5 ms·
I don't 100% disagree with you, but I'm still uncomfortable with this line of thinking. It smacks of "the plebs don't know what's bad for them, but I do". I fi
by nmfisher 3y ago
I don't 100% disagree with you, but I'm still uncomfortable with this line of thinking. It smacks of "the plebs don't know what's bad for them, but I do".
I find it hard to fault someone who just gives the crowd what it wants.
- Tanoc 3y agoI don't think it's so much "the plebs don't know what's bad for them, but I do" as it is "These people know something's wrong but haven't been given the vocabulary, tools, and education necessary to spot the danger as easily." Many ordinary people have lapsed into willful ignorance or apathy because the burden of learning the dangers is too high for them with so many other common problems going around these days.
- throwway120385 3y agoYeah for me it's more like this. I'm totally fine if people make the conscious decision to trade engagement for stimulation. But what I'm very concerned about is just how many people are forced into this situation because the network has captured their friends. One of the most concerning things for me is that in studies of how damaging social networks are for teenage girls, girls who were off the social network were markedly better off except if all of their friends were on the social network, in which case they were worse off. Companies like Meta are exploiting these network effects, which are harmful, to make people dependent on their platform in a very "addiction-like" way.