花辨直播官方版_花辨直播平台官方app下载_花辨直播免费版app下载

Internet platforms often fuel hatred, prejudice and extreme sentiments among users. Media watchers explain the dynamic of swaying public opinion to Wang Yuke.

The Internet is undoubtedly the greatest scientific invention of the modern age. Its efficacy in connecting people and as a tool of research cannot be underscored. But then the Internet also has its dark side.

Experts are concerned about what appears to be a rapid breakdown of the social codes of conduct. The apparent anonymity of Internet users allows them to launch into aggressive behavior. This trend, say experts like Michael Chan Che-ming, assistant professor of Journalism and Communication at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), is the result of a whirlwind social revolution, brought on by an Internet culture, in which extreme views are allowed to muster support and flourish.

People who would otherwise be isolated in society because of the extreme views they hold and generally regarded as deviant misfits, may now join virtual communities to promote hatred, anarchy, misinformation and even encourage criminal conduct, Chan observed.

Three important factors play major roles in the breakdown of social standards: the ability to post online anonymously; the tyranny of the minority; and "confirmation bias" - seeking out those who share one's views while remaining closed to different opinions.

Many people post online anonymously. When individuals can get away with views that would be socially unacceptable, were it not for the cover of anonymity, they lose the inhibitions that normally would deter them from viciously mocking others.

Small groups of determined individuals may shape public opinion through what is commonly called "the tyranny of the minority". Nearly two years ago, Popular Science closed its readers' comments forum, declaring that comments by readers had become an impediment to intelligent scientific discourse, adding "even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story".

Last year's "Occupy Central" movement in Hong Kong is a good example of how the opinion of a few can sway popular perception. For 79 days thousands of protesters sat in on the streets, paralyzing the financial district. Public pages for promoting the so-called leaderless movement were created on Facebook and Twitter. Though the chaos on the streets was opposed by a great majority of Hong Kong residents, the movement, driven largely by social networking, caused the traffic in downtown Hong Kong to limp for more than two months, damaged the city's reputation in the international arena, and set the local economy back by billions of dollars. Social networks were able to summon demonstrators to various sites in the city, creating flash mobs through Twitter and other such platforms.

Echo chamber

"The possible outcome of social networks is the formation of echo chamber. It's very dangerous especially when people's opinions divide over political issues. Everyone echoes one another on a virtual platform, which might translate into radical and extreme actions in the real world," worries Chan. The phenomenon is called confirmation bias in social science terminology.

"Confirmation bias happens when one has evidence enough to draw a judgment but has not weighed different evidences equally, due to pre-conceptions," says Janet Hsiao, associate professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Hong Kong. She explains people who show confirmation bias have the predisposition to look for evidences consistent with their own beliefs, or to give disproportionate weight to evidence supporting those beliefs than to information that runs counter to their views.

The more repeatedly people absorb information aligned with their own beliefs, the more reinforced their confirmation bias becomes, prompting them to hold on to their positions even more strongly, said Hsiao.

Social networks are a great way to propagate confirmation bias. About 4.4 million people in Hong Kong use Facebook, according to a survey conducted by market researchers TNS in January 2014.

One of the dangers of the confirmation bias is that individuals holding moderate biases become radicalized by reading websites that support their biases.

"Imagine a person is slightly pro-democratic to begin with. As he reads more and more pro-democratic content, the chance is he would shift from being a tacit supporter to an extreme pro-democratic activist. The same goes for the emergence of pan-democratic extremists," Chan explains. "The consequence is that there is no middle ground on the political spectrum among social network users."

Some experts believe such a shift took place in the case of accused murderer Dylann Roof, a young man who had black friends, but became radicalized by white supremacist websites. Roof allegedly killed nine innocent African-American people attending a Bible study class in June in Charleston, South Carolina, United States.

Anti-mainland sentiments

Confirmation bias supported through social networking is seen as fuelling some of the anti-mainland sentiment sweeping Hong Kong, leading to protests in which a section of Hong Kong residents taunted mainland visitors, asking them to go back home.

"Anti-mainland Hong Kong protesters tend to look for information from social networks created by other anti-mainlander activists to support and consolidate their pre-existing beliefs. Consequently they think most people in Hong Kong feel the same way as they do. They may, however, have overlooked opinions from other people having a different attitude toward mainlanders," Hsiao adds, "Confirmation bias is a common bias that can significantly influence the accuracy of people's reasoning."

People have the tendency to allow themselves to be exposed more to online content that matches their own ideologies, interests and perspectives, and less to dissenting information. That's called selective exposure, says Chan Che-ming, who believes this helps polarize opinions on social networks.

Chan says social networks by no means enable in-depth discussion, because people don't bother to type long paragraphs on their Web pages or start dialogues with their virtual friends over political subjects. From his observation, social networks, including Facebook, Wechat and Whatsapp, are nothing but channels for people to make announcements, to air their opinions and vent anger.

"People simply post their emotional opinions on the Web. Not long afterwards, like-minded people jump in to hit 'like' or 'retweet' or comment. This echo chamber effect may give rise to collective action. For example, Hong Kong residents against mainland shoppers took advantage of social networks to initiate mass protests in Tuen Mun and Sha Tin by posting harsh words against mainland visitors in order to generate more anger and unite like-minded Hong Kong counterparts," said Chan.

"When people are challenged by an opposing view, a psychological discomfort arises automatically," Chan explained, "In such circumstances people feel an urge to remove the discomfort by explaining the dissent away or spinning and reinterpreting it to support their own point of view."

Social media like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram, as well as traditional broadcasting including television and radio, are capitalizing on this human "weak spot" by trying to influence users to tilt in favor of a particular political stance or the other. Fox News in the United States is known to manipulate viewers' opinions by playing on their confirmation bias instinct.

The social network groups in Hong Kong are no less active in this respect. A public page on Facebook, loosely translated as "Hatred", is created by anti-mainland activists. They call for locals who share the same mentality to sign their names and generate "likes". It has garnered 44,000 users' likes so far. The page is riddled with scathing accusations and sarcasm targeting mainlanders. A feed post in March from a Web user called for kicking out "mainland locusts".

Self-censoring desired

Liah Greenfeld, professor of sociology, political science, and anthropology at Boston University, feels the prospect of social networks helping to improve the human condition, and propagate greater understanding, fewer conflicts, more love, less hate, by opening up more channels of expression, is rather slim.

"The question itself is based on the very common assumption that all scientific and technological advances are good and must necessarily lead to the improvement of the human condition," Greenfeld remarks. "However, this assumption is historically unwarranted, in other words, wrong. So I would not expect that the new, advanced communication technologies would lead to the improvement of human condition. Specifically, as regards Hong Kong, social networks won't contribute to the improvement of relations between pro-mainland and anti-mainland factions."

How technology affects society depends far less on the nature of the technology itself than on the way it is used, and the goals and values directing it, concludes Greenfeld.

"Opinion polarization on social networks is a very tricky predicament and it's very hard to have it in check," says Charles Mok, a member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council representing the information technology sector.

While cyber-bullying or deliberate encouragement to violence are culpable offences, a law banning social networks users from expressing overly radical opinions is extremely unlikely, says Mok.

It is probably best to sort out differences of opinion offline. Mediators, whether from official or non-government organizations, can invite activists of different persuasions for an open, face-to-face, discussion. In the long run, however, Mok would like to see better-educated and hence more self-disciplined social network users.

Contact the writer at [email protected]

(HK Edition 07/28/2015 page9)