3 ms·

> it's just fine yes and no, the basics are pretty good... but as you mentioned there are some insidious effects from the centralized platforms themselves that

> it's just fine yes and no, the basics are pretty good... but as you mentioned there are some insidious effects from the centralized platforms themselves that weren't as broad reaching in earlier technologies; instagram promoting content that makes teens girls spiral into feeling terrible about themselves, youtube radicalizing incels, etc then there's the monetization aspect that's leading kids to say things like they want to aspire to become youtubers when they grow up

eszed 3y ago
Thanks for fleshing out my point a bit. I completely agree. Centralized platforms always drove culture, but when that was broadcast (emphasis on the first syllable), it was a) visible to, (potentially!) comprehensible, and able to be influenced by outside observers, and b) sub-cultures developed outside the opticon's view. Now the vast majority of social activity belongs to a few opaque platforms, with consequences we don't yet know, but already seem sinister. I'm honestly more worried about how that affects adults than kids! Young people, mainly because they go to school, have more (albeit enforced) opportunities for offline socialization. As a parent, I know I'll have at least some control over my kid's online activity for a while (and once he finds a way around my router rules he'll be a journeyman hacker, so that's cool too), but there's no brake on twenty-somethings (or thirty- or forty-somethings) being pulled down the dark paths you mention. As for kids aspiring to be YouTubers or whatever? Eh, they're just chasing the high-prestige choices within their cultural ambit. It's no different than wanting to be an athlete or rock star once was. They'll find (as we all did) that actually doing so takes a ton of hard work, and a bit of luck; some will dedicate themselves to it, and learn plenty (through either success or failure); most will drift towards different dreams.

eszed 3y ago

Thanks for fleshing out my point a bit. I completely agree. Centralized platforms always drove culture, but when that was broadcast (emphasis on the first syllable), it was a) visible to, (potentially!) comprehensible, and able to be influenced by outside observers, and b) sub-cultures developed outside the opticon's view. Now the vast majority of social activity belongs to a few opaque platforms, with consequences we don't yet know, but already seem sinister. I'm honestly more worried about how that affects adults than kids! Young people, mainly because they go to school, have more (albeit enforced) opportunities for offline socialization. As a parent, I know I'll have at least some control over my kid's online activity for a while (and once he finds a way around my router rules he'll be a journeyman hacker, so that's cool too), but there's no brake on twenty-somethings (or thirty- or forty-somethings) being pulled down the dark paths you mention. As for kids aspiring to be YouTubers or whatever? Eh, they're just chasing the high-prestige choices within their cultural ambit. It's no different than wanting to be an athlete or rock star once was. They'll find (as we all did) that actually doing so takes a ton of hard work, and a bit of luck; some will dedicate themselves to it, and learn plenty (through either success or failure); most will drift towards different dreams.