4 ms·

Actually, if we could snap our fingers and wish social media out of existence tomorrow nothing really bad would happen, besides some influencers becoming poorer

by blub 6y ago

Actually, if we could snap our fingers and wish social media out of existence tomorrow nothing really bad would happen, besides some influencers becoming poorer. The opposite of social media today (election manipulation, divided societies, ethnic cleansing) is the state of affairs before social media, which wasn't bad at all. I'm struggling to think of large-scale benefits social media has brought us, because the individual ones like talking more to grandma and getting more dates are clear enough. But come on, people should just pick up that phone and go out more.

72deluxe 6y ago
It is interesting that people were horrible or selfish or manipulative before the Internet, before the Web, and are horrible or selfish or manipulative AFTER widespread adoption of the Web and these "platforms". It's almost like arguing about the platforms is a side-point to the root cause of the problem - people's personalities and selfishness, and some people's gullibility without investigating "facts" presented to them. It's obvious that the Internet and social media wouldn't solve these issues with people, or hide these flaws in humanity. I am baffled why people think it would. It's just another form of something governments or institutions cannot handle/control, which has been occurring since written history began. The only difference is the sheer quantity and ease of having a voice these days. (For reference regarding my use of these "platforms": I use YouTube periodically to mainly watch the C++ conference videos to further highlight how out of touch I am with the modern iterations of the language, but have nothing to do with Facebook or Twitter since I found it to be a stream of people talking about themselves; by definition that is not a conversation, so is not social and should be renamed "Selfish Media" IMHO).
- ziml77 6y ago
  Your analysis seems on point to me even from someone who doesn't really use the services. YouTube definitely doesn't promote conversation of any kind. It's a platform for consumption with essentially no standards applied to what's on it (contrasted with TV which has at least some bar). I can't speak on Facebook, but Twitter is also lacking in conversationality. Replies are limited in length and the way they're displayed means that you have to go out of your way to see replies to replies. So, that's why both YouTube and Twitter are closer to "selfish media"
pjc50 6y ago
Obliterating email and whatsapp would probably put a lot of people out of business permanently, far more so than the pandemic. "But I didn't mean those!" OK, fine, now we need to define social media. Clearly everybody wants to count Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. But some of the major incidents come from memetic circulation of fake news and racial hatred propaganda etc on Whatsapp. The Christchurch shooter (and others) were radicalised by 4/8chan. Both he and Anders Breivik also cited racial hatred material produced by "traditional", "legitimate" sources such as major newspapers. (I wonder if anyone's ever done an "impact factor of evil" analysis on the citation graphs of mass shooter manifestoes? Going all the way back to Kaczynski, T and beyond) > people should just pick up that phone and go out more You've missed all the "millenials NEVER answer the phone" memes, then? > The opposite of social media today (election manipulation, divided societies, ethnic cleansing) is the state of affairs before social media, which wasn't bad at all My point is that none of those are new, it's just that people struggle to recognise the warning patterns. Countries that were badly hit by SARS-COV were more attuned to the risks of SARS-COV-2. Countries that were badly hit by 20th century fascism are more attuned to the risks of 21st century fascism. Hence all the endless (somewhat fruitless) discussion about who counts as a Nazi and when it might be OK to punch them. It's not just the medium, we have to look at the messages. Can we ban certain messages without throwing out the medium?
- dTal 6y ago
  You raise a good point. Is the problem "social media", or is it simply democratized publishing? Would a "fediverse" of distributed blogs really be more resistant to misinformation, or would it just be harder to censor? Is this simply a problem inherent to the internet?
  - brongondwana 6y ago
    The fediverse would be better because it wouldn't have an algorithm choosing things to show you based on what keeps you engaged.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
No, I shouldn't just pick up the phone more. I dislike talking on the phone. I'm happy we have instant text communication. It doensn't require me (in general) to stop what I'm doing and talk to someone and I can have a private conversation - well, at least private to anyone sitting around me. I'm truly don't want to give it up. And go out.. where, exactly?
leetcrew 6y ago
> Actually, if we could snap our fingers and wish social media out of existence tomorrow nothing really bad would happen, besides some influencers becoming poorer. I disagree. I would lose the ability to contact many good friends.
- minerjoe 6y ago
  Why are you dependent on Facebook for these things? If you suddenly lost your account, you would lose those friends or would you find another way to communicate?
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    believe me, I would really prefer not to rely on social media for this kind of thing. unfortunately a simple list of names and numbers tends to decay over time. plus, some people in my life just prefer to be contacted over facebook messenger. a surprising number of people don't realize that a) carriers are obligated to port their number and b) it is possible to transfer contacts when they buy a new phone. instead of fixing the original problem, they post "hey new number (xxx)-xxx-xxxx, add me!" or "new phone, send your numbers!" to facebook or instagram. I can't explain how this is supposed to work to every single person I want to stay in contact with, and I don't check social media much so I tend to miss these posts. if I lost my facebook account, it wouldn't be a huge issue. I'd be able to track everyone down on other platforms. if all social media were shut down, there are at least a couple people I'd never be able to contact again.

by blub 6y ago

72deluxe 6y ago

It is interesting that people were horrible or selfish or manipulative before the Internet, before the Web, and are horrible or selfish or manipulative AFTER widespread adoption of the Web and these "platforms". It's almost like arguing about the platforms is a side-point to the root cause of the problem - people's personalities and selfishness, and some people's gullibility without investigating "facts" presented to them. It's obvious that the Internet and social media wouldn't solve these issues with people, or hide these flaws in humanity. I am baffled why people think it would. It's just another form of something governments or institutions cannot handle/control, which has been occurring since written history began. The only difference is the sheer quantity and ease of having a voice these days. (For reference regarding my use of these "platforms": I use YouTube periodically to mainly watch the C++ conference videos to further highlight how out of touch I am with the modern iterations of the language, but have nothing to do with Facebook or Twitter since I found it to be a stream of people talking about themselves; by definition that is not a conversation, so is not social and should be renamed "Selfish Media" IMHO).

ziml77 6y ago
Your analysis seems on point to me even from someone who doesn't really use the services. YouTube definitely doesn't promote conversation of any kind. It's a platform for consumption with essentially no standards applied to what's on it (contrasted with TV which has at least some bar). I can't speak on Facebook, but Twitter is also lacking in conversationality. Replies are limited in length and the way they're displayed means that you have to go out of your way to see replies to replies. So, that's why both YouTube and Twitter are closer to "selfish media"

pjc50 6y ago

Obliterating email and whatsapp would probably put a lot of people out of business permanently, far more so than the pandemic. "But I didn't mean those!" OK, fine, now we need to define social media. Clearly everybody wants to count Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. But some of the major incidents come from memetic circulation of fake news and racial hatred propaganda etc on Whatsapp. The Christchurch shooter (and others) were radicalised by 4/8chan. Both he and Anders Breivik also cited racial hatred material produced by "traditional", "legitimate" sources such as major newspapers. (I wonder if anyone's ever done an "impact factor of evil" analysis on the citation graphs of mass shooter manifestoes? Going all the way back to Kaczynski, T and beyond) > people should just pick up that phone and go out more You've missed all the "millenials NEVER answer the phone" memes, then? > The opposite of social media today (election manipulation, divided societies, ethnic cleansing) is the state of affairs before social media, which wasn't bad at all My point is that none of those are new, it's just that people struggle to recognise the warning patterns. Countries that were badly hit by SARS-COV were more attuned to the risks of SARS-COV-2. Countries that were badly hit by 20th century fascism are more attuned to the risks of 21st century fascism. Hence all the endless (somewhat fruitless) discussion about who counts as a Nazi and when it might be OK to punch them. It's not just the medium, we have to look at the messages. Can we ban certain messages without throwing out the medium?

dTal 6y ago
You raise a good point. Is the problem "social media", or is it simply democratized publishing? Would a "fediverse" of distributed blogs really be more resistant to misinformation, or would it just be harder to censor? Is this simply a problem inherent to the internet?
- brongondwana 6y ago
  The fediverse would be better because it wouldn't have an algorithm choosing things to show you based on what keeps you engaged.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

No, I shouldn't just pick up the phone more. I dislike talking on the phone. I'm happy we have instant text communication. It doensn't require me (in general) to stop what I'm doing and talk to someone and I can have a private conversation - well, at least private to anyone sitting around me. I'm truly don't want to give it up. And go out.. where, exactly?

leetcrew 6y ago

> Actually, if we could snap our fingers and wish social media out of existence tomorrow nothing really bad would happen, besides some influencers becoming poorer. I disagree. I would lose the ability to contact many good friends.

minerjoe 6y ago
Why are you dependent on Facebook for these things? If you suddenly lost your account, you would lose those friends or would you find another way to communicate?
- leetcrew 6y ago
  believe me, I would really prefer not to rely on social media for this kind of thing. unfortunately a simple list of names and numbers tends to decay over time. plus, some people in my life just prefer to be contacted over facebook messenger. a surprising number of people don't realize that a) carriers are obligated to port their number and b) it is possible to transfer contacts when they buy a new phone. instead of fixing the original problem, they post "hey new number (xxx)-xxx-xxxx, add me!" or "new phone, send your numbers!" to facebook or instagram. I can't explain how this is supposed to work to every single person I want to stay in contact with, and I don't check social media much so I tend to miss these posts. if I lost my facebook account, it wouldn't be a huge issue. I'd be able to track everyone down on other platforms. if all social media were shut down, there are at least a couple people I'd never be able to contact again.