10 ms·
Yeah, the analogy between toxic media and toxic chemicals is pretty good. However, I'd put they blame for that somewhere you might find surprising: influencers.
by cwp 5y ago
Yeah, the analogy between toxic media and toxic chemicals is pretty good. However, I'd put they blame for that somewhere you might find surprising: influencers.
Everybody likes to hate on "big tech" these days, but if there's anyone that knows the dangers and all the ill effects but ignores them to make a profit, it's content creators. They are hyper-attuned to the way people respond to their content, and they'll do anything to get a reaction, the more intense the better. And if that means siccing a mob on somebody, so be it. If it means doing stunts that endanger people in the real world, fine. And polarization is the best technique they've stumbled onto yet: say stuff that enrages people to get them to engage with the post, and then pick up followers among those that watch the rage with glee.
Just about every successful influencer has done a post about how hard it is to be internet-famous. It's almost always about how the negative effects of their work get reflected back at them. They know how the things they say harm people, they just want the negativity to be directed elsewhere.
There's a lot of debate about how social media companies should be regulated, how much censorship should be allowed, how much platforms should subsidize legacy media etc. But none of it will matter if we don't rein in what's considered acceptable in the creator economy.
- adambard 5y agoSure, it's the influencers pumping the oil, but it's social media networks running the pipelines, and they're splitting the profits. Unfortunately, toxic content is a lot harder to regulate than toxic chemicals, when one man's truth is another man's fake news.
- CharlesW 5y ago> Everybody likes to hate on "big tech" these days, but if there's anyone that knows the dangers and all the ill effects but ignores them to make a profit, it's content creators. This is like blaming smokers instead of Philip Morris.
- hazbot 5y agoI think your analogy is pretty apt. However, even though I don't think you can give corporations a free ride just because 'people could choose not to use the product', this is not an absolute! 'People could choose not to use the product' does hold a lot of truth.
- ruytlm 5y agoWhen social media companies are trying to make the media as addictive as possible to keep you scrolling and viewing ads, and employing psychological exploits to do so, it's not quite as simple as 'people can just choose not to use it'. It's hardly a free choice when they're actively undermining your ability to choose freely.
- lurker2093 5y agoit totally still is though, it's not their fault that some people are weak willed / weak minded, this of course changes a little bit when we are talking about minors etc
- xboxnolifes 5y agoSounds like you agree with OP then. Content creators have the same motivation as the platform company. They want to make as many people view their content as possible, failing that they would like to make their exiting community see their content as much as possible. Exact same motivation just at a smaller scale, as they are just one part of the system.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoSee also gambling and addictive gambling behaviors in video games, like loot boxes
- cwp 5y agoYup. It's blaming smokers for second-hand smoke. We need to figure out the social-media equivalent of "no smoking" signs.
- ravenstine 5y agoA circle-cross with the Twitter bird in the middle would do.
- midasuni 5y agoPre covid there was a pub chain in london that banned use of electronic devices, presumably to get people talking instead of tweeting. Went in with a colleague to have lunch and go over some diagrams. Got laptop out so we could see the diagrams and then got kicked out, had lunch down the road instead. If I’m eating out on my own I’ll read a kindle. That’s not allowed. Read a dead tree is fine though. Pathetic.
- salawat 5y agoSooo... Use a notebook or printouts?
- randomdata 5y agoMore like blaming the tobacco farmers instead of Phillip Morris, although it falls apart at the point that I’m not sure tobacco was seen as anything more than a commodity.
- cascom 5y agoI think it’s a little bit more like blaming advertisers and Hollywood for promoting smoking, rather than the producer or consumer
- cutemonster 5y agoSmoking hurts oneself primarily, whilst angry internet mobs hurt others
- version_five 5y agoThis may be a "don't hate the player hate the game" type situation. Influencers or aspiring influencers are doing what they do because they are working inside a construct that's set up to reward them for it. They are not blameless, but they are not conspiring to create that damage that social media had done to society, they are in s sense being put up to it by the platforms and users (who by the way I don't think should get a free pass either - PSA: delete twitter)
- cwp 5y agoI guess I put more of the blame on the influencers because they are the ones making editorial decisions. Sure the platforms are optimizing for engagement too, but it's all content-agnostic. The influencers choose their words carefully, and they choose harmful words because it makes them more money.
- foerbert 5y agoI don't think it's quite fair to label it content-agnostic. I mean it sort of technically is, but practically it isn't. By pushing 'engagement' at all costs, it's essentially inevitable that all the terrible behaviors we see from 'content creators' happen. I agree that they are far from blameless, but when your entire platform is practically globally available to anybody and you only reward unsavory behavior... you're going to get unsavory behavior. There could be many, many people behaving ethically, and most people may never even see any of them due to the way the platforms are set up. It's technically content-agnostic in the most technical sense, but practically it's one big system designed to incentivize and surface unethical behavior.
- robertlagrant 5y ago> and you only reward unsavory behavior... you're going to get unsavory behavior They don't only reward that. They reward any engagement, and some content creators have raced to the bottom in terms of creating divisive content.
- 5y ago
- CRConrad 5y ago> Everybody likes to hate on "big tech" these days, Yeah, because they're the Standard Oil and Aramco of this story. > but if there's anyone that knows the dangers and all the ill effects but ignores them to make a profit, it's content creators. That's like blaming the owners of mom-and-pop filling ("gas") stations for the ills of leaded petrol ("gas").
- asdff 5y agoPutting the blame on influencers makes no sense. Content creators play this game but they didn't create it, companies participating in the market created this environment and ultimately fund these influencers. A content creator is basically a paid actor.