4 ms·

I think you're correct to point out they indirectly affect us all through their impact on society as a whole. However what I meant (but failed to say explicitl

by tomxor 5y ago

I think you're correct to point out they indirectly affect us all through their impact on society as a whole. However what I meant (but failed to say explicitly), is that it is unlike breathing air (which is impossible to avoid), because partaking in these platforms personally is still optional for most people in the world - Maybe it's different in the US but you certainly don't need any of it for your job or government purposes in the UK and I expect most of the EU, and of course none of the east.

dredmorbius 5y ago
Yes and no. In the case of breathing (or not) air, wearing a particulate mask or VoC respirator is an option. It's expensive and marks one in public, of course. In the case of social media, the exposure equivalent is the fact that much other normal intercourse --- social conversation, behaviours in public (as detailed in detail in TFA), and references in media, news or journalism (to the extent these still exist), in the form of trackers which appear on the present Internet, offline tracking through purchase and surveillance mechanisms which also feed into the attention-diversion, manipulation, and advertising machine, etc., etc. And again, I assure you, for an increasing number of organisations, businesses, and institutions, the unspoken assumption is that social media use is normalised --- for communications, advertising, often for commerce, and again, with website trackers and data feeds through offline interactions. I find the comparison apt. Social media is atmospheric to a far greater