3 ms·

>People who engage with social media do so freely. If the content wasn't what they wanted or sought out, it wouldn't be popular and successful. That's quite an

by dTal 5y ago

>People who engage with social media do so freely. If the content wasn't what they wanted or sought out, it wouldn't be popular and successful. That's quite an assumption, one that is frequently called into question on this very site. The very largest social media sites have growth strategies unavailable to smaller competitors - "the rich get richer". People who want to participate in any social media are forced to join the largest ones purely to follow the crowd. When I'm out and about in the real world and I see small handfuls of social media icons plastered on things, it doesn't feel like a "free marketplace of idea" - it feels like society intentionally facilitates and encourages the use of a select few services. And yes, when they get large enough to be de-facto infrastructure - like Facebook did - absolutely there should be a council of acceptable algorithms. We can't let for-profit companies decide the terms of discourse of society at large.

nickelpro 5y ago
How is it an assumption? Are you saying that people are using Facebook under threat of violence? Or are you saying that peer pressure wouldn't exist if it weren't for TikTok and Twitter forcing us all to become followers? These are natural human social structures being extended by technology. Celebrities existed long before they were posting their butts on Insta. And just like you could choose to not engage with celebrity culture before the internet, you can choose to not engage now. That's the definition of free association and the free market of ideas. > absolutely there should be a council of acceptable algorithms Ya we're on completely different wavelengths about how governance works then. That's insanity to me. If I don't like facebooks content I just log off facebook, I wouldn't never think it appropriate to dictate in law what speech can or cannot be produced.
- dTal 5y ago
  >Are you saying that people are using Facebook under threat of violence Please. Nowhere in my comment did I even remotely hint at that. It's disappointing to spend time on a nuanced comment and be met with such a ridiculous strawman. People are nudged towards Facebook and other social networks in all sorts of ways, but not generally violently, no. I could spend more time replying to the rest of your comment, but honestly I'm not inclined to after that.

by dTal 5y ago

nickelpro 5y ago

How is it an assumption? Are you saying that people are using Facebook under threat of violence? Or are you saying that peer pressure wouldn't exist if it weren't for TikTok and Twitter forcing us all to become followers? These are natural human social structures being extended by technology. Celebrities existed long before they were posting their butts on Insta. And just like you could choose to not engage with celebrity culture before the internet, you can choose to not engage now. That's the definition of free association and the free market of ideas. > absolutely there should be a council of acceptable algorithms Ya we're on completely different wavelengths about how governance works then. That's insanity to me. If I don't like facebooks content I just log off facebook, I wouldn't never think it appropriate to dictate in law what speech can or cannot be produced.

dTal 5y ago
>Are you saying that people are using Facebook under threat of violence Please. Nowhere in my comment did I even remotely hint at that. It's disappointing to spend time on a nuanced comment and be met with such a ridiculous strawman. People are nudged towards Facebook and other social networks in all sorts of ways, but not generally violently, no. I could spend more time replying to the rest of your comment, but honestly I'm not inclined to after that.