4 ms·

Read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. You will realize that Social Media is designed in such a way intentionally to draw toxicity from society. N

Read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. You will realize that Social Media is designed in such a way intentionally to draw toxicity from society. No technology is neutral. Technology gives and technology takes away. Medium is the message. Communication evolved because of the medium. For every evolution, it gives something and it takes away something. From oral communication to the printing press to telegraph to TV to the internet to social media. Every evolution gives birth to something and destroys something. For example, TV makes everyone reachable (what it gives), but makes everything into entertainment (what it takes), even important topic such as politics, religion, war, poverty, pestilence, etc science becomes pure entertainment, juxtaposed between endless drama, reality show, and ads, coupled with background music and personas that manipulate the minds. The more "entertainer" you are, the better, regardless whether you are a dumb scientist or a dumb lawmaker that will affect many people's lives using your policy. Social media such as twitter, for example, everyone now has a voice (what it gives), but with its char limit (what it takes) doesn't give critical thinking and rational debate a highlight, therefore it spirals down into madness. The more outrageous you are, the better, because it will go viral and people will react in such a predictable way. A good example of a person who knows exactly how TV audience and social media audience will behave in a predictable way, and took advantage of that, is President Trump. You want to design a medium/platform in such a way so that the pros outweigh the cons. But I think the hard part is knowing how will people use the platform. Those social media giants started out with good intentions, and only later and later down the road, and here we are right now, that we discover its true effects.

growlist 7y ago
> A good example of a person who knows exactly how TV audience and social media audience will behave in a predictable way, and took advantage of that, is President Trump. Trump wasn't the first though, and contrast the coverage: Obama's digital strategy was lauded for its tech-savvy genius by the media, whereas Trump's campaign was linked by the same to white supremacists wrt Pepe the Frog etc.
- christiansakai 7y ago
  He wasn't. I'm just pointing out he is doing a good job at it. It is no secret for people who work in the media industry that "entertaining" and "outrageousness" is a recipe for success.
cr0sh 7y ago
> Social media such as twitter, for example, everyone now has a voice (what it gives), but with its char limit (what it takes) doesn't give critical thinking and rational debate a highlight, therefore it spirals down into madness. Twitter has a hard, small limit. Most other platforms either have no limit, or the limit is fairly large. The problem is, people don't use it. Worse, those that do use it are ridiculed, or their words are ignored (TL;DR anyone?)... Thinking about this, I wonder if any of it has to do with people's "inner monologue" that was discussed yesterday here on HN? If you didn't see it, the gist was that there are some people who don't have such a monologue, and it came as a surprise to one person. Similarly, those without such a monologue are often surprised that others have it; one person commented that they often wished that the voiceover of characters in a movie, expressing their inner thoughts, was a real thing - and were shocked to find out that for most people - it is! Anyhow - does this play into how people write online? Do they tend to write less or smaller messages, because their inner monologue is too loud or constant? Do those without such monologue write more thoughtful and longer posts? Then I think of myself; I have an inner monologue, but I tend to write long things (case in point - this post?) - but I don't find my inner monologue a burden. But some do - I know I have read of people who either must always have some noise around them to drown out their "inner monologue", or if left in silence, even for small moments, will declare themselves "bored", perhaps because their inner monologue isn't perceived as interesting (whereas I and others have no problems thinking and pondering things, in silence, with no boredom)...? Does this effect how people compose and type their messages? Does it help or hinder understanding? Does it facilitate or does it block meaningful conversations? Twitter may have tapped into something that was always there to begin with, and in essence has helped foster that communication style - making it acceptable widely - conversation as "sound bites" - which has perhaps led to our present situation.
- christiansakai 7y ago
  Twitter is just an example. If you read that book, the gist is basically Social Media makes it easy to brain dump and leave that brainfeces all over without having to look it back again (paraphrasing mine). Anyone in the world can post anything, without any accountability, without the need to carefully revalidate and be validated/invalidated. I saw the post about inner monologue but didn't read it. But I believe it could be related. I highly suggest reading the book because I'm doing a disservice trying to explain about it. It basically explained how oratory, printing press, telegraph/telephone and television really changed society a lot, but in subconscious ways that most of us don't think.

growlist 7y ago

> A good example of a person who knows exactly how TV audience and social media audience will behave in a predictable way, and took advantage of that, is President Trump. Trump wasn't the first though, and contrast the coverage: Obama's digital strategy was lauded for its tech-savvy genius by the media, whereas Trump's campaign was linked by the same to white supremacists wrt Pepe the Frog etc.

christiansakai 7y ago
He wasn't. I'm just pointing out he is doing a good job at it. It is no secret for people who work in the media industry that "entertaining" and "outrageousness" is a recipe for success.

cr0sh 7y ago

> Social media such as twitter, for example, everyone now has a voice (what it gives), but with its char limit (what it takes) doesn't give critical thinking and rational debate a highlight, therefore it spirals down into madness. Twitter has a hard, small limit. Most other platforms either have no limit, or the limit is fairly large. The problem is, people don't use it. Worse, those that do use it are ridiculed, or their words are ignored (TL;DR anyone?)... Thinking about this, I wonder if any of it has to do with people's "inner monologue" that was discussed yesterday here on HN? If you didn't see it, the gist was that there are some people who don't have such a monologue, and it came as a surprise to one person. Similarly, those without such a monologue are often surprised that others have it; one person commented that they often wished that the voiceover of characters in a movie, expressing their inner thoughts, was a real thing - and were shocked to find out that for most people - it is! Anyhow - does this play into how people write online? Do they tend to write less or smaller messages, because their inner monologue is too loud or constant? Do those without such monologue write more thoughtful and longer posts? Then I think of myself; I have an inner monologue, but I tend to write long things (case in point - this post?) - but I don't find my inner monologue a burden. But some do - I know I have read of people who either must always have some noise around them to drown out their "inner monologue", or if left in silence, even for small moments, will declare themselves "bored", perhaps because their inner monologue isn't perceived as interesting (whereas I and others have no problems thinking and pondering things, in silence, with no boredom)...? Does this effect how people compose and type their messages? Does it help or hinder understanding? Does it facilitate or does it block meaningful conversations? Twitter may have tapped into something that was always there to begin with, and in essence has helped foster that communication style - making it acceptable widely - conversation as "sound bites" - which has perhaps led to our present situation.

christiansakai 7y ago
Twitter is just an example. If you read that book, the gist is basically Social Media makes it easy to brain dump and leave that brainfeces all over without having to look it back again (paraphrasing mine). Anyone in the world can post anything, without any accountability, without the need to carefully revalidate and be validated/invalidated. I saw the post about inner monologue but didn't read it. But I believe it could be related. I highly suggest reading the book because I'm doing a disservice trying to explain about it. It basically explained how oratory, printing press, telegraph/telephone and television really changed society a lot, but in subconscious ways that most of us don't think.