3 ms·
Young people suffering “Internet's worst horrors”? You mean the social network services? Those exploitative weepy articles about content moderation are just mu
by ogurechny 3y ago
Young people suffering “Internet's worst horrors”? You mean the social network services?
Those exploitative weepy articles about content moderation are just multi-layered hypocrisy.
First of all, it is supposed that people are somehow entitled to “good experiences”, and the arbitrary (and moving) cultural boundary between “suitable” and “unsuitable” is as unquestionable as if it was God-given, when in fact, it's just a feature of an entertainment direct-to-screen service available to those from the luckier parts of the world/society. Others deal with the feces for them, as shown here.
Then there's the hypocrisy of the reader, who enjoys the thrills articles like those give, but also enjoys the service too much to stop, and leave the system of exploitation. Like, “It's so awful, so awful, but I need my daily dose of filtered cat pictures, so you're gonna get that sad dickpick spam in my stead. It's just the world we live in! The algorithm makes me continue doing that!”, etc.
Then there's the talk about values, correctness, and so on, but those decisions are not even personal in the first place. The “SFW” facade is not supported by some die-hard conservatives in power, it is just a business requirement. Say, breastfeeding is considered “problematic” not because of some “clash of cultures”, or “gender conflict”, or “religious opposition”, but because you can't use someone's body in that context to hold advertisements, as stated in contracts. Now go hide yourself in a ditch somewhere, don't spoil our pretty picture. Money happens to be religion here (what an original thought).
Some time ago, people naively believed in the future that eliminates travails and death, now we pretend really hard that the “future” is now, and build all kinds of media and social contraptions to make someone else do the “dirty” work (real or “emotional”).
- MerManMaid 3y ago>Then there's the hypocrisy of the reader, who enjoys the thrills articles like those give, but also enjoys the service too much to stop, and leave the system of exploitation. Like, “It's so awful, so awful, but I need my daily dose of filtered cat pictures, so you're gonna get that sad dickpick spam in my stead. It's just the world we live in! The algorithm makes me continue doing that!”, etc. I get you're angry but if everyone who complains about how awful social media can be while they themselves participate in social media are hypocrites and therefore shouldn't speak up (because... ???), how do you honestly see society being able to address the problem? Heck even now, both you and I are participating in a limited form of social media, aren't we to hypocrites for complaining about the harm given your interpretation? I mean sure we aren't looking at "filtered cat pictures" (or maybe we are :P) but I don't see how what we're doing here is fundamentally different.