4 ms·
On the contrary, actually. Celebrities giving free advertising for corporate products and luring people there is not really the same as educating people about w
by bigbugbag 12y ago
On the contrary, actually. Celebrities giving free advertising for corporate products and luring people there is not really the same as educating people about what online mail and chat are, or rather a very specific biased kind of.
I mean I have family member who have been using computers online for years and still struggle to grasp basic online concept such a web browser, a search engine or email though they use it daily.
Replacing random people on the street who actually are somewhat random actual people going around their day by twitter accounts who represent a small subset of online personas registered to a corporate web service which can be people or not is a frightening trend.
- sukilot 12y agoIf you knock on people's doors, those are people registered with some corporate mail service. Why does a corporation make a communication tool bad?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 12y agoIt's not the corporation that makes a communication tool bad, it's the selection bias introduced by some of those tools that make them bad for purpose of sampling opinions of general population. You can assume that almost every citizen has a permanent address, and thus a mailbox. Nowdays in many countries you can also assume that almost everyone has a phone. But the demographics of Twitter are much different. Your average farmer, or liberal arts major, or most of the people over 50 probably haven't even heard about it. Using tweets to approximate vox populi will make your result heavily biased towards a particular group of people.
- pjc50 12y agoThe interaction of the BBC's "no brand names on air" policy with this is often hilarious, as they have to either refer to "social media" or say "other <X> are available" if they do mention a brand name.