5 ms·
> I mean the way people talk about Zuck, you'd think he's a mass murderer For many people, the way (most) people talk about someone (i.e. their tone, not speci
by throwaway102821 5y ago
> I mean the way people talk about Zuck, you'd think he's a mass murderer
For many people, the way (most) people talk about someone (i.e. their tone, not specific details) is the primary signal used to determine their own general tone/opinion about that person.
A few other common reasons someone may not like Zuck:
1. He's rich
2. He's at the top of a hugely profitable company (and profitable companies are generally disliked)
3. FB has absorbed a lot of the advertising spend, at the expense of traditional media (whose tone sets the tone for many people, pt 1)
- picardythird 5y agoIs this Mark Zuckerburg or his wife?
- macintux 5y ago4. FB's choice to encourage divisiveness ("engagement") via their algorithm places my country's democratic future very much in doubt.
- KaiserPro 5y agoand of course print media (in the UK) and rolling news (in the US) has tried its very best to bridge the divide. In no way are they pumping out ever more opinion pieces rather than actual news, to pander to which ever "side" they "support"
- macintux 5y agoI am so very tired of whataboutism.
- KaiserPro 5y agoits not "whataboutism" its the "oh facebook is the single biggest threat to x, y &z" its reductive and plainly bollocks. if Facebook was editorialized, then yes, it would be the leading cause of x, y & z. Facebook is a reflection of society. How do I find out about some nefarious actor on facebook? through news, its pretty rare that I am organically exposed to that stuff. Take Tide pods, that was a total moral panic driven by American TV. The "death bird" panic was driven by UK daytime tv. It got to the point that my Kid's school was showing the image to my kids, saying that it was ok and that its not a problem, and that you were never going to die, all the while having an expression of repressed fear. Facebook is a Social Phased lock Loop. You have to engage with the extreme content for it to continually be shown to you. I dislike Facebook, they have made some strategic failures. However this _obsession_ with facebook absolves everyone else, which is both the point and the risk of this stupidity.
- macintux 5y agoThat’s a cogent argument; your earlier comment was not. I think our core disagreement is the pernicious impact of the engagement algorithm. It’s not hard to fall into extreme content: you just have to engage with something adjacent to something adjacent to something adjacent to it. “Slippery slope” is finally a meaningful phrase.
- KaiserPro 5y ago> “Slippery slope” is finally a meaningful phrase. I have difficulty with this. It reminds me very much of the argument against video games, or "driller thriller" which lead to video censorship. Don't get me wrong, the availability of it is disturbing. However I would counter that it takes a person who is vulnerable for that to work on (ie take someone who is "center ground" and walk them to an extreme) its not an instant process. Again, we as wider society need to be better at spotting and supporting these types of people and equipping them with either a benign purpose, or the critical thinking skills to avoid extremist holes. Where I do think we might agree is age restrictions. I don't think children should be on any type of social media that can host images or posts long term. (I suspect chat is less risk, so long as its timeboxed and has reasonable parental support.) Anyone less than 18 shouldn't be on facebook/snap/insta/tiktok at all, I don't think
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]