3 ms·

>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

>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?

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?