Question 2 Response - Tech for Bad?

Zuckerberg has every incentive to limit criticism of Facebook. The website has grown to a size that even he could not have imagined, and now affects the way information is consumed and controlled. It now operates as a “socio-technical imaginary” (Jasonoff, Taplin) because it has aligned ideologies and virtues and connected them with the way we interact with technology- as Marshall mcluhan states ‘The Medium is the Message’- in other words, the technology itself is just as important as the message. Facebook is the medium for the new world of information. 

Algorithms shape the way we see information, and the way we interact with this information (through comments, shares and likes) directly effect if we see more or less of related information. For example, a Conservative who ‘likes’ conservative posts will see more conservative posts, creating an echo-chamber situation. Similarly, a Liberal who ‘likes’ Liberal posts will see more Liberal posts. The algorithm is designed to keep users addicted through seeing self-fulfilling ideological information, creating more profit for Facebook at the expense of diverse, opposing, or challenging ideologies that may help the user grow and see society through a different perspective. This is the relationship between ‘ideology, myth and utopia’ that Flichy describes- Facebook presents itself as a vast communication capable of connecting and promoting new ideas, yet promotes dangerous echo-chambers that only work to radicalize users (whether they know it or not).

Tech for Good should work to alter Facebook’s large influence, or promote a campaign of responsible information sharing. I believe the information shared on Facebook, whether it is true or false, is far to influential to leave to the open internet. Anyone can post anything, and information can be dangerous if spread by people with biased intentions. The information must continue to be free, but must be held to a higher standard. If the information is allowed to flow freely without any form of regulation, the loudest voices in the debate will always have the advantage- and it's not uncommon for the loudest voice to be incorrect. Yet, they will dictate the conversation with facts that cause emotional responses and those will be much more memorable by professionals attempting to unpack invalid arguments that consider all perspectives and offer a better version of the truth.

Even large political groups are known to join Facebook and share false propaganda with their followers to promote ideologies that work in the advantage of the political party in question. If information can help a party maintain power, they will use whatever means they can to win. As we are beginning to see in the real world, this tactic can have dangerous effects that are at the cusp of destabilizing modern societies.

Tyler Currie

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Changing Times in Ontario's Tech Ecology

Ottawa, Toronto, and Waterloo have long been the technological-innovation hubs of Ontario. These cities are home to major innovation institutions, Invest Ottawa, MaRS Discovery District in Toronto and Communitech in Waterloo. While these hubs have been an essential element of the growth of technology and entrepreneurship within the province, there is always room for more growth.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has recently announced the provincial investment in merging these three institutions into one overarching program. This program launches under the expectation that it will bring in $100 million dollars in revenue to its 30 scale-up companies, as well as providing services to thousands of entrepreneurs and their innovations.  This new program, called the Scale-Up Platform will be receiving an investment of $52.4 million from the Government of Canada in order to facilitate this growth. By combining these programs and affiliating them with the Ontario governmen...
Read more

Question 2 Response

In defence of Facebook’s business practices, Mark Zuckerberg’s idea of ‘connection’ fully embodies Flichy’s ideas on the relationships between ideology, myth and utopia. A myth essentially creates another meaning for an existing signifier; a utopia can be defined as an imagined state of thinking which strives to maintain social order; and an ideology can be defined as a system of ideas that strives to distort the realities of a society (Flichy, 2007, p. 7-9). Patrice Flichy argues that “the notion of a myth is often associated with that of a utopia” (2007, p. 8). When both a myth and utopia are combined, it is often presented like a dream of sorts, which can then also be associated with the notion of ideology (Flichy, 2007, p. 8). The relationship between myth, utopia and ideology is one that essentially leads one concept to snowball into the other. In the same sense, Zuckerberg’s business model for Facebook follows the same behaviour, by creating a myth, utopia and ide...
Read more

Spotify as a Coordinated Market Economy

Spotify first launched in 2008 in Stockholm, Sweden. Spotify is a music-streaming subscription service, in which users pay a premium every month and have full access to a large database of music, podcasts and radio stations.  In the way that Spotify rose to success, it is quite easy to see that the Swedish tech company behaves in the same way as its country’s economy. Sweden follows a Coordinated Market Economy (CME). Elements of a CME include strategic interaction, institutional support, access to capital is based on reputation, a sensitivity to long-term profitability, imperfect market conditions and strong industry relations (Hall and Soskice, 2004). In the same way, Spotify’s rise to success largely depended on the company slowly building its industry relations, reputation and forming a loyal consumer base. The creation of Spotify was also based on the premise of strategic interaction – adhering to the gap in the industry for a subscription-based music streaming serv...
Read more