4 ms·
> most arguments on social media are... ... detached from any real trust system. "Social media" is not social. As a business, it is the monetisation of strife
by heresie-dabord 4y ago
> most arguments on social media are...
... detached from any real trust system.
"Social media" is not social. As a business, it is the monetisation of strife.
As an exchange of ideas, social media is (as you say) mostly people flinging words at one another.
To be "social", participants in social media would need to manifest commitment to real solutions and people would be accountable for their words and deeds. This is how human society works. There are social consequences in real social exchange. It is a trust system.
I propose that the reason why we hear of people's long-time friendships and family ties collapsing is because those social ties have simply become weak. The pretext for the rupture doesn't much matter.
> To star-man is to not only engage with the most charitable version of your opponent’s argument, but also with the most charitable version of your opponent, by acknowledging their good intentions and your shared desires despite your disagreements.
This is an excellent approach. But it depends on the trust system of real society.
- NoGravitas 4y agoIt's also the case that that social trust and those social ties have been weakened, intentionally over the last four or five decades, to produce a "post-political" system of governance. Margaret Thatcher famously said, "There's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families." It wasn't true when she said it, but thanks to her and the other architects of neoliberalism, it is true now.
- heresie-dabord 4y ago"There is no such thing as society. There are the plutocrats, and a large human economic sacrifice zone for the plutocrats to exploit." It's a grim, reductionist view of society as a construct for wealth, and general happiness only if the latter does not impede the acculumation of the former.