SAP Founder Hasso Plattner Fears the Scourge of Social Media (afr.com) 125
In a wide-ranging interview, Hasso Plattner, the 74-year-old co-founder and chairman of global business software powerhouse SAP, talked about his apprehension of the social media. From the story: He saves his greatest condemnation for the scourge of fake news and societal manipulation on large social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Despite the founders of the social giants pledging to do more to ensure public debate is not artificially skewed, Plattner believes the solution will have to come from law enforcement and criminal penalties. He says humans are genetically wired to thrive on rumours, dating back to ancient times when rumours about what was going on in the next village would be on everyone's mind. He fears social platforms have simply become rumour distribution machines of unbelievable power.
"I was very optimistic that social networks would improve access to information and democracy in general, but I am very disappointed that the opposite is happening," he says. "Professional information producers undermine the social networks, undermine states and elections. It is unbelievable what is happening and we have a huge problem." Plattner draws a parallel with insider trading, which he says is as easy to commit as social media manipulation, but is not so common because people know they will be slugged with criminal convictions. "This is all before we look at the exploitation of personal data, where we are naked in front of the social networks, because we undress ourselves, and not only literally," he says. "I think this will continue until we have the legal systems properly looking at it, and have strong laws that people have to obey."
"I was very optimistic that social networks would improve access to information and democracy in general, but I am very disappointed that the opposite is happening," he says. "Professional information producers undermine the social networks, undermine states and elections. It is unbelievable what is happening and we have a huge problem." Plattner draws a parallel with insider trading, which he says is as easy to commit as social media manipulation, but is not so common because people know they will be slugged with criminal convictions. "This is all before we look at the exploitation of personal data, where we are naked in front of the social networks, because we undress ourselves, and not only literally," he says. "I think this will continue until we have the legal systems properly looking at it, and have strong laws that people have to obey."
It's not manipulation when we do it! (Score:2, Insightful)
Calls for censorship, corporations deciding what's truth and what's not, or who gets to speak and who not, mainstream media colluding to push a narrative, using law enforcement to enforce political bias, etc.
And you want to lecture others about manipulation? The whole basis of these discussions is manipulation, i.e. bolstering one political leaning while suppressing others.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you guys just see that? Classic socketpuppet like I had said. More generic offenses such as being a "Petista" (member of the worker's party) would be a "crime" (it never was) and the typical class offense of the slave owners, which is to call others "favelados" (slum dwellers). The Brazilian internet has a small but noisy amount of these creatures hidden in the most sordid corners accepting any offer to get some extra money.
Re: (Score:2)
He's got reason to fear. (Score:4, Informative)
But not social media. He should fear the wrath of anyone who's ever had to use or support his software.
Re:He's got reason to fear. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He's got reason to fear. (Score:5, Informative)
Whetever his qualifications are, he's right about one thing. The human capacity for conspiracy theories is ancient,
Back in the early days of Anthropology, anthropologists and the general public where fairly convinced canibalism was *everywhere* in the "primative" world. But as it turned out, whenever they'd actually try and find canibals, well they where no where to be found. In fact with a couple of notable exceptions, canibalism is more or less a myth. What was ACTUALLY going on, was many tribes where convinced the neighboring enemy tribe was in fact canibalism, and that made THEM the bad guys. Everytime someone went missing on a hunt, well , canibals. Got mauled by an animal? Canibals. And if it wasn't canibals, it was evil sorcerers. But the key here is, every village they'd ask would say they where not canibals, the OTHER guys where the canibals.
I kinf of think conspiracy theories work the same way. Its a way of reasoning about mysterious or unexplainable shit, by positing that everything bad that happens, was some guys evil plot. Nothing bad happens by chance, theres always SOMEONE to blame. Its a convenient way to hold onto viewpoints unsupported by the evidence. Don't like climate change? Well just blame a vast spooky c,onspiracy of scientists lying about physics. Any evidence presented to the contrary is just the man lying to you. Confused about why there seems to be lots more people with autism? MUST BE VACCINES. Sure the docs will tell you "theres more diagnoses of autism because the definition changed" , but thats just what THEY want you to believe. Its a perfectly sealed mode of thinking, all evidence your wrong just proves how vast the conspiracy is.Theres no escape from it.
And yeaah, the internets making that shit a lot worse. In the olden days, oral folk-myths travelled about as far as the edge of town. Nowdays, its global. You can chose from *all sorts* of crazy now.
There's one thing even more powerful and ancient: (Score:1)
Blind gullability and livestock-like herd behavior. Which leads to the worst type of conspiracy theorist there is: The anticonspiracy theorist.
Somebody who, ignoring all facts and all of reality if he has to, believes there can never ever be any conspiracy of any kind whatsoever, and everyone is just either nice and happy-clappy or merely dumb and incompetent.
It's the exact same thing as a conspiracy theorist: Somebody who can't handle reality, and has to cling to a delusion that makes everything make sense
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]Blind gullability and livestock-like herd behavior. Which leads to the worst type of conspiracy theorist there is: The anticonspiracy theorist.[/quote]
Yeah but thats a bit of a strawman dude. Nobody really believes that *no* conspiracies exist. I mean maybe one or two folks genuinely believe that spy agencies dont.... uh.... spy or whatever.
But lets be honest. 99% of conspiracy theories are blatent bullshit.
There was never a pizza sex dungeon run by Hillary from her lizard spacecraft.
Q is a 4 chan tr
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - "crazy" as a noun. InfoWars produces news/crap with an extra large helping of crazy. It is scary how many people buy into it.
True, also scary how many ppl buy into CNN ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Posting as AC for a reason.
With the way things are, I wonder if his end goal is to hide all news about bad implementations of SAP. Granted not all SAP's fault, but I believe SAP is one of the causes of companies having large financial issues due to installing an over priced monolith
Re: (Score:2)
so does SAP when this shit software ends up bankrupting good companies
SAP... (Score:1)
Most people fear SAP for what this piece of shit software is...
the reason why a bunch of good companies folded with unwiedly SAP deployments from hell !
utterly irresponsible (Score:5, Interesting)
The fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazi regime shows how futile and counterproductive such approaches are. The Weimar Republic had strong laws regulating speech and the press. Far from shutting down the Nazis, the Nazis made a fight against "fake news" part of their own platform ("We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press." [wikipedia.org]). Given Germany's history, for a German to propose criminalizing speech is a sign of profound historical ignorance and irresponsibility.
And let's not kid ourselves why billionaires and political elites in Europe and the US bristle at social networks and blogs: since Edward Bernays, they have used control over the press to “control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it" (his words). In case you don't know, Bernays [wikipedia.org] is responsible for overcoming the resistance of Americans to enter WWI and for addicting American women to tobacco.
Re: (Score:1)
Antifa originated as the militant wing of the KPD (German Communist Party). [wikipedia.org]
Communists calling everyone a fascist / nazi and attacking people in the street was the historic pathway to actual fascists seizing power.
Re:utterly irresponsible (Score:5, Informative)
You're obviously not up to date on German history. Hate speech has been criminalized in Germany for a long time, precisely because of the 2nd world war. It's one of the few countries where you can get fined or imprisoned for denying the holocaust, or wearing any nazi insignia in public etc. And the Americans should not take the moral high ground here, because this behavior has its roots in post-war Allied control of West Germany. The occupational forces exercised censorship [wikipedia.org] to control what could and couldn't be said about them:
'Volksverhetzung' is the German hate speech law prohibiting targeting of racial and ethnic groups. Quoting the translation from the wiki: [wikipedia.org]
Similar (though usually less strict) laws exist in other European countries, including my own (Finland), the UK, Ireland and Sw
Re: (Score:3)
It was moral, justifiable, and reasonable for Americans to crimin
Re: (Score:3)
It was moral, justifiable, and reasonable for Americans to criminalize speech in Germany after WWII as part of the occupation of Germany.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
It was not moral because it is never moral.
It was not justifiable because all you ever do with laws criminalizing free speech is drive the offenders underground. You make it illegal to plan a hate crime, and you use the free speech to tell you who to surveil*.
It was not reasonable specifically because it was neither moral nor justifiable.
It was part of an attempt to transform a nation of fascists and totalitarian mass murderers into something even remotely resembling a democracy.
Perhaps we should have tried not selling the Nazis fuel, and not selling the Japanese the Aluminum from which they built Zeroes, if we were trying t
Re: (Score:2)
US imposed speech restrictions were part of the occupation of a totalitarian, genocidal, conquered nation. Of course they were moral as part of such an occupation. And that occupation lasted 40 years, as it should, it was simply a quiet, benign occupation.
That was the point in Germany. Actual, genuine Nazis didn't disappear from the face of the eart
Re: (Score:2)
As I said I'm not in favour of the laws myself because I tend to agree that the martyrdom status that it grants to those it affects is in many ways making the problem worse. However especially in Germany since the laws have been in place pretty much since the 2nd world wa
Re: (Score:2)
Hate speech has been criminalized in Germany for a long time, precisely because of the 2nd world war. It's one of the few countries where you can get fined or imprisoned for denying the holocaust, or wearing any nazi insignia in public etc. And the Americans should not take the moral high ground here, because this behavior has its roots in post-war Allied control of West Germany
Please note that this was entirely in an attempt to control the populace. It was anti-freedom, and they knew it. People who propose anti-speech laws, without exception as far as I've found, are trying to control others.
That's why freedom of speech is important.
Re:utterly irresponsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that you're going to read it since you're probably a troll either in their mom's basement or the troll brigade of st. Petersburg, but on the off-chance that you're an actual holocaust denier I have 2 pieces of advice for you:
1. Stop drinking bleach, it's not good for you.
2. Read this XKCD [xkcd.com]
Re:utterly irresponsible (Score:5, Insightful)
You're making a mistake in assuming I want to argue with him.
Once the conspiracy is something as ridiculous as claiming that the biggest orchestrated genocide did not happen and is all an elaborate hoax by all historians and academics, facts will do no good. I know 'cause I have debated these people before, and just like debating with hardcore creationists they will not believe any evidence you throw at them, because they're operating in an entirely different reality. They will ignore any evidence presented and then just move on to their next ridiculous claim in a Gish gallop [wikipedia.org], and I have better things to do with my time than to waste my time arguing with someone like that.
Re:utterly irresponsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There's nothing wrong about opposing known lies being presented by media as truths. The only problem is that this would require shutting down Fox News, and many people would be grievously butthurt if that happened.
If you could shut down the Daily Mail, Sun and the like over here while you are at it, that would be nice...
Re: (Score:2)
Plattner isn't proposing opposing known lies, an act of free speech, he is proposing censoring known lies.
Opposing known lies is quite effective. Government censorship is incompatible with democracy and leads to its downfall.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN, is bias news. They report one side of any opinion, however it is actually one side. It is a true opinion.
If you cannot see how these are different, i suggest watching some other news stations then see the spi
Re:Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Merkel does not have anything with this, no matter what she says. Due to Germany's Nazi past and because allied authorities like the US insisted on it, Germany has applicable hate speech laws that every company doing business in Germany has to respect. Using Nazi symbols, instigating violence by racist slurs, showing the Hitler greeting, and denying the Holocaust is illegal in Germany, and Facebook has to provide the means to comply with the law or close their business in Germany. It's as simple as that.
The US, France, and the UK insisted on these kind of mechanisms and gave Western Germany a constitution that can defend itself against inner threats, because the Weimarer Republic failed due to inner threats - by the Nazis abusing constitutional flaws and spreading hate and terror on the street and in media. For example, in Germany a Nazi party (SRP - the successor of the NSDAP) and a communist party (KPD - largely under Soviet control) were prohibited in the 50s.
If you really, really want to go to war against Germany again in 50-100 years from now and if you enjoyed the total destruction of Europe by the Nazis or the communist occupation of Eastern Europe, then please continue to insist that Germans should enjoy full freedom and speech, no matter how despicable, and to abolish constitutional safeguards against inner takeover by totalitarians.
For what it's worth, German authorities are much too tame about the current threats. They should definitely surveille the AfD and other right-wing wackos, just like they watched and infiltrated anarchist and communist groups in the past, but unfortunately they are a bit blind on the right eye (as the NSU murders and the involvement of the Verfassungsschutz in them have aptly illustrated).
Re: (Score:3)
If you really, really want to go to war against Germany again in 50-100 years from now and if you enjoyed the total destruction of Europe by the Nazis or the communist occupation of Eastern Europe, then please continue to insist that Germans should enjoy full freedom and speech, no matter how despicable, and to abolish constitutional safeguards against inner takeover by totalitarians.
Oh, my sweet, summer child. What makes you think we're not going to get into that position anyway? Even though it's illegal to publicly be a Nazi, Germany still has Nazis, in part because these laws only hide the truth [haaretz.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Drinkypoo, Germany has plenty of Nazis and purpose of these laws is certainly not to prevent the occurrence of Nazis. On the contrary, those laws and constitutional safeguards were invented at a time when Germany was arguably full of Nazis and Nazi enablers. If you don't even understand the purpose of such laws and/or the history of Germany, you really have nothing to contribute.
Oh, my sweet, summer child.
You would appear less childish if you kept such snippets to yourself, drinkypoo!
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, those laws and constitutional safeguards were invented at a time when Germany was arguably full of Nazis and Nazi enablers. If you don't even understand the purpose of such laws and/or the history of Germany, you really have nothing to contribute.
I do understand the purpose of such laws. It was to subjugate Germany.
If you don't even understand the purpose of such laws and/or the history of Germany, you really have nothing to contribute.
If you don't even understand that the USA profited from the holocaust, then you have less than nothing to contribute.
Re: (Score:1)
I do understand the purpose of such laws. It was to subjugate Germany.
*sigh* So you understand nothing. I know I'm throwing pearls before the swine, as we say in Germany, but I will still explain. Totalitarian regimes rise to power by a mixture of propaganda and terror/fear. The latter is created by mobs, enforced uniformity, beating up people, death squadrons, etc. The former, the propaganda needs to distract from real discourse and understanding and therefore involves plenty of hate speech, ridiculing opponents, celebrating cruelty, and political 'cartoons' that demonize th
Hi, (Score:1)
one of the lesser human beings here. One of those who, according to you, shouldn't have the right to free speech that people in the US enjoy.
> If you really, really want to go to war against Germany again in 50-100 years from now and if you enjoyed the total destruction of Europe by the Nazis or the communist occupation of Eastern Europe, then please continue to insist that Germans should enjoy full freedom and speech, no matter how despicable, and to abolish constitutional safeguards against inner takeo
Rich guy demands world comply (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of thing is music to the ears of the establishment. One more powerful voice to stand with with ruling class as they screw up the courage to criminalize those that annoy. It's been taken so far that Plattner has lost his inhibition to openly state his intentions.
Realize who you're climbing in bed with. This is the quintessential Captain of Industry; a man that has spent his life capturing regulators and leveraging IP law to propel himself to the 0.0001% bar in the wealth histogram. But hes singing the right song so you look past all that because you lost an election and if the criminal ban hammer is what it takes to make sure that never happens again well then all hail Mr. Plattner and any other Great and Good that join him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the trustworthy media outlets that are going bankrupt because
They're going bankrupt because they peddle the Wooden Language of the official narrative. Having not yet become the victims of actual tyranny people are free to leave establishment mouth pieces behind and seek alternatives that aren't beholden to beltway and corporate group-think.
I doubt the establishment cares.
Oh, they care. That's what this story is about and why it's bouncing around the progressive echo chamber today. We were just subjected to four+ days of establishment backlash in the form of Trump Derangement Syndrome on public d
Paywalled (Score:1)
Anyone happen to have an alternative Link?
Wow! (Score:2)
Free Speech != guns (Score:1)
When you ban free speech; then only criminals will have a voice.
- Gordon
social media is a mirror to reflects us (Score:2)
And it reflects the baseness and egocentric behavior of nearly everyone when they go online. There is a switch that flips when people feel they are anonymous or can suffer limited social consequences for their behavior and they behave like borderline sociopaths in that situation.
This is the dawn of the information age. And a widely connected society is something very new for us. Unfortunately few have adjusted to the change well, and most people are in a social infancy. An infancy where they struggle to fin
Tech guru prognosticatorfactor off the charts here (Score:1)
You had me at "he invented SAP", and then you told me that he was 74 years old.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You nazi faggots still have Der Sturmer, right? Why do you need to rely on the goodwill of Zuckerbergs to reach your audience of morons and inbreds? Talk about a design flaw to your reichtard movement, relying on Facebook? Heh.
It's kind of hard to sell your supremacy when you're so retarded and easily foiled, right? Think things through better.
Re: "fake news and societal manipulation" (Score:2)
We need a filter on slashdot. When the words 'nazi' and 'faggot' appear in a comment it is automatically modded to -2 and a 5 day ip ban is imposed.
People who accuse another of being a nazi and who call somebody else a 'faggot' are completely different. Antifaschists are not homophobes. It's just a crapflooder who needs an ip ban.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's time Slashdot started thinking about banning ACs. Seems lately all the shit comments that roll in on each story are posted by those who can't even stand to hide behind a screen name.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't just tolerate or ignore stuff you don't like so you want to BAN it ?
I doubt you can even grasp how wrongheaded our desire to ban stuff because you don't like it really is.
Banning things that people really believe is wrong. That's why I get annoyed when something I believe is modded as troll. No, I really meant that, so by definition I'm not trolling. But banning things that people are just shitposting because they want to shit on the discussion is something different. It's preserving a resource so that it can be used by others. Garbage comments make using the site more difficult for those users who act in good faith.
However, eliminating ACs would not be banning content. It w
Re: (Score:2)
"However, eliminating ACs would not be banning content. It would be making it harder to troll. Learn the difference, kid."
The trolls would just make more fake accounts causing more long term problems.
Fake accounts don't cause problems, son. They take up a tiny amount of database space, and in exchange we get a posting history included with the account that tells us if it's been used to troll in the past.
Learn the difference, you known Troll.
I have a posting history that proves that I'm not a troll, since it contains so very many comments clearly made in good faith. You, on the other hand, are an AC accusing me of trolling, which all-but-conclusively proves that you are a troll all day.
Re: (Score:2)
> Banning things that people really believe is wrong. That's why I get annoyed when something I believe is modded as troll.
Context can be king. YOU might believe it, but that doesn't exclude someone else from using that viewpoint or belief to troll. For example, you might believe wholeheartedly the Earth is flat (and a disturbing number of people apparently do believe this exact thing). But *I* don't believe that. That wouldn't preclude me from posting a flat-Earth oriented snark/troll comment and it
Re: (Score:2)
Context can be king. YOU might believe it, but that doesn't exclude someone else from using that viewpoint or belief to troll.
So what? Moderation is applied to individual comments, not to Slashdot as a [w]hole. If I am not trolling, then my comment is not a troll, regardless of what other people might have used similar words for.
This is why Slashdot has become such a shithole. Even basic reasoning is beyond the people who get modpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
> You can't just tolerate or ignore stuff you don't like so you want to BAN it ?
Where did I say that? I just said make them use actual accounts. Raise the bar to posting a bit more than clicking a checkbox, to help slow down the torrent of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to wade through the mud, browse at 1 and you'll avoid most of it. Most of the really annoying spam posts get moderated down quite quickly, so unless you've set it
Re: (Score:1)
You're free to browse at +5 if you want a groupthink echochamber circle jerk that serves no purpose other than to reaffrim the viewpoints that have been spoonfed to you.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
That noise is just the price you pay for not living in a total bubble. It turns out that Liberty is somewhat "untidy".
Liberty requires tolerating things you hate and defending your enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the mod system works OK; there's always enough sane people with points to mod.the dumbasses down.
Re:Social Media Users Fear Hasso Plattners (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Social Media Users Fear Hasso Plattners (Score:1)
On Facebook, what else would it be?