5 ms·
Remember when they told us that social media would "spread democracy" ?
by dotcoma 5mo ago
Remember when they told us that social media would "spread democracy" ?
- krapp 5mo agoIt can and does. The power of social media to spread ideas and accelerate political action is why fascists took it over and co-opted it. That's why we're fed the narrative that social media is evil and needs to be regulated or banned at all costs.
- dotcoma 5mo agoDo you remember cases in which it "accelerated political action" ?
- Natfan 5mo agofamously the Arab spring
- Natfan 5mo agoalso BLM, israel palestine and the genocide in myanmar, that was definitely accelerated political action
- krapp 5mo agoThere have been plenty. Surely you aren't arguing that social media has never done so. Arguably social media has been one of the most catalyzing political forces in human history. And bearing in mind that "political action" can be in any direction, I found some examples. I didn't work very hard because this could have literally been a Google search on your part. Arab Spring Nepalese Discord Protests Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine 2009 Iranian presidential election protests 2011 Egyptian revolution #BlackLivesMatter #MeToo Hong Kong protests #NoKings protests Yellow Vest protests (France) Anti-Israel/Pro-Palestine protests Anti-vaccine protests during COVID Rohingya genocide GamerGate
- dotcoma 5mo agoThe case of Iran in 2009 is notoriously false. See for example what ForeignPolicy has to say about it. More in general, Malcolm Gladwell is not convinced about the power of social media... https://archive.is/GryvI#selection-323.0-355.16 https://archive.is/GryvI#selection-323.0-355.16
- anigbrowl 5mo ago[flagged]
- macintux 5mo ago> That's why we're fed the narrative that social media is evil and needs to be regulated or banned at all costs. Social media prioritizing algorithms that feed off division and anger is evil. If Facebook & Twitter were still ways to simply keep in touch with friends, family, and interest groups, I don't think anyone would care (other than the ads).
- krapp 5mo agoI think Facebook is still that for most people. I think the narrative of widespread social addiction and "mind control" through social media is intentionally overstated to serve a political agenda. These problems to exist, social media can be addictive, misinformation does spread like wildfire, but I fear focusing on "algorithms" as a whole rather than the sources of misinformation or the companies running the big platforms is an attempt to make information and communication (and by extension political organization and action) more difficult in the long run. Most people's proposed solutions seem counterproductive. Making social media illegal and banning it entirety removes a valuable means of communication and networking for people. Forcing all social media platforms with n> users to be nationalized means all platforms that might be useful for activism will be controlled by the government. Forcing them to only use strictly alphabetic or chronological listings makes access more difficult, but doesn't necessarily remove polarizing or false information. Repealing Section 230 would cripple speech across the internet and make it impossible for platform owners to police minsinformation and hate speech without taking on legal liability for themselves. All of these solutions at least implicitly serve the interests of authoritarians and all of them only seem reasonable because of the current moral panic around social media.
- ashtonshears 5mo ago‘Moral panic’ shows lacking understanding on the real damage
- krapp 5mo agoNo it shows people are being tricked into blaming the wrong thing for the damage.
- fnordpiglet 5mo agoNo, I don’t. I remember when the internet would (it did!) and Usenet would (it did!) and irc and open source and the web (they did!) but social media was always about entertainment and (one way or another) monetization of those technologies. It’s the cancer of our collective mind and achievements.
- dotcoma 5mo agoHere you go. https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/08/the-twitter-devolution/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/08/the-twitter-devolution/ See also... https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/evaluating-irans-twitter-revolution/58337/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/evalu... And these lies, of course, were spread by the social media platforms themselves and their PR departments.
- shimman 5mo agoYes, this is known as manufacturing consent.
- mikae1 5mo agoAnd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media's_role_in_the_Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media's_role_in_the_Ara...
- JuniperMesos 5mo agoWhy did you trust what The Atlantic and Foreign Policy had to say at the time? Anyone can tell you anything ; that's no reason to take them so seriously you're disappointed if events years later show their claims to be wrong.
- sureMan6 5mo agoGoalpost moving > No one said this > They said this > Ok but why did you believe them
- jazzyjackson 5mo ago
- 999900000999 5mo agoWho told you that, the entire point was to talk to girls you lacked the courage to strike up a conversation with. Saying ‘hi, I also like that band you have a shirt of’ was just too hard so we had to create trillion dollar monstrosities.
- dotcoma 5mo agoI thought that was true only for Zuck …
- johnnyanmac 5mo agoAnd now they just block you on first approach. Mission accomplished. Oh well, now we have AI girlfriends as the next trillion dollar industry. We'll get it next time!
- 999900000999 5mo agoHave all the greatest tragedies started from one guy feeling rejected? Boxer Rebellion, etc.
- noname120 5mo agoI’ve never heard a single time social media companies say that social media would spread democracy. Sounds like a straw man to me
- SauciestGNU 5mo agoIt was a fairly common narrative during the Arab Spring, when the technology was still relatively novel.
- lostlogin 5mo agoIt’s quite the contrast when you look at Twitter then and X now.
- andrepd 5mo agoArab Spring and the Obama campaign. I know, it seems a lifetime ago...
- Ajedi32 5mo agoIsn't that precisely why this is happening? Because it's doing exactly that, and the people in power in these countries don't like it?
- slg 5mo agoAt some point societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix. A system that allows people to amass incredible fortunes and use those fortunes to influence other people's beliefs and votes is simply a system that will eventually fall under the control of those ultrawealthy people.
- EA-3167 5mo agoWhat’s your more effective, less flawed alternative with a proven track record?
- dotcoma 5mo agoThere were times when NASA went to space, not incredibly wealthy individuals…
- EA-3167 5mo agoNASA just sent four people around the Moon.
- bongoman42 5mo agoNASA went and turned itself into a gigantic inefficient bureaucracy to the point that SpaceX considers NASA experience a negative.
- MisterTea 5mo agoEvery large entity eventually becomes an inefficient bureaucracy.
- 5mo ago
- manoDev 5mo ago“Spread democracy” means “manipulate public opinion to submit to USA”. That includes censoring content that threatens puppet governments.
- maxglute 5mo agoIt was a good pitch to get funding.