Spoiler: No, you can't change someone else's mind on social media, but you can (inadvertently?) harden your own position, make your own beliefs more extreme, in the process of trying. So, I...
Spoiler: No, you can't change someone else's mind on social media, but you can (inadvertently?) harden your own position, make your own beliefs more extreme, in the process of trying.
So, I already have strong opinions about the "worse than useless" nature of social media, and this interview, of course, validates and reinforces my position on the matter. The irony is not lost on me.
Now, that said, there are some interesting details in here. For instance, the research is suggesting that it's not (or at least, not only) due to "evil FB rage-algorithms", but more inherently, just the nature of the beast, so to speak ... the way SM works is just contradictory to how our brains evolved.
In general I think practically no one changes their mind completely just after one post or conversation, but over time peoples opinion on things can change. My views today are the same as they...
In general I think practically no one changes their mind completely just after one post or conversation, but over time peoples opinion on things can change. My views today are the same as they where yesterday, but 5 or 10 years ago? That is a different story. Over several years I can definitely see I have changed my views on things, at least partially due to being exposed to other viewpoints on Facebook and Reddit. But even though these sites have always been toxic, it has gotten way worse in the last 5 years, so I am not sure it would still apply.
I guess it depends on what counts as social media. If you're only talking about platforms that require perpetual user engagement to show them ads, I 100% agree. They fine tune things to optimize...
I guess it depends on what counts as social media.
If you're only talking about platforms that require perpetual user engagement to show them ads, I 100% agree. They fine tune things to optimize engagement, and often have little-to-no moderation.
But a site like Tildes? It's social, and I've definitely been educated and swayed on a good many things. I wouldn't say its immune from the social media problems described, but I wonder how much of that is due to detox/relapse problems from using other sites.
We know exposure to propaganda can and will change views (see Fox News). I don't see how social media couldn't play a role in that, and I wonder to what degree they tried to isolate their experiment subjects from other outside influence.
Yeah they've only scratched the surface of a broad topic. Propaganda has a long history throughout prior mediums preceding the internet. It works. Different medium is just different ways of...
Yeah they've only scratched the surface of a broad topic. Propaganda has a long history throughout prior mediums preceding the internet. It works. Different medium is just different ways of disseminating it. The next thing proceeding the internet in some distant future will not be spared either.
I'm sure the academics wouldn't be so short sighted as to say that was an absolute conclusion but it will no doubt be construed as such as articles are posted around.
Of course social media affects people's opinion, just like any information does. It just isn't measurably changed by one post. Like many media-related topics do, this reminds me of the 1985 book...
Of course social media affects people's opinion, just like any information does. It just isn't measurably changed by one post.
Like many media-related topics do, this reminds me of the 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death which talked about how media affects social discourse. The book was critical of shows like Sesame Street. Sure they expose kids to counting or whatever, but they also expose the kids to the addictive quality of fast-paced low-content information which has an affect on their ability to learn more complex things from a boring old book. The book was also critical of television news, since the visual format leads the news to have more content of car chases than things that are helpful for anyone to know.
The pace of media bombardment has increased ridiculously since the 80's and it is affecting all of us. Social media posts and tweets make concerns about the shallowness and harmful persuasiveness of evening news seem trite.
Spoiler: No, you can't change someone else's mind on social media, but you can (inadvertently?) harden your own position, make your own beliefs more extreme, in the process of trying.
So, I already have strong opinions about the "worse than useless" nature of social media, and this interview, of course, validates and reinforces my position on the matter. The irony is not lost on me.
Now, that said, there are some interesting details in here. For instance, the research is suggesting that it's not (or at least, not only) due to "evil FB rage-algorithms", but more inherently, just the nature of the beast, so to speak ... the way SM works is just contradictory to how our brains evolved.
Or at least, that's my takeaway.
Thoughts? Anyone care to try to change my mind?
In general I think practically no one changes their mind completely just after one post or conversation, but over time peoples opinion on things can change. My views today are the same as they where yesterday, but 5 or 10 years ago? That is a different story. Over several years I can definitely see I have changed my views on things, at least partially due to being exposed to other viewpoints on Facebook and Reddit. But even though these sites have always been toxic, it has gotten way worse in the last 5 years, so I am not sure it would still apply.
I guess it depends on what counts as social media.
If you're only talking about platforms that require perpetual user engagement to show them ads, I 100% agree. They fine tune things to optimize engagement, and often have little-to-no moderation.
But a site like Tildes? It's social, and I've definitely been educated and swayed on a good many things. I wouldn't say its immune from the social media problems described, but I wonder how much of that is due to detox/relapse problems from using other sites.
We know exposure to propaganda can and will change views (see Fox News). I don't see how social media couldn't play a role in that, and I wonder to what degree they tried to isolate their experiment subjects from other outside influence.
Yeah they've only scratched the surface of a broad topic. Propaganda has a long history throughout prior mediums preceding the internet. It works. Different medium is just different ways of disseminating it. The next thing proceeding the internet in some distant future will not be spared either.
I'm sure the academics wouldn't be so short sighted as to say that was an absolute conclusion but it will no doubt be construed as such as articles are posted around.
Of course social media affects people's opinion, just like any information does. It just isn't measurably changed by one post.
Like many media-related topics do, this reminds me of the 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death which talked about how media affects social discourse. The book was critical of shows like Sesame Street. Sure they expose kids to counting or whatever, but they also expose the kids to the addictive quality of fast-paced low-content information which has an affect on their ability to learn more complex things from a boring old book. The book was also critical of television news, since the visual format leads the news to have more content of car chases than things that are helpful for anyone to know.
The pace of media bombardment has increased ridiculously since the 80's and it is affecting all of us. Social media posts and tweets make concerns about the shallowness and harmful persuasiveness of evening news seem trite.