4 ms·

I think the problem you lay out is interesting. Back when the Arab Spring was brand new, the narrative was something like "Twitter has finally given power to th

I think the problem you lay out is interesting. Back when the Arab Spring was brand new, the narrative was something like "Twitter has finally given power to the people, and once they had power they overthrew their evil dictatorships." A decade and some time later, my personal opinion would be that the narrative reads something like this: "access to social media increases populism, extremism, and social unrest. It's a risk to any and all forms of government. The Arab dictatorships failed first because they were the most brittle." To the extent that you agree with my claim, it would mean that even a beneficent government would have something to fear from social media. As with the Arab Spring, whatever comes after the revolution is often worse than the very-imperfect government which came before.

techjamie 10mo ago
> access to social media increases populism, extremism, and social unrest. I don't think this is necessarily a byproduct of social media, itself. But rather, the byproduct of algorithmic engagement farming social media that capitalizes on inciting negative emotions for retention. Which, I concede, is all of the large ones. I'm sure, also, that some amount of cause will also be concern of foreign adversaries using social media to sway young people against their government as well. Since they're easier to influence than your typical adult.
- everdrive 10mo ago
  >But rather, the byproduct of algorithmic engagement farming social media that capitalizes on inciting negative emotions for retention. Very fair, and I use the two interchangeably. In principle you could have (and we have previously had) social media without this sort of algorithmic or virality features.
ranyume 10mo ago
> To the extent that you agree with my claim, it would mean that even a beneficent government would have something to fear from social media I'd say that governments are beneficial to the extent that they adapt to the people they're governing. It's clear that social media poses a grave danger to current governance. But that doesn't mean that all forms of governance are equally attacked. My belief is that the current governance is just obsolete and dying because of the pace of cultural and technical innovation. Governments will need to change in order to stay beneficial to people, and the change is to adapt to people instead of making the people adapt to the current governance.
rightbyte 10mo ago
It is unsettling how frank and clear your post is. However, at the time, the algorithms were way "nicer", right? Or was it that people were nicer and or people on social media were nicer?

techjamie 10mo ago

> access to social media increases populism, extremism, and social unrest. I don't think this is necessarily a byproduct of social media, itself. But rather, the byproduct of algorithmic engagement farming social media that capitalizes on inciting negative emotions for retention. Which, I concede, is all of the large ones. I'm sure, also, that some amount of cause will also be concern of foreign adversaries using social media to sway young people against their government as well. Since they're easier to influence than your typical adult.

everdrive 10mo ago
>But rather, the byproduct of algorithmic engagement farming social media that capitalizes on inciting negative emotions for retention. Very fair, and I use the two interchangeably. In principle you could have (and we have previously had) social media without this sort of algorithmic or virality features.

ranyume 10mo ago

> To the extent that you agree with my claim, it would mean that even a beneficent government would have something to fear from social media I'd say that governments are beneficial to the extent that they adapt to the people they're governing. It's clear that social media poses a grave danger to current governance. But that doesn't mean that all forms of governance are equally attacked. My belief is that the current governance is just obsolete and dying because of the pace of cultural and technical innovation. Governments will need to change in order to stay beneficial to people, and the change is to adapt to people instead of making the people adapt to the current governance.

rightbyte 10mo ago

It is unsettling how frank and clear your post is. However, at the time, the algorithms were way "nicer", right? Or was it that people were nicer and or people on social media were nicer?