The government wants to study ‘social pollution’ on Twitter

[cinyc]

The government wants to study ‘social pollution’ on Twitter
Washington Post/Ajit Pai

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a waste of taxpayers' money on a program the government has no business monitoring in the first place.  We have a right to free speech, especially political speech.  The government has no business labeling what it doesn't like "subversive propaganda" or determining whether it believes certain political speech is "true" or combating political speech.

[Cory]

This isn't a big deal. They're basically doing a study on the effects of the spread of political stupidity via social media. I mean c'mon we've all encountered some stupid political meme spreading from person to person on social media that's just outright false. But people exist in ideological bubbles so it never gets corrected.

[bedstuy]

It's just an academic study on social media by a university, funded by an NSF grant.  Cool your jets.

[Lief 🗽]

Millions of people without health insurance = meh
OBAMA'S READING MUH TWEETS??? = WTF NO

^^^ republican logic

[cinyc]

It's just an academic study on social media by a university, funded by an NSF grant.  Cool your jets.

I'm sure you and all the other red avatars would be saying that if Bush were still President.  After all, what is $1 million of taxpayer dollars to "study" how to shut up your political opponents for spreading "subversive propaganda" opposing your agenda among friends?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This is a very important study and I'm pleased that the government is financing it. It's no secret that social networks proliferate dangerous myths and rumors which reduce social trust. If the US ever faced a pandemic, an acute natural disaster or a large-scale terrorist attack, social networks could endanger public safety.

Clearly, I am a fascist because I am concerned about decreasing vaccination rates and unfounded concerns about ebola FEMA camps.

[bedstuy]

It's just an academic study on social media by a university, funded by an NSF grant.  Cool your jets.

I'm sure you and all the other red avatars would be saying that if Bush were still President.  After all, what is $1 million of taxpayer dollars to "study" how to shut up your political opponents for spreading "subversive propaganda" opposing your agenda among friends?

This is academic research by CS faculty at IU about a completely legitimate topic.  That's all it is.  Nobody is censoring anyone.  I understand when people get angry about Marxist historians, but this is computer science research for crying out loud. They're trying to understand an important new piece of technology in a deeper way.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

It's just an academic study on social media by a university, funded by an NSF grant.  Cool your jets.

I'm sure you and all the other red avatars would be saying that if Bush were still President.  After all, what is $1 million of taxpayer dollars to "study" how to shut up your political opponents for spreading "subversive propaganda" opposing your agenda among friends?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not political correctness running riot. The study of the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny is very important. Maybe your age blinds you from the reality of internet subcultures but there are deepening networks online which are corrosive to society. This has little to do with the GOP: women are threatened online on a regular basis, people of color are threatened online on a regular basis and these threats often manifest in verbal harassment, stalking and the release of private information. The anonymity of the internet provides shelter for deviant communities and it's important that the government funds scientific studies that give us insight into these communities.

To address bedstuy: I think that this study is more easily criticized without expanding upon the purpose of the study. Studying social media would be a poor use of governments funds if it did not have a easily demonstrated public purpose, which it obviously does.

[cinyc]

This is not political correctness running riot. The study of the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny is very important. Maybe your age blinds you from the reality of internet subcultures but there are deepening networks online which are corrosive to society. This has little to do with the GOP: women are threatened online on a regular basis, people of color are threatened online on a regular basis and these threats often manifest in verbal harassment, stalking and the release of private information. The anonymity of the internet provides shelter for deviant communities and it's important that the government funds scientific studies that give us insight into these communities.

To address bedstuy: I think that this study is more easily criticized without expanding upon the purpose of the study. Studying social media would be a poor use of governments funds if it did not have a easily demonstrated public purpose, which it obviously does.

Except the "study" has little to do with "the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny" (and even if it did, it's still wrong, as even abhorent things like supposed racism and neo-nazism are protected by the First Amendment).  From the piece:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government has no business estimating people's partisanship and whether it thinks certain political memes are true.  Which memes do you think the Obama administration's lackeys do you think will determine are "false"?  Certainly not "progressive" memes.  And why should the government or its agents be keeping a dossier on people's partisanship?  That's essentially the government monitoring the political beliefs of its citizens and negatively labeling those who disagree.  Is an enemies list far behind? 

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Millions of people without health insurance = meh
OBAMA'S READING MUH TWEETS??? = WTF NO

^^^ republican logic

The money spent on this could probably buy health insurance for a hundred people.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This is not political correctness running riot. The study of the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny is very important. Maybe your age blinds you from the reality of internet subcultures but there are deepening networks online which are corrosive to society. This has little to do with the GOP: women are threatened online on a regular basis, people of color are threatened online on a regular basis and these threats often manifest in verbal harassment, stalking and the release of private information. The anonymity of the internet provides shelter for deviant communities and it's important that the government funds scientific studies that give us insight into these communities.

To address bedstuy: I think that this study is more easily criticized without expanding upon the purpose of the study. Studying social media would be a poor use of governments funds if it did not have a easily demonstrated public purpose, which it obviously does.

Except the "study" has little to do with "the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny" (and even if it did, it's still wrong, as even abhorent things like supposed racism and neo-nazism are protected by the First Amendment).  From the piece:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government has no business estimating people's partisanship and whether it thinks certain political memes are true.  Which memes do you think the Obama administration's lackeys do you think will determine are "false"?  Certainly not "progressive" memes.  And why should the government or its agents be keeping a dossier on people's partisanship?  That's essentially the government monitoring the political beliefs of its citizens and negatively labeling those who disagree.  Is an enemies list far behind?  

I don't agree with the American conception of "free speech" and I'm not arguing with the a priori assumption that racism or misogyny should be protected by the government, sorry.

There is obviously a public purpose in this study. You're latching onto strawmen characterizations of the Obama administration that have no basis in reality because you don't think that understanding civic involvement in an unexplored terrain has an important purpose for the maintenance of a democratic system. Unlike Republicans, who believe that racist and sexist slander are crucial aspects of democracy, I believe that the government should take steps to ensure that these forms should not pollute the public discourse. This does not mean imprisoning racists or shutting down the Drudge Report, it means supporting public media and strengthening how institutions use social media.

Anyways, I'm not arguing based off of the findings of an Op-Ed contributor: I prefer to read about this myself and argue on the terms of the study in question, not the perspective of a doom troll like Ajit Pai, who thinks that the main role of the FCC is to reduce consumer costs. Unlike Pai, I believe that the regulatory framework surrounding the media must play a crucial role in promoting accurate news for the purpose of elevating the public discourse surrounding public policy and the electoral process.

[Napoleon]

Money well spent.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is not political correctness running riot. The study of the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny is very important. Maybe your age blinds you from the reality of internet subcultures but there are deepening networks online which are corrosive to society. This has little to do with the GOP: women are threatened online on a regular basis, people of color are threatened online on a regular basis and these threats often manifest in verbal harassment, stalking and the release of private information. The anonymity of the internet provides shelter for deviant communities and it's important that the government funds scientific studies that give us insight into these communities.

To address bedstuy: I think that this study is more easily criticized without expanding upon the purpose of the study. Studying social media would be a poor use of governments funds if it did not have a easily demonstrated public purpose, which it obviously does.

Except the "study" has little to do with "the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny" (and even if it did, it's still wrong, as even abhorent things like supposed racism and neo-nazism are protected by the First Amendment).  From the piece:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government has no business estimating people's partisanship and whether it thinks certain political memes are true.  Which memes do you think the Obama administration's lackeys do you think will determine are "false"?  Certainly not "progressive" memes.  And why should the government or its agents be keeping a dossier on people's partisanship?  That's essentially the government monitoring the political beliefs of its citizens and negatively labeling those who disagree.  Is an enemies list far behind?  

I don't agree with the American conception of "free speech" and I'm not arguing with the a priori assumption that racism or misogyny should be protected by the government, sorry.

There is obviously a public purpose in this study. You're latching onto strawmen characterizations of the Obama administration that have no basis in reality because you don't think that understanding civic involvement in an unexplored terrain has an important purpose for the maintenance of a democratic system.

Why should taxpayer money go to this at all? Why can't academia study this? So the government has a "public purpose" in researching bigotry online. What is the point? What are they going to do about it? Outside of making terroristic threats (already illegal and frequently prosecuted) what are they constitutionally able to do? Are they going to target every asshat who makes a racist youtube comment with this information?

[TJ in Oregon]

Why should taxpayer money go to this at all? Why can't academia study this? So the government has a "public purpose" in researching bigotry online. What is the point? What are they going to do about it? Outside of making terroristic threats (already illegal and frequently prosecuted) what are they constitutionally able to do? Are they going to target every asshat who makes a racist youtube comment with this information?

Where do you think most of the money in academia comes from? The government gives research grants to groups at universities to study things. Occasionally private companies give said grants, but it's usually the federal government.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why should taxpayer money go to this at all? Why can't academia study this? So the government has a "public purpose" in researching bigotry online. What is the point? What are they going to do about it? Outside of making terroristic threats (already illegal and frequently prosecuted) what are they constitutionally able to do? Are they going to target every asshat who makes a racist youtube comment with this information?

Where do you think most of the money in academia comes from? The government gives research grants to groups at universities to study things. Occasionally private companies give said grants, but it's usually the federal government.

Granted that a large amount of funding goes to the higher education system, but once basic administrative costs are covered I don't think a large amount actually reaches research. IIRC, the research deficit is covered by grants from wealthy individuals, foundations, etc.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

NSA spying on your emails: totally fine
Some academics studying misinformation on twitter: government overreach

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This is not political correctness running riot. The study of the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny is very important. Maybe your age blinds you from the reality of internet subcultures but there are deepening networks online which are corrosive to society. This has little to do with the GOP: women are threatened online on a regular basis, people of color are threatened online on a regular basis and these threats often manifest in verbal harassment, stalking and the release of private information. The anonymity of the internet provides shelter for deviant communities and it's important that the government funds scientific studies that give us insight into these communities.

To address bedstuy: I think that this study is more easily criticized without expanding upon the purpose of the study. Studying social media would be a poor use of governments funds if it did not have a easily demonstrated public purpose, which it obviously does.

Except the "study" has little to do with "the online proliferation of racism, neo-nazism, fascism, conspiracy mongering and misogyny" (and even if it did, it's still wrong, as even abhorent things like supposed racism and neo-nazism are protected by the First Amendment).  From the piece:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government has no business estimating people's partisanship and whether it thinks certain political memes are true.  Which memes do you think the Obama administration's lackeys do you think will determine are "false"?  Certainly not "progressive" memes.  And why should the government or its agents be keeping a dossier on people's partisanship?  That's essentially the government monitoring the political beliefs of its citizens and negatively labeling those who disagree.  Is an enemies list far behind?  

I don't agree with the American conception of "free speech" and I'm not arguing with the a priori assumption that racism or misogyny should be protected by the government, sorry.

There is obviously a public purpose in this study. You're latching onto strawmen characterizations of the Obama administration that have no basis in reality because you don't think that understanding civic involvement in an unexplored terrain has an important purpose for the maintenance of a democratic system.

Why should taxpayer money go to this at all? Why can't academia study this? So the government has a "public purpose" in researching bigotry online. What is the point? What are they going to do about it? Outside of making terroristic threats (already illegal and frequently prosecuted) what are they constitutionally able to do? Are they going to target every asshat who makes a racist youtube comment with this information?

I'm not sure what the government will do about it but there are measures that don't involve the curtailing of civil liberties as the American public understands civil liberties. However, the government needs huge data sets and information to decide whether to act or not to act.

As TJ said, academia is dependent on the government and the government certainly couldn't rely on individual researchers or the actions of think-tanks for comprehensive results on this specific question.

[TJ in Oregon]

Why should taxpayer money go to this at all? Why can't academia study this? So the government has a "public purpose" in researching bigotry online. What is the point? What are they going to do about it? Outside of making terroristic threats (already illegal and frequently prosecuted) what are they constitutionally able to do? Are they going to target every asshat who makes a racist youtube comment with this information?

Where do you think most of the money in academia comes from? The government gives research grants to groups at universities to study things. Occasionally private companies give said grants, but it's usually the federal government.

Granted that a large amount of funding goes to the higher education system, but once basic administrative costs are covered I don't think a large amount actually reaches research. IIRC, the research deficit is covered by grants from wealthy individuals, foundations, etc.

Most of the research grants are from the federal government rather than wealthy individuals or non-governmental foundations. Mine is, for example

Research grants from wealthy individuals for a project are pretty rare. Other than the government the next most common funding source is industry.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

My final word in this thread is that Twitter is a transparent website where personal data is accessible. Commissioning an academic study of Twitter data points is not remotely comparable to NSA screening phone calls and tapping into people's private information or 1984 or fascism. Every day our data on Facebook and Twitter is mined for corporations and you expect me to be concerned by an academic study on civic involvement? Clearly, I should privilege the revenue stream of Twitter and the corporate earnings of Walmart over the insights of academia!

[TJ in Oregon]

My final word in this thread is that Twitter is a transparent website where personal data is accessible. Commissioning an academic study of Twitter data points is not remotely comparable to NSA screening phone calls and tapping into people's private information or 1984 or fascism. Every day our data on Facebook and Twitter is mined for corporations and you expect me to be concerned by an academic study on civic involvement? Clearly, I should privilege the revenue stream of Twitter and the corporate earnings of Walmart over the insights of academia!

Hell may have frozen over, but I agree with you DFB. If this were a marketing department of a media corporation funding the study no one would bat an eye despite the fact that it would make no difference at all in how it's carried out.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

My final word in this thread is that Twitter is a transparent website where personal data is accessible. Commissioning an academic study of Twitter data points is not remotely comparable to NSA screening phone calls and tapping into people's private information or 1984 or fascism. Every day our data on Facebook and Twitter is mined for corporations and you expect me to be concerned by an academic study on civic involvement? Clearly, I should privilege the revenue stream of Twitter and the corporate earnings of Walmart over the insights of academia!

I refer you to an episode of South Park, titled "Lets Go Gov!" I don't know if you watch the show, but a major theme of the episode was Cartmen infiltrating the NSA and publishing all of his anti-government/NSA rants and acts of sabotage on Twitter.

I don't oppose the collection of data, I just oppose the fact that money is being squandered on a research project like this when we have hospitals unprepared for CNN's projected Ebola panic, a border that is wide open, a second war in Iraq brewing, and a crumbling infastructure. This money is a drop in the bucket-maybe 0.0001% total of the deficit, but just because a problem exists that needs a massive amount of work to correct doesn't mean it should be allowed to get worse.

I am a supporter of abolishing the National Endowment of the Arts for that reason. It just seems so pointless to the average person who has bigger problems on their hands than institutionalized misogamy in video games, or online vulgarity/bigotry/bullying.

My final word in this thread is that Twitter is a transparent website where personal data is accessible. Commissioning an academic study of Twitter data points is not remotely comparable to NSA screening phone calls and tapping into people's private information or 1984 or fascism. Every day our data on Facebook and Twitter is mined for corporations and you expect me to be concerned by an academic study on civic involvement? Clearly, I should privilege the revenue stream of Twitter and the corporate earnings of Walmart over the insights of academia!

Hell may have frozen over, but I agree with you DFB. If this were a marketing department of a media corporation funding the study no one would bat an eye despite the fact that it would make no difference at all in how it's carried out.

But a marketing company is a private institution using their own money to collect data made public by other people. I don't oppose that. I oppose the state simply wasting their time on this, but Google can waste their time all they want.

[Mehmentum]

By posting something on twitter, the poster is automatically making it public knowledge.  A study analyzing this is only collecting data that is willingly being made publicly available.

The only issue that someone could have with this is that this is wasteful spending.  Even if I grant you the point that this is wasteful (which I do not), the fact that the government is inefficiently spending money is hardly ground breaking news.

[Holmes]

It's just an academic study on social media by a university, funded by an NSF grant.  Cool your jets.

I'm sure you and all the other red avatars would be saying that if Bush were still President.  After all, what is $1 million of taxpayer dollars to "study" how to shut up your political opponents for spreading "subversive propaganda" opposing your agenda among friends?

If Bush were president, no one would care. Because no one would be feigning outrage over this.

[AggregateDemand]

Informational asymmetry for matters of public health is not something any Democrat or Republican wants. These studies are usually pointless, but this one has a populist agenda, and the economic cost pales in comparison to the hundreds of billions we waste in our entitlement programs.

Pick and choose your battles. This isn't one of them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ever seen the movie Contagion? People like Jude Law's character in that movie are real and a possible threat.

Seriously conspiracy theory nonsense about diseases and vaccines and all that is not just relatively harmless kookiness like Truthers and Birthers. Just look at all the garbage misinformation spread about HIV in South Africa. Of course the government should be looking in how to counter that crap.