3 ms·

True, but I wonder if you might be missing the participatory aspect of Social Media. Everyone gets to have a voice and put in their 2 bits of nonsense. Social

True, but I wonder if you might be missing the participatory aspect of Social Media. Everyone gets to have a voice and put in their 2 bits of nonsense. Social Media also allows for the purposeful characterization something via slander, comedy, insult, quip etc. - basically, plebes trolling plebes, and that low form of communication tends to fire us up. As bad as mainstream news has become, at leas they have to remain mostly civil, and when the TV is off, it's off.

specialist 5y ago
Please say more. > True, but I wonder if you might be missing the participatory aspect of Social Media. My mental model for social media is feedback loops. Much as I hated prior corporate media (a la Chomsky, Ad Busters, others), I acknowledge that the editorial filter squelched virality (runaway positive feedback loops). Of course, we humans have always had fads, trends, groupthink. Social medias changed the filters (using Chomsky's term). Gone are the Advertiser and Publisher filters. Replaced with algorithms which boost engagement. To a degree prior medias couldn't even dream of. Like Stalin said, quantity has its own quality. What I still don't understand is how the social medias transmuted from connecting peers within my monkey sphere (family, friends, acquaintances, people with shared interests, and so on) to coordinating mass action and inciting mobs. > ... purposeful characterization something via slander, comedy, insult, quip etc I'm very interested in the repercussions of the Sandy Hook parent's defamation case against Alex Jones. Rights comes with responsibilities. Meaning speech has consequences. Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by Freedom Speeches™, we won't need draconian hate speech laws and such. That'd be progress.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  > Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by Freedom Speeches™ I'm not sure what the purpose of this bizarre language is. It reminds me a bit of "freeze peach". Is it just to signal to anyone who believes in freedom of speech or, or just takes it seriously as a concept even if he rejects it, that you're not interested in a good faith discussion? But then why write a comment on that issue at all?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - specialist 5y ago
    What do you call selective defense of speech while denying same right to others, the responsibilities that come with rights, real world power inbalances?
    - amadeuspagel 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that "Freedom Speeches™" is your attempt to refer to a "selective defense of speech while denying same right to others, the responsibilities that come with rights, real world power inbalances"? So your sentence evals to: > Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by "selective defense of speech while denying same right to others, the responsibilities that come with rights, real world power inbalances", we won't need draconian hate speech laws and such. Of course that sentence doesn't make sense regardless of what you replace "Freedom Speeches™" with, so it's really moot what "Freedom Speeches™" is supposed to refer to.
      - specialist 5y ago
        Oops. Now realize I omitted key words. Its should read something like: > Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by Freedom Speeches™ to sue for damages , we won't need draconian hate speech laws and such. Jill Lepore has me reevaluating my support for laws banning hate speech. While I support the end goal, stopping verbal assaults, I'm very open towards other legal solutions. Like perhaps the courts can broaden the scope of libel and defamation. Again, not excited about that. Overly broad, and we end up with UK style censorship. It's a tough problem. But I'm confident we can find a balance.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Chomsky's filters are relevant, but they are almost a baseline and since the 2000's there are much worse kinds of filters. Fox, and especially in the 2010's and especially since Trump, MSNBC, CNN, the Atlantic - all of them have become a bit unhinged. The bold postmodern claims being thrown around as 'news' is jaw dropping, and they're all guilty. I can't watch the news about a single event without assuming I will be misinformed, usually in some sneaky way. If all we had to deal with were Chomsky's filters we'd be mostly fine. I am confident we'll be able to reel in Alex Jones, I'm not sure about just the regular, harmful, cynical stuff. And FYI - net-net - because the press has such a bigger audience than Alex Jones, and they lie a lot, they are kind of as guilty. I hope they settle down in the coming years as Trump fades a bit into history.

specialist 5y ago

Please say more. > True, but I wonder if you might be missing the participatory aspect of Social Media. My mental model for social media is feedback loops. Much as I hated prior corporate media (a la Chomsky, Ad Busters, others), I acknowledge that the editorial filter squelched virality (runaway positive feedback loops). Of course, we humans have always had fads, trends, groupthink. Social medias changed the filters (using Chomsky's term). Gone are the Advertiser and Publisher filters. Replaced with algorithms which boost engagement. To a degree prior medias couldn't even dream of. Like Stalin said, quantity has its own quality. What I still don't understand is how the social medias transmuted from connecting peers within my monkey sphere (family, friends, acquaintances, people with shared interests, and so on) to coordinating mass action and inciting mobs. > ... purposeful characterization something via slander, comedy, insult, quip etc I'm very interested in the repercussions of the Sandy Hook parent's defamation case against Alex Jones. Rights comes with responsibilities. Meaning speech has consequences. Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by Freedom Speeches™, we won't need draconian hate speech laws and such. That'd be progress.

amadeuspagel 5y ago
> Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by Freedom Speeches™ I'm not sure what the purpose of this bizarre language is. It reminds me a bit of "freeze peach". Is it just to signal to anyone who believes in freedom of speech or, or just takes it seriously as a concept even if he rejects it, that you're not interested in a good faith discussion? But then why write a comment on that issue at all?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- specialist 5y ago
  What do you call selective defense of speech while denying same right to others, the responsibilities that come with rights, real world power inbalances?
  - amadeuspagel 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that "Freedom Speeches™" is your attempt to refer to a "selective defense of speech while denying same right to others, the responsibilities that come with rights, real world power inbalances"? So your sentence evals to: > Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by "selective defense of speech while denying same right to others, the responsibilities that come with rights, real world power inbalances", we won't need draconian hate speech laws and such. Of course that sentence doesn't make sense regardless of what you replace "Freedom Speeches™" with, so it's really moot what "Freedom Speeches™" is supposed to refer to.
    - specialist 5y ago
      Oops. Now realize I omitted key words. Its should read something like: > Perhaps if the courts allow individuals harmed by Freedom Speeches™ to sue for damages , we won't need draconian hate speech laws and such. Jill Lepore has me reevaluating my support for laws banning hate speech. While I support the end goal, stopping verbal assaults, I'm very open towards other legal solutions. Like perhaps the courts can broaden the scope of libel and defamation. Again, not excited about that. Overly broad, and we end up with UK style censorship. It's a tough problem. But I'm confident we can find a balance.
jollybean 5y ago
Chomsky's filters are relevant, but they are almost a baseline and since the 2000's there are much worse kinds of filters. Fox, and especially in the 2010's and especially since Trump, MSNBC, CNN, the Atlantic - all of them have become a bit unhinged. The bold postmodern claims being thrown around as 'news' is jaw dropping, and they're all guilty. I can't watch the news about a single event without assuming I will be misinformed, usually in some sneaky way. If all we had to deal with were Chomsky's filters we'd be mostly fine. I am confident we'll be able to reel in Alex Jones, I'm not sure about just the regular, harmful, cynical stuff. And FYI - net-net - because the press has such a bigger audience than Alex Jones, and they lie a lot, they are kind of as guilty. I hope they settle down in the coming years as Trump fades a bit into history.