4 ms·
It 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 th
by krapp 5mo ago
It 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.