This is an awfully uninspired, useless article. I’m surprised it has been published by the ACM.
Yes, hate speech is on the rise on social media. But this article offers no data, no new insights, and no proposed solutions. It’s just regurgitating high-level positions that have been posted hundreds of times over by real journalists.
Why does the ACM need to publish this? What purpose does this article serve?
Of course we need to “acknowledge the problem”. But saying that implies that we haven’t. Literally everyone on social media recognizes this. Gallons of ink have been spilt on this topic, most of which offers actual insights, unlike this empty page.
This is an awfully uninspired, useless article. I’m surprised it has been published by the ACM.
Yes, hate speech is on the rise on social media. But this article offers no data, no new insights, and no proposed solutions. It’s just regurgitating high-level positions that have been posted hundreds of times over by real journalists.
Why does the ACM need to publish this? What purpose does this article serve?
Of course we need to “acknowledge the problem”. But saying that implies that we haven’t. Literally everyone on social media recognizes this. Gallons of ink have been spilt on this topic, most of which offers actual insights, unlike this empty page.
Edit: If you’re actually interested in understanding how social media influenced the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, check out this great series by Erin Kissane: https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-part-i-the-setup
You should point your frustration at inaction.
I’m a little sad this ended up in the ACM. There’s plenty of shit computing can be tried and convicted of as a discipline… This ain’t it.