RE: Misinfo & Social Media Bubbles

Hi All,

I co-chair the W3C’s Positive Work Environment Community Group https://www.w3.org/community/pwe/.


We are responsible for the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct<https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/>, under which all W3C groups operate.

Last year, we worked with members of the W3C Team to add a list of inclusive terms to the W3C Manual of Style  https://www.w3.org/Guide/manual-of-style/#inclusive


If you would like to see more terms added to this list, please open and add comments to https://github.com/w3c/manual-of-style/issues/7. For more in information and references about this, please see https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/17. I especially recommend Tatianna Mac’s https://www.selfdefined.app/.


We would love to have more members in the PWE!

Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Principal
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 6:58 PM
To: Chandran Sankaran <scsankaran@gmail.com>
Cc: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>; Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>; Farnaz Jahanbakhsh <farnazj@mit.edu>; Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>; CredWeb CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Misinfo & Social Media Bubbles

⛔
This is an external email.

Hello,



If we want to tackle misinformation, we have to challenge the linguistic bias/spin/slant that is embedded in natural language and the fact that such terms are made acceptable in mainstream.



Aspects of tackling misinformation should include providing appropriate neutral labels - after all whatever is derived from a credibility signal would become a label when processed on the web - can’t process bias with biased labels and assume just because the term is acceptable in mainstream in one’s biased concept of a civilised society that it must somehow be ok for the consumption of a wider audience around the world for whatever embedded metaphorical symbolism or interpretation it might hold.  Objective labels are far more appropriate than subjective ones…where protected characteristics are taken into account, especially as it relates to credibility under the umbrella of a standard.



Thanks,



Adeel

On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 17:16, Chandran Sankaran <scsankaran@gmail.com<mailto:scsankaran@gmail.com>> wrote:
In my view, it’s not offensive at all and we completely get your meaning as intended. Let’s focus on the misinformation problem that’s engulfing us…

Chandran
Sent from my iPhone


On Sep 30, 2021, at 6:51 AM, Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote:

Thanks, Adeel, for pointing this out. I had to do a little research to find a term to replace “dark patterns”. I admit that I did not know that this term was offensive. This paper [1] suggests “manipulative design”

[1] https://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-05-28-CCIA-Comments-on-FTC-Dark-Patterns-Workshop.pdf<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-05-28-CCIA-Comments-on-FTC-Dark-Patterns-Workshop.pdf__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!-tsOuIq4UliOKd3HvC4JjzQBQ2M2drdTq_jQPv2JE8c4xM4gx8CPWOJwoaKlTQ$>

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Principal
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com<mailto:aahmad1811@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 7:39 PM
To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov<mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>>
Cc: Farnaz Jahanbakhsh <farnazj@mit.edu<mailto:farnazj@mit.edu>>; Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net<mailto:Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>>; CredWeb CG <public-credibility@w3.org<mailto:public-credibility@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Misinfo & Social Media Bubbles

⛔
This is an external email.
Hello,

"dark patterns" is an inappropriate term, please use something else other than associating colors.

Thanks,

Adeel

On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 00:31, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov<mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>> wrote:
Frictionless sharing is, in a way, a dark pattern for the UI design of the social web. One thing I’ve been thinking about is making a checklist of UI dark patterns that social media companies could attest to avoiding. If we made it testable, one could trigger a conformance test at the point where conformance is asserted.
-Annette

On Sep 28, 2021, at 2:24 PM, Farnaz Jahanbakhsh <farnazj@mit.edu<mailto:farnazj@mit.edu>> wrote:

As a form of friction, platforms could also explicitly nudge people to pause and think about accuracy before they are about to share content. We did a study where we showed some news stories to people one at a time and asked them whether they would share each. We required some people to simply indicate whether the content is accurate or inaccurate before asking them whether they would share it. These people ended up sharing less false content than before (there was also a reduction in sharing of true content although to a lesser degree). For some people, we added to the friction by not only asking them about accuracy but also requiring them to explain why they believed the content is or is not accurate. For these people, sharing of false content was even further reduced: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3449092<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3449092__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!4fWP-QSyJ0m7Ah98Mbk7FCPSaqZJTA6NojZceCHMRqeT3Lg81xOUCsI8G168EA$>

Farnaz Jahanbakhsh

On Sep 27, 2021, at 5:17 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov<mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>> wrote:

The idea of adding friction is a good one. It came up in the UX of credibility subgroup of CredCo, where it was observed that designing the interface to make it extremely easy to share content makes users more likely to share misinformation. There have been several publications in the UX literature about that (e.g., https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2851581.2892410<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2851581.2892410__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!4fWP-QSyJ0m7Ah98Mbk7FCPSaqZJTA6NojZceCHMRqeT3Lg81xOUCsKPPz4jQg$>).
-Annette

On Sep 27, 2021, at 10:27 AM, Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net<mailto:Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>> wrote:


This article<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/thefulcrum.us/big-picture/Media/facebook-algorithm__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!4fWP-QSyJ0m7Ah98Mbk7FCPSaqZJTA6NojZceCHMRqeT3Lg81xOUCsJbZgNcjw$> by Filippo Menczer of The Fulcrum was reprinted in our local newspaper, under the title "How we fall for misinformation through social media bubbles."  It references "complex contagion," which figures prominently in Damon Centola's book entitled Change: How to Make Big Things Happen.

Menczer suggests one approach to address the problem is to "add friction ... to slow down the process of spreading information."

That calls to mind not only Daniel Kahneman's distinction between fast and slow thinking<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!4fWP-QSyJ0m7Ah98Mbk7FCPSaqZJTA6NojZceCHMRqeT3Lg81xOUCsK5rUdfLA$> but also Donald Norman's assertion<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ambur.net/smart.pdf__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!4fWP-QSyJ0m7Ah98Mbk7FCPSaqZJTA6NojZceCHMRqeT3Lg81xOUCsKKRgMI5w$> that the greatest peril is that of “experiencing when one should be reflecting ... where entertainment takes precedence over thought.”

Among the strategies posed by Centola are:

  *   Don't rely on contagiousness
  *   Use the network periphery
  *   Design team networks to improve discovery and reduce bias

It will be interesting to see what this group may decide to try to do together along those lines.

In the meantime, The Fulcrum's about statement is now available in StratML format at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#FLCRM<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm*FLCRM__;Iw!!N11eV2iwtfs!4fWP-QSyJ0m7Ah98Mbk7FCPSaqZJTA6NojZceCHMRqeT3Lg81xOUCsIfheChzg$>  Their tag line is "Leveraging Our Differences".

My 2.0 rewrite of the Serenity  Prayer is available on LinkedIn<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.linkedin.com/posts/owenambur_when-i-first-posted-my-20-rendition-of-the-activity-6846603303095156736-ftIg__;!!N11eV2iwtfs!4fWP-QSyJ0m7Ah98Mbk7FCPSaqZJTA6NojZceCHMRqeT3Lg81xOUCsIlV1tl-A$>.

Owen