University of Michigan News’ Post

A recent study published in Nature Magazine challenges the notion of partisan bias in social media platform's content policy enforcement. The research, conducted by MIT Sloan School of Management, University of Oxford, Cornell University, and Yale University scholars, suggests asymmetrical rates of partisan account suspensions have more to do with an increased likelihood of sharing low-quality information sources and behaviors that violate platform rules rather than an inherent bias in moderation policies.  https://lnkd.in/eBJexFNn #LearnThenLike #StudyThenShare #PonderThenPost

Media is self-destructing, by their own hand. When they decided they needed to characterize their market niche, each media company became shamelessly obvious about just where they were on the left-right paradigm. That meant that they became opinion and editorial companies rather than objective reporters of the news. When even their polls tilted toward their readership market, only to be proved unreliable and unscientific, that meant suffering a huge blow, a serious loss of credibility. The worst effect, however, is now people gravitate to the media that clearly supports their own political position, and this leads to a heavy bias that in turn validates and confirms their own oftentimes extreme political views. Media, and especially social media, has finally proved itself far more dangerous to society than beneficial today. https://lnkd.in/gBJVZTfU

Something to think about The Erosion of Trust in Media: A Call to Action A recent article by Evan Shapiro in "Media War & Peace" highlighted the alarming decline in public trust in media. According to Gallup, less than 1/3 of Americans now say they trust the media "a great deal or a fair amount." Shapiro traces this erosion of trust to choices made from 1987-2012 as the internet emerged with minimal regulation. Siloed audiences, addictive platforms, and the pursuit of profits over truth have created a dangerous cocktail, fracturing public trust. The article argues that the very industries that broke trust - media and tech - may be the ones who can rebuild it by championing factual information, supporting quality journalism, solving real problems, and holding themselves accountable. As an observer, I find this perspective thought-provoking. The decline in trust is a critical issue with far-reaching societal implications. Shapiro's call for media and tech to acknowledge the problem and commit to being part of the solution is a compelling one. What do you think? Can trust in media be rebuilt, and what role should tech and media companies play in the process? or can we trust them. #trust #media #tech #journalism

Part 2 Does Social Media need censorship ? Social media platforms wield significant influence as gatekeepers of public discourse. With this influence comes a duty to safeguard users and uphold the tenets of civil society. This entails implementing robust moderation policies, employing sophisticated algorithms to detect and mitigate harmful content, and fostering digital literacy and critical thinking among users. But where do we draw the line? The answer lies not in the hands of a select few, but in the collective wisdom of society. It's a conversation that transcends political affiliations, cultural boundaries, and corporate interests. Only through transparent discourse can we establish consensus on the boundaries of acceptable speech, ensuring the rights of individuals are respected while safeguarding the common good. As I conclude my contemplation, I'm reminded of the profound responsibility that accompanies the use of social media. Each interaction carries the potential to shape perceptions and influence behavior. It's a responsibility that demands humility and vigilance, recognizing the power we wield in the digital realm. Ultimately, the question of social media censorship is not one of absolutes but of balance and nuance. It's a question that calls for introspection, dialogue, and collective action—a question that resonates beyond the confines of our screens and speaks to the essence of our humanity.

Distrust of 'mainstream' media has led to the rise of hyperpartisan sources for political information. But who are the consumers of alternative media? How are alternative media websites interconnected, and what content do they present? Read this paper by Pu Yan (Peking University) and Ralph Schroeder (Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford) via Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society: ➡ https://lnkd.in/dvtWDp_Q #populism #media #mediaattention #fakenews #webtracking #socialscience #communication #digitalmedia #wjds #openaccess

Understanding the power and reach of cross-border media is more important than ever in our rapidly globalizing society. Whether it's traditional news broadcasts, digital platforms, or social media, cross-border media have a profound impact on shaping our attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions. In a world where geographical boundaries no longer limit the flow of information, the narratives presented by cross-border media often define our understanding of world events. However, with great power comes the responsibility to disseminate ethical and accurate information. Our latest blog delves into the compelling role of cross-border media in forming narratives, highlighting its influence on perceptions, and discussing the challenges and ethical implications in our ever-evolving digital age. Read on to glean insights into the critical impact of cross-border media in our globally connected society and the exciting future it promises. Full Article found here : https://lnkd.in/gJiZajCD

🌍 Exciting Call for Papers! Special Issue on “Social Media and Society” 🌍 I’m thrilled to announce that I’ll be joining Stefan Stieglitz, Jonas Fegert, Hanna Krasnova, and Christof Weinhardt as a Guest Editor for the upcoming special issue on “Social Media and Society” in the i-com Journal! 📢 This issue seeks to explore the transformative role of social media in shaping public opinion, societal structures, and democratic engagement. We’ll be addressing both the positive potential of social media for fostering social cohesion and intergroup contact, as well as critical challenges such as misinformation, polarization, and ethical concerns. If your research examines any of the following themes, we encourage you to submit: - Social cohesion and public opinion through social media - Civic engagement, activism, and community building on digital platforms - The impact of social media on mental health and well-being - AI, misinformation, and algorithmic biases in social media - Ethical and regulatory considerations surrounding social platforms 📝 Submission Deadline: February 28, 2025 We look forward to seeing interesting research that addresses these pressing issues and contributes to our collective understanding of social media’s impact on society. Let’s drive this conversation forward together! 📬 Feel free to reach out with any questions!

Albert Einstein had a critical view of media ownership and its influence on public opinion. In his essay “Why Socialism?” published in 1949, Einstein expressed concerns about the concentration of media power in the hands of a few, arguing that it could lead to manipulation of information and public opinion, thereby undermining democracy. He believed that private ownership of the media could result in a biased presentation of news and information, which might not serve the public’s best interests. Einstein advocated for a system where the media would be more accountable to the public and less driven by private interests and profit motives. Einstein wasn’t wrong. It is abundantly clear today that concentrated media ownership is undermining the role of the press as a watchdog for democracy. The Fourth Estate refers to the press and news media’s role in holding those in power accountable and providing citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions. With media ownership concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires and private entities, conflicts of interest and bias has increased. These media conglomerates prioritize their financial interests and those of their advertisers over objective reporting. This has led to: Reduced Diversity of Perspectives: A few owners can control the narrative and limit the range of viewpoints presented to the public. Bias and Censorship: Media owners may push their own agendas or censor information that conflicts with their interests or those of their allies. Erosion of Journalistic Standards: The pursuit of profit might lead to sensationalism, entertainment over information, and a decline in investigative journalism. These dynamics have weakened the media’s ability to function as the Fourth Estate, eroding its role in promoting transparency, accountability, and democracy. Einstein’s concerns about media ownership reflect these broader anxieties about the implications of concentrated power in the hands of a few, and the impact it has on democratic society.

After nearly a decade, my first theoretical article finally reached 100 citations. This remains one of my favorite articles because I was able to apply aspects of #Habermas critical theory to create a new framework for an issue challenging public administrators - #socialmedia. Check it out: Abstract: Previous research incorporates Habermas’ theory of communicative action with implications of social media for public discourse, yet few studies consider the theory’s relevance and applicability to public administrators. This article addresses this weak link by focusing on the administration legitimacy dilemma. While social media can be useful to public administrators facilitating collaborative interactions with citizens, these platforms are not automatically suited to public participation in governance. Habermas’ theory offers a framework for understanding these possibilities and challenges, as well as adapting social media constructively to administrative practice. #research #legitimacydilemma #publicadministration Sage

“They are getting amplified as if these minority extreme users are the majority!” Everything I have worked on, pitched, designed, argued for, whilst in and since leaving Greenpeace was based on, not PhD, but life experience of this exact truth. Back then, 20 years ago or so all one needed to do is replace the word “algorithm” with communications strategists, content producers and mainstream media. The amplification and addiction to amplifying the worst, most empty and vile in us was the same. The effects similar “The algorithms tend to promote content that we are attracted to naturally. So think about, like, a car wreck. We drive by a car wreck, we all turn our heads and we pay attention to it. It’s just something, no one doesn’t do that. Everyone does it. But that doesn’t mean that we want to keep seeing car wreck right? That’s just not what we would prefer…. So we often recognize that there is a discrepancy between what we naturally get drawn into and what we prefer to see but the algorithms don’t know that. And so even if you click on something that you don’t necessarily want to but you “oh I just want to look, I can’t help it, I had to check that out” they are going to keep promoting that and I think that process helps explain some of this stuff(…) (…)it also explains why a minority of extreme political individuals often dominate the political social media space (…) because the algorithms are amplifying their content. They are getting amplified as if these minority extreme users are the majority!” Dr William Brady on Social Media, Moral Outrage and Polarization https://lnkd.in/giBMPstp