3 ms·

Social media was unleashed onto the world with no harm studies or thought for the long term impact. Now we’re catching up and realizing how bad it is. For a s

Social media was unleashed onto the world with no harm studies or thought for the long term impact. Now we’re catching up and realizing how bad it is. For a similar case, see tasers in Canada after a handcuffed immigrant was killed by one. The question came up “how were tasers certified safe for humans?”. The answer was “they weren’t. A private company just started selling them to police forces who just started using them.”

bethekidyouwant 4mo ago
Tasers are bad is your example? cops should go back to clubbing people over the head I suppose? - Remember all metaphors are bad.
necovek 4mo ago
> Social media was unleashed onto the world with no harm studies or thought for the long term impact. To require a safety study for anything someone might "unleash" as a public product would be bonkers: nobody would be able to release anything at all. But I do not think social media as such — when originally it came to prominence — was anything that caused significant harm. Things like internet forums, BBs and blogs did have some troublesome elements rooted in privacy of the participants (allowing harrasement, for instance). In all though, it was a positive for society though — I have learned so much as a kid by exploring areas where experts out their expertise out and discussed challenges with you. While the trend of this continued with the birth of modern social media like MySpace, Facebook, Orkut/Google Wave/Google Plus, Twitter, Instagram, Digg, Reddit, Flickr... originally they were a significant net positive for society too — they opened up the world for many to express themselves (just like blogs did for the more technically savy). At some point, trying to monetize attention, the winning social media companies started applying well established (from traditional media), arguably immoral marketing tactics: leveraging psychological research to keep people engaged and sell ads for their financial gain. I believe targeting these practices regardless of the media type is what needs to be regulated. Harassment is already well regulated, but with kids (and adults), they do not always take it seriously or are not able to detect it: I am acknowledging this needs work too.
- testing22321 4mo ago
  > To require a safety study for anything someone might "unleash" as a public product would be bonkers Let’s examine that and see if it holds up. To sell food, it is regulated and must be approved. And drugs. And cars. And anything that plugs into power. Anything that makes noise. Anything with an engine. Any kids toy. Any structural or safety item. In fact, I would say the very vast majority of “public products” that a person wants to sell must be certified and meet regulations for that category of one kind or another. Now you may say software is different. Often yes, but some software (gambling, health stuff, credit card stuff) must be certified and meet regulations. There are hefty penalties for breaking the rules. And finally you might say this is different because social media is free. Plenty of things in the world that are free must meet regulations and pass tests (free drinking water, free power, etc). Just because I offer a free shuttle to my venue doesn’t mean the bus or driver are not regulated. Even if you give away free food you must have a food safe certification so you don’t make people sick with half-cooked chicken. So you see, “unleashing” public products into the world with no approval or testing or regulations or evidence that it doesn’t cause harm is actually the exception, not the rule.
  - necovek 4mo ago
    Well, all of those have specific rules written about them to except them from the default "no restrictions". You can build a shovel and sell it. You can build a ceramic dish and sell it. You can print a book and sell it...
    - testing22321 4mo ago
      Right, there are plenty of things that have no restrictions. Over the years once a thing was deemed a significant impact or safety concerns, restrictions were added to it. Doing so for social media is very far from unprecedented.
      - necovek 4mo ago
        Just like "unleashing it into the world" without safety studies is far from unprecedented — it is, actually, a default.

bethekidyouwant 4mo ago

Tasers are bad is your example? cops should go back to clubbing people over the head I suppose? - Remember all metaphors are bad.

necovek 4mo ago

> Social media was unleashed onto the world with no harm studies or thought for the long term impact. To require a safety study for anything someone might "unleash" as a public product would be bonkers: nobody would be able to release anything at all. But I do not think social media as such — when originally it came to prominence — was anything that caused significant harm. Things like internet forums, BBs and blogs did have some troublesome elements rooted in privacy of the participants (allowing harrasement, for instance). In all though, it was a positive for society though — I have learned so much as a kid by exploring areas where experts out their expertise out and discussed challenges with you. While the trend of this continued with the birth of modern social media like MySpace, Facebook, Orkut/Google Wave/Google Plus, Twitter, Instagram, Digg, Reddit, Flickr... originally they were a significant net positive for society too — they opened up the world for many to express themselves (just like blogs did for the more technically savy). At some point, trying to monetize attention, the winning social media companies started applying well established (from traditional media), arguably immoral marketing tactics: leveraging psychological research to keep people engaged and sell ads for their financial gain. I believe targeting these practices regardless of the media type is what needs to be regulated. Harassment is already well regulated, but with kids (and adults), they do not always take it seriously or are not able to detect it: I am acknowledging this needs work too.

testing22321 4mo ago
> To require a safety study for anything someone might "unleash" as a public product would be bonkers Let’s examine that and see if it holds up. To sell food, it is regulated and must be approved. And drugs. And cars. And anything that plugs into power. Anything that makes noise. Anything with an engine. Any kids toy. Any structural or safety item. In fact, I would say the very vast majority of “public products” that a person wants to sell must be certified and meet regulations for that category of one kind or another. Now you may say software is different. Often yes, but some software (gambling, health stuff, credit card stuff) must be certified and meet regulations. There are hefty penalties for breaking the rules. And finally you might say this is different because social media is free. Plenty of things in the world that are free must meet regulations and pass tests (free drinking water, free power, etc). Just because I offer a free shuttle to my venue doesn’t mean the bus or driver are not regulated. Even if you give away free food you must have a food safe certification so you don’t make people sick with half-cooked chicken. So you see, “unleashing” public products into the world with no approval or testing or regulations or evidence that it doesn’t cause harm is actually the exception, not the rule.
- necovek 4mo ago
  Well, all of those have specific rules written about them to except them from the default "no restrictions". You can build a shovel and sell it. You can build a ceramic dish and sell it. You can print a book and sell it...
  - testing22321 4mo ago
    Right, there are plenty of things that have no restrictions. Over the years once a thing was deemed a significant impact or safety concerns, restrictions were added to it. Doing so for social media is very far from unprecedented.
    - necovek 4mo ago
      Just like "unleashing it into the world" without safety studies is far from unprecedented — it is, actually, a default.