5 ms·

Social media dramatically increased political polarisation and in this way are quite literaly destroying society and the bonds and social contracts that keep pe

Social media dramatically increased political polarisation and in this way are quite literaly destroying society and the bonds and social contracts that keep people together. In contrast to their other engineered addictions my hunch is (with the caveat that I am not remotely a psychologist) that an important mechanism that enabled this regression was essentially incidental to the nature of these platforms: Normal people for the first time got a public podium (or they think they do) and thus behave as if the whole world is watching. Positions and arguments that earlier on were discussed in smaller and more forgiving circles are now in the open. People get trapped, have to defend a public record, they feel exposed, must double down. They seek comfort in similarly thinking corners, in newly formed clans, which are, as it happens, much easier to find online and encouraged by the algorithms of the platforms. The result is large numbers of people absorbed into toxic, self-generated and self-excited virtual realities. A social mechanism that was always active at a low level, but is now on steroids and out of control. This is just one of the traps: from selfies to influencers, from trolls to click farms the list goes on and on. The positive impact of "connecting people" is drowned in wave after wave of negative phenomena. If we ever get out of this era intact we'll think of it as a nightmare.

mschuster91 3y ago
[flagged]
- pimlottc 3y ago
  Perhaps some people only develop such extreme anti-LGBT views because they don’t actually know or interact with any LGBT people
- MockObject 3y ago
  Thank you for the example of the polarization we're decrying.
- wussboy 3y ago
  The only reason the far-right exists as a thing in our present age, the only reason that you blame them for being the problem, the only reason you put yourself into that box and blame them is because of social media.
  - s5300 3y ago
    [dead]
- bavell 3y ago
  Whew, you've obviously been drinking from the social media firehose. Perfect example of what GP post is referencing.
- shmde 3y ago
  live example of horseshoe theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
wordsarelies 3y ago
Social media removed the corrective elements of previous mechanisms. There's no longer a "trusted party" who helps you when you're in the wrong, there are "enemies" who "dunk on you." The purpose of broadcasting isn't the same as conversation. People want the result of a positive interaction, but they do that by chasing hundreds of negative ones. The negative interactions are actually better for the platform as they are (in some studies) almost 10x as effective at driving engagement. So the companies looking for "the most engaging" communities, drive more negative interactions. The people looking for the most clicks, chase the "dunking" and "counter dunking" interactions, and it becomes at best 90% of the platform, at in reality like 99% of what you see while you're doom scrolling. Social media is awful, and draws out our worst impulses as a business model.
- dahwolf 3y ago
  Agreed. Take something as simple as a "quote tweet". The physical analogy is that you're listening to somebody, then turn around to speak to a group of "friends" about it whilst the other person can hear you do it. And you'd likely misrepresent what was said and receive an applause for it. It's a deeply anti-social behavior that in the real world would make you wake up in a hospital pretty soon. Or how about a retweet of a hot take? Imagine going all over town and plastering walls with a low effort opinion. Or how about digging into somebody's past to find something offensive from a decade ago? What would the physical analogy look like? Following somebody for 10 years, taking notes, making pictures, interviewing your friends and family? Which would amount to what normally would be a deep criminal investigation, yet here we do it just for kicks? Social media has normalized deeply anti-social behavior and the consequences are severe.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Social media dramatically increased political polarization No, it didn’t. Social media emerged at a time when the US was returning to the long-term norm of partisan polarization from an aberrant period where political polarization was less aligned with the divide between the two major parties because it was a long period of overlapping political realignments (pivoting around the New Deal and the Civil Rights.) It was also during a rise in overall political polarization, but that had also been going on since about the end of the realignment period in the mid-1990s, after a drop over the preceding couple decades from the long high of political-but-not-necessarily-partisan-polarization in the overlapping Civil Rights/Vietnam period, but it can hardly explain a trend that started before it existed.
- nologic01 3y ago
  Well, one thing social media didn't do is eliminate the self-absorption of the US universe. My (anecdotal) empirical observations and speculations about mechanisms that drive polarization have little to do with the US. The patterns we discuss are (alas) quite universal and other cultures are not at all immune to this. Of-course if we zoom out to longer time scales polarization was rampant and lethal (across most of the world), in ways we thought or hoped we will never see again. The tragic result of social media as they developed is that instead of helping fix known problems or help build consensus about handling emerging problems, they aggravate them, in ways that we only gradually start figuring out.
smokel 3y ago
When the printing press was developed, people started publishing "pamphlets". The extent of disinformation and political slander that was conveyed through these in the 16th century makes LinkedIn and Twitter pale in comparison. I suppose individuals learn to cope with these phenomena rather quickly. I'm not the best at avoiding social media, but I seem to have no problem ignoring the crackpots. I guess most people share a similar approach.
- nologic01 3y ago
  That is an important point. People do reflect and learn. Our very discussion is part of this process. The question is at what scale, how quickly, how effective the immunity etc. and what random distress events must be handled in the current setup.
dahwolf 3y ago
"Normal people for the first time got a public podium (or they think they do) and thus behave as if the whole world is watching." I strongly object to the word "normal" here. Normies, as in the common masses you know from the real world, are nowhere to be seen on social networks. Yes, many have accounts, but they're not a force. Many post nothing or infrequently and then get a handful of likes from their 20 followers. If anything, social media promotes the abnormal. It does so by rewarding engagement, any engagement. What is reliably engaging? Triggering our brain that is hotwired to pay attention to the negative, strange, unhinged and weird. Normally, the local madman of a town (village idiot) is kept in check. Ousted, not taken seriously. Social media is basically saying, you know what...you're unhinged, but we believe you should be major. Along with some tens of thousands of others like you, you should run this entire place. The people will click, surely they do.

mschuster91 3y ago

[flagged]

pimlottc 3y ago
Perhaps some people only develop such extreme anti-LGBT views because they don’t actually know or interact with any LGBT people
MockObject 3y ago
Thank you for the example of the polarization we're decrying.
wussboy 3y ago
The only reason the far-right exists as a thing in our present age, the only reason that you blame them for being the problem, the only reason you put yourself into that box and blame them is because of social media.
- s5300 3y ago
  [dead]
bavell 3y ago
Whew, you've obviously been drinking from the social media firehose. Perfect example of what GP post is referencing.
shmde 3y ago
live example of horseshoe theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

wordsarelies 3y ago

Social media removed the corrective elements of previous mechanisms. There's no longer a "trusted party" who helps you when you're in the wrong, there are "enemies" who "dunk on you." The purpose of broadcasting isn't the same as conversation. People want the result of a positive interaction, but they do that by chasing hundreds of negative ones. The negative interactions are actually better for the platform as they are (in some studies) almost 10x as effective at driving engagement. So the companies looking for "the most engaging" communities, drive more negative interactions. The people looking for the most clicks, chase the "dunking" and "counter dunking" interactions, and it becomes at best 90% of the platform, at in reality like 99% of what you see while you're doom scrolling. Social media is awful, and draws out our worst impulses as a business model.

dahwolf 3y ago
Agreed. Take something as simple as a "quote tweet". The physical analogy is that you're listening to somebody, then turn around to speak to a group of "friends" about it whilst the other person can hear you do it. And you'd likely misrepresent what was said and receive an applause for it. It's a deeply anti-social behavior that in the real world would make you wake up in a hospital pretty soon. Or how about a retweet of a hot take? Imagine going all over town and plastering walls with a low effort opinion. Or how about digging into somebody's past to find something offensive from a decade ago? What would the physical analogy look like? Following somebody for 10 years, taking notes, making pictures, interviewing your friends and family? Which would amount to what normally would be a deep criminal investigation, yet here we do it just for kicks? Social media has normalized deeply anti-social behavior and the consequences are severe.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Social media dramatically increased political polarization No, it didn’t. Social media emerged at a time when the US was returning to the long-term norm of partisan polarization from an aberrant period where political polarization was less aligned with the divide between the two major parties because it was a long period of overlapping political realignments (pivoting around the New Deal and the Civil Rights.) It was also during a rise in overall political polarization, but that had also been going on since about the end of the realignment period in the mid-1990s, after a drop over the preceding couple decades from the long high of political-but-not-necessarily-partisan-polarization in the overlapping Civil Rights/Vietnam period, but it can hardly explain a trend that started before it existed.

nologic01 3y ago
Well, one thing social media didn't do is eliminate the self-absorption of the US universe. My (anecdotal) empirical observations and speculations about mechanisms that drive polarization have little to do with the US. The patterns we discuss are (alas) quite universal and other cultures are not at all immune to this. Of-course if we zoom out to longer time scales polarization was rampant and lethal (across most of the world), in ways we thought or hoped we will never see again. The tragic result of social media as they developed is that instead of helping fix known problems or help build consensus about handling emerging problems, they aggravate them, in ways that we only gradually start figuring out.

smokel 3y ago

When the printing press was developed, people started publishing "pamphlets". The extent of disinformation and political slander that was conveyed through these in the 16th century makes LinkedIn and Twitter pale in comparison. I suppose individuals learn to cope with these phenomena rather quickly. I'm not the best at avoiding social media, but I seem to have no problem ignoring the crackpots. I guess most people share a similar approach.

nologic01 3y ago
That is an important point. People do reflect and learn. Our very discussion is part of this process. The question is at what scale, how quickly, how effective the immunity etc. and what random distress events must be handled in the current setup.

dahwolf 3y ago

"Normal people for the first time got a public podium (or they think they do) and thus behave as if the whole world is watching." I strongly object to the word "normal" here. Normies, as in the common masses you know from the real world, are nowhere to be seen on social networks. Yes, many have accounts, but they're not a force. Many post nothing or infrequently and then get a handful of likes from their 20 followers. If anything, social media promotes the abnormal. It does so by rewarding engagement, any engagement. What is reliably engaging? Triggering our brain that is hotwired to pay attention to the negative, strange, unhinged and weird. Normally, the local madman of a town (village idiot) is kept in check. Ousted, not taken seriously. Social media is basically saying, you know what...you're unhinged, but we believe you should be major. Along with some tens of thousands of others like you, you should run this entire place. The people will click, surely they do.