The Politics Thread

[Webbo]

This is quite an interesting article about the effect of social media on politics.

 

http://capx.co/should-we-like-what-facebook-is-doing-to-democracy/

[treer]

Corbyn isn't no Donald, that's for damn sure.

[Finnaldo]

Just now, Webbo said:

This is quite an interesting article about the effect of social media on politics.

 

http://capx.co/should-we-like-what-facebook-is-doing-to-democracy/

 

"...we do not see our fellow citizens as fellow citizens but as members of separate and even hostile tribes – and if we see ourselves that way too – then we are likely to be more sceptical, cynical and distrustful when it comes to dealing with those outside our social circle."

 

Quite scary how true this rings to be honest, I had a lengthy debate with someone I knew from school on Twitter because he thought 'democracy needed redefining' because 'there's 48% of us weren't being represented' (in Brexit, and also tied it into the US Election), it was as if he didn't understand that 52% of the population voted otherwise...

 

 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Apart from being of dubious morality, the entire scheme is unworkable. Who buys all their stuff from one shop? Who hasn't raided the food budget for money to put shoes on a kid's feet?

Fair point, it wasn't a system I was advocating, just saying it would be better than stamps.

I've lived on the breadline and it's hard enough budgeting when you haven't got enough to go round without the state dictating.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

This is quite an interesting article about the effect of social media on politics.

 

http://capx.co/should-we-like-what-facebook-is-doing-to-democracy/

 

Link hasn't worked for me, but I've had concerns about the way untruths can easily be presented as truths via Facebook for a while now.

 

It's clear that groups like Britain First use it to push soft propaganda to build a presence and following.

[leicsmac]

Just now, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Link hasn't worked for me, but I've had concerns about the way untruths can easily be presented as truths via Facebook for a while now.

 

It's clear that groups like Britain First use it to push soft propaganda to build a presence and following.

For the "alt right" (shudder) and the radical left, social media is a gift from the ether. Suddenly everyone has a voice that can be broadcast, whether truth or not.

 

I mean, mainstream media has always been subject to commercial and political forces which influence their angle, but it is pretty noticeable that with the advent of social media the centre ground is disappearing somewhat.

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Link hasn't worked for me, but I've had concerns about the way untruths can easily be presented as truths via Facebook for a while now.

 

It's clear that groups like Britain First use it to push soft propaganda to build a presence and following.

Here I've copied it for you.

 

 

 

 

It was hard not to detect a defensive, even plaintive, tone in Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter to Facebook users this weekend.

“After the election, many people are asking whether fake news contributed to the result,” he acknowledged.

But that’s not what they were asking at all, and Zuckerberg knows it.

Yes, Facebook (and the internet more generally) has a big problem with fake news. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend this piece by Craig Silverman of BuzzFeed on the Macedonian town which devoted itself to pumping out fictitious pro-Trump propaganda in order to harvest the ad revenue. Or this round-up of the obviously fake stories that made their way into Facebook’s “trending” story box after it fired its human editors.

But of far more concern than fake news is slanted news – the fact that Facebook and other websites had fed everyone news so perfectly tailored to their personal tastes that it had divided America neatly into two.

The half that liked stories from the New York Times not only had nothing to say to the half that retweeted Breitbart, but wasn’t really aware that it was out there. And the shock of Donald Trump’s victory was redoubled by the fact that it was brought about by an America that many people barely realised still existed.

For those of us in Britain, it was a familiar sensation. On the night of the 2015 general election, young people who had genuinely convinced themselves that Ed Miliband was about to become Prime Minister were shell-shocked to discover that their elders, absent from social media, had voted en bloc for the Tories.

Likewise, after Brexit, there was the crunching psychological shock of one half of the country (well, 48 per cent of it) realising that the other 52 per cent actually existed.

What they had become trapped in was what Eli Pariser, in his book of the same name, describes as a “filter bubble” – a state of affairs in which Facebook, or the internet more broadly, shows you only what you want to see, to the point where you start to believe that it is all there is.

Get more from CapX
  Follow us on Twitter
  Like us on Facebook
  Sign up to our email bulletin

This isn’t political – it’s entirely accidental. The highest goal of any social network is to maximise usage. That means that if you like something – say a post on why Hillary Clinton deserves to be locked up – it will show you more of the same, and fewer pieces arguing that she’s actually a deeply misunderstood public servant.

The result is the situation depicted by the Washington Post’s “Red Feed, Blue Feed”experiment. It shows the coverage you’d get of particular issues if you had a generically Democratic Facebook feed and a generically Republican one. They are, needless to say, completely antithetical.

The alarming thing about this isn’t so much that people have divergent opinions – it’s what happens next.

It’s a truism of social science that when people form into groups, those groups will become more extreme. We perceive others to be more passionate about an issue than we are, so intensify our own commitment in order to cement our place in the group.

That’s actually one of the recruitment techniques used by extremist organisations – but it applies just as well to fan clubs or interest groups of any kind. The more you talk to others about something, the more that issue comes to define you, and the more intense your feelings about it get.

In many ways, this isn’t actually about the internet at all, but about everyday life. As research by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro has shown, online interaction is actually much less polarised and biased than everything else around us.

In a recent interview with CapX about his new book, Tim Harford talked about our tendency – when given the chance – to cluster with people like ourselves. Increasingly, today, like talks to like and like marries like – certainly among the well-educated elites.

The result, as Gentzkow and Shapiro point out, is that our social lives and workplaces become deafening echo chambers even without Facebook’s contribution.

For example, one of the best known illustrations of Facebook’s filter bubbling came from the internet activist Tom Steinberg, who went looking on his Facebook feed – in the wake of the Brexit vote – for the 52 per cent of the public who must theoretically be celebrating. He couldn’t find them.

But by its nature, that’s a feed of people he mostly knew from the real world. In this instance, Facebook isn’t distorting their views – it’s revealing their herd mentality.

What has changed in terms of the media, at any rate, is that this tendency towards separation used to be counteracted by the dominance of certain voices: the big TV networks in the US, the BBC in the UK.

These defined the contours and context of “normal” political discussion, the boundaries for what was considered acceptable opinion. There was also a much great willingness to accept the word of established authority, of every kind.

Today, that situation has broken down. We live in an age of exhilarating yet often overwhelming media entrepreneurship, when those of every stripe can make their voices heard.

And this has consequences far beyond the media, or even politics.

The free market is, at its simplest, a beautiful and incredibly powerful exercise in trust. Every time we buy something from someone we don’t know – or, in the case of the internet, from someone we can’t even see – we are trusting that the goods will be as described, that the sale will go through, that if things go wrong there are methods of redress.

But it goes deeper than that. Trust is, as Eric Uslaner puts it, “the chicken soup of social life”. Countries where trust is high – in government, in politicians, in our fellow citizens – tend, as a rule, to be more pleasant and prosperous places.

Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer have shown that high trust is closely correlated with economic growth. Indeed, if the UK had Scandinavian levels of mutual trust, GDP per capita would now be 5 per cent larger – and that of Africa and India would be double the size.

The problem in Africa and India, of course, is corruption. The problem in the West, by contrast, is corrosion.

For example, we all know people trust their governments less than they used to:

But they also trust each other less, too – especially in the United States:

Given how long this process has been going on for, we obviously cannot blame Mark Zuckerberg for all of it, or even most of it. But it is hard not to notice the way the line has been curving downward more steeply in the age of personalised digital media – an erosion of mutual faith that seems relatively impervious to economic factors.

The rise of identity politics necessarily goes hand in hand with a loss of trust. If we do not see our fellow citizens as fellow citizens but as members of separate and even hostile tribes – and if we see ourselves that way too – then we are likely to be more sceptical, cynical and distrustful when it comes to dealing with those outside our social circle.

The problem with Facebook, and the social web more generally, isn’t just that it reinforces those tribal allegiances, but that it blinds us to their peculiarity.

In a world in which everyone agrees with you about Brexit, or Donald Trump, or the cuteness of a particular boy band member, it is a jarring shock to come across someone who doesn’t, let alone someone who holds a contradictory view with equal and opposite force.

So what can be done? Zuckerberg insists that “we”, by which he presumably means Facebook, “must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves”.

It’s true that no one wants Facebook as the world’s editor-in-chief. But as I’ve argued elsewhere, it’s kind of assumed the position by default.

Facebook should obviously do everything it can to weed out fake news – even it means re-hiring a few human beings.

But in terms of the news feed itself, as its algorithms get better at showing us what we want to see, there is a growing case for saying that it should also show us what we need to see – that having a functioning, trusting society is worth the fractional drop in engagement that would result.

Elsewhere on CapX
  Trump’s bleak view of the world is just like Putin’s
  Why Trump will be good for America and Britain
  It’s official: Western politics is now defunct

I’m not talking about an online version of the Fairness Doctrine, in which every pro-Trump story on a newsfeed has to be balanced by a pro-Hillary one. But it is surely possible for some signal to be given that those stories at least exist, for there to be an indication that what you are reading is not a matter of settled fact but the topic of contestation and dispute.

“I think it’s important to try to understand the perspective of people on the other side,” said Zuckerberg in his platitudinous non mea culpa. But how can you do that if you don’t even know they’re out there?

Robert Colvile is Editor of CapX.

 

 

[leicsmac]

Fascinating article, especially the part about trust. What drives a Nordic/Scandinavian country to be more trusting, and more economically successful than many other western nations? Not ethnic monoversity - if that were the case countries like Korea and Japan would be doing really well too. So why, I wonder?

 

And no person should live in an echo chamber.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fascinating article, especially the part about trust. What drives a Nordic/Scandinavian country to be more trusting, and more economically successful than many other western nations? Not ethnic monoversity - if that were the case countries like Korea and Japan would be doing really well too. So why, I wonder?

 

And no person should live in an echo chamber.

Shows how healthy it is to debate opposing views on here in a civilised manner (well most of the time).

[GazzinderFox]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fascinating article, especially the part about trust. What drives a Nordic/Scandinavian country to be more trusting, and more economically successful than many other western nations? Not ethnic monoversity - if that were the case countries like Korea and Japan would be doing really well too. So why, I wonder?

 

And no person should live in an echo chamber.

I expect a high standard of living is a big factor. Doesn't the Norwegian government have a policy of investing loads of its oil money into successful companies around the world? You are not going to be that suspicious of a government that looks like its planning well for the future either.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Shows how healthy it is to debate opposing views on here in a civilised manner (well most of the time).

 

Piss off!

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

I expect a high standard of living is a big factor. Doesn't the Norwegian government have a policy of investing loads of its oil money into successful companies around the world? You are not going to be that suspicious of a government that looks like its planning well for the future either.

Yeah, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, really - how did that high standard of living happen in the first place?

 

Those countries certainly do seem to be good at managing money collectively and so the trust is there in that respect - But again, how did that trust come about in the first place?

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Piss off!

I knew it'd be a liberal softy arse like yourself to ruin things and be mean spirited

[DJ Barry Hammond]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, really - how did that high standard of living happen in the first place?

 

Those countries certainly do seem to be good at managing money collectively and so the trust is there in that respect - But again, how did that trust come about in the first place?

 

I expect those countries population density helps. 

[GazzinderFox]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, really - how did that high standard of living happen in the first place?

 

Those countries certainly do seem to be good at managing money collectively and so the trust is there in that respect - But again, how did that trust come about in the first place?

Scandinavian countries also strike me as very equal societies. I could be wrong but they don't seem to have an underclass like we do over here, so there isn't a dynamic pitting different groups against each other, generation after generation, breeding fear and contempt for one another.

 

 I think you start by putting trust in reasonable people. It's only when you have reason to have that taken away that the problems start.

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

I expect those countries population density helps. 

Possibly so, but again I think there are other factors involved, or Mongolia and indeed Russia, and a few others, would be up there too. Could well be a combination of these factors.

 

Think GF above has a point regarding the egalitarianism, but that does again beg the question of how it came about originally and how they've maintained it so well.

[GazzinderFox]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Think GF above has a point regarding the egalitarianism, but that does again beg the question of how it came about originally and how they've maintained it so well.

There is a theory that the countries that most closely adopted John Calvin's (as inspired by Martin Luther, and Lutheranism is big across Northern Europe - Merkel is the daughter of a Lutheran pastor) doctrine as it applies to democracy, economics and religion have since his day been the most successful countries.

 

This also came to the fore during the eurozone crisis as the catholic south was pitted against the historicly Calvinistic north.

[leicsmac]

Interesting PMQs, lots of back and forth.

 

May with some overly diplomatic weasel words regarding Trump and possibility of UK citizens being discriminated against by race or religion when visiting, though. If we're so keen on standing alone so ala Brexit, why the need to suck up to the new kids on the block in the US?

[GazzinderFox]

53 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting PMQs, lots of back and forth.

 

May with some overly diplomatic weasel words regarding Trump and possibility of UK citizens being discriminated against by race or religion when visiting, though. If we're so keen on standing alone so ala Brexit, why the need to suck up to the new kids on the block in the US?

It's not about standing alone, it's about being able to freely choose who you want to stand with. You may not have noticed but we've been sucking up to the US for the last 100 years.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

It's not about standing alone, it's about being able to freely choose who you want to stand with. You may not have noticed but we've been sucking up to the US for the last 100 years.

True enough.

 

Would a little more words of concern our condemnation really hurt though? I mean, given the question the excuse that is isn't citizens of the UK doesn't pass muster either.

 

And I always thought that the sign of a really good friend is one that can tell you when they think you're screwing up...But I guess May does have to be diplomatic.

[Jon the Hat]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

True enough.

 

Would a little more words of concern our condemnation really hurt though? I mean, given the question the excuse that is isn't citizens of the UK doesn't pass muster either.

 

And I always thought that the sign of a really good friend is one that can tell you when they think you're screwing up...But I guess May does have to be diplomatic.

Do you tell your friends they are screwing up in public?  Really?  We don't know what is said behind closed doors.

[GazzinderFox]

54 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

True enough.

 

Would a little more words of concern our condemnation really hurt though? I mean, given the question the excuse that is isn't citizens of the UK doesn't pass muster either.

 

And I always thought that the sign of a really good friend is one that can tell you when they think you're screwing up...But I guess May does have to be diplomatic.

This post isn't up to your usually high grammatical standards mate - I've read that first sentence four times now and I still can't figure out what it means! 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Do you tell your friends they are screwing up in public?  Really?  We don't know what is said behind closed doors.

Evidently you've never been in the club when your mate suggests more jagerbombs and you've both got work in the morning, Jon.

 

But yes, guess public words have to be softer.

 

2 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

This post isn't up to your usually high grammatical standards mate - I've read that first sentence four times now and I still can't figure out what it means! 

Ha, sorry!

 

I meant that because the question is concerning British citizens May couldn't simply say that it was just an American issue that we shouldn't give opinion on, as sometimes happens when people are getting mistreated around the world. I hear that excuse for not wanting to rock the boat much too often.

[Sharpe's Fox]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/blair-pm-is-a-lightweight-and-corbyns-a-nutter-so-im-back-x77h9237b

 

Tony Blair is positioning himself to play a pivotal role in shaping Britain’s Brexit deal by scouting out a power base in Westminster, The Sunday Times has learnt.

The former prime minister is setting up an institute close to Whitehall and has held talks with senior ministers and officials as he seeks to re-enter British politics.

Blair’s move has raised eyebrows among several members of the cabinet, who claim he has used meetings about the Middle East and aid to seek to extract information and influence the government’s Brexit plans.

A source who has discussed Brexit with Blair said: “He’s not impressed with Theresa May. He thinks she’s a total lightweight.

“He thinks Jeremy Corbyn is a nutter and the Tories are screwing up Brexit. He thinks there’s a massive hole in British politics that he can fill.”

Blair is due to meet May for coffee soon. But the prime minister’s aides believe he is part of an “unholy alliance” of former ministers who are determined to disrupt Brexit.

Last month Blair wrote in the New European newspaper that “remain” supporters should “mobilise and organise” an insurgency to make the public change its mind about leaving the EU. “Blair wants to show that he’s making a big comeback — and what better way to do that than to weigh in on Brexit?” one insider said.

The former prime minister has recruited Jim Murphy, the former leader of Scottish Labour, to advise him on merging his charitable and business interests under one roof and “bolster the political clout” of his new organisation.

Blair’s interest in staying on the front line of politics was illustrated last week by his meeting with Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US president-elect Donald Trump.

It can also be revealed Blair has held talks with the former chancellor George Osborne. “Tony and George have been speaking and meeting and have had lots of conversations about the post-Brexit political climate,” a Whitehall source said.

Someone who has discussed Brexit with both Blair and Osborne in the past month said: “George is very much of the view that Tony Blair has: that this will all end in disaster and tears and anger and bitterness, that Brexit is a car crash slowly unfolding — a proper pile-up.” An Osborne ally said he had only consulted Blair about paid speaking engagements.

Blair’s operations and finance taskforce have scoped out three potential sites in Westminster for the relocation of around 130 staff, though his office said last night that he has not decided to base his office there.

The two names currently being touted for the organisation are understood to be the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and the Tony Blair Centre for Global Change. After announcing in September the closure of his consultancy businesses — Windrush Ventures, Firerush Ventures and Tony Blair Associates — Blair is expected to launch his new organisation in January.

Murphy, who lost his East Renfrewshire seat to the Scottish National Party last year, is said to be receiving more than £200,000 for his role as a senior adviser. He is playing a key role with Catherine Rimmer, Blair’s chief of staff, and Angela Salt, the chief executive of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, in merging Blair’s charitable and commercial operations under one not-for-profit brand.

Blair’s office in Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, along with his charity offices in Canary Wharf, east London, and Millbank, in central London, will be relocated to the new site.

A spokesman for Blair said: “He does discuss the Middle East and aid with government ministers because he is still very active in the Middle East and Africa with his not-for-profit work. He hasn’t discussed Brexit with government ministers.”

However, sources in Whitehall say that while meetings were not set up to discuss Brexit, conversation has turned to Britain’s plans for leaving the EU.

A senior official said: “He’s been in and out to see a lot of senior people. He is clearly pushing trying to get an insight into government thinking on Brexit and to influence that.

“He’s trying to suck information out of the system. He wants to come in to talk about development or the Middle East and then he’ll pivot.”

One cabinet minister who received an invitation to visit Blair at his headquarters said: “It felt like a summons.”

An ex-cabinet minister familiar with the former Labour leader’s thinking, said: “Blair does think, as all former prime ministers do, that ministers are bogging up Brexit and if only I were in charge.”

One insider said: “He’s relinquished most of his financial interests because he was done with the negative headlines about his obsession with wealth and he’s remodelling himself. I think it’s fair to say that he sees himself as a global statesman in the Henry Kissinger mould.”

Blair’s moves came as 60 Tory MPs, including seven former cabinet ministers, demanded that May pulls Britain out of the single market and customs union amid fears her Brexit stance could be watered down by remainers such as Blair.

In a letter co-ordinated by the Conservative MP Steve Baker, the Eurosceptics said only the cleanest Brexit can fulfil the referendum pledge to “untie ourselves from EU shackles and freely embrace the rest of the world”.

Sources close to May believe Blair’s approach will prove counterproductive on Brexit.

Downing Street aides believe Blair and Osborne are part of an “unholy alliance” of “remainer” former ministers that also includes Lord Mandelson, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and the former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna.

One leading Brexiteer referred to the New European, in which Blair published his call to arms against Brexit, as “the Remoaner Gazette”.

A ministerial aide added: “He’s shooting his side in the foot because he’s toxic and the more the word ‘Blair’ is involved with article 50 and ‘remain’ the less it will help his side. He’s better off leaving it alone.”

Blair’s spokesman said: “Mr Blair will make a proper announcement around all of this in the new year. I can also confirm that Jim Murphy is working for the organisation.”

A source refused to be drawn on Murphy’s salary.

 

anyone wanna see ol' Tone back in the fold? No ta

[Tielemans63]

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/blair-pm-is-a-lightweight-and-corbyns-a-nutter-so-im-back-x77h9237b

 

 

 

anyone wanna see ol' Tone back in the fold? No ta

Yeah definitely, just not enough mass murderers in today's politics for my liking.