4 ms·

There is a difference between false norms and the spectrum of norms in a society. What they are saying is that you do not see the full spectrum of norms on soc

There is a difference between false norms and the spectrum of norms in a society. What they are saying is that you do not see the full spectrum of norms on social media, so what you are seeing are "false norms" and they are the most extreme norms. Being against slavery was just one norm out of many, but on social media all you might have seen was pro-slavery norms. Social media robs you of your democracy and your voice because the algorithms are weigthed for the most attention getting extreme voices. And they do this telling you it is the best invention ever as they make gobs of money so they can bribe politicians to make your life completely worse in every other way possible because shareholders.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>Social media robs you of your democracy and your voice That has been the case with any form of information consumption, including journalism (newspapers). As Mark Twain (probably) once said: "If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed, if you read the newspaper you're misinformed." The answer has always been to develop and maintain mental capacity for critical thinking and form your own opinions instead of having someone program you.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Correct, newspapers, television, they all had similar problems. I think the point is social media is larger, more encapsulating, more pervasive, more targeted than a newspaper or television ever could be.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Kbelicius 2y ago
      > when journalists suppressed information about George Floyd’s criminal background and drug use because, in their view, it wasn’t relevant to the issue. Because it isn't relevant? Seems that you think that it is relevant, how?
      - decremental 2y ago
        [dead]
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      "2020 was basically the last time that sort of information control worked" ??? You don't think social media platforms can control the flow of information? That is their entire business plan. Nothing free about it.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        They have much less control over it than TV and newspapers. TV and newspapers have direct editorial control: if they don’t publish or say something on air, their readers and listeners don’t get that information. Social media platforms don’t have direct editorial control, only indirect control. They can tweak their algorithms to influence the narrative. But the platforms are designed to encourage information to go viral, so they can only do so much of that.
        FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        The algorithms are automating the editorial control. But even more so, since they can editorialize down to specific people, targeted influence. It is 1000X more potent than some joe blow newspaper editor.
        rayiner 2y ago
        In theory, but not in practice. It’s much easier for journalists to stick to a narrative than for social media companies to keep stories from going viral. It’s just a game of whack-a-mole.
    - motorest 2y ago
      > (...) when journalists suppressed information about George Floyd’s criminal background and drug use because, in their view, it wasn’t relevant to the issue. It wasn't. Police don't have the right to murder people indiscriminately just because their record is not pristine. I don't know why would compell anyone to claim otherwise. Do you?
binary132 2y ago
Today’s “extreme voices” are tomorrow’s “being against slavery”, depending on who you’re talking to.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  If the algorithm let “being against slavery” be the social norm. You see the problem?
  - motorest 2y ago
    > You see the problem? Don't you think that having someone's algorithm manipulate what should and should not be accepted by a community is something extremely dangerous?
motorest 2y ago
> What they are saying is that you do not see the full spectrum of norms on social media, so what you are seeing are "false norms" and they are the most extreme norms. There is no such thing as "false norms". The relativist framing of social norms is already something that's completely wrong and proven to be the result of projection and attempts to frame minority groups as being wrong just for being different. There are only different communities, each with their own social norms. That's very basic human behavior. > Being against slavery was just one norm out of many, but on social media all you might have seen was pro-slavery norms. No. You might see communities that, being communities, share their norms and core principles. You have cooking communities what develop very strong opinions on how to cook a specific dish. You have sports communities developing strong opinions on what it means to play a sports the right way. You have political communities developing strong opinions on specific political topics. I mean, aren't political parties explicitly communities that develop their particular opinions on political topics in ways that contrast with other political parties? Communities develop their own social norms organically, and the more insulated they are the more striking are the differences. Is this surprising?

Dalewyn 2y ago

>Social media robs you of your democracy and your voice That has been the case with any form of information consumption, including journalism (newspapers). As Mark Twain (probably) once said: "If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed, if you read the newspaper you're misinformed." The answer has always been to develop and maintain mental capacity for critical thinking and form your own opinions instead of having someone program you.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Correct, newspapers, television, they all had similar problems. I think the point is social media is larger, more encapsulating, more pervasive, more targeted than a newspaper or television ever could be.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Kbelicius 2y ago
    > when journalists suppressed information about George Floyd’s criminal background and drug use because, in their view, it wasn’t relevant to the issue. Because it isn't relevant? Seems that you think that it is relevant, how?
    - decremental 2y ago
      [dead]
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    "2020 was basically the last time that sort of information control worked" ??? You don't think social media platforms can control the flow of information? That is their entire business plan. Nothing free about it.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      They have much less control over it than TV and newspapers. TV and newspapers have direct editorial control: if they don’t publish or say something on air, their readers and listeners don’t get that information. Social media platforms don’t have direct editorial control, only indirect control. They can tweak their algorithms to influence the narrative. But the platforms are designed to encourage information to go viral, so they can only do so much of that.
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        The algorithms are automating the editorial control. But even more so, since they can editorialize down to specific people, targeted influence. It is 1000X more potent than some joe blow newspaper editor.
        rayiner 2y ago
        In theory, but not in practice. It’s much easier for journalists to stick to a narrative than for social media companies to keep stories from going viral. It’s just a game of whack-a-mole.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > (...) when journalists suppressed information about George Floyd’s criminal background and drug use because, in their view, it wasn’t relevant to the issue. It wasn't. Police don't have the right to murder people indiscriminately just because their record is not pristine. I don't know why would compell anyone to claim otherwise. Do you?

binary132 2y ago

Today’s “extreme voices” are tomorrow’s “being against slavery”, depending on who you’re talking to.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
If the algorithm let “being against slavery” be the social norm. You see the problem?
- motorest 2y ago
  > You see the problem? Don't you think that having someone's algorithm manipulate what should and should not be accepted by a community is something extremely dangerous?

motorest 2y ago

> What they are saying is that you do not see the full spectrum of norms on social media, so what you are seeing are "false norms" and they are the most extreme norms. There is no such thing as "false norms". The relativist framing of social norms is already something that's completely wrong and proven to be the result of projection and attempts to frame minority groups as being wrong just for being different. There are only different communities, each with their own social norms. That's very basic human behavior. > Being against slavery was just one norm out of many, but on social media all you might have seen was pro-slavery norms. No. You might see communities that, being communities, share their norms and core principles. You have cooking communities what develop very strong opinions on how to cook a specific dish. You have sports communities developing strong opinions on what it means to play a sports the right way. You have political communities developing strong opinions on specific political topics. I mean, aren't political parties explicitly communities that develop their particular opinions on political topics in ways that contrast with other political parties? Communities develop their own social norms organically, and the more insulated they are the more striking are the differences. Is this surprising?