4 ms·

You do realize that social networks are optional? No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use them.

bigger_inside 4y ago
do you realize that roads are optional? you don't have to leave your house to talk to friends. do you realize that using the mail service is optional? nobody forces you to write post cards. do you realize that electricity is optional? you can get a shack in the forest and burn wood. do you realize that water pipes are optional? you can dig for your own ground water. the world is not made of solipsistic individuals. infrastructure encases, shapes, and forms the possibilities and constraints in which all of us live.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > "let's ditch social networks!" > "You realize they're optional, right?" > "Technically so are roads and mail and electricity and water!" so... are you saying we should ditch roads and mail and electricity and water? Your response is one of the sillier non sequiturs I've seen in a while, and I browse Reddit.
  - realce 4y ago
    Obviously the utilization of social networks is fundamental to social engagement in modern life. It's not silly whatsoever, it's a natural response when someone quips that a that a thing that's essentially needed but not absolutely required isn't worth complaining about.
    - msm_ 4y ago
      How is it obvious? I (and most of my friends) don't use social networks at all. They're not "absolutely required" for absolutely anything (unless your country is significantly different from mine). You'll only "miss out" on things that are only happening on social networks, but that's the point, right?
      - realce 4y ago
        I literally said they were not "absolutely required" and I don't know why you'd go out of your way to misquote my 2 sentence statement. My mom didn't have a telephone, she had other friends without telephones, but having a telephone when she was a kid was fundamental to building robust social relationships. The reduction of social bandwidth generally results in fewer opportunities for social advancement, and most people would like to experience social advancement of some type.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > Obviously the utilization of social networks is fundamental to social engagement in modern life. That is not obvious at all. I think it's not even true.
      - realce 4y ago
        It's so non-obvious that 60% of the entire population of the Earth uses it.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        That doesn't support the thesis that it's "fundamental to social engagement". I understand that it actually may be in some places, but I haven't seen a reason to think that's the most common case.
- msm_ 4y ago
  Roads, mail service, electricity and water pipes are valuable for me and improve my life. I want to use them, and I do. Social networks are not valuable for me, and they would not improve my life. I don't want to use them, and I don't. It's that simple, really.
  - mym1990 4y ago
    Those things also don't quip at you ever 5 minutes saying 'use me!' and 'check me!'
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
crabbone 4y ago
They are optional in the same way how postal service is optional. Sure, you may just drive / sail / fly to whoever you want your package delivered... chances are you'd rebel against this seeing how everyone else simply drops their package by the nearest collection point. Social networks today provide service beyond simply catching up with friends and family. They serve as front desks of companies' customer support, they provide easy means of feedback to important political figures... they became a public good and need to be recognized by the state as such.
- gruez 4y ago
  Going back to the OP, if people are voluntarily using social networks because they make it easier to catch up with friends and family, why should we "ditch the concept in general"? Should we go back to the days of communicating to each other via letters?
  - j2bax 4y ago
    It would be nice if at a minimum we could demand a social network that caters to making meaningful connection points with friends/family/strangers rather than ad serving algos. I know... the people have spoken and they want free stuff and are willing to sell their data/soul for it. I just wish it wasn't so! If a company built a product that was primarily designed to make me love it and find it valuable enough to pay for it I would be all in. But if the rest of my friends/family aren't in... then its pretty meaningless. I'll just have to keep relying on more manual methods of social media like texting, calls etc.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    I think the concept in general has been proven to be terrible on pretty much every count, so yes, I advocate ditching the idea. > Should we go back to the days of communicating to each other via letters? Or email, or phone, etc. There is no lack of other communications channels. That said, I'm not in favor of banning these services. I just think society in general, and people in particular, would be better off if they stopped using them. I haven't used social media for several years, and my life is in no way poorer for it. I miss out on nothing.
browningstreet 4y ago
Social networks changed the world, and are now predominant in the world we live in. It's like when someone pollutes water. Our society and culture are water, and social networks are... pollutants. It's fine and normal and good to want to look at the superfund site that is our global culture and want to push social networks out of the very-toxic pollutant it happens to be, and into something we can all abide, even for those who only drink beer or use charcoal filters. Plus, you never know what the kids next door are doing with the water...
- comfypotato 4y ago
  The pollutants are people as they’ve always been. Social media is a natural progression of society. It has all the same positives and negatives of an local social structure.
  - mym1990 4y ago
    Is there really a "natural" progression of society? Especially in an age of computers and advanced communication, it is difficult to know what is natural anymore.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - comfypotato 4y ago
      I didn’t mean natural in that sense. Smart-phone-social-media would be unnatural in the same sense that the wheel is unnatural. (In that it wasn’t present for most 99% of our evolution.) Humans didn’t evolve with access to semiconductors, but the social dynamics in social networks have always been there. They’ve just been augmented by semiconductors. I doubt anyone here would disagree with me that it’s better having more ways to communicate with relatives overseas. That’s all I’m really saying. These new methods of communication come with serious baggage, but they’re still inherently positive I think.
xwdv 4y ago
Social networks are like cigarettes. If everyone is smoking everywhere you’re still affected even if you decide you won’t smoke.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
When even local governments use social networks to dispense information, no, no they're not.
mym1990 4y ago
I do, I realize that the most important decision to opt out is on me. There is also no denying that this process is a difficult one and it is not made easier by the platforms themselves.

do you realize that roads are optional? you don't have to leave your house to talk to friends. do you realize that using the mail service is optional? nobody forces you to write post cards. do you realize that electricity is optional? you can get a shack in the forest and burn wood. do you realize that water pipes are optional? you can dig for your own ground water. the world is not made of solipsistic individuals. infrastructure encases, shapes, and forms the possibilities and constraints in which all of us live.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> "let's ditch social networks!" > "You realize they're optional, right?" > "Technically so are roads and mail and electricity and water!" so... are you saying we should ditch roads and mail and electricity and water? Your response is one of the sillier non sequiturs I've seen in a while, and I browse Reddit.
- realce 4y ago
  Obviously the utilization of social networks is fundamental to social engagement in modern life. It's not silly whatsoever, it's a natural response when someone quips that a that a thing that's essentially needed but not absolutely required isn't worth complaining about.
  - msm_ 4y ago
    How is it obvious? I (and most of my friends) don't use social networks at all. They're not "absolutely required" for absolutely anything (unless your country is significantly different from mine). You'll only "miss out" on things that are only happening on social networks, but that's the point, right?
    - realce 4y ago
      I literally said they were not "absolutely required" and I don't know why you'd go out of your way to misquote my 2 sentence statement. My mom didn't have a telephone, she had other friends without telephones, but having a telephone when she was a kid was fundamental to building robust social relationships. The reduction of social bandwidth generally results in fewer opportunities for social advancement, and most people would like to experience social advancement of some type.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > Obviously the utilization of social networks is fundamental to social engagement in modern life. That is not obvious at all. I think it's not even true.
    - realce 4y ago
      It's so non-obvious that 60% of the entire population of the Earth uses it.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        That doesn't support the thesis that it's "fundamental to social engagement". I understand that it actually may be in some places, but I haven't seen a reason to think that's the most common case.
msm_ 4y ago
Roads, mail service, electricity and water pipes are valuable for me and improve my life. I want to use them, and I do. Social networks are not valuable for me, and they would not improve my life. I don't want to use them, and I don't. It's that simple, really.
- mym1990 4y ago
  Those things also don't quip at you ever 5 minutes saying 'use me!' and 'check me!'

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

crabbone 4y ago

They are optional in the same way how postal service is optional. Sure, you may just drive / sail / fly to whoever you want your package delivered... chances are you'd rebel against this seeing how everyone else simply drops their package by the nearest collection point. Social networks today provide service beyond simply catching up with friends and family. They serve as front desks of companies' customer support, they provide easy means of feedback to important political figures... they became a public good and need to be recognized by the state as such.

gruez 4y ago
Going back to the OP, if people are voluntarily using social networks because they make it easier to catch up with friends and family, why should we "ditch the concept in general"? Should we go back to the days of communicating to each other via letters?
- j2bax 4y ago
  It would be nice if at a minimum we could demand a social network that caters to making meaningful connection points with friends/family/strangers rather than ad serving algos. I know... the people have spoken and they want free stuff and are willing to sell their data/soul for it. I just wish it wasn't so! If a company built a product that was primarily designed to make me love it and find it valuable enough to pay for it I would be all in. But if the rest of my friends/family aren't in... then its pretty meaningless. I'll just have to keep relying on more manual methods of social media like texting, calls etc.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I think the concept in general has been proven to be terrible on pretty much every count, so yes, I advocate ditching the idea. > Should we go back to the days of communicating to each other via letters? Or email, or phone, etc. There is no lack of other communications channels. That said, I'm not in favor of banning these services. I just think society in general, and people in particular, would be better off if they stopped using them. I haven't used social media for several years, and my life is in no way poorer for it. I miss out on nothing.

browningstreet 4y ago

Social networks changed the world, and are now predominant in the world we live in. It's like when someone pollutes water. Our society and culture are water, and social networks are... pollutants. It's fine and normal and good to want to look at the superfund site that is our global culture and want to push social networks out of the very-toxic pollutant it happens to be, and into something we can all abide, even for those who only drink beer or use charcoal filters. Plus, you never know what the kids next door are doing with the water...

comfypotato 4y ago
The pollutants are people as they’ve always been. Social media is a natural progression of society. It has all the same positives and negatives of an local social structure.
- mym1990 4y ago
  Is there really a "natural" progression of society? Especially in an age of computers and advanced communication, it is difficult to know what is natural anymore.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - comfypotato 4y ago
    I didn’t mean natural in that sense. Smart-phone-social-media would be unnatural in the same sense that the wheel is unnatural. (In that it wasn’t present for most 99% of our evolution.) Humans didn’t evolve with access to semiconductors, but the social dynamics in social networks have always been there. They’ve just been augmented by semiconductors. I doubt anyone here would disagree with me that it’s better having more ways to communicate with relatives overseas. That’s all I’m really saying. These new methods of communication come with serious baggage, but they’re still inherently positive I think.

xwdv 4y ago

Social networks are like cigarettes. If everyone is smoking everywhere you’re still affected even if you decide you won’t smoke.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

When even local governments use social networks to dispense information, no, no they're not.

mym1990 4y ago

I do, I realize that the most important decision to opt out is on me. There is also no denying that this process is a difficult one and it is not made easier by the platforms themselves.