5 ms·

This seems to be an overreaction, particularly when you have the option not to use it. Just like the majority (of Americans) choose not to use other "free speec

This seems to be an overreaction, particularly when you have the option not to use it. Just like the majority (of Americans) choose not to use other "free speech" platforms in part because of the disinformation, propaganda, and bots roam free.

naeemtee 6y ago
I'm impressed people keep making the "option not to use it" argument. Our lines of communication are monopolized. "Just don't use Facebook/Twitter/Amazon" is an irrelevant argument since there are no alternatives.
- andrewclunn 6y ago
  Sure there are. You can use Parler... oh wait they were just banned by Google, Apple, and Amazon. I'm sure this isn't any kind of collusion though. Free Market, yeah!
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  You can absolutely love comfortably and normally in the US without Facebook or Twitter. It's more challenging to avoid Amazon entirely, but you can easily avoid supporting them directly.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chrononaut 6y ago
  I understand the practical difficulty of another platform being created and being successful, and thus the general recommendation of "not using the platform" is futile. However, this is a comment thread of OP comparing Pravda to Twitter. You are not at a higher risk of death by the government for trying to start a competitive platform to Twitter.
enriquto 6y ago
How does this argument go? Pravda was not "the ministry of truth" because soviet citizens had the option to not write in it (or read it)? I really do not understand what you want to say.
dahfizz 6y ago
> you have the option not to use it. I think this misses the point. Twitter, Facebook, etc cover a majority of Americans. These social media platforms have a significant effect on the beliefs and values of their users. Divisive, outraging content drives engagement. This leads to the curation of echo chambers that work to continually galvanize and outrage users. I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation. I don't think this can be ignored with the quip "just don't use the platforms". These platforms have the ability to form public opinion, and that is a problem for democracy that we as a society need to solve.
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  > I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation. I think this ascribes a lack of self-determinism that I see in a lot of these arguments. We (the people) give Twitter and Facebook that control. If they have violated the norms we (the people) have set in such a way that we want to take that power back, we can. This seems self-evident since you are a non-user.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    Your argument, perhaps taken to an extreme, is "The majority of Americans have 'voted' to let Twitter decide their votes, therefore the control Twitter has over our democracy is valid". I don't accept that argument. I think most people who are active on social media are not aware of the effects it has on them. Social media is designed to sink its claws into your brain in an addictive way. Allowing Twitter free reign crosses the line between Democracy and Mob Rule. To protect our democracy, we need to protect the ability of people to think for themselves.
    - eightysixfour 6y ago
      > I think most people who are active on social media are not aware of the effects it has on them. Social media is designed to sink its claws into your brain in an addictive way. This is not true. Most are aware at this point that social media is not healthy and is addictive. Saying they don't is the equivalent of saying you didn't know smoking was bad in the 90s. > To protect our democracy, we need to protect the ability of people to think for themselves. I think your comment is weirdly contradictory because yes, I agree we should protect the ability for people to think and choose their media consumption for themselves. Don't like twitter's moderation decisions? Leave it.

naeemtee 6y ago

I'm impressed people keep making the "option not to use it" argument. Our lines of communication are monopolized. "Just don't use Facebook/Twitter/Amazon" is an irrelevant argument since there are no alternatives.

andrewclunn 6y ago
Sure there are. You can use Parler... oh wait they were just banned by Google, Apple, and Amazon. I'm sure this isn't any kind of collusion though. Free Market, yeah!
Pfhreak 6y ago
You can absolutely love comfortably and normally in the US without Facebook or Twitter. It's more challenging to avoid Amazon entirely, but you can easily avoid supporting them directly.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chrononaut 6y ago
I understand the practical difficulty of another platform being created and being successful, and thus the general recommendation of "not using the platform" is futile. However, this is a comment thread of OP comparing Pravda to Twitter. You are not at a higher risk of death by the government for trying to start a competitive platform to Twitter.

enriquto 6y ago

How does this argument go? Pravda was not "the ministry of truth" because soviet citizens had the option to not write in it (or read it)? I really do not understand what you want to say.

dahfizz 6y ago

> you have the option not to use it. I think this misses the point. Twitter, Facebook, etc cover a majority of Americans. These social media platforms have a significant effect on the beliefs and values of their users. Divisive, outraging content drives engagement. This leads to the curation of echo chambers that work to continually galvanize and outrage users. I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation. I don't think this can be ignored with the quip "just don't use the platforms". These platforms have the ability to form public opinion, and that is a problem for democracy that we as a society need to solve.

eightysixfour 6y ago
> I have made the choice not to use social media, but a large majority of Americans do. Since we live in a democracy, this gives companies like Twitter and Facebook a non-trivial amount of control over elections and legislation. I think this ascribes a lack of self-determinism that I see in a lot of these arguments. We (the people) give Twitter and Facebook that control. If they have violated the norms we (the people) have set in such a way that we want to take that power back, we can. This seems self-evident since you are a non-user.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  Your argument, perhaps taken to an extreme, is "The majority of Americans have 'voted' to let Twitter decide their votes, therefore the control Twitter has over our democracy is valid". I don't accept that argument. I think most people who are active on social media are not aware of the effects it has on them. Social media is designed to sink its claws into your brain in an addictive way. Allowing Twitter free reign crosses the line between Democracy and Mob Rule. To protect our democracy, we need to protect the ability of people to think for themselves.
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    > I think most people who are active on social media are not aware of the effects it has on them. Social media is designed to sink its claws into your brain in an addictive way. This is not true. Most are aware at this point that social media is not healthy and is addictive. Saying they don't is the equivalent of saying you didn't know smoking was bad in the 90s. > To protect our democracy, we need to protect the ability of people to think for themselves. I think your comment is weirdly contradictory because yes, I agree we should protect the ability for people to think and choose their media consumption for themselves. Don't like twitter's moderation decisions? Leave it.