I dunno. I mean, sure there's a lot of reasons to be critical of social media, but sometimes, people argue for the right thing for the wrong reason. Almost half of Americans think of themselves as...
I dunno. I mean, sure there's a lot of reasons to be critical of social media, but sometimes, people argue for the right thing for the wrong reason.
Almost half of Americans think of themselves as Centrists (source). This is a very powerful label, since it give you the power to be above politics. Their typical talking piece is bemoaning that the US is so divided politically. Why are everyone so angry? Why can't progressives and fascists not just get along?
My guess is that a lot the responders here talk more about their centrist stance than they talk about social media as such.
Interesting. I would love a follow-up to explore why. It's not a minority group finding similar voices thing then? Are they participating in a better social media ecosystem that they have built...
Notably, Black respondents are the one demographic split on this question, with 42 percent saying it’s more divisive, while 40 percent say it’s more unifying.
Interesting. I would love a follow-up to explore why. It's not a minority group finding similar voices thing then? Are they participating in a better social media ecosystem that they have built for themselves?
Among daily social media users, 49 percent say social media platforms make their lives better, while 37 percent say they make their lives worse.
I always think that the original golden promise of social media is still achievable and real. They just let money get in and ruined it. But it also means it is a good thing that other newer entities can rebuild, and we will be all better off for it.
And I believe this little corner of the internet is proof of that optimism: people here are kind, are insightful, and the platform is fast and collaborative, both responsive and sensitive to its human members. And that all started with Deimos leaving money on the table.
A big thanks to Deimos. Minus the sweet avatar images and post signatures of old, this reminds me all too much of the forums I used to visit in the early 00's. Love the small community vibe.
A big thanks to Deimos. Minus the sweet avatar images and post signatures of old, this reminds me all too much of the forums I used to visit in the early 00's. Love the small community vibe.
As time goes on, I see "social media" as a surface problem. Not necessarily a problem on the surface, because things are more complex/there's layers. Just a problem that has a surface, with layers...
As time goes on, I see "social media" as a surface problem. Not necessarily a problem on the surface, because things are more complex/there's layers. Just a problem that has a surface, with layers beneath which have great bearing on why the surface looks the way it does. I have come to believe the "solution" will have to come from outside and below the layers, a thing which grows up and through them, fills in the cracks and renews the surface. The discussions feel like they come up short, like talking about symptoms rather than a cause, a lot of the time, and of course there's never a clear solution. What follows is the best I can come up with, what I've put together as a lone person attempting to navigate an increasingly chaotic situation. It's not an argument and it's not a proscription, because I have no interest in convincing you what is real and don't care what you do with it, for reasons which will be hopefully clear by the time I'm done.
We sowed the seeds of this slice of chaos by allowing our political and education systems to be corrupted/destroyed as the internet was being developed by way of "the market", an approach devoid of purpose with little means for a collective will to determine development. That's a political history, a history of decisions and deals between entities which had the power to determine the course of things. People made decisions that allowed the internet to be available for commercial investment, and they also made decisions about how that development would be managed. They had reasons for their decisions, as well as for their lack of decisions. Across all the time there have been opportunities to exercise power and create governance, which weren't taken. This is all stuff we could have been paying attention to but we didn't, so to speak, because there never really was a "we".
There was a notion of a collective will borne from the actions of the political system, but collectively whatever cohesion there was completely evaporated as the internet grew and allowed for more granular identification/categorization. As it grew, relatively unconstrained, all became divided, categorized, made into outlets for achieving validation on top of pulling levers of power, on top of being packaged and commodified for the sake of further commercial success, on top of shaping the very reality of those who participate as they develop themselves. Now we've got every -ism of history represented by their very own screaming niche of dipshits more concerned with getting buddies and feeling secure than with whatever the -ism even means. Hordes of teenagers memeing their way into a civil conflict because the psychotic geriatrics believe every word of it, when both aren't watching shit made by robots designed to make them fight. Nation states and advertisers bending reality toward their ends because nothing was built to stop them. Even the fuckin dolphin guy gets represented out there, if you look hard enough. The effect of networking together a social species and systematically undermining its ability to understand that new environment has been devastating for our ability to organize and maintain our groups. The market has no goals, offers no protection, provides no means for applying constraint because its logic has been reduced to "cancer". Making concepts like "truth" fuzzy, for example, is a thing you have to be trained to do. Allowing shit like that to happen to folks without their knowledge/consent is a fuckup. A political fuckup, a specific failure to apply governance where it was critically necessary with ramifications that resound across generations. Effectively, the opportunity for governance was traded for money, but those who did the trading are either dead, have moved on, or exist as untouchable pillars relative to "just some asshole" like me. And those vying to apply some form of governance are outclassed by those for whom constraint is anathema, because network effects are in the hands of those who know how to dominate networks.
I have a theory for why things play out the way they do, a diagnosis of sorts, but it's not my point here to ramble further about that. It involves things folks think are sacred and I won't go there unprompted. My point is more to say, for all the talk of fighting battles, this one was lost a very long time ago (so to speak), so in my mind the call is to be a form of insurgent good in a world of entrenched evil. The mechanisms of power are withered and broken and were never enhanced to operate in this new environment - if folks want to keep fighting in the usual ways, if you yourself believe those mechanisms can still work, good luck, go for it. I've got my reasons for doing something else. You do that, and I'll do something, and if we can bring it together some day that would be great. What it gets called is up to those who see it. I prefer to focus on the doing, than the describing, when it's up to me.
If your perspective is "you're either with me or against me", then I am against you, because I have what I aim to do and refuse to do what you're doing. I have my goals, and I don't care if you respect them. I didn't draw any battle lines though, so if you decide to snap out of that shit hit me up. We can compare notes, discuss process and strategy, align our ambitions, accomplish more. I think we're facing problems that demand more novel approaches, more creative solutions, more fundamental work, than what comes from folks arguing over -isms and economics, over dogma and what's real. I am convinced that what is necessary must grow on its own before it can play a role in those domains, that the damage done goes that deep.
My goal is to cultivate a tree in polluted soil, is how I see it. Not because it will suffice and not so I can show it to people, but because we need more trees. We can't argue over a forest if there are no trees. Talking to me about fertilizers and complaining about the soil being shit doesn't help. I know the soil well enough, and I'm the one who bought the fucking sapling so quit nagging me about how frail it looks. I know it looks like Charlie Brown's Christmas tree. Shit is bad, it's all I could find. Grab a shovel if you're gonna hang around. The way I think someone in my position can contribute best, is by doing this. So I'm doing it. What you decide is between you and yourself. I sure would appreciate some help now and again, but I won't ask, because I'm a pretty stubborn, single-minded sort of guy. When I've got a step to take I focus on taking it, and just about nothing else. You judge whether that works out or not, come see the tree sometime and see what you think. To my mind what is at stake is the ability to form and maintain communities at all, so my goal, ultimately, is to make one, to sow new seeds in the soil that is there and grow what can be grown in it.
I shared this as a sort of response to the entire idea, that social media is tearing us apart, and to position a perspective which does attempt to exist outside the left-right framing of everything, that eschews giving a shit about that framing in favor of landing on something an individual, obscure, powerless person can do. Don't waste your time and go doomscroll or something if all you've got is some shit about why I'm actually a whatever-ist, how everything I've said is akshually something else, etc. I don't care, and won't engage with that disrespectful bullshit. I would rather spend my time trying to put together something folks might actually give a shit about one day, and I share that ongoing process in the hope that where my vision comes up short, others may offer theirs, and together we achieve clarity and purpose. My best shot at a remedy to the swirl of forces social media (among many other things) has enhanced and accelerated, a tiny effort at creating something from which a collective will can develop. I don't think we will find our answers in studying the -isms and winning the arguments. I think we will find our answers when we settle on what is important and set to work making those things as good as they can be, come what may.
Somewhat coincidentally, I saw a video from Caelyn Conrad about a week ago about something he called "Blockout 2024", a movement on Instagram and TikTok to block influencers. It was a reaction to...
Somewhat coincidentally, I saw a video from Caelyn Conrad about a week ago about something he called "Blockout 2024", a movement on Instagram and TikTok to block influencers. It was a reaction to some sort of drama regarding the Met Gala and Palestine that I am intentionally out of the loop on. But while it seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back, the people are upset about all of the other effects of social media influencers. And frankly it seems like I'm hearing a lot of bad things about influencers lately. F.D. Signifier just did a long video about one of them.
It feels to me that the large social media sites are manufacturers of cults of personality, and that can have negative effects on society. Sure, every platform could be said to have that effect, but the algorythm that drives these sites help to amplify it.
TBH I kind of get the impression that influencers are terrible people. There is a fundamental difference for the kind of performative you are on social media for your friends and acquaintances and the kind of performative you are for an audience, and that's when the performance tends to slip into dishonesty. It only gets worse when those people are inevitably given money for their efforts. So called "native advertising" is a scourge on this earth. It seems like even when they are not given sponsorship and advertsing deals they're still trying to sell you something.
I dunno. I mean, sure there's a lot of reasons to be critical of social media, but sometimes, people argue for the right thing for the wrong reason.
Almost half of Americans think of themselves as Centrists (source). This is a very powerful label, since it give you the power to be above politics. Their typical talking piece is bemoaning that the US is so divided politically. Why are everyone so angry? Why can't progressives and fascists not just get along?
My guess is that a lot the responders here talk more about their centrist stance than they talk about social media as such.
Interesting. I would love a follow-up to explore why. It's not a minority group finding similar voices thing then? Are they participating in a better social media ecosystem that they have built for themselves?
I always think that the original golden promise of social media is still achievable and real. They just let money get in and ruined it. But it also means it is a good thing that other newer entities can rebuild, and we will be all better off for it.
And I believe this little corner of the internet is proof of that optimism: people here are kind, are insightful, and the platform is fast and collaborative, both responsive and sensitive to its human members. And that all started with Deimos leaving money on the table.
A big thanks to Deimos. Minus the sweet avatar images and post signatures of old, this reminds me all too much of the forums I used to visit in the early 00's. Love the small community vibe.
As time goes on, I see "social media" as a surface problem. Not necessarily a problem on the surface, because things are more complex/there's layers. Just a problem that has a surface, with layers beneath which have great bearing on why the surface looks the way it does. I have come to believe the "solution" will have to come from outside and below the layers, a thing which grows up and through them, fills in the cracks and renews the surface. The discussions feel like they come up short, like talking about symptoms rather than a cause, a lot of the time, and of course there's never a clear solution. What follows is the best I can come up with, what I've put together as a lone person attempting to navigate an increasingly chaotic situation. It's not an argument and it's not a proscription, because I have no interest in convincing you what is real and don't care what you do with it, for reasons which will be hopefully clear by the time I'm done.
We sowed the seeds of this slice of chaos by allowing our political and education systems to be corrupted/destroyed as the internet was being developed by way of "the market", an approach devoid of purpose with little means for a collective will to determine development. That's a political history, a history of decisions and deals between entities which had the power to determine the course of things. People made decisions that allowed the internet to be available for commercial investment, and they also made decisions about how that development would be managed. They had reasons for their decisions, as well as for their lack of decisions. Across all the time there have been opportunities to exercise power and create governance, which weren't taken. This is all stuff we could have been paying attention to but we didn't, so to speak, because there never really was a "we".
There was a notion of a collective will borne from the actions of the political system, but collectively whatever cohesion there was completely evaporated as the internet grew and allowed for more granular identification/categorization. As it grew, relatively unconstrained, all became divided, categorized, made into outlets for achieving validation on top of pulling levers of power, on top of being packaged and commodified for the sake of further commercial success, on top of shaping the very reality of those who participate as they develop themselves. Now we've got every -ism of history represented by their very own screaming niche of dipshits more concerned with getting buddies and feeling secure than with whatever the -ism even means. Hordes of teenagers memeing their way into a civil conflict because the psychotic geriatrics believe every word of it, when both aren't watching shit made by robots designed to make them fight. Nation states and advertisers bending reality toward their ends because nothing was built to stop them. Even the fuckin dolphin guy gets represented out there, if you look hard enough. The effect of networking together a social species and systematically undermining its ability to understand that new environment has been devastating for our ability to organize and maintain our groups. The market has no goals, offers no protection, provides no means for applying constraint because its logic has been reduced to "cancer". Making concepts like "truth" fuzzy, for example, is a thing you have to be trained to do. Allowing shit like that to happen to folks without their knowledge/consent is a fuckup. A political fuckup, a specific failure to apply governance where it was critically necessary with ramifications that resound across generations. Effectively, the opportunity for governance was traded for money, but those who did the trading are either dead, have moved on, or exist as untouchable pillars relative to "just some asshole" like me. And those vying to apply some form of governance are outclassed by those for whom constraint is anathema, because network effects are in the hands of those who know how to dominate networks.
I have a theory for why things play out the way they do, a diagnosis of sorts, but it's not my point here to ramble further about that. It involves things folks think are sacred and I won't go there unprompted. My point is more to say, for all the talk of fighting battles, this one was lost a very long time ago (so to speak), so in my mind the call is to be a form of insurgent good in a world of entrenched evil. The mechanisms of power are withered and broken and were never enhanced to operate in this new environment - if folks want to keep fighting in the usual ways, if you yourself believe those mechanisms can still work, good luck, go for it. I've got my reasons for doing something else. You do that, and I'll do something, and if we can bring it together some day that would be great. What it gets called is up to those who see it. I prefer to focus on the doing, than the describing, when it's up to me.
If your perspective is "you're either with me or against me", then I am against you, because I have what I aim to do and refuse to do what you're doing. I have my goals, and I don't care if you respect them. I didn't draw any battle lines though, so if you decide to snap out of that shit hit me up. We can compare notes, discuss process and strategy, align our ambitions, accomplish more. I think we're facing problems that demand more novel approaches, more creative solutions, more fundamental work, than what comes from folks arguing over -isms and economics, over dogma and what's real. I am convinced that what is necessary must grow on its own before it can play a role in those domains, that the damage done goes that deep.
My goal is to cultivate a tree in polluted soil, is how I see it. Not because it will suffice and not so I can show it to people, but because we need more trees. We can't argue over a forest if there are no trees. Talking to me about fertilizers and complaining about the soil being shit doesn't help. I know the soil well enough, and I'm the one who bought the fucking sapling so quit nagging me about how frail it looks. I know it looks like Charlie Brown's Christmas tree. Shit is bad, it's all I could find. Grab a shovel if you're gonna hang around. The way I think someone in my position can contribute best, is by doing this. So I'm doing it. What you decide is between you and yourself. I sure would appreciate some help now and again, but I won't ask, because I'm a pretty stubborn, single-minded sort of guy. When I've got a step to take I focus on taking it, and just about nothing else. You judge whether that works out or not, come see the tree sometime and see what you think. To my mind what is at stake is the ability to form and maintain communities at all, so my goal, ultimately, is to make one, to sow new seeds in the soil that is there and grow what can be grown in it.
I shared this as a sort of response to the entire idea, that social media is tearing us apart, and to position a perspective which does attempt to exist outside the left-right framing of everything, that eschews giving a shit about that framing in favor of landing on something an individual, obscure, powerless person can do. Don't waste your time and go doomscroll or something if all you've got is some shit about why I'm actually a whatever-ist, how everything I've said is akshually something else, etc. I don't care, and won't engage with that disrespectful bullshit. I would rather spend my time trying to put together something folks might actually give a shit about one day, and I share that ongoing process in the hope that where my vision comes up short, others may offer theirs, and together we achieve clarity and purpose. My best shot at a remedy to the swirl of forces social media (among many other things) has enhanced and accelerated, a tiny effort at creating something from which a collective will can develop. I don't think we will find our answers in studying the -isms and winning the arguments. I think we will find our answers when we settle on what is important and set to work making those things as good as they can be, come what may.
Somewhat coincidentally, I saw a video from Caelyn Conrad about a week ago about something he called "Blockout 2024", a movement on Instagram and TikTok to block influencers. It was a reaction to some sort of drama regarding the Met Gala and Palestine that I am intentionally out of the loop on. But while it seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back, the people are upset about all of the other effects of social media influencers. And frankly it seems like I'm hearing a lot of bad things about influencers lately. F.D. Signifier just did a long video about one of them.
It feels to me that the large social media sites are manufacturers of cults of personality, and that can have negative effects on society. Sure, every platform could be said to have that effect, but the algorythm that drives these sites help to amplify it.
TBH I kind of get the impression that influencers are terrible people. There is a fundamental difference for the kind of performative you are on social media for your friends and acquaintances and the kind of performative you are for an audience, and that's when the performance tends to slip into dishonesty. It only gets worse when those people are inevitably given money for their efforts. So called "native advertising" is a scourge on this earth. It seems like even when they are not given sponsorship and advertsing deals they're still trying to sell you something.