3 ms·
> People are social animals. Why wouldn't they benefit from the use of social tools and a worldwide fast-as-light communication network? Because those tools ar
by tivert 2y ago
> People are social animals. Why wouldn't they benefit from the use of social tools and a worldwide fast-as-light communication network?
Because those tools are often not a good fit for human sociability? "More and faster" is not always better, though it's a tempting metric for technology people because it's oversimplified and easily quantifiable.
- akira2501 2y agoI meant social tools in general. The second paragraph addresses what I believe to be the specific mechanics driving our current popular flawed implementations of these tools. It should be noted, these are not the only sites in existence, and viewing "social media" strictly through the lens of them is probably unproductive.
- tivert 2y ago> The second paragraph addresses what I believe to be the specific mechanics driving our current popular flawed implementations of these tools. I don't agree with your assessment. I think there are fundamental problems with these tools not caused by "monopolists" or "dark patterns." One that easily comes to mind is the dysfunction that comes from people being separated from in-personal social feedback and other kinds of regulatory practices.
- akira2501 2y ago> One that easily comes to mind is the dysfunction that comes from people being separated from in-personal social feedback You seem to be describing a situation in which the person is not _choosing_ to use these tools. In which case, it doesn't seem like the tool that's the problem, but a corporation using it inappropriately. Which, again, is the result of the labor market being monopolized. If this practice is as deleterious as you suggest, then why put up with it, unless you don't have a realistic choice. So, I actually think you've precisely made my point for me.