4 ms·

I'm old enough to remember that the same media that's complaining about Social Media's affects on Teens is the same media that was after video games, Hollywood,

I'm old enough to remember that the same media that's complaining about Social Media's affects on Teens is the same media that was after video games, Hollywood, music videos. Moral panic has always sold newspapers. I'm not saying you're wrong but I think this perspective has helped me see things a bit differently.

api 3y ago
I thought those things were BS. Social media is different. It’s addictive to a degree that goes far beyond TV or video games and the content is shockingly mindless and toxic. The average content on social media (at least if you let yourself be led by algorithms) is easily as bad as the worst content on cable TV. Some of it is worse than almost anything on TV in a very specific way: it’s utterly mindless. I’m continuously shocked by the mindlessness of what trends on YouTube for instance. It lacks even basic plot or structure, just endless repetitive spectacle or people faking excited reactions while doing the most banal things. It barely qualifies as filler yet people eat it up. Then of course you have the political and cultural trash. Right, left, up, down, but no matter what it is it must be dumb and extreme and inflammatory. The most successful stuff in this category either serves to inflame hatred toward someone else or feed narcissism in the target audience. Absolute trash, it seems, is what maximizes engagement. I don’t like what it says about humanity.
- 52-6F-62 3y ago
  I think it says what the mystics were always saying: Most people are like they’re asleep. Great art works to break people out of that sleep—that includes pop music and TV and whatever else. The kind of garbage that gets elevated by these algorithms does the opposite—it buries peoples minds and numbs their senses. There’s a lot of money to be made off of people who are continuously preoccupied rather than present and feeling.
908087 3y ago
Video games, movies, and music weren't able to hit users with micro-targeted ads/propaganda/"content" meant to modify individual behavior in ways often harmful to them or society as a whole. Unfortunately even that has changed now that everyone uses streaming services and plays always-online games.
Amezarak 3y ago
Maybe they were right, and social media is even worse. TV, for instance, has pretty clearly been a net negative due to its impact on the social fabric and people’s, especially children’s, minds. The fact social media is even worse doesn’t change that.
- marcellus23 3y ago
  > TV, for instance, has pretty clearly been a net negative due to its impact on the social fabric and people’s, especially children’s, minds I don't think this is clear. What kind of effects do you think TV has had on the social fabric?
- gnz11 3y ago
  Heck, you can take that even further and say the entire hyper-consumption economy has been a net negative.
retrac 3y ago
Society largely tuned out of the "does media impact its viewers psychologically or behaviourally?" debate in the 80s after the moral panic. And it was a moral panic. But I've always been uncomfortable with the opposite extreme position, the implicit reaction to the moral panic. The argument where TV, movies, games, social media, it's not possible for them to have any real effect on their viewers psychologically, regardless of content, even when they're exposed to dozens of hours a week in some extreme cases. That strains my credulity. There's been a lot of research done which suggests it is true; it has an impact. For example, exposure to violent media doesn't appear to cause violence by inducing insensitivity to horror and the disgust, as once hypothesized. But it does seem to cause anxiety about being the victim of violence. The more violent TV news and violent movies you watch, the more you overestimate your chances of being horribly murdered one day. But you know, maybe it does just make us violent. The mass shooter phenomenon is, arguably, a media-propagated thing. Copycats upon copycats, inspired solely through media exposure. Similarly, sexualized material does not turn people sex-crazed, it makes them sex-negative and apprehensive about their own body image. As a general rule, the more porn you watch, the fewer sex partners you have. There has been a massive change in the sexual behaviour of young adults over the last couple decades -- they have literally half as much sex as we did in my generation. Could it possibly have something to do with the media boys watch?
- Mezzie 3y ago
  > But I've always been uncomfortable with the opposite extreme position, the implicit reaction to the moral panic. The argument where TV, movies, games, social media, it's not possible for them to have any real effect on their viewers psychologically, regardless of content, even when they're exposed to dozens of hours a week in some extreme cases. Hard agree. The example that won't leave my mind is product placement: As a marketing concept it revolves around the idea that consumers seeing your product more than others means your product will come to their mind first and therefore purchase it more. It's why so many characters use brand name goods on TV. Companies spend good money on this - they wouldn't do that if they didn't think it worked. And if seeing our favorite character enjoy Coke makes us more likely to be Coke, why wouldn't be influenced by other things? Who says you have to 'sell' a physical product for this to work?

api 3y ago

I thought those things were BS. Social media is different. It’s addictive to a degree that goes far beyond TV or video games and the content is shockingly mindless and toxic. The average content on social media (at least if you let yourself be led by algorithms) is easily as bad as the worst content on cable TV. Some of it is worse than almost anything on TV in a very specific way: it’s utterly mindless. I’m continuously shocked by the mindlessness of what trends on YouTube for instance. It lacks even basic plot or structure, just endless repetitive spectacle or people faking excited reactions while doing the most banal things. It barely qualifies as filler yet people eat it up. Then of course you have the political and cultural trash. Right, left, up, down, but no matter what it is it must be dumb and extreme and inflammatory. The most successful stuff in this category either serves to inflame hatred toward someone else or feed narcissism in the target audience. Absolute trash, it seems, is what maximizes engagement. I don’t like what it says about humanity.

52-6F-62 3y ago
I think it says what the mystics were always saying: Most people are like they’re asleep. Great art works to break people out of that sleep—that includes pop music and TV and whatever else. The kind of garbage that gets elevated by these algorithms does the opposite—it buries peoples minds and numbs their senses. There’s a lot of money to be made off of people who are continuously preoccupied rather than present and feeling.

908087 3y ago

Video games, movies, and music weren't able to hit users with micro-targeted ads/propaganda/"content" meant to modify individual behavior in ways often harmful to them or society as a whole. Unfortunately even that has changed now that everyone uses streaming services and plays always-online games.

Amezarak 3y ago

Maybe they were right, and social media is even worse. TV, for instance, has pretty clearly been a net negative due to its impact on the social fabric and people’s, especially children’s, minds. The fact social media is even worse doesn’t change that.

marcellus23 3y ago
> TV, for instance, has pretty clearly been a net negative due to its impact on the social fabric and people’s, especially children’s, minds I don't think this is clear. What kind of effects do you think TV has had on the social fabric?
gnz11 3y ago
Heck, you can take that even further and say the entire hyper-consumption economy has been a net negative.

retrac 3y ago

Society largely tuned out of the "does media impact its viewers psychologically or behaviourally?" debate in the 80s after the moral panic. And it was a moral panic. But I've always been uncomfortable with the opposite extreme position, the implicit reaction to the moral panic. The argument where TV, movies, games, social media, it's not possible for them to have any real effect on their viewers psychologically, regardless of content, even when they're exposed to dozens of hours a week in some extreme cases. That strains my credulity. There's been a lot of research done which suggests it is true; it has an impact. For example, exposure to violent media doesn't appear to cause violence by inducing insensitivity to horror and the disgust, as once hypothesized. But it does seem to cause anxiety about being the victim of violence. The more violent TV news and violent movies you watch, the more you overestimate your chances of being horribly murdered one day. But you know, maybe it does just make us violent. The mass shooter phenomenon is, arguably, a media-propagated thing. Copycats upon copycats, inspired solely through media exposure. Similarly, sexualized material does not turn people sex-crazed, it makes them sex-negative and apprehensive about their own body image. As a general rule, the more porn you watch, the fewer sex partners you have. There has been a massive change in the sexual behaviour of young adults over the last couple decades -- they have literally half as much sex as we did in my generation. Could it possibly have something to do with the media boys watch?

Mezzie 3y ago
> But I've always been uncomfortable with the opposite extreme position, the implicit reaction to the moral panic. The argument where TV, movies, games, social media, it's not possible for them to have any real effect on their viewers psychologically, regardless of content, even when they're exposed to dozens of hours a week in some extreme cases. Hard agree. The example that won't leave my mind is product placement: As a marketing concept it revolves around the idea that consumers seeing your product more than others means your product will come to their mind first and therefore purchase it more. It's why so many characters use brand name goods on TV. Companies spend good money on this - they wouldn't do that if they didn't think it worked. And if seeing our favorite character enjoy Coke makes us more likely to be Coke, why wouldn't be influenced by other things? Who says you have to 'sell' a physical product for this to work?