3 ms·

I don't think there is something inherently bad about social media. I mean Tv / Radio sped up the time from an event to when people hear about it - and the fir

I don't think there is something inherently bad about social media. I mean Tv / Radio sped up the time from an event to when people hear about it - and the first time people here is when people shape their perception of the event. Hence if your side of the story is out at the same time as the news of the event, you get a good chance of shaping people's perception of the event. If you wait a week, day or hour, it may be too late. I am not sure it is good bad or other. Maybe it does not matter to you that millions hear one side if the "right" people hear your more considered side. (perhaps we call that lobbying) Speed has meant it's harder to get a considered reaction. But then again, by middle age most things in the world are either things we have seen before so have an instant reaction, or frankly are not worth reacting too.

mdp2021 5y ago
( Name checks ;) ) > I don't think there is something inherently bad about social media Good that that's your opinion, just I hope you have not understood that is the position of the parent post, which wrote «over ten years of "bad school" social networks helped [the decline ... of the concept of "reflection"]». It meant that people have been encouraged to "fast respond", which boosts the diffusion of low quality. Lack of depth, cheap processing... > the first time people here is when people shape their perception of the event And duly reflection, the point, is there so that the new informational members in the Weltaufbau are well criticized before getting entrenched. Why should have «speed [in the time from an event to when people hear about it] ... meant it's harder to get a considered reaction»? One's reaction to information is not really a function of the distance in time of the event in the information. The problem noted is with those ethological drives against «considered reaction».
- lifeisstillgood 5y ago
  I miss some of your points - but the last paragraph is fair. I assume by emphasising "bad school" you say that the parent was also saying social media not inherently bad, but the way it was implemented was? I think that we could design (regulate?) better social media (I have high hopes that something similar to the "this looks like anti-vaxxer posting, here are some links to scientific consensus on the issue) would help move us from facebook to wikipedia. But I may be blinded by my own privilege
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > I miss some of your points I will rephrase a core concept more plainly: people are supposed to be trained to be "reflective": whatever input (intellectual, emotional, informational, ideal - so external or internal - etc.) they get, it should be put on a buffer with a label "tentative, provisional, waiting for further validation, digestion, development". Whatever incites to shallowness, cheap, immature thought, reaction etc., is against civilization. > social media not inherently bad, but the way it was implemented was Yes indeed. Some environments clearly "point towards evil". I was mainly thinking about incitation to rush, quick consumption, construed emotional response etc. But already the policy of one of the biggest boards out there, encouraging upvoting and downvoting according to "feeling", (mis-)educates people to give value to a knee-jerk reaction (which should at most be there as a preliminary orientation) and consolidate it through the psychological trap of a statement of position, and create identities in the deterior sense, self-images based on stagnating undiscussed assumptions. > design (regulate?) You need to promote, through function and policy, better examples and work recursively from them (let them lead and criticize). In fact, the very example you provide is all about credibility of the proponents.

mdp2021 5y ago

( Name checks ;) ) > I don't think there is something inherently bad about social media Good that that's your opinion, just I hope you have not understood that is the position of the parent post, which wrote «over ten years of "bad school" social networks helped [the decline ... of the concept of "reflection"]». It meant that people have been encouraged to "fast respond", which boosts the diffusion of low quality. Lack of depth, cheap processing... > the first time people here is when people shape their perception of the event And duly reflection, the point, is there so that the new informational members in the Weltaufbau are well criticized before getting entrenched. Why should have «speed [in the time from an event to when people hear about it] ... meant it's harder to get a considered reaction»? One's reaction to information is not really a function of the distance in time of the event in the information. The problem noted is with those ethological drives against «considered reaction».

lifeisstillgood 5y ago
I miss some of your points - but the last paragraph is fair. I assume by emphasising "bad school" you say that the parent was also saying social media not inherently bad, but the way it was implemented was? I think that we could design (regulate?) better social media (I have high hopes that something similar to the "this looks like anti-vaxxer posting, here are some links to scientific consensus on the issue) would help move us from facebook to wikipedia. But I may be blinded by my own privilege
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > I miss some of your points I will rephrase a core concept more plainly: people are supposed to be trained to be "reflective": whatever input (intellectual, emotional, informational, ideal - so external or internal - etc.) they get, it should be put on a buffer with a label "tentative, provisional, waiting for further validation, digestion, development". Whatever incites to shallowness, cheap, immature thought, reaction etc., is against civilization. > social media not inherently bad, but the way it was implemented was Yes indeed. Some environments clearly "point towards evil". I was mainly thinking about incitation to rush, quick consumption, construed emotional response etc. But already the policy of one of the biggest boards out there, encouraging upvoting and downvoting according to "feeling", (mis-)educates people to give value to a knee-jerk reaction (which should at most be there as a preliminary orientation) and consolidate it through the psychological trap of a statement of position, and create identities in the deterior sense, self-images based on stagnating undiscussed assumptions. > design (regulate?) You need to promote, through function and policy, better examples and work recursively from them (let them lead and criticize). In fact, the very example you provide is all about credibility of the proponents.