At first, the distribution of a message was limited to the immediate vicinity, to whoever was willing to listen. As the game of telephone shows, messages distributed orally tend to rapidly become distorted, then forgotten. Nutjobs could be rapidly forgotten and were limited in the followers that could be attracted.

The invention of writing increased the duration and decreased the distortion of the message. Carving on clay or stone took considerable time and resources, and limited distribution to whoever could physically see the message. Still, it was an asynchronous process, not requiring the person receiving the message to be present at the time of distribution. As stone monuments and the thousands of clay tablets found at Babylon (often mundane issues such as sales receipts and property titles, showing the Babylonians had the same problems as those of us in what we call modern times) show, messages now had permanence and could exist long after their usefulness had crumbled to dust. It still limited receipt of the message because the reader had to have access to the physical item, and literacy was limited. Thus, nutjobs tended to be rich and have political power before they could do much damage, because message distribution was expensive.

Papyrus and paper greatly improved distribution of messages. Light and easy to carry, and far less fragile than clay tablets, written messages greatly reduced message transmission errors and made it easier to govern distant provinces. However, if a message was to reach multiple recipients, then either that same copy had to go from receiver to receiver, thus delaying distribution time, or multiple copies needed to be made. Since this required hand copying, the message was still delayed and subject to the introduction of errors. Copying a book was an expensive proposition, which made them expensive, although it was slightly easier when the codex form was used instead of the scroll (which also made it easier to read). There is an old joke about a young monk being introduced to the monasteries’ book copying production by the head of the monastery. He is shown one of the most important books they copy, one that had been copied for decades, the basic instruction book on how monks were to behave. The young monk asked about the accuracy of copying so many times. The head monk was offended, and said he’d get the original to show him that the monastery did not make those kinds of mistakes. After several hours, the young monk found the old monk in the lowest levels of the library, crying. “My god,” said the monk, “the word was celebrate!”

The printing press with moveable type truly allowed mass distribution. Although setting up pages could be labor intensive, once the type was set several copies a minute could be made. Without mass literacy, this still limited distribution to those who could read the book and tell others about it, and it still took time to diffuse the message. But because many more copies could be made for far less effort, more books were created and because books became more available, literacy increased, which in turn increased the demand for books. Nutjobs could better distribute their messages, although it was still costly to produce a book and required the potential follower to spend considerable money to get a copy – which limited interest. As printing technology improved, so did the ability for nutjobs to spread nonsense, but the requirement to read slowed distribution.

The telegraph allowed messages to be distributed in minutes what might have taken weeks in written form. This allowed even local newspapers to carry distant news in a timely manner. Still, it was expensive and thus tended not to be used for mass messaging.

Then radio and television came along, greatly decreasing the cost of both distributing and receiving the message. It also added other elements such as audio and visual elements. Because it was much easier to receive the message, far more people could listen and later watch, and receiving the message was much less difficult. The speed of receiving the message, often live, harkened back to the early days of simple oral communication, but now to a far larger audience. Also, because it was live, unlike print there was seldom time to contemplate and review what was being said. You had to listen closely or miss part of the message. Because of the expense of setting up transmission equipment, it was still hard for nutjobs to access the airwaves, and government control of those airwaves sometimes limited the contents of messages. Because messages were synchronous, like oral messages, you had to listen at the time of sending or miss it.

The addition of recordings allowed asynchronous messages and also allowed reruns. While recording methods such as wax cylinders and later records and movies existed and allowed messages to be distributed broadly, they still required a physical method to distribute. Radio and television allowed essentially unlimited reception without the need for physical copies of the message to be distributed. As technology improved, it became easier and less expensive to send audio and video messages. At its inception, in part because of the difficulty and expense of transmitting messages, radio and television were inherently better trusted than print. This made it easier for nutjobs to find believers because use of the medium itself generated the perception that the message was trustworthy. This perception eroded as the medium became less novel and more people became exposed to how it could be abused.

The computer made all previous mediums look like amateur time when it came to distributing messages. Now messages can be easily distributed asynchronously in multiple forms, the internet never forgets, and you don’t even need to own a computer, just a library card. Any nutjob’s site is as easy to access as any competent one, even across international borders. Nutjob sites often look better than factual ones, and there’s no grading system to identify nutjob from professional. Far too many people still think what they see online is inherently more trustworthy than other media simply because it’s on a computer. With the addition of audio and visual elements and good SEO, it’s easier for the gullible and vulnerable to find nutjob sites and believe them over competent ones. Messages become more trustworthy even as they become simpler with the added elements. A picture is worth a thousand words because you don’t need many words if it’s the right picture. It’s also far easier to extract money from suckers when it’s easier to manipulate emotions. Algorithms are designed to give you more of what it appears you want because along with that comes more exposure to targeted messages, particularly advertising. They are not intended to inform you, they are intended to reinforce what they think you want, much like enabling a drug addict. It becomes self-reinforcing, like enabling an addict. We become less informed despite access to more information. Furthermore, with the rise of social media, messages are transformed from one-to-many into many-to-many, as messages are shared and discussed in social groups. A message from a fellow group member will be more likely to be trusted. However, bad (that is, false) messages are distributed just as easily as good (factual) ones, while correction messages, if sent, receive much less distribution. We spread what tends to match what we already believe (whether real or not), but spreading a correction requires admitting we were wrong.

This leads to today’s review of social media literature, specifically, “Exploring the impact of short-text complexity and structure on its quality in social media”, from the Journal of Enterprise Information Management. It explores short messages, such as those on X and similar services, and how such messages can be structure to increase trust. This is separate from trust granted due to the source of the message. Followers of accounts become used to the complexity of vocabulary and message structure in posts from that account and thus are more likely to inherently trust a message from that account that matches past posts. An unexpected change in either will make the message less trustworthy. The many-to-many structure makes identifying the quality (factualness) of a message more difficult. It also encourages the spread of memes, regardless of the truth of the meme.

The article discusses methods of “scrubbing” texts to mold the message to make it more impactful and to match the expected vocabulary and structure, which in turn makes it more trustworthy to followers. The rise of AI makes this increasingly easy for even individual use. Thus, manipulation of the message, regardless of the factualness of the manipulation, will make it more trustworthy to followers. However, understanding that vocabulary and structure can also make it easier to parse the message and identify how it was manipulated.

The article take a bit of reading and really deserves a better review. The prelude to my review is of course my own manipulated message that actually dumps less on social media than I usually do, which according to the conclusions of the article should make what I am posting less trustworthy to my follower (hi honey!). I REALLY don’t like the short text social media forums like X, because they can spread nonsense so easily and quickly. No amount of apology or correction can make up for the harm, and victims trying to get correction and restitution often end up with a Streisand Effect situation. And there is very little that can be done to stop those with malice or mental illness from causing irreparable harm. See this:  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9134jy0jo

Al Qundus, J., Paschke, A., Gupta, S., Alzouby, A., & Yousef, M. (2020, June 26). Exploring the impact of short-text complexity and structure on its quality in social media. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(6), 1443-1466. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/jeim-06-2019-0156/full/html

#snhusmm