike a balance.  

The passage a little ways below also reveals that, in fact, they do have an established, mainstream, and somewhat exclusionary stance:

Decades of communication research indicate that anecdotal accounts on social media of breakthrough severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections or severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of how rare both are, will be imprinted in people’s memories much more effectively than pages of sound statistical data documenting herd immunity

Once again, the passage contains what I call "weasel words" - little hints as to what the reader should believe. 
I do not wish to assert, myself, any stance on vaccines or on SARS-CoV-2.  However, here is how I might write a variation on the passage if I intended to remain unbiased:
"The portfolio of communications research that we reviewed indicates that anecdotal accounts of illness, injury, or other matters of public health are disseminated more readily and widely than statistical data and other impersonal means of hypothesis.  Why might this increase information asymmetry?: While statistical data typically represents dozens, or hundreds, or even thousands of study participants, an anecdotal account represents only one or a few experiences.  Yet, through the medium of social media, a statistical report and an anecdote have the same persuasive strength--that is, one post, against another post."

There is some material that suggests that the article might not be wholly bent to favor institutional power:

What evidence reaches which parts of the audience is increasingly up to automated algorithms curated by social media platforms rather than scientists, journalists, or users of the platforms themselves.

Yet, the majority of the content strongly favors institutional power and contains a distinct bellicose tone.  At best, the article is drawing lines in the sand as regards the contest of power between government factions and corporate factions:

With the emergence of virtually unlimited storage space, rapidly growing computational capacity, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence, the societal balance of power for scientific information has shifted away from legacy media, government agencies, and the scientific community. Now, social media platforms are the central gatekeeper of information and communication about science. The scientific community has been slow to react.

Twitter users do not own Twitter.  Facebook users do not own Facebook.  And, I don't 'own' the Bring4th forums, but, I also see the administrators more as stewards, teachers, and friends, rather than owners, oligarchs, and "gatekeepers."  

At present, there is little that science can do to escape this dilemma. The same profit-driven algorithmic tools that bring science-friendly and curious followers to scientists’ Twitter feeds and YouTube channels will increasingly disconnect scientists from the audiences that they need to connect with most urgently. Moving forward, conquering this challenge will require partnerships among the scientific community, social media platforms, and democratic institutions. Scientific logic and access to information are two of the main foundations of enlightened democracies. Distortions to any part of this delicate relationship will inevitably lead to the downfall of the whole system. This also means that it is far too late for Band- Aid solutions.

The rhetoric here is questionable at best.  Juxtaposing "conquering" and "partnerships" in the same call to action here does not paint a rosy picture.  Is this really a call for unity?  Or is it a plan for annexation?  
What is an "enlightened" democracy, as opposed to, well, just democracy?  
Why is the system so fragile--and, if it is so fragile, why would a new system be unwarranted?
What is implied by the phrase, 'too late for Band-Aid solutions'?  Is this meant to incite fear? 

The cause is a tectonic shift in the balance of power in science information ecologies. Social media platforms and their underlying algorithms are designed to outperform the ability of science audiences to sift through rapidly growing information streams and to capitalize on their emotional and cognitive weaknesses in doing so

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this.  Yet, why not suggest a decentralization of these powerful information-parsing tools?  Why does the 'balance of power' have to swing back to another institution?  To me, it just sounds like a changing of the guard, not real change.  I have a scientific research background myself, and I have seen plenty of misinformation and manipulation even in peer-reviewed literature.  That's an endemic problem that is certainly less frequently and less intensely publicized than the problem of social media manipulation.  Both problems can be addressed without occluding the other.

https://www.llresearch.org/channeling/2005/0716
And so the plight, basically, is to call people to awakening without infringing upon their free will. May we say that those who are service-to-self oriented among your peoples and are in positions of leadership are attempting very consciously to entrain peoples’ mind and hearts in fear, in anger, in aggression, and in fear-based actions such as attempting to control resources.

[Patrick]

I think solutions would arise if the intent really was to inform. But the intents are many and not generally aligned. So we get what we get.

I think I know where this is going, I just cannot imagine how we will get there starting from where we are now. But I keep faith and observe the trends so as to get a whiff of loosening societal blockages.

[schubert]

"It is debatable whether social media platforms that are designed to monetize outrage and disagreement among users are the most productive channel for convincing skeptical publics that settled science about climate change or vaccines is not up for debate."


"science that cannot be questioned isn't science, it's propaganda."

sounds to me like the people who wrote that article are trying to write off all the debate and people disagreeing with the narrative as mindless "outrage and disagreement". some people have just taken in different information, see things from a different perspective and disagree.

[Patrick]

Are there any social media platforms out there that uses no algorithms and which also has a good proportion of the population participating? I would like to explore these.

[Vestige]

Are there any social media platforms out there that uses no algorithms and which also has a good proportion of the population participating? I would like to explore these.

I am aware of a few platforms in development which operate or intend to operate with respect to principles of decentralization, people-empowering, and community-building.  I'm not sure the rules allow for direct referrals of companies, but I would be happy to share one such platform with which I am familiar in a private message, upon request.

[flofrog]

lol, Patrick I go on two 'platforms,' one a podcast the other one an opinion on Substack, but have a strong sense we are not numerous there ...

[Patrick]

Are there any social media platforms out there that uses no algorithms and which also has a good proportion of the population participating? I would like to explore these.

I am aware of a few platforms in development which operate or intend to operate with respect to principles of decentralization, people-empowering, and community-building.  I'm not sure the rules allow for direct referrals of companies, but I would be happy to share one such platform with which I am familiar in a private message, upon request.

I do not see any issues sharing the links right here. This thread is in "Science & Technology" after all.

Which one would have the most people already and might be the easiest to use?

Thanks !

[Vestige]

Are there any social media platforms out there that uses no algorithms and which also has a good proportion of the population participating? I would like to explore these.

I am aware of a few platforms in development which operate or intend to operate with respect to principles of decentralization, people-empowering, and community-building.  I'm not sure the rules allow for direct referrals of companies, but I would be happy to share one such platform with which I am familiar in a private message, upon request.

I do not see any issues sharing the links right here. This thread is in "Science & Technology" after all.

Which one would have the most people already and might be the easiest to use?

Thanks !

I would tentatively recommend the platform known as Blacklight Media Technologies, or simply Blacklight. I am not aware of the precise number of people using the platform, but I had been in contact with and briefly collaborated with the original developers when the design for the platform was still incipient.