5 ms·

OMG THIS. I recently deleted social media apps from my phone, and replaced most of my social media diet with reading books again, like I did in the good olde d

by beat 8y ago

OMG THIS. I recently deleted social media apps from my phone, and replaced most of my social media diet with reading books again, like I did in the good olde days before the internet. I feel... healthier. Smarter, for sure. After reading a ton of philosophy and history recently, the day-to-day political debate on the internet looks like nonsense most of the time now. And when I see someone is wrong on the internet, I can just let them be wrong on the internet. Because it doesn't matter, it won't last. Reading the classics, books of deep thought and proven quality, is wonderful.

chrisco255 8y ago
Nothing wrong with that, sounds very healthy, but does it also mean you're not engaging in one of the most influential public forums of our time? Why do you think it won't last?
- beat 8y ago
  Social media will last. The things said on social media won't last. But a thousand years from now, people will still be reading Spinoza, because his philosophy will never become irrelevant.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
MrEfficiency 8y ago
Social media is just as untrustworthy as traditional news. Friends sharing news/propaganda from various outlets. Fake users astroturfing on reddit/twitter/HN/facebook/insta. I dont know what the future is, but I'm positive its going to be first-hand sources. At least that way, you are going to be skeptical the entire time and that persons reputation is at stake.
- beat 8y ago
  We kind of have that first-hand future already. Consider Trump's twitter feed. He speaks directly to the public, in a simple and direct way, largely immune to editing/manipulation. Sure, it's insane, but it's the most direct communication we've ever had from a president, and that's kind of impressive. But in general, the problem with first hand sources is credibility. How do you know you can trust a first hand source you've never heard of? Are they giving us a complete or fair picture? Or are they either unintentionally or intentionally misleading us with incomplete/incorrect information? I'd like to say the future is in credibility and integrity, but I fear that's actually the past. Now, people just believe what they want to believe, and pick and choose their facts to fit their internal narrative. It's nihilistic and terrifying, and I have no idea how society can resist it.
  - PAClearner 8y ago
    Reading a full unedited transcription of a speech from a president is also pretty direct... that's existed for 150 years at least i.e. https://yorkblog.com/yorkspast/read-the-actual-article-next-day-newspaper-coverage-of-lincolns-gettysburg-address/ https://yorkblog.com/yorkspast/read-the-actual-article-next-...
    - beat 8y ago
      Unfortunately, most people lack the patience for such things. I remember in 2016, Hillary would give deeply detailed hour-long policy speeches about all sorts of stuff, and then her critics would claim she didn't have detailed plans. Sigh. (Not a question of whether you agree or disagree with them, but nobody rational writes and delivers an hour-long policy speech that's a straight-up lie about their intentions.)

by beat 8y ago

chrisco255 8y ago

Nothing wrong with that, sounds very healthy, but does it also mean you're not engaging in one of the most influential public forums of our time? Why do you think it won't last?

beat 8y ago
Social media will last. The things said on social media won't last. But a thousand years from now, people will still be reading Spinoza, because his philosophy will never become irrelevant.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

MrEfficiency 8y ago

Social media is just as untrustworthy as traditional news. Friends sharing news/propaganda from various outlets. Fake users astroturfing on reddit/twitter/HN/facebook/insta. I dont know what the future is, but I'm positive its going to be first-hand sources. At least that way, you are going to be skeptical the entire time and that persons reputation is at stake.

beat 8y ago
We kind of have that first-hand future already. Consider Trump's twitter feed. He speaks directly to the public, in a simple and direct way, largely immune to editing/manipulation. Sure, it's insane, but it's the most direct communication we've ever had from a president, and that's kind of impressive. But in general, the problem with first hand sources is credibility. How do you know you can trust a first hand source you've never heard of? Are they giving us a complete or fair picture? Or are they either unintentionally or intentionally misleading us with incomplete/incorrect information? I'd like to say the future is in credibility and integrity, but I fear that's actually the past. Now, people just believe what they want to believe, and pick and choose their facts to fit their internal narrative. It's nihilistic and terrifying, and I have no idea how society can resist it.
- PAClearner 8y ago
  Reading a full unedited transcription of a speech from a president is also pretty direct... that's existed for 150 years at least i.e. https://yorkblog.com/yorkspast/read-the-actual-article-next-day-newspaper-coverage-of-lincolns-gettysburg-address/ https://yorkblog.com/yorkspast/read-the-actual-article-next-...
  - beat 8y ago
    Unfortunately, most people lack the patience for such things. I remember in 2016, Hillary would give deeply detailed hour-long policy speeches about all sorts of stuff, and then her critics would claim she didn't have detailed plans. Sigh. (Not a question of whether you agree or disagree with them, but nobody rational writes and delivers an hour-long policy speech that's a straight-up lie about their intentions.)