4 ms·
I think the question is, how do you keep the good and get rid of the bad? I think there's a lot of great things that social media has done to connect people, b
by enkid 5y ago
I think the question is, how do you keep the good and get rid of the bad? I think there's a lot of great things that social media has done to connect people, but all too often it's only a shallow or artificial connection. I think the other problem is that social media will make you find people "like" you. Humans have always sought that out, but there was always some variance that allowed us to remember that others unlike us were still human. Now, with connections possible the world over, we ironically are more likely to only interact with individuals that share our opinions because it's a lot easier to find people like that when you can search the entire world for it. That leads to otherization of any who doesn't share that opinion. So, how do we create social media that keeps that potential for connection you are talking about, but does it in a meaningful way where individuals are exposed to more than an echo chamber?
- AzzieElbab 5y agoDon’t read political posts from sources you do not know/trust?
- prawn 5y agoI don't use Facebook so I'm only going by what I've seen from screenshots or over someone's shoulder. Isn't one part of the misery political posts from people you do know? e.g., extended family or old friends going off the deep end?
- wly_cdgr 5y agoDon't be FB friends with your crazy family! Be FB friends with cool strangers
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- viscanti 5y agoAnyone capable of that level of introspection is unlikely to be someone who is on the wrong end of misinformation. If the solution is for everyone to identify misinformation and to block it, then the criticisms of social media platforms are legitimate. Only those who are the least likely to be effected would be the ones opting out.
- m0zg 5y agoWe live in a world where nearly _all_ information fed to the public is misinformation. Except in one case it's due to FB and in another it's 5 dudes who own the entirety of US (and large chunk of the world's) "free" press. In this narrative-rich, (nearly) fact-free environment, aside from the obvious asinine bullshit that's easily seen through, the "misinformation" becomes simply something you don't agree with. The benefit of this is that it's no longer just 5 dudes that control the manufacturing of public consent. At a minimum it's 8 now (add Zuck, Pichai and Dorsey to the mix). With any luck, these 8 might start stabbing each other in the back.
- AzzieElbab 5y agoThere is a book called “Hate Inc.” by Matt Taibi in which the author inadvertently argues that manufacturing consent is no longer profitable and news outlets are now in the business of manufacturing dissent.
- m0zg 5y agoWell, whether they manufacture consent or dissent depends entirely on what party currently controls the White House and the Congress. So he's half-right. I'm a big fan of Taibbi's writing, and especially his books. "Griftopia" was pretty good, too. He's a rare breed - a liberal who is also willing to criticize liberals when they deserve it.
- Spooky23 5y agoIt’s just like YouTube. They need to tweak the algorithms for quality, not just quantity. Those are hard decisions for them because it will cost money in the short term. Ultimately governments will slap them down, which will cost much more.
- lmm 5y agoI always think of one scene in Cool Runnings: a gold medal is a wonderful thing, and if you're not enough without it, there's no way you'll be enough with it. Facebook gives you what you want, and it's up to you what you make that.