13 ms·

I absolutely abhor the current state of social media and its usage by young people. As a teenager myself, I have both experienced and observed the negative infl

I absolutely abhor the current state of social media and its usage by young people. As a teenager myself, I have both experienced and observed the negative influences of these outlets and consider their existence unethical. Far too often have these apps condoned terrible deeds while encouraging foolish acts of vanity. As a young person, you feel compelled to participate in digital fads -- like "challenges" or "pranks" -- or risk being ostracized. Regardless of how extreme these things get, social media always manages to make them popular by appealing to a semi-educated audience -- teens. Social media is providing young people with an accessible form of communication, but its current mainstream implementation is seriously flawed. Every image or text seems to be filtered; kids are evaluating their self worth based on how close their photos resemble other heavily edited pictures. Trying to discuss actual topics is almost impossible because flagging dissenting views has become the primary form of discourse. Virtue signaling seems to be the only way to not be branded as a menace to society. Oh, and there's the whole problem of adults abusing their authority and fame to manipulate the reactions of kids. There needs to be regulations which prohibit apps from generating content which incites such stupidity. Sure, freedom of speech is precious but when kids interact with one another under the impression that there is limited oversight, they do dumb things. We've all been kids and we can at least attest to that.

laumars 8y ago
> Trying to discuss actual topics is almost impossible because flagging dissenting views has become the primary form of discourse. I see this happening a lot on HN as well. I think the issue isn't so much age or education but rather people are lazy and/or don't often like confrontation.
- jcims 8y ago
  I think HN does a better job of moderating than most. The times I do see dissenting views getting the boot is when the person can't manage to air those views without being a shithead. If you're a solitary voice for a perspective it can be hard to find the balance of force and civility necessary to get your point across, but it is important.
- geomark 8y ago
  Agree. Although HN is better than most forums (hats off to the mods), you see many cases where a comment does add to the discussion but is clearly unpopular and gets neg rep'd because others did not agree with that point of view. That is really childish. As someone else pointed out, it's the edge cases that are interesting, and even if (especially if) I don't agree I want to see the opposing comments.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Not really, I post a lot of opinions that goes against what I thought were sacred cows on HN and usually I net positive votes from it.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    Hah! Try going against the real sacred cows and watch what happens. :) I guarantee you I could easily shed 100 karma here in an hour, with civil language and politely advocating one of those forbidden opinions.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Let's see, I've said positive things about Microsoft, advocated "wall gardens", negative things about open source being the holy grail. defining a "successful" company as one that's profitable, negative things about Google and Android, there is life for developers outside of FAANG and west coast startups. Which sacred cows did I miss?
      - ryandrake 8y ago
        You’ll find plenty in this trash fire: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864026 Look for the light gray posts.
        scarface74 8y ago
        Except for one or two, that were definitely against HN guidelines, you’re right. Most of the comments were downvoted because of opinions. It was used as a “I disagree” not as a “this is disrespectful, not adding to the conversation, not factually correct (4 == 3). I try to only downvote in those situations. I will flag any submission that I see is over political even one that I agree with. Politics and religion topics rarely lead to intellectually stimulating discussion.
coralreef 8y ago
r/iamverysmart
- Memosyne 8y ago
  I was under the impression that this forum discouraged these types of comments.
  - Jaruzel 8y ago
    It does. Someone will be along to kill it shortly. Also I think when you have enough karma, you can flag comments for review.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - onion2k 8y ago
      Also I think when you have enough karma, you can flag comments for review. Yep, but the option is hidden away. You have to click on the comment time to view it first.
      - Jaruzel 8y ago
        Yeah, I do flag stuff from time to time, but I wasn't sure when I got the ability to do so.
DocTomoe 8y ago
> Sure, freedom of speech is precious but The rallying call of cryptofascists everywhere.
- Memosyne 8y ago
  I believe people who can construct rational arguments deserve to be heard. Generally speaking, kids themselves aren't very rational. I mean, the reason we have an educational system is to provide kids a foundation of knowledge to nurture. Why should we allow these kids access to an irrational source of knowledge that could misguide or harm them?
  - keithpeter 8y ago
    I suspect that people generally don't exhibit rationality when making small daily decisions - Kahneman et al. I think that teenagers need to practice filtering and evaluating their use of online services somehow so they can decide for themselves when things are getting out of hand. That implies some form of foundation or ground to stand on so to speak.
    - js8 8y ago
      "I suspect that people generally don't exhibit rationality when making small daily decisions - Kahneman et al." I wouldn't go as far to claim that they don't "exhibit rationality". I think that we are pretty rational as different beings come (we don't know of anything that comes close to human common sense). What Kahneman is talking about mostly are heuristics, which sometimes can be exploited and lead to irrational behavior.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    Sure, social media tends to bring out some negative characteristics in people, and giving air to bad or incorrect ideas. But suppressing people's rights in order to "save the children" (mirroring Christian scares from the 80s/90s) is not the answer. If it were up to me, schools would be providing kids with the tools they need to navigate modern life. Critical thinking skills and psychological tools for mental wellness for a start. Banning things should always be a last resort in my opinion because it never seems to work the way you expect, and can have chilling effects on things you may not be against. Plus the fact that it's presumptive to assume that you know what's best for everyone else on the planet.
chrisdone 8y ago
> There needs to be stricter regulations which prohibit apps I was agreeing with you until there. We don't need censorship. Anything you see online is a reflection of the attitudes and education of the people using it.
- Memosyne 8y ago
  Do you have any ideas on how else we could fix these problems? Maybe the problem lies in a lack of education on how to navigate these platforms responsibly?
  - Baeocystin 8y ago
    Without commenting further on this specific issue (and not pointing fingers, either. I understand the drive to make things better comes from a good place) But. Take heed from someone who lived in communist China in the 70s/80s- all mechanisms of social control outlive their creators. And censorship is a very, very powerful tool. So be very, very careful in invoking that technique as a good idea. Or, put another way, if there's a wasp buzzing in the room, plugging one's ears to its sound doesn't make it go away. You just no longer know when you're about to get stung. As for how to navigate these platforms responsibly- people have to care about consequences, and social media of the modern form is still too new for society to have come to grips with it. I think it will happen with time, as a mix of cultural and legal adaptations. As to what form that will ultimately take, well... Good question, that.
  - werbel 8y ago
    Each phone ping, like, comment, reply, follow is a dopamine shot. You know what else gives people dopamine shot? The next piece of chocolate cake, the cigarette that's always overdue, having the drink after long day of work, finally being able to hit the bong and so on. "Social media" is as much of an addiction on a biological level as drugs. We know that prohibition doesn't work. We should start with helping people find ways to feed their (dopamine) reward system with more meaningful stuff. Help accomplish them small and bigger things, promote real human interaction.
  - CookieMon 8y ago
sametmax 8y ago
You had all this before social media. In school I have been made fun of, I have been beaten, people have stolen from me and destroyed my properties. They made pranks, used peer pressure and had huge vanity and popularity contests, while all playing the conformity game. It is not a technical problem: social medias just magnify the characteristics of the existing society. I don't own a FB account myself, but for different reasons. Toxic behavior is not the right one IMO, because the solution to this is education on the long run, and on the short run, learning to defend yourself and getting closer to people and environments that suit you better. The problem with school (if you happen to be in one where you don't fit) is that you don't have the ability to change environment, you are stuck with the same people, and you will be punished for defending yourself. However, outside of school, and especially on internet, you have all the latitude to do it. So it's only a problem if you focus on the wrong that people do, instead of the good you can do to yourself.
- Demigod33 8y ago
  > The problem with school Have you thought of viable solutions for this?
  - avip 8y ago
    Most/all of these issues are immediately solvable if your family can afford private education.
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      yes and no. usually this fixes the quality of the education (although there do exist some that are weak academically), but private schools can still be very toxic places. not even all the rich white kids fit in.
      - avip 8y ago
        OP referred to immobility as a main concern. Private education solves that. So do many public education systems (ex. the Netherlands) that give parents more freedom in choosing institutions suitable for their kids.
jayd16 8y ago
Eh, get used to this, buddy. That's just peer pressure. Every generation blames the latest form of media but really its just humanity and we're _the worst_. Regulations just leads to further abuse but with more authority. Just do your best to identify and avoid toxic situations.
boobsbr 8y ago
> There needs to be regulations which prohibit apps from generating content which incites such stupidity. Ban things I don't like.
appleflaxen 8y ago
Your complaints are totally valid until you get to this part > There needs to be regulations which prohibit apps from generating content which incites such stupidity. Sure, freedom of speech is precious but when kids interact with one another under the impression that there is limited oversight, they do dumb things. We've all been kids and we can at least attest to that. The appropriate entity to police children's behavior is the parent. Some parents do a crappy job, but the state tends to do it even worse. Some people might feel just as strongly as you do about "violent video games" (defined in some arbitrary way) or "rap music" or "morally objectionable literature" [1]. You wouldn't want them to regulate your use of these, and they don't want you to regulate their use of social media. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic#Examples
- jumbopapa 8y ago
  I'm glad we reached the same conclusion. So many people think that government can magically fix everything!
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    And others think that it can fix nothing and should provide no services, while you still pay taxes. I agree with you thar regulation is not an answer here, however there are places where the government has to step in, things like building regulations etc. and in my opinion single payer healthcare. It should however absolutely not step into a parental role.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  I don't see a problem with him having (in my opinion) poorly thought out opinions. This is why we let teenagers post stuff on the internet but don't let teenagers vote. System is working as intended. Nothing to see here.
  - TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
    I not only have no problem with their opinions, I wholeheartedly encourage them. It's by expressing them that the poster gets to read contrasting (and complementary) opinions and consider another point of view - and what better way to form a balanced view of a subject?
Bizarro 8y ago
There needs to be regulations which prohibit apps from generating content which incites such stupidity. Don't be like that. Think about that statement.
amelius 8y ago
What we need is a way to downvote stuff that we don't want to see. That doesn't mean that the person who posted should be able to see the amount of downvotes. It means that the algorithm shouldn't show me similar stuff in the future.
spr1ted 8y ago
Too bad the influence is big! The entire generation will be easily to manipulate. The reason FB/Twitter lost over 20% in stocks in one day, is because the spying and manipulating fake news the government used as so-called 'anti-propaganda'. This is going way deeper.
nyxtom 8y ago
Hmm, maybe it's just me but I don't see social media that way. I mean sure there is a large portion dedicated to that, but I tend to think there is an even larger portion dedicated to creation, sharing incredible things happening in the world, and otherwise content that I would have to go out of my way to realize were happening. The ability to see in real-time when rocket launches happen, when new discoveries are made, to learn about anything you could possibly ever want in a curated feed. I have learned so many random skills from watching YouTube or joined monthly workout or yoga challenges. There is a lot to not like about social media, but that seems more like a curation issue and learning when to disconnect from tech and go outside, or try something new.
will_brown 8y ago
> kids are evaluating their self worth based on how close their photos resemble other heavily edited pictures. It’s not just “kids”, I am 35 and I see my peers posting images of themselves in their Calvin Kline underwear. These of course are not models being paid, but are obviously replicating professional CK model shoots of the Kardashians. Maybe instead of like buttons, there should be a take this crap down, examine your actions and seek professional help button.
- jodrellblank 8y ago
  I'm only vaguely familiar with the Kardashian name, assumed your peers would be other males and thought CK was a male brand. Quoted your comment to a friend referencing social media peer pressure, and they said: "Is this men or women posing? [..] the language about models and comparison to the Kardashians... and also the contempt... make me think they're talking about women." When I questioned it: "I mean, you have to admit, speaking with that kind of contempt about /men/ is a tad less common" And then shows me that CK does clothes for women, there are no (living) male Kardashians of note, and the Kardashian women have done a CK photoshoot. I don't know what to make of this, except you might want to know you're apparently telegraphing "contempt for women" loudly enough for it to come through on a second hand reading.
findbearwitch 8y ago
If we break down a subset of human needs/characteristics in the following manner: + seeking approval and belonging to the tribe + comparison drive for fear of missing out + chemical rush associated with bullying behavior These are a subset of behaviors and clearly abstracted (not the scientific or core components of behavior) but are used for example purposes. In these cases, social media provides a platform for conducting these behaviors and elevates the individuals that push the behaviors to the noticeable extreme. In fact, social media with all the likes, shares, followers, friends, is based on the principle that certain behaviors are celebrated and others ignored. Adding to the fact that it's difficult for humans to develop self-awareness, maturity, empathy, as most adults are fairly lacking in these areas; therefore, social media will be filled with behaviors that are hateful, ignorant, bullying and more. One potential solution to combat such behavior is having a suggestion box in the feeds that can tell when bullying behavior is happening and suggest to both the bully and the bullied, how to handle or develop empathy/self awareness. The feature could be required reading, it could create a forced break in usage. This is more about educating than censoring, as it's difficult to censor, easier to educate. Especially with potential false positives. Thoughts?
tenebrisalietum 8y ago
People under a certain age (16, 14, don't know the best) shouldn't be legally allowed to use ad-backed social media, or be allowed in stores without parents being present. Social media being defined as anything with a comment field. Stores being defined as any site that accepts payment or a building that has a cash register. If you are in a legal class (minor) that says you are not legally allowed to work or be self-sufficient, why are you allowed in a place/website that primarily exists to sell you things or engage with a place/website whose primary business purpose is to expose you to ads in order to sell you things indirectly?
tolmasky 8y ago
I have always been wary of assigning fault to things that have no agency (such as "technology" or "social media"). Don't get me wrong, clearly it is possible for inanimate objects to be causal when it comes to negative affects: a meteor hitting earth may not bare any "moral responsibility", but obviously if we could stop all meteors we would. I also concede that we sometimes use the general abstract technology as a shorthand for the those that may control it (in other words, being angry at social media may mean you are angry at those currently in control of social media, which is totally fair). All that being said, I am still ultimately troubled by what appears to me as an almost "helplessness" in face of these technologies. We could theoretically everything from NSA wiretapping to long-range coordination of crime to the invention of the telephone. But for some reason, people have a sense that the telephone is just a tool, and part of the tradeoff of any tool is that it can allow bad things as well as good. Ultimately most of this happens on the internet itself: great democratizer and megaphone for ideas good and bad. I feel we should begin to educate and look at this new breed of technologies (social media, etc.) the same way we look and educate with regard to stoves: they allow us to make tea, but be careful, you can also burn yourself. The thing I find most fascinating about this current discussion is with the repeated proposal of regulating or "nationalizing" social networks. One of the favorite arguments of those speaking out against social media is that since they are private companies, the rules of "free speech" do not have to apply: Facebook and Twitter are free to take a stand on acceptable speech far more opinionated than the Federal government. And yet, if we were to nationalize social networks, they would then necessarily fall under the First Amendment: meaning the speech posted on there should absolutely be protected, and thus accomplishing the exact opposite goal. I want to make clear that I think the anxiety you and many others feel regarding these new technologies is completely justified. I believe however that you and all of us are much more in control of our destinies than we think though. Then again, I come from the age of the early internet when many of us felt the web was the place where the little guy could absolutely win -- this may be a completely incorrect notion now, but it doesn't yet feel like it to me. Technology moves quicker and quicker, and thus will always feel like "this time is different", and perhaps eventually it will be, but I think the flip side to this built-in fickleness is that we get a lot of redos, and we shouldn't jump to creating legislation that addresses a very specific moment in history that for all we know will be over in the blink of an eye, but have repercussions we don't fully understand for much longer.
sridca 8y ago
> As a young person, you feel compelled to participate in digital fads -- like "challenges" or "pranks" -- or risk being ostracized Could you elaborate on this?

laumars 8y ago

> Trying to discuss actual topics is almost impossible because flagging dissenting views has become the primary form of discourse. I see this happening a lot on HN as well. I think the issue isn't so much age or education but rather people are lazy and/or don't often like confrontation.

jcims 8y ago
I think HN does a better job of moderating than most. The times I do see dissenting views getting the boot is when the person can't manage to air those views without being a shithead. If you're a solitary voice for a perspective it can be hard to find the balance of force and civility necessary to get your point across, but it is important.
geomark 8y ago
Agree. Although HN is better than most forums (hats off to the mods), you see many cases where a comment does add to the discussion but is clearly unpopular and gets neg rep'd because others did not agree with that point of view. That is really childish. As someone else pointed out, it's the edge cases that are interesting, and even if (especially if) I don't agree I want to see the opposing comments.
scarface74 8y ago
Not really, I post a lot of opinions that goes against what I thought were sacred cows on HN and usually I net positive votes from it.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Hah! Try going against the real sacred cows and watch what happens. :) I guarantee you I could easily shed 100 karma here in an hour, with civil language and politely advocating one of those forbidden opinions.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Let's see, I've said positive things about Microsoft, advocated "wall gardens", negative things about open source being the holy grail. defining a "successful" company as one that's profitable, negative things about Google and Android, there is life for developers outside of FAANG and west coast startups. Which sacred cows did I miss?
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      You’ll find plenty in this trash fire: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864026 Look for the light gray posts.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Except for one or two, that were definitely against HN guidelines, you’re right. Most of the comments were downvoted because of opinions. It was used as a “I disagree” not as a “this is disrespectful, not adding to the conversation, not factually correct (4 == 3). I try to only downvote in those situations. I will flag any submission that I see is over political even one that I agree with. Politics and religion topics rarely lead to intellectually stimulating discussion.

coralreef 8y ago

r/iamverysmart

Memosyne 8y ago
I was under the impression that this forum discouraged these types of comments.
- Jaruzel 8y ago
  It does. Someone will be along to kill it shortly. Also I think when you have enough karma, you can flag comments for review.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - onion2k 8y ago
    Also I think when you have enough karma, you can flag comments for review. Yep, but the option is hidden away. You have to click on the comment time to view it first.
    - Jaruzel 8y ago
      Yeah, I do flag stuff from time to time, but I wasn't sure when I got the ability to do so.

DocTomoe 8y ago

> Sure, freedom of speech is precious but The rallying call of cryptofascists everywhere.

Memosyne 8y ago
I believe people who can construct rational arguments deserve to be heard. Generally speaking, kids themselves aren't very rational. I mean, the reason we have an educational system is to provide kids a foundation of knowledge to nurture. Why should we allow these kids access to an irrational source of knowledge that could misguide or harm them?
- keithpeter 8y ago
  I suspect that people generally don't exhibit rationality when making small daily decisions - Kahneman et al. I think that teenagers need to practice filtering and evaluating their use of online services somehow so they can decide for themselves when things are getting out of hand. That implies some form of foundation or ground to stand on so to speak.
  - js8 8y ago
    "I suspect that people generally don't exhibit rationality when making small daily decisions - Kahneman et al." I wouldn't go as far to claim that they don't "exhibit rationality". I think that we are pretty rational as different beings come (we don't know of anything that comes close to human common sense). What Kahneman is talking about mostly are heuristics, which sometimes can be exploited and lead to irrational behavior.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  Sure, social media tends to bring out some negative characteristics in people, and giving air to bad or incorrect ideas. But suppressing people's rights in order to "save the children" (mirroring Christian scares from the 80s/90s) is not the answer. If it were up to me, schools would be providing kids with the tools they need to navigate modern life. Critical thinking skills and psychological tools for mental wellness for a start. Banning things should always be a last resort in my opinion because it never seems to work the way you expect, and can have chilling effects on things you may not be against. Plus the fact that it's presumptive to assume that you know what's best for everyone else on the planet.

chrisdone 8y ago

> There needs to be stricter regulations which prohibit apps I was agreeing with you until there. We don't need censorship. Anything you see online is a reflection of the attitudes and education of the people using it.

Memosyne 8y ago
Do you have any ideas on how else we could fix these problems? Maybe the problem lies in a lack of education on how to navigate these platforms responsibly?
- Baeocystin 8y ago
  Without commenting further on this specific issue (and not pointing fingers, either. I understand the drive to make things better comes from a good place) But. Take heed from someone who lived in communist China in the 70s/80s- all mechanisms of social control outlive their creators. And censorship is a very, very powerful tool. So be very, very careful in invoking that technique as a good idea. Or, put another way, if there's a wasp buzzing in the room, plugging one's ears to its sound doesn't make it go away. You just no longer know when you're about to get stung. As for how to navigate these platforms responsibly- people have to care about consequences, and social media of the modern form is still too new for society to have come to grips with it. I think it will happen with time, as a mix of cultural and legal adaptations. As to what form that will ultimately take, well... Good question, that.
- werbel 8y ago
  Each phone ping, like, comment, reply, follow is a dopamine shot. You know what else gives people dopamine shot? The next piece of chocolate cake, the cigarette that's always overdue, having the drink after long day of work, finally being able to hit the bong and so on. "Social media" is as much of an addiction on a biological level as drugs. We know that prohibition doesn't work. We should start with helping people find ways to feed their (dopamine) reward system with more meaningful stuff. Help accomplish them small and bigger things, promote real human interaction.
- CookieMon 8y ago

sametmax 8y ago

You had all this before social media. In school I have been made fun of, I have been beaten, people have stolen from me and destroyed my properties. They made pranks, used peer pressure and had huge vanity and popularity contests, while all playing the conformity game. It is not a technical problem: social medias just magnify the characteristics of the existing society. I don't own a FB account myself, but for different reasons. Toxic behavior is not the right one IMO, because the solution to this is education on the long run, and on the short run, learning to defend yourself and getting closer to people and environments that suit you better. The problem with school (if you happen to be in one where you don't fit) is that you don't have the ability to change environment, you are stuck with the same people, and you will be punished for defending yourself. However, outside of school, and especially on internet, you have all the latitude to do it. So it's only a problem if you focus on the wrong that people do, instead of the good you can do to yourself.

Demigod33 8y ago
> The problem with school Have you thought of viable solutions for this?
- avip 8y ago
  Most/all of these issues are immediately solvable if your family can afford private education.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    yes and no. usually this fixes the quality of the education (although there do exist some that are weak academically), but private schools can still be very toxic places. not even all the rich white kids fit in.
    - avip 8y ago
      OP referred to immobility as a main concern. Private education solves that. So do many public education systems (ex. the Netherlands) that give parents more freedom in choosing institutions suitable for their kids.

jayd16 8y ago

Eh, get used to this, buddy. That's just peer pressure. Every generation blames the latest form of media but really its just humanity and we're _the worst_. Regulations just leads to further abuse but with more authority. Just do your best to identify and avoid toxic situations.

boobsbr 8y ago

> There needs to be regulations which prohibit apps from generating content which incites such stupidity. Ban things I don't like.

appleflaxen 8y ago

Your complaints are totally valid until you get to this part > There needs to be regulations which prohibit apps from generating content which incites such stupidity. Sure, freedom of speech is precious but when kids interact with one another under the impression that there is limited oversight, they do dumb things. We've all been kids and we can at least attest to that. The appropriate entity to police children's behavior is the parent. Some parents do a crappy job, but the state tends to do it even worse. Some people might feel just as strongly as you do about "violent video games" (defined in some arbitrary way) or "rap music" or "morally objectionable literature" [1]. You wouldn't want them to regulate your use of these, and they don't want you to regulate their use of social media. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic#Examples

jumbopapa 8y ago
I'm glad we reached the same conclusion. So many people think that government can magically fix everything!
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  And others think that it can fix nothing and should provide no services, while you still pay taxes. I agree with you thar regulation is not an answer here, however there are places where the government has to step in, things like building regulations etc. and in my opinion single payer healthcare. It should however absolutely not step into a parental role.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
I don't see a problem with him having (in my opinion) poorly thought out opinions. This is why we let teenagers post stuff on the internet but don't let teenagers vote. System is working as intended. Nothing to see here.
- TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
  I not only have no problem with their opinions, I wholeheartedly encourage them. It's by expressing them that the poster gets to read contrasting (and complementary) opinions and consider another point of view - and what better way to form a balanced view of a subject?

Bizarro 8y ago

There needs to be regulations which prohibit apps from generating content which incites such stupidity. Don't be like that. Think about that statement.

amelius 8y ago

What we need is a way to downvote stuff that we don't want to see. That doesn't mean that the person who posted should be able to see the amount of downvotes. It means that the algorithm shouldn't show me similar stuff in the future.

spr1ted 8y ago

Too bad the influence is big! The entire generation will be easily to manipulate. The reason FB/Twitter lost over 20% in stocks in one day, is because the spying and manipulating fake news the government used as so-called 'anti-propaganda'. This is going way deeper.

nyxtom 8y ago

Hmm, maybe it's just me but I don't see social media that way. I mean sure there is a large portion dedicated to that, but I tend to think there is an even larger portion dedicated to creation, sharing incredible things happening in the world, and otherwise content that I would have to go out of my way to realize were happening. The ability to see in real-time when rocket launches happen, when new discoveries are made, to learn about anything you could possibly ever want in a curated feed. I have learned so many random skills from watching YouTube or joined monthly workout or yoga challenges. There is a lot to not like about social media, but that seems more like a curation issue and learning when to disconnect from tech and go outside, or try something new.

will_brown 8y ago

> kids are evaluating their self worth based on how close their photos resemble other heavily edited pictures. It’s not just “kids”, I am 35 and I see my peers posting images of themselves in their Calvin Kline underwear. These of course are not models being paid, but are obviously replicating professional CK model shoots of the Kardashians. Maybe instead of like buttons, there should be a take this crap down, examine your actions and seek professional help button.

jodrellblank 8y ago
I'm only vaguely familiar with the Kardashian name, assumed your peers would be other males and thought CK was a male brand. Quoted your comment to a friend referencing social media peer pressure, and they said: "Is this men or women posing? [..] the language about models and comparison to the Kardashians... and also the contempt... make me think they're talking about women." When I questioned it: "I mean, you have to admit, speaking with that kind of contempt about /men/ is a tad less common" And then shows me that CK does clothes for women, there are no (living) male Kardashians of note, and the Kardashian women have done a CK photoshoot. I don't know what to make of this, except you might want to know you're apparently telegraphing "contempt for women" loudly enough for it to come through on a second hand reading.

findbearwitch 8y ago

If we break down a subset of human needs/characteristics in the following manner: + seeking approval and belonging to the tribe + comparison drive for fear of missing out + chemical rush associated with bullying behavior These are a subset of behaviors and clearly abstracted (not the scientific or core components of behavior) but are used for example purposes. In these cases, social media provides a platform for conducting these behaviors and elevates the individuals that push the behaviors to the noticeable extreme. In fact, social media with all the likes, shares, followers, friends, is based on the principle that certain behaviors are celebrated and others ignored. Adding to the fact that it's difficult for humans to develop self-awareness, maturity, empathy, as most adults are fairly lacking in these areas; therefore, social media will be filled with behaviors that are hateful, ignorant, bullying and more. One potential solution to combat such behavior is having a suggestion box in the feeds that can tell when bullying behavior is happening and suggest to both the bully and the bullied, how to handle or develop empathy/self awareness. The feature could be required reading, it could create a forced break in usage. This is more about educating than censoring, as it's difficult to censor, easier to educate. Especially with potential false positives. Thoughts?

tenebrisalietum 8y ago

People under a certain age (16, 14, don't know the best) shouldn't be legally allowed to use ad-backed social media, or be allowed in stores without parents being present. Social media being defined as anything with a comment field. Stores being defined as any site that accepts payment or a building that has a cash register. If you are in a legal class (minor) that says you are not legally allowed to work or be self-sufficient, why are you allowed in a place/website that primarily exists to sell you things or engage with a place/website whose primary business purpose is to expose you to ads in order to sell you things indirectly?

tolmasky 8y ago

I have always been wary of assigning fault to things that have no agency (such as "technology" or "social media"). Don't get me wrong, clearly it is possible for inanimate objects to be causal when it comes to negative affects: a meteor hitting earth may not bare any "moral responsibility", but obviously if we could stop all meteors we would. I also concede that we sometimes use the general abstract technology as a shorthand for the those that may control it (in other words, being angry at social media may mean you are angry at those currently in control of social media, which is totally fair). All that being said, I am still ultimately troubled by what appears to me as an almost "helplessness" in face of these technologies. We could theoretically everything from NSA wiretapping to long-range coordination of crime to the invention of the telephone. But for some reason, people have a sense that the telephone is just a tool, and part of the tradeoff of any tool is that it can allow bad things as well as good. Ultimately most of this happens on the internet itself: great democratizer and megaphone for ideas good and bad. I feel we should begin to educate and look at this new breed of technologies (social media, etc.) the same way we look and educate with regard to stoves: they allow us to make tea, but be careful, you can also burn yourself. The thing I find most fascinating about this current discussion is with the repeated proposal of regulating or "nationalizing" social networks. One of the favorite arguments of those speaking out against social media is that since they are private companies, the rules of "free speech" do not have to apply: Facebook and Twitter are free to take a stand on acceptable speech far more opinionated than the Federal government. And yet, if we were to nationalize social networks, they would then necessarily fall under the First Amendment: meaning the speech posted on there should absolutely be protected, and thus accomplishing the exact opposite goal. I want to make clear that I think the anxiety you and many others feel regarding these new technologies is completely justified. I believe however that you and all of us are much more in control of our destinies than we think though. Then again, I come from the age of the early internet when many of us felt the web was the place where the little guy could absolutely win -- this may be a completely incorrect notion now, but it doesn't yet feel like it to me. Technology moves quicker and quicker, and thus will always feel like "this time is different", and perhaps eventually it will be, but I think the flip side to this built-in fickleness is that we get a lot of redos, and we shouldn't jump to creating legislation that addresses a very specific moment in history that for all we know will be over in the blink of an eye, but have repercussions we don't fully understand for much longer.

sridca 8y ago

> As a young person, you feel compelled to participate in digital fads -- like "challenges" or "pranks" -- or risk being ostracized Could you elaborate on this?