The government wants to study ‘social pollution’ on Twitter

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!