3 ms·
It feels like this is a core point that's somehow got lost here. There's a lot of assumptions in these discussions that connections and sharing are only good a
by native_samples 5y ago
It feels like this is a core point that's somehow got lost here.
There's a lot of assumptions in these discussions that connections and sharing are only good and useful if the results look a certain way. People sharing dog photos: good. Sharing approved mainstream news stories: good. People posting personal politics: bad. People disagreeing with each other: also bad. Etc. But it's a purely subjective take. Maybe our society needs to talk about politics way more than it does. Historically, instead of talking there's often just been fighting, and everyone agrees that talking is far healthier.
Facebook's original working assumption was that connecting people and letting them communicate and share is inherently a valuable thing. Is that actually wrong? Clearly, there is enormous demand to discuss politics that was unleashed by the internet, whereas before then only a small number of people had the access to present their opinions to those around them via opt-in channels like TV, the press, etc. Other people had to make do with phone calls. Something once restricted to a very small group is now available to all. Unsurprisingly, the sort of people who feel ill when they see the results are those whose views are the same as those who previously had a monopoly on group communication of various kinds. The ones most engaged are the ones who feel the media ignore their worldviews.
It's pretty dangerous to just say, well, if people are arguing about stuff that the establishment wouldn't let them argue about before, then it's "toxic". It's certainly risky to blame social media as the cause rather than merely a symptom of disagreements that would be there anyway. Far better to have "toxic" social media than a revolution!
- romwell 5y agoThe problem I see on FB is less with what people argue about, but how. It feels like people are just saying things at each other trying to "win" an argument. Of course, that's a problem with education, not FB. And I think it's a good thing that it's surfaced on FB. FB can act as toxic behavior multiplier, though.
- nitrogen 5y agoFB can act as toxic behavior multiplier, though. Indeed, the medium can alter the message. For example, supposedly any extra lag in voice communication makes participants think the other person is angry. We also see groups that never had close proximity now interacting directly and finding that they disagree pretty strongly on fundamentals. So there may be ways to facilitate the same discussions, but more productively and humanely. And it simply might not be possible for people with diametrically opposed beliefs to do this -- there may need to be a game of a few layers of telephone, or at least an active moderator as in a formal debate, to help translate meaning and intent across the epistemological divide.
- native_samples 5y agoI don't know if it's a problem with education but more likely, deeply held implicit assumptions that aren't being articulated. Most political disagreements fall into this category. E.g. arguments about COVID stuff are usually rooted in differences in assumptions about things like the trustworthiness of the establishment, the corrupting strength of profit, whether events are best explained as conspiracy or cockup, etc. Because they're sort of all-encompassing and vague people don't or can't easily spell them out, leading to the "talking at" not "talking with" problem. But that isn't to do with Facebook. It's inherent to humanity.