3 ms·

The ROI on content creation and commenting is phenomenal. Anyone with an agenda to push would be dumb to leave that on the table. The barriers to entry for soc

The ROI on content creation and commenting is phenomenal. Anyone with an agenda to push would be dumb to leave that on the table. The barriers to entry for social media are inconsequential compared to mass media. And to boot, contrived social media disputes are often picked up by mass media who are all to happy to present your side as one of two legitimate positions. You can absolutely garner wide reach with a modicum of effort. One of the most powerful tools in the arsenal isn't telling people what to believe; it's teaching them how to believe. One or two strong attractors in hermenutical space can be all it takes to give people the ability to perform the type of self-story and current event exegesis that you want them to. From there, it's a self-reinforcing loop. Dropping an interpretative device that makes people feel smart is one of the easiest ways to get your method of belief-construction to dominate.

Loquebantur 3y ago
If "social" media wasn't factually asocial by allowing anonymity, sockpuppet farms at least would have to usurp some real body's identity. The structure of human society being hierarchical in nature (the 90-9-1 rule mentioned in the article) is a given. Lamenting it, implicitly or explicitly, is nonsensical. Society enacts a marketplace of ideas. Attaching those to persons is sort of a fallacy. Maybe due to the assumption, those with one good idea might have another one. Sometimes that's true though. So, if some thinktank or company comes up with a good idea, or "hermenutical attractor" in your parlance, that's just fine? So long as nobody has an actually better idea, what's the problem? The real problem is the lack of discussion space where ideas can be thoroughly compared.
- teddyh 3y ago
  > If "social" media wasn't factually asocial by allowing anonymity Anonymity is, in fact, a real necessity: <https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22R...>
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Loquebantur 3y ago

If "social" media wasn't factually asocial by allowing anonymity, sockpuppet farms at least would have to usurp some real body's identity. The structure of human society being hierarchical in nature (the 90-9-1 rule mentioned in the article) is a given. Lamenting it, implicitly or explicitly, is nonsensical. Society enacts a marketplace of ideas. Attaching those to persons is sort of a fallacy. Maybe due to the assumption, those with one good idea might have another one. Sometimes that's true though. So, if some thinktank or company comes up with a good idea, or "hermenutical attractor" in your parlance, that's just fine? So long as nobody has an actually better idea, what's the problem? The real problem is the lack of discussion space where ideas can be thoroughly compared.

teddyh 3y ago
> If "social" media wasn't factually asocial by allowing anonymity Anonymity is, in fact, a real necessity: <https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22R...>
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]