5 ms·

I love to bash social media as much as anybody, but, how different is this from the hoaxes, crazes and hysterias that society went through before social media w

I love to bash social media as much as anybody, but, how different is this from the hoaxes, crazes and hysterias that society went through before social media was ever a thing? Even if we were to eliminate social media, people would just figure out another way to spread viral memes. Humans are wired to rapidly spread ideas the same way they spread the cold virus, not much we can do about it unless we isolate ourselves from each other, or introduce some kind of a govt (or AI) reviewer in between us and every piece of information we receive.

mattlondon 2y ago
The major difference in my mind is the volume and speed. A constant fire-hose of it being beamed at you 24/7 I don't think it is hard to ignore the outrage and drama on social media if you want to, but do people really want to?
forgetfreeman 2y ago
I feel like the question answers itself. We know what the world looked like before widespread adoption of social media, and what it looks like now. Before: obvious bullshit struggled to gain any audience at all and fringe stuff was largely contained by the cost of stamps and labor. After: one rando successfully convinced untold hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of individuals globally that lizard people exist, probably from their phone, in their spare time.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
  You really don't need social media for that. The Rwandan genocide was triggered by one shitty radio station. People will always find a way to easily distribute propaganda.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Easily? To replicate that you'd need to at minimum hijack a radio station. Compare/contrast with the relative difficulty of fishing your phone out of your pocket. There is also the minor issue of instant global reach, so yeah, hijacking radio stations on several continents should keep one busy a while I'd imagine.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
You really don’t see the difference between the weird guy in the bar spouting off some nonsense about aliens and social media manipulating entire countries and their elections?
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
  I do. Here's a devil's advocate argument for social media: if you only leave it up to the government and certain approved organizations, or the extremely affluent and well-capitalized to have a megaphone, you're effectively handing the keys to the information rails to a very small subset of the population who then gets to dictate what the rest of us get to hear about. With social media you're democratizing the megaphone, with, of course, all of the negative side-effects of giving the average Joe that sort of power. However, if you've ever lived under a regime where only a select few had that sort of power and they abused it to the extreme, you'd rather put up with pizza gate and alien conspiracy theories any day of the week. It's akin to an informational second amendment, with, of course, all of the controversy and philosophical differences that comes with. And of course you could debate the correct extent of these powers all day, similarly to how there's a difference between letting your citizens purchase a pepper spray can vs WMDs.
  - atmavatar 2y ago
    > With social media you're democratizing the megaphone, with, of course, all of the negative side-effects of giving the average Joe that sort of power. That's an illusion. Users see only what the underlying algorithm has decided will increase their engagement. This behind-the-scenes curation of content all but eliminates this democratization you speak of.
    - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
      I'm only responding to the content of the posted article, which doesn't speak of the website owner putting their thumb on the scales to advance a particular narrative. I'm happy to advocate against that. But if the algorithm responds equally well to highly engaging posts from team A and team B, then ultimately the algorithm is fair, there's a level playing field. Would I prefer it if it boosted boring academic papers about nothingburgers that nobody will ever read? I suppose so, but clickbait is the content humanity wants to engage with, regardless of medium. It's up to each team to make sure that their comms are written in a way that cuts through the noise, like with any other form of marketing.
mym1990 2y ago
Uhh okay, but when I have a viral disease, I typically do try to isolate myself and generally am proactive about keeping friends, family, and strangers safe. I don't go to the busiest place I can find and then start sneezing everywhere. The issue is that people no longer use any rigor to question whether something could possibly be false. I don't need a mechanism to tell me whether something is true or false, I am the mechanism. But I understand that is too much to ask from society in general.
lm28469 2y ago
> I love to bash social media as much as anybody, but, how different is this from the hoaxes, crazes and hysterias that society went through before social media was ever a thing? It's always the same answer when the question is "what the difference between X on internet vs X before internet"... the speed and scale of it. You wouldn't argue that a nuke is just like a handgun, well it's the same here

mattlondon 2y ago

The major difference in my mind is the volume and speed. A constant fire-hose of it being beamed at you 24/7 I don't think it is hard to ignore the outrage and drama on social media if you want to, but do people really want to?

forgetfreeman 2y ago

I feel like the question answers itself. We know what the world looked like before widespread adoption of social media, and what it looks like now. Before: obvious bullshit struggled to gain any audience at all and fringe stuff was largely contained by the cost of stamps and labor. After: one rando successfully convinced untold hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of individuals globally that lizard people exist, probably from their phone, in their spare time.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
You really don't need social media for that. The Rwandan genocide was triggered by one shitty radio station. People will always find a way to easily distribute propaganda.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Easily? To replicate that you'd need to at minimum hijack a radio station. Compare/contrast with the relative difficulty of fishing your phone out of your pocket. There is also the minor issue of instant global reach, so yeah, hijacking radio stations on several continents should keep one busy a while I'd imagine.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago

You really don’t see the difference between the weird guy in the bar spouting off some nonsense about aliens and social media manipulating entire countries and their elections?

8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
I do. Here's a devil's advocate argument for social media: if you only leave it up to the government and certain approved organizations, or the extremely affluent and well-capitalized to have a megaphone, you're effectively handing the keys to the information rails to a very small subset of the population who then gets to dictate what the rest of us get to hear about. With social media you're democratizing the megaphone, with, of course, all of the negative side-effects of giving the average Joe that sort of power. However, if you've ever lived under a regime where only a select few had that sort of power and they abused it to the extreme, you'd rather put up with pizza gate and alien conspiracy theories any day of the week. It's akin to an informational second amendment, with, of course, all of the controversy and philosophical differences that comes with. And of course you could debate the correct extent of these powers all day, similarly to how there's a difference between letting your citizens purchase a pepper spray can vs WMDs.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  > With social media you're democratizing the megaphone, with, of course, all of the negative side-effects of giving the average Joe that sort of power. That's an illusion. Users see only what the underlying algorithm has decided will increase their engagement. This behind-the-scenes curation of content all but eliminates this democratization you speak of.
  - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
    I'm only responding to the content of the posted article, which doesn't speak of the website owner putting their thumb on the scales to advance a particular narrative. I'm happy to advocate against that. But if the algorithm responds equally well to highly engaging posts from team A and team B, then ultimately the algorithm is fair, there's a level playing field. Would I prefer it if it boosted boring academic papers about nothingburgers that nobody will ever read? I suppose so, but clickbait is the content humanity wants to engage with, regardless of medium. It's up to each team to make sure that their comms are written in a way that cuts through the noise, like with any other form of marketing.

mym1990 2y ago

Uhh okay, but when I have a viral disease, I typically do try to isolate myself and generally am proactive about keeping friends, family, and strangers safe. I don't go to the busiest place I can find and then start sneezing everywhere. The issue is that people no longer use any rigor to question whether something could possibly be false. I don't need a mechanism to tell me whether something is true or false, I am the mechanism. But I understand that is too much to ask from society in general.

lm28469 2y ago

> I love to bash social media as much as anybody, but, how different is this from the hoaxes, crazes and hysterias that society went through before social media was ever a thing? It's always the same answer when the question is "what the difference between X on internet vs X before internet"... the speed and scale of it. You wouldn't argue that a nuke is just like a handgun, well it's the same here