3 ms·

I don't think we're mentally ready for social media, even. What something like Twitter can inflict on a person when it goes wrong is absolutely unprecedented,

I don't think we're mentally ready for social media, even. What something like Twitter can inflict on a person when it goes wrong is absolutely unprecedented, and we still haven't adapted to it. Think that for instance going to the cinema, watching a movie, walking out and venting to a friend "Boy, this one sucked. $ACTOR_NAME did a really bad job with this one" is a perfectly normal thing to do. But move that to Twitter and it can become part of a years-long torrent of hate highly visible to that single person. Even if what you think you're doing is communicating with your 10 friends. A retweet, a hashtag, or just the algorithm can magically make your comment part of an online mob.

Jeff_Brown 3y ago
Or give you the illusion that someone's listening, compellingly enough that you neglect the work of making friends in the real world.
figassis 3y ago
I never understood why this makes social media hard. If you leave the theater and then go around town shouting that movie X sucked and actor Y was really bad, you might also get some responses and maybe show up on the news a a crazy person, prejudiced, or some other adjectives. So you don't, you tell your friends, some of which might call you an idiot for not getting it, and other might agree. If you tweet it out, you're potentially asking the entire planet to weigh in, well, have fun with that.
- inanutshellus 3y ago
  GP says "the consequences of speaking normally are radically different now" and your retort is "I don't get why this is hard, just always perfectly self-censor." Of course one'd have to do so in a way that one'd never offend anyone, ever, across the entire planet. Seems like an unrealistic response.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  You could also send it in an email or text message to a limited set of friends, and then one of them screenshots it and posts it to the wider internet. You could also be caught on a recording or video saying the thing to a limited set of friends, and have it go viral on the internet. In any case, "going around town shouting" is not at all akin to twitter. It is more like having a public board where you write things signed with your name. Anyone can look at it, but it takes zero effort to not look at it, and for most people, no one looks at it except their friends who want to look at it.
HWR_14 3y ago
While I am sympathetic to people who suddenly go viral, I have no real issues with actors who opted into the limelight seeing a stream of negative reactions to their work. They choose that and actively sought fame. And even leaving that aside, they put their work out there to billions of people. Those people should be expected to provide feedback. A Starbucks barista didn't opt into that world. And they did not get paid a very large sum of money, in part to compensate them for (and let them pay other people to handle) the torrent of negativity.
roenxi 3y ago
Any evidence we are ready for mass media? The internet era suggests that there has always been a flood of lies and half-truths and there is an uncomfortable dawning realisation that the voters in most democracies would actually rather adopt peaceful policies if the media aren't ginning up a fight. What Twitter does to someone is unfortunate. What radio and broadcasting resulted in for Europe through the 1940s was arguably worse. Coordinated madness is much more dangerous than individual lunacy.
- vdqtp3 3y ago
  > radio and broadcasting resulted in for Europe through the 1940s Are you arguing that radio and broadcasting are the cause of WW2?
  - ketzo 3y ago
    They're definitely indirect causes of the rise of Hitler, sure.
thefz 3y ago
My point exactly. We are already living in a post-truth world in which the most likes or followers count, more than truth, not the factual accuracy of "influencers".
- aero-deck 3y ago
  No one has ever cared about factual accuracy except for the military. All other social benefits of "facts" trickle-down from there.
gonzo41 3y ago
On social media, IMO, People have too much identity fusion with their online accounts. Including me. I think Karma points and all the clout people have over time creates an anchoring that is problematic. In life, if things get toxic, the smart move is to just leave, and avoid the conflict and the personalities driving it. But so much work by the Meta's of this world has been done to make people nest in their accounts. This creates the belief that leaving and starting fresh with a new handle is a terrible prospect. An this is totally to the detriment of the user. If you were in a cafe talking with a group, and someone started screaming at you over your personal opinion, and you found yourself getting upset, you'd probably just leave. For some reason that doesn't happen online, and I think it's due to the nesting. Like if I say something on twitter that people disagree with enough to not let go after a few hours. I'm just going to block them. I just don't have the energy to bother with rando's beyond a civil disagreement. Or take getting banned on a forum because of some demigod style rule. well, shrugs, I'll just go slow and get another account and let that one sail by. In a way, i think 4chan get's it right with everyone being anonymous to each other.
- chasd00 3y ago
  the monetized platforms will fight tooth and nail to keep you in your same account. When you create a new one the profiling starts all over again and they have to build up your information to serve you ads. The longer you remain on a platform using the same account the easier it is to get you to click.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
raxxorraxor 3y ago
Twitter and Reddit are probably far less toxic than platforms like Instagram and maybe Facebook due to a factor of reasons. The amount of criticism can easily distort its amplitude, although there are self-reinforcing effects between single critics. There is a reason why successful actors and personalities have a PR agency. If you become an "influencer" or just the focal point of the lastest discussion, you don't have that. It might work, but there is a reason why such agencies exist. They should not, but some people are quite enthusiastic. We would have been far more ready if people actually adhered to the advice to share personal information rather defensively. But the reward of attention was probably too large. I don't even believe mobs are a problem. Some opinions on topics will always converge. There just needs to be a way to escape them. In most cases there are trivial ones. It would be a huge loss if we restrict the net because some people wanted attention and got not so nice feedback.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
I'd argue there is reasonable evidence that we were ready for the printing press. Everything beyond that, not so much.

Jeff_Brown 3y ago

Or give you the illusion that someone's listening, compellingly enough that you neglect the work of making friends in the real world.

figassis 3y ago

I never understood why this makes social media hard. If you leave the theater and then go around town shouting that movie X sucked and actor Y was really bad, you might also get some responses and maybe show up on the news a a crazy person, prejudiced, or some other adjectives. So you don't, you tell your friends, some of which might call you an idiot for not getting it, and other might agree. If you tweet it out, you're potentially asking the entire planet to weigh in, well, have fun with that.

inanutshellus 3y ago
GP says "the consequences of speaking normally are radically different now" and your retort is "I don't get why this is hard, just always perfectly self-censor." Of course one'd have to do so in a way that one'd never offend anyone, ever, across the entire planet. Seems like an unrealistic response.
oh_sigh 3y ago
You could also send it in an email or text message to a limited set of friends, and then one of them screenshots it and posts it to the wider internet. You could also be caught on a recording or video saying the thing to a limited set of friends, and have it go viral on the internet. In any case, "going around town shouting" is not at all akin to twitter. It is more like having a public board where you write things signed with your name. Anyone can look at it, but it takes zero effort to not look at it, and for most people, no one looks at it except their friends who want to look at it.

HWR_14 3y ago

While I am sympathetic to people who suddenly go viral, I have no real issues with actors who opted into the limelight seeing a stream of negative reactions to their work. They choose that and actively sought fame. And even leaving that aside, they put their work out there to billions of people. Those people should be expected to provide feedback. A Starbucks barista didn't opt into that world. And they did not get paid a very large sum of money, in part to compensate them for (and let them pay other people to handle) the torrent of negativity.

roenxi 3y ago

Any evidence we are ready for mass media? The internet era suggests that there has always been a flood of lies and half-truths and there is an uncomfortable dawning realisation that the voters in most democracies would actually rather adopt peaceful policies if the media aren't ginning up a fight. What Twitter does to someone is unfortunate. What radio and broadcasting resulted in for Europe through the 1940s was arguably worse. Coordinated madness is much more dangerous than individual lunacy.

vdqtp3 3y ago
> radio and broadcasting resulted in for Europe through the 1940s Are you arguing that radio and broadcasting are the cause of WW2?
- ketzo 3y ago
  They're definitely indirect causes of the rise of Hitler, sure.

thefz 3y ago

My point exactly. We are already living in a post-truth world in which the most likes or followers count, more than truth, not the factual accuracy of "influencers".

aero-deck 3y ago
No one has ever cared about factual accuracy except for the military. All other social benefits of "facts" trickle-down from there.

gonzo41 3y ago

On social media, IMO, People have too much identity fusion with their online accounts. Including me. I think Karma points and all the clout people have over time creates an anchoring that is problematic. In life, if things get toxic, the smart move is to just leave, and avoid the conflict and the personalities driving it. But so much work by the Meta's of this world has been done to make people nest in their accounts. This creates the belief that leaving and starting fresh with a new handle is a terrible prospect. An this is totally to the detriment of the user. If you were in a cafe talking with a group, and someone started screaming at you over your personal opinion, and you found yourself getting upset, you'd probably just leave. For some reason that doesn't happen online, and I think it's due to the nesting. Like if I say something on twitter that people disagree with enough to not let go after a few hours. I'm just going to block them. I just don't have the energy to bother with rando's beyond a civil disagreement. Or take getting banned on a forum because of some demigod style rule. well, shrugs, I'll just go slow and get another account and let that one sail by. In a way, i think 4chan get's it right with everyone being anonymous to each other.

chasd00 3y ago
the monetized platforms will fight tooth and nail to keep you in your same account. When you create a new one the profiling starts all over again and they have to build up your information to serve you ads. The longer you remain on a platform using the same account the easier it is to get you to click.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

raxxorraxor 3y ago

Twitter and Reddit are probably far less toxic than platforms like Instagram and maybe Facebook due to a factor of reasons. The amount of criticism can easily distort its amplitude, although there are self-reinforcing effects between single critics. There is a reason why successful actors and personalities have a PR agency. If you become an "influencer" or just the focal point of the lastest discussion, you don't have that. It might work, but there is a reason why such agencies exist. They should not, but some people are quite enthusiastic. We would have been far more ready if people actually adhered to the advice to share personal information rather defensively. But the reward of attention was probably too large. I don't even believe mobs are a problem. Some opinions on topics will always converge. There just needs to be a way to escape them. In most cases there are trivial ones. It would be a huge loss if we restrict the net because some people wanted attention and got not so nice feedback.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

I'd argue there is reasonable evidence that we were ready for the printing press. Everything beyond that, not so much.