How influencer-organized campaigns are succeeding at “ampliganda”, shaping public perception via messaging that is amplified by social networks' algorithms
I have no doubt that Instagram exacerbates body image and other insecurity issues in teenagers. But how does that compare to the *decades* of multi-pronged messaging from the fashion industry, Hollywood, the music industry, the Kardashians, etc. which have bombarded teenagers?
Hey @Facebook, if you really want to fight vaccine disinformation on your platform, why are you still offering a selection of anti-vax frames for profile pics? STOP DOING THAT NOW! https://twitter.com/...
Everybody's talking about Facebook but every other site has the same business model, engagement (ie addiction) above all else. Really ironic when it comes to dating sites. The only “relationship” they can guarantee (or want to) is with the app itself.
Exactly. Pretending that Facebook is the root of American political pathologies is the new “Blame Russia”: just an obvious scapegoat to distract attention from the rotted institutions of power, beginning with US media corporations, that are doing the real damage. https://twitter.…
Cable news creates more polarization than Facebook. The prestige media set the agenda more than Facebook. Hollywood, fashion and advertising create more body image issues than Facebook. It's just that Facebook makes more money.
Even if you set aside First Amendment concerns (something I don't like to do), we're no closer to a consensus in defining the problem on social media than we were two weeks ago. I don't know how we come up with the solution when we can't agree on the problem.
Even among social networks, Facebook is less divisive than Twitter, less violent than YouTube, less addictive than TikTok, less raunchy than Reddit. It's only the whipping boy now because it ran highly quotable studies on itself. In other words, its sin was introspection.
Yes, there is agreement that “Facebook is bad.” The company's PR efforts have gotten us there. But what do we want the Internet to look like? What should be moderated? Should platforms actually be “neutral?” These are tougher issues that require more substantive inquiry.
“Although it is tempting to believe that foreign bogeymen are sowing discord, the reality is far simpler and more tragic: Outrage generates engagement, which algorithmically begets more engagement” https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...
“Understanding the incentives of influencers, recognizing the very common rhetorical techniques that precipitate outrage, developing an awareness of how online crowds now participate in crystallizing public opinion—that is an education that Americans need” https://www.theatlantic…
It's Not Misinformation. It's Amplified Propaganda. You don't need fake accounts to spread ampliganda online. Real people will happily do it. By @noUpside (Renée DiResta) Ampliganda é um neologismo para “propaganda amplificada”. https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...
“Trust has been reallocated from authority figures and legacy media to charismatic individuals adept at appealing to the aspects of personal or ideological identity that their audiences hold most dear.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...
“The public has become an active participant in creating and amplifying narratives that shape realities...the best word for this emergent bottom-up dynamic is one that doesn't exist quite yet: ampliganda, the shaping of perception through amplification.” https://www.theatlantic.c…
@alexstamos @noUpside And that explains everything about this issue. People aren't concerned about anything but controlling what is said about them or their opponents. Which is incredibly ironic (or just sad) because political discourse is the root of the 1A.
@alexstamos @noUpside Calling it propaganda ("information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular _political_ cause or point of view.") explains why each side of the aisle is aligned but not —believing it's only the other side needi…
Propaganda evolves to fit the information architecture of the day, so it makes sense that it evolved in the era of social networks (I'll do a thread on that history tomorrow, it was too long to get into the essay). https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...
This brilliant new essay has so much explanatory power for the Australian trending list, which is riddled with partisan political hashtags that occasionally get amplified into the national spotlight. How much of what we see trending is ‘ampliganda’? 🤔 https://twitter.com/...
“Today there is simply a rhetorical war of all against all:a maelstrom of viral hashtags competing for attention...amplified by crowds of true believers for whom sharing and retweeting is akin to a religious calling"Incredible insights from @stanfordio's @noUpside in @TheAtlantic…
“The public has become an active participant in creating and selectively amplifying narratives that shape realities. Perhaps the best word for this emergent bottom-up dynamic is one that doesn't exist quite yet: ampliganda,” @noUpside writes. https://on.theatln.tc/SVbpQR0
Another brilliant essay by @noUpside addressing the inverted propaganda - propaganda created by citizens, not government - that so dominates our discourse. She calls it “ampliganda.” Must read. https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...
This is probably my favorite recent piece from my colleague @noUpside and I think it will help reset some of the language issues our nascent field keeps running into. https://twitter.com/...