3 ms·

What you say just seems to be a general property of humans exchanging information. Not an intrinsic problem to social media. Where can we find "A true express

What you say just seems to be a general property of humans exchanging information. Not an intrinsic problem to social media. Where can we find "A true expression of public views in the wide"? I've been using social media all my life and for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives. I never believed it should be my sole source of information just as much as gossiping or talking to my hairdresser shouldn't be my sole source of information. If I want to have a nuanced opinion.

ggm 3y ago
Good outlook. You weigh it comparable to other channels. Media at large places greater weight on it, what's said on it, and it's relative importance. If we treated all tweets as comparable to spitballing over drinks or hairdresser gossip the world would be a better place. I am unsure there is any true expression of popular sentiment, ever. My problem again here is inflated beliefs to Twitter as reflective of some wider community view. Quite apart from being anything but random sample, it's riddled with both bots and trolls.
- thomashop 3y ago
  I weigh a tweet by the BBC more than the tweet of my racist neighbour. I weigh a news article in a tabloid newspaper less than I would an article in the New York Times for example. Why do we need to make a blanket statement about social media being untrustworthy? Information without context can't be trusted no matter the medium.
  - ggm 3y ago
    Perhaps I have a weak line of argument. It does cause widespread harm, if not to you certainly to others. At root it shouldn't matter. But, it seems it does. It's like dope. Why all the furore when mature reasonable adults can self police their use and avoid trouble? It's everyone else, who overdo it, who become lost in psychosis, who turn to crime. Sure, decriminalise it. But... look how the Dutch are saying it's far more complex than just open slather. I chose dope as a comparison because it's absolutely not addictive in strict sense and is most definitely socially habituated, as twitter is. Society isn't better because of social media. Maybe you're OK. Society at large isn't. Would you eg say teenage girls are not at risk? That people with mental health issues are not at risk? Not that it defines it as "ban it now" but "where's the harm" seems disinegenuous. There's harm. How much, what remediates, unclear. For me, it's avoid. You differ. I might add my immediate family is also split on this. So I don't believe I am in the majority on this.
    - thomashop 3y ago
      Would you eg say teenage girls are not at risk? That people with mental health issues are not at risk? Not that it defines it as "ban it now" but "where's the harm" seems disinegenuous. There's harm. How much, what remediates, unclear. For me, it's avoid. You differ. Every piece of information that is transmitted between humans carries the risk of harming someone. I genuinely believe that society at large is better due to social media.
      - thomashop 3y ago
        but upon rereading i sound too extreme. i definitely agree we should try to reduce risks through regulation but thats already happening

ggm 3y ago

Good outlook. You weigh it comparable to other channels. Media at large places greater weight on it, what's said on it, and it's relative importance. If we treated all tweets as comparable to spitballing over drinks or hairdresser gossip the world would be a better place. I am unsure there is any true expression of popular sentiment, ever. My problem again here is inflated beliefs to Twitter as reflective of some wider community view. Quite apart from being anything but random sample, it's riddled with both bots and trolls.

thomashop 3y ago
I weigh a tweet by the BBC more than the tweet of my racist neighbour. I weigh a news article in a tabloid newspaper less than I would an article in the New York Times for example. Why do we need to make a blanket statement about social media being untrustworthy? Information without context can't be trusted no matter the medium.
- ggm 3y ago
  Perhaps I have a weak line of argument. It does cause widespread harm, if not to you certainly to others. At root it shouldn't matter. But, it seems it does. It's like dope. Why all the furore when mature reasonable adults can self police their use and avoid trouble? It's everyone else, who overdo it, who become lost in psychosis, who turn to crime. Sure, decriminalise it. But... look how the Dutch are saying it's far more complex than just open slather. I chose dope as a comparison because it's absolutely not addictive in strict sense and is most definitely socially habituated, as twitter is. Society isn't better because of social media. Maybe you're OK. Society at large isn't. Would you eg say teenage girls are not at risk? That people with mental health issues are not at risk? Not that it defines it as "ban it now" but "where's the harm" seems disinegenuous. There's harm. How much, what remediates, unclear. For me, it's avoid. You differ. I might add my immediate family is also split on this. So I don't believe I am in the majority on this.
  - thomashop 3y ago
    Would you eg say teenage girls are not at risk? That people with mental health issues are not at risk? Not that it defines it as "ban it now" but "where's the harm" seems disinegenuous. There's harm. How much, what remediates, unclear. For me, it's avoid. You differ. Every piece of information that is transmitted between humans carries the risk of harming someone. I genuinely believe that society at large is better due to social media.
    - thomashop 3y ago
      but upon rereading i sound too extreme. i definitely agree we should try to reduce risks through regulation but thats already happening