5 ms·

The problem is that social media is not optional for many professions. A book author is absolutely expected to have social media and it can be quite critical t

The problem is that social media is not optional for many professions. A book author is absolutely expected to have social media and it can be quite critical towards whether they succeed or not. In fact for any kind of artist is. Even as a software engineer, yeah you can do without it currently because of how good the job market is but playing the social media game right can offer a huge career boost (or malus if you are not careful). So not engaging with social media or not engaging strategically leaves you at a clear disadvantage. Humans have a strong desire to be accepted by the group because that is critical for survival. And these days, being good at social media, having many followers, is a huge survival advantage. It directly translates into opportunities to make money, towards job offers, towards networking ability, towards finding a new apartment, being able to do a GoFundMe if you have been ruined by medical bills and so on. So no, people are no doing it to themselves. They have to play the game.

wallfacer120 5y ago
"Even as a software engineer, yeah you can do without it currently because of how good the job market is but playing the social media game right can offer a huge career boost" I do not believe that something offering a potential upside means you are forced to use it - eating less carbs offers many potential upsides but that doesn't mean that people do it.
- cardanome 5y ago
  As the job market happens to be competitive and assuming you are rational player that wants the best possible outcome for yourself, yes you are forced indeed to do so. An alternative solution to the game would of course be but that we, as a profession, collectively decide (at least a big enough subset of us) to not use social media for career gain and socially punish those of us that do. You as an individual can fight for that solution but whether it happens or even is realistic is not in your circle of power. Again, I am arguing under the assumption that people want the best possible outcome for themselves and are forced to act based on that. If you want to argue against it based you on a different philosophical worldview (I guess what most of the world calls liberal or as they call it the US "libertarian"), yeah we can have a ideological argument. Just make it explicit whatever definition you use and how you think it helps understanding the matter. As for carbs, I don't think that is a very good counter-example. Eating less carbs carries some significant social cost (being seen as a picky eater, reduced option when eating socially). Not to mention it simply costs more energy to eat consciously less carbs. Sure it might be worth it for some people but the benefits are not that clear and most people are ignorant of proper nutrition to begin with.
  - wallfacer120 5y ago
    " I am arguing under the assumption that people want the best possible outcome for themselves and are forced to act based on that" Well, if you are arguing under the assumption that your argument is correct then I guess I can't argue with you.

wallfacer120 5y ago

"Even as a software engineer, yeah you can do without it currently because of how good the job market is but playing the social media game right can offer a huge career boost" I do not believe that something offering a potential upside means you are forced to use it - eating less carbs offers many potential upsides but that doesn't mean that people do it.

cardanome 5y ago
As the job market happens to be competitive and assuming you are rational player that wants the best possible outcome for yourself, yes you are forced indeed to do so. An alternative solution to the game would of course be but that we, as a profession, collectively decide (at least a big enough subset of us) to not use social media for career gain and socially punish those of us that do. You as an individual can fight for that solution but whether it happens or even is realistic is not in your circle of power. Again, I am arguing under the assumption that people want the best possible outcome for themselves and are forced to act based on that. If you want to argue against it based you on a different philosophical worldview (I guess what most of the world calls liberal or as they call it the US "libertarian"), yeah we can have a ideological argument. Just make it explicit whatever definition you use and how you think it helps understanding the matter. As for carbs, I don't think that is a very good counter-example. Eating less carbs carries some significant social cost (being seen as a picky eater, reduced option when eating socially). Not to mention it simply costs more energy to eat consciously less carbs. Sure it might be worth it for some people but the benefits are not that clear and most people are ignorant of proper nutrition to begin with.
- wallfacer120 5y ago
  " I am arguing under the assumption that people want the best possible outcome for themselves and are forced to act based on that" Well, if you are arguing under the assumption that your argument is correct then I guess I can't argue with you.