4 ms·
"Social media isn't inherently bad, if people across the world can learn how to self-curate." Is equivalent to "Social media is bad" IMO. There are always goin
by cmsonger 4y ago
"Social media isn't inherently bad, if people across the world can learn how to self-curate." Is equivalent to "Social media is bad" IMO.
There are always going to be "enough" people who can't self-curate that social media will be harmful.
- spike021 4y agoBut you could say the same thing about nearly everything. Sure there are millions upon millions of books. Someone who enjoys reading won't elect to read books they know are a waste of time or something that will be offensive to them. Same can be said for consuming newspapers (anyone else just skip the front page and go right to a special section you actually care about, like sports or business instead of politics?), TV, movies, video games? Music? So are all things bad because some people are incapable of deciding for themselves how to consume said things?
- andsoitis 4y agoIt is self evident that not all products are equally good or equally bad to individuals or society. You simply cannot compare reading books to taking opium, for instance.
- spike021 4y agoSo then you can make the same argument for social media, which further proves my point. It's not one-sided at all.
- chris_wot 4y agoI’d argue that you cannot. Social media inherently needs to hold your attention for as long as possible, and will do that through controversy, misleading and false information, and an attempt to manipulate. It’s part and parcel of the product, and extremely harmful to society as a whole.
- spike021 4y agoI think you're misunderstanding the argument altogether, honestly. The argument isn't whether social media is toxic but whether users can do some work themselves to filter out as much of the toxicity as possible and still benefit from using it. This thread is really just a circle; things in the right moderation aren't so unhealthy.