29 votes

In your opinion, what sort of effects has the rise of social media had upon society?

It's no secret that social media is used by a large amount of people. The Pew Research Center has a social media fact sheet if you'd like to see the numbers.

With no signs of slowing down, social media is certainly going to be part of our lives for the foreseeable future. What sort of impact do you think it has had upon our society? Has it connected the people of the world, or disconnected them? Do the positive aspects outweigh the negative? If you believe social media's impact has been negative, do you think it can be fixed? How do you see social media evolving?

39 comments

  1. Akir
    Link
    The greatest effect I have noticed is that people are no longer ashamed of being a part of niche groups. Furries aren't mocked nearly as much as they used to be. Anime has become almost...

    The greatest effect I have noticed is that people are no longer ashamed of being a part of niche groups. Furries aren't mocked nearly as much as they used to be. Anime has become almost mainstream. I would argue that the march towards marriage equality in the US was largely powered by the visibility provided by social media.

    That doesn't mean it's been all good, though. The same thing has happened to less savory groups, like fascists, neo-nazis, racists, and white supremacists.

    I, for one, do not consider social media use to be unhealthy (in spite of many instances of it being clearly designed to be addictive). Intrapersonal relationships are important. However, it has magnified a pre-existing problem with society as a whole. I'm talking about a lack of media literacy. There's a great (gamer-focused) video on what I am talking about from Super Bunnyhop. Because people don't tend to have very good media literacy, they believe the talking heads in the news without question and are very susceptible to fake news. Gamergate is actually a perfect example of this; it consumed the internet in spite of being centered around complete fabrications.

    20 votes
  2. [18]
    JesusShuttlesworth
    Link
    The creator of tildes has stated his opinion in the announcement blog: Major internet platforms are exhibiting a wide range of issues: they collect our personal data and fail to protect it;...

    The creator of tildes has stated his opinion in the announcement blog:
    Major internet platforms are exhibiting a wide range of issues: they collect our personal data and fail to protect it; amplify outrage and encourage mob harassment; spread false information and radicalize viewpoints; and allow racism and hate speech to propagate. These are all incredibly serious issues, yet they're still only a small sample of the problems that are becoming apparent.

    I am in strong agreement with this statement, and I suspect, most of the users of this site are as well. In my opinion, the nature of most social media sites causes people to find an echo chamber which they stay in and that echo chamber radicalizes their viewpoints. However the question must be asked, is the problem the website or the user? If a user becomes radicalized, are they a victim of social media, or are they part of the problem? The user has the option to leave their echo chamber, but in many cases they simply do not. Is it simply human nature to seek out validation? Does the Internet make it too easy for validation to be found? Will the ideals that tildes promotes ensure that users hold themselves to a higher standard? Will the ideals prevent this situation from even occurring? How much do you think a site like tildes will be supported as opposed to a site that doesn't have these same values? Will the websites without these values continue to grow, or will these problems become so apparent and dramatic that it forces users to migrate somewhere else? These are all questions worth considering as social media, and tildes continues to grow.

    I personally hope that websites like tildes grow. I have no doubts that tildes will better protect user data, but my concern is that radicalization and mob mentality might just be the nature of the internet. I certainly hope that this isn't the case, and I would be interested to hear your opinions.

    15 votes
    1. [17]
      flip
      Link Parent
      I might be an old man screaming at the rain clouds here, but in my view the most visible effect has been to normalise idiocy (including hate, discrimination, etc.). I once read a comment (don't...

      I might be an old man screaming at the rain clouds here, but in my view the most visible effect has been to normalise idiocy (including hate, discrimination, etc.). I once read a comment (don't remember the author) that social media is giving a voice to the village idiot and that's about a perfect description.

      Back in the day, you got exposed to opinions in the newspaper, in news TV programs, magazines, etc., where you got opinions by people that earned that spot, even if you sometimes disagreed with what they said.

      Nowadays, any idiot can have a "voice" and, gather enough followers, you become a voice that needs to be listened to, especially in people trapped inside echo chambers (facebook is particularly good at this). If you take into account the gullibility of the majority of the population, this has the potential to create long-lasting damage. In my country, an idiot was elected president based solely on his social media presence (no, not the USA) and now that he has the power, he has zero idea what to do with it and has seemingly stayed in campaign mode even after winning, because it's much easier to tweet to the people that follow you and will applaud anything than actually running a country and making it better for everyone, including those that oppose you.

      Has there been good? Obviously, and @Akir brings up some excellent points about this. But I think, looking at the net result, I'd have no qualms saying SoMe has been a negative to society.

      I am a heavy user of reddit and am using tildes more and more as time goes on (just wish there was a motorsports section), not sure if they are considered SoMe by everyone (I don't think Instagram and reddit are comparable, for instance), but have quit Facebook years ago and would probably rather give my personal information to a company run by Satan than FB at this point.

      15 votes
      1. [3]
        JesusShuttlesworth
        Link Parent
        Feel free not to answer, but what country are you from? I'm interested to hear about this situation. @Rez made a similar comment talking about how Twitter has affected journalism. The advancement...

        Feel free not to answer, but what country are you from? I'm interested to hear about this situation.

        Back in the day, you got exposed to opinions in the newspaper, in news TV programs, magazines, etc., where you got opinions by people that earned that spot

        @Rez made a similar comment talking about how Twitter has affected journalism. The advancement of the internet seems to have oversaturated the information market. Truth and fiction are becoming harder and harder to differentiate between.

        7 votes
        1. flip
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Read this today, the part about critical thinking helping people be less likely to fall for bullshit is interesting http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190709-has-humanity-reached-peak-intelligence...

          Read this today, the part about critical thinking helping people be less likely to fall for bullshit is interesting http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190709-has-humanity-reached-peak-intelligence

          But yes, there's a huge culpability of SoMe in the destruction of what is ok to publish or not. But I don't think it's just the publishing of it. Shitty publications have always existed. What pisses me off is that no one calls bullshit out anymore, that's what is more aggravating. Especially because, once the echo chambers were in place, the chance to do it was lost. Now, it's useless to say Fox News is shit, because the people that believe it are not listening to you.

          And it's Brasil.

          EDIT: I think this is the article I was thinking of, actually: https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/07/20/the-study-of-history-is-in-decline-in-britain?frsc=dg%7Ce

          3 votes
        2. flip
          Link Parent
          Also, EXCELLENT username.

          Also, EXCELLENT username.

          1 vote
      2. [5]
        Akir
        Link Parent
        This is another point in my "social issues to fix" notebook, and is also related to the topic of media literacy. A majority of people get their news from social media now, and in some cases the...

        Nowadays, any idiot can have a "voice" and, gather enough followers, you become a voice that needs to be listened to ....

        This is another point in my "social issues to fix" notebook, and is also related to the topic of media literacy. A majority of people get their news from social media now, and in some cases the takeaway isn't coming from the actual article, but from the comments. But the problem with comments is that they are not liable for anything they say, and therefore have no need to be truthful or even ethical in any way. It's one of the many reasons why I believe strongly that nobody has a right to be part of any platform, no matter how large it may be.

        I think I should be more clear as to why I don't think social media itself is a bad thing. The thing about social media is that it doesn't really provide society with anything it didn't have before. It just makes communicating more convenient. In other words, social media is simply a social accelerator - it just makes people communicate faster. In other words, social media does not create effects that society would not have created without the existence of social media.

        7 votes
        1. hook
          Link Parent
          I think this is the main gist of your comment, and I agree. It is not like the discussions that we now critique did not take place before. It is just that the discussions that took part in the...

          In other words, social media does not create effects that society would not have created without the existence of social media.

          I think this is the main gist of your comment, and I agree.

          It is not like the discussions that we now critique did not take place before. It is just that the discussions that took part in the pub¹ or café or banter at the local market, now take place even more publicly for everyone to hear and see, not just the limited group behind your table or within earshot.

          So, I don’t think the problem is with the content, or its (more or less) publicity – these things were discussed in public places before.

          The problem IMHO is with the commercial social media/network entities incentivising pub banter by awarding posting fluff more (at least relative to the effort put in) than researched articles and debate. Case in point: take any popular sub-Reddit and count how many popular comments are just stupid puns, or memes² like “Am I the only one who [popular_opinion]”. I imagine it’s not much different on Twitter.

          A further problem is also the (n)etiquette being thrown out the window, perhaps less due to the (pseudo)anonymity, but more due to simply being (also physically) detached from the consequences. Imagine what would happen in a pub if someone called someone “a fucking nazi retard”, or “bloody goat-fucker bomb-squad”, or simply telling them how they “fucked their mother”, preferably after winning a game of darts. Depending on the pub, loss of teeth is definitely within the range of options. Even in a Viennese-style café a firm escort out the door, with potential police intervention is a very likely option.

          Of course, the flip-side of this coin is that this freedom is – as @Akir commented – exactly what empowers marginalised groups to organise themselves and discuss without (or at least less) fear of repercussions.


          1: Interesting fact: The English word “pub” is short for “public house” …which for someone from the continental part of Europe is a loads of fun.

          2d Which brings us to the question of how the meme culture effects the discussion quality.

          4 votes
        2. flip
          Link Parent
          As I mentioned in my response to the tastefully named @JesusShuttleworth above, this article has some good points on protection against fake news and conspiracy theories,...

          As I mentioned in my response to the tastefully named @JesusShuttleworth above, this article has some good points on protection against fake news and conspiracy theories, https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/07/20/the-study-of-history-is-in-decline-in-britain?frsc=dg%7Ce (the other I mentioned talks about intelligence, has some tangential things about it).

          And you get to a good point, lots of people don't read whatever was posted, just take stock of the comments and make a decision, which further screws up the quality of the information they are consuming. This (https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10202059501509428?stream_ref=10) was a beautiful "prank" by NPR and perfectly illustrates what is important to a lot of people, not getting better informed, but putting their piece in, no matter how ill-equipped they are to have an opinion on the subject, as evidenced by all the people that commented without reading that one.

          I don't think SoMe is a bad thing in itself either. But I don't think it is a good thing either. Like all tools, it depends on the use you make of it. And the use the vast majority of people make of SoMe is shit. I quit Facebook long ago, my instagram usage is restricted to seeing pictures of cars and bikes (and since they changed the time-based algorithm to whatever it is they have now, I barely open it), not following people I know, so I can get by without being exposed to the worst of it. But the exposure I get from work is more than enough to make sure I don't lose any time with it when I'm not working.

          2 votes
        3. WendigoTulpa
          Link Parent
          I do this a lot on reddit. Mainly because I hate going to another website and dealing with its ads/other bs, but also because the discourse on a subject tends to quickly pinpoint the most...

          in some cases the takeaway isn't coming from the actual article, but from the comments. But the problem with comments is that they are not liable for anything they say, and therefore have no need to be truthful or even ethical in any way.

          I do this a lot on reddit. Mainly because I hate going to another website and dealing with its ads/other bs, but also because the discourse on a subject tends to quickly pinpoint the most important aspects of that subject.

          I think that in an ideal comment section, people are in good faith giving providing their thoughts on a matter, and if those comments are free from censorship, then the reader stands to understand more about a situation from reading a few comments, than from reading an article which may already be biased. Comment sections are a place where viewpoints, whether radical or moderate, blend into a neutral value that may be the closest representation of the truth. OF COURSE this does not happen in practice. But maybe there are some redeeming factors. I've been trying to read more articles lately as long as they're not from some news blog.

          2 votes
        4. flip
          Link Parent
          Just as an aside, there's this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49102074 And all the other times shit like this has happened because of stupid rumours...

          Just as an aside, there's this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49102074

          And all the other times shit like this has happened because of stupid rumours...

      3. [2]
        Mitijea
        Link Parent
        The closest back then we had were letters to the editor. The difference was most everyone knew to take any thing written in them with a huge amount of skepticism. Now there is no such dividing line.

        The closest back then we had were letters to the editor. The difference was most everyone knew to take any thing written in them with a huge amount of skepticism. Now there is no such dividing line.

        3 votes
        1. flip
          Link Parent
          Exactly. I'm a regular reader of the Economist, for instance. Their letters to the editor are usually really good. And I still at the most glance at it. I buy it for their journalists, not for the...

          Exactly. I'm a regular reader of the Economist, for instance. Their letters to the editor are usually really good. And I still at the most glance at it. I buy it for their journalists, not for the opinion of the readers.

          2 votes
      4. [2]
        lag
        Link Parent
        Turkey or Brazil? Hope im right

        Turkey or Brazil? Hope im right

        3 votes
      5. [4]
        blake
        Link Parent
        Off topic, but HEAVILY agree on a motorsports section here. Or autos, something, anything.

        Off topic, but HEAVILY agree on a motorsports section here. Or autos, something, anything.

        3 votes
        1. [3]
          flip
          Link Parent
          Let's make one ourselves (yes, I know that isn't really doable rn)! What's your drug of choice, by the way?

          Let's make one ourselves (yes, I know that isn't really doable rn)! What's your drug of choice, by the way?

          1. [2]
            blake
            Link Parent
            Ha! We'll get one eventually. Rallycross is def my drug of choice. Love racing rallycross, and watching rally is fun too. I don't follow much racing at all, but I do enjoy it when I do see it. I...

            Ha! We'll get one eventually.

            Rallycross is def my drug of choice. Love racing rallycross, and watching rally is fun too. I don't follow much racing at all, but I do enjoy it when I do see it. I do a lot of motorcycling (classic 2 strokes), and I am always wrenching on something with my buddies. How's about you?

            1. flip
              Link Parent
              Oh, anything with wheels, an engine, and someone keeping score. Formula 1 was my first love (I was doing karting at the time), but now it's MotoGP, WEC, Indy, stock cars (DTM and Brazilian), the...

              Oh, anything with wheels, an engine, and someone keeping score. Formula 1 was my first love (I was doing karting at the time), but now it's MotoGP, WEC, Indy, stock cars (DTM and Brazilian), the list goes on. I actually like more stuff than I have time for...

              1 vote
  3. [2]
    Silbern
    Link
    Among other things, it's also caused people to become much more self-conscious and sensitive to other peoples approval/disapproval. If you use a site like Twitter or Facebook as intended, you get...

    Among other things, it's also caused people to become much more self-conscious and sensitive to other peoples approval/disapproval. If you use a site like Twitter or Facebook as intended, you get only these carefully curated insights into how other people live, and you start comparing your own life, with all its challenges and difficulties, to someone else's best moments only. I've also seen people judging themselves (and others!) by an arbitrary number of likes, from people and accounts they don't even know is real. Not to mention that social media strips out all the personality, charm, and closeness of small internet communities and just dumps us all into one giant sea, where the vast majority are just meaningless small fish in an endless swarm.

    I find the whole premise to be quite unhealthy, which is why I only use a Twitter account for following some old friends of mine that I know are kind and supportive, and no other social media accounts. Call me old fashioned but I like my personal blogs and forums like Tildes.

    10 votes
    1. JesusShuttlesworth
      Link Parent
      This is completely true, and I think is at least partly to blame for the amount of depression in younger generations.

      If you use a site like Twitter or Facebook as intended, you get only these carefully curated insights into how other people live, and you start comparing your own life, with all its challenges and difficulties, to someone else's best moments only.

      This is completely true, and I think is at least partly to blame for the amount of depression in younger generations.

      4 votes
  4. [3]
    Douglas
    Link
    To me, social media felt like a new toy that society as a whole was all the willing to play with to its heart's content, including myself. When Facebook and MySpace launched, I naively thought...

    To me, social media felt like a new toy that society as a whole was all the willing to play with to its heart's content, including myself. When Facebook and MySpace launched, I naively thought "Wow! This is what connecting the world looks like! This is awesome! People are going to form so many new connections and friendships through this!"

    I think the radicalization problems it has today were hard to foresee because we had too much faith in people's objectivity and impartiality, and forget that we're innately flawed to pay attention to things that affirm our narratives of the world, especially when capitalism rewards the more predatory tactics of websites who skew truths and amplify talking points to get more eyeballs.

    One of my favorite books is Nudge by Richard Thaler, and his follow-up book Misbehaving-- both taught me that economists are just now catching up with the idea that humans are flawed deciders. It talks about the "libertarian paternalism" approach to choice architecture-- it's not a political thing at all, it's just the idea that the user's decisions are preserved, but arranged in an order that best benefits a specific party. Capitalism typically results in the choices arranged in a way that benefits the company, but ethically the decisions should be arranged in a way that benefits the user.

    The problems we see in Twitter/FB/Reddit/etc. I think came from the people running them in a way that arranged choices for the company and not the user's best interest, and we're just now getting to a point where people are looking for impartial, non-profit (or just differently-profiting) platforms that are making more ethical decisions on their behalf.

    I also hope we're at the beginning of an age of scrutiny/awareness. That all this information sharing on these social platforms and "fake news" spreading has really taught (some) people to be more skeptical about which news sources they get their news from. I personally know a few people who've decided to stop watching Fox News and any Sinclair-owned channels after that one video came out showing every news anchor spouting the same talking points.

    The only people I know still on Facebook are older people (40+) and people who are more or less indifferent. Most of my closer friends have left it, and we just text each other photos/news some times, and send each other postcards on holidays. But that's just my experience. I'm fully-aware/see in your post that my experience is practically the opposite of what's going on on the grander scale.

    8 votes
    1. [2]
      DonQuixote
      Link Parent
      This is ironic, because one of the most popular networks with the under 30 crowd is Instagram, which is wholly owned by Facebook. (Source: Investopedia:...

      The only people I know still on Facebook are older people (40+) and people who are more or less indifferent.

      This is ironic, because one of the most popular networks with the under 30 crowd is Instagram, which is wholly owned by Facebook. (Source: Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/100215/twitter-vs-facebook-vs-instagram-who-target-audience.asp)

      4 votes
      1. JesusShuttlesworth
        Link Parent
        Yeah, instagram is just facebook for young people. I'm guilty of this myself, but I think I will be deleting instagram.

        Yeah, instagram is just facebook for young people. I'm guilty of this myself, but I think I will be deleting instagram.

        2 votes
  5. hook
    Link
    My main issue with (modern) social networks is that they scream for your attention and want to grab and keep it for as long and as often as possible. There is no time to stop and develop a...

    My main issue with (modern) social networks is that they scream for your attention and want to grab and keep it for as long and as often as possible. There is no time to stop and develop a thought, no time to keep it simmering in your mind, do some analysis and reply thoughtfully and thoroughly. Even if you are posting or replying the “wrong” timezone, you will miss most of the potential audience. In the blogosphere it was perfectly OK to take a few days, even weeks before replying. And people managed to hold a meaningful public correspondence – some still do! – through blog posts.

    In short, the content is gone, all there is left is the comment section …

    Now, I don’t think this reason is inherent to social network, in general, but in combination with their business models.

    The reason why these social networks are such attention whores boils down to them selling your attention to others. Which is why they try to force you to drop by often and stay long.

    Now, if you take that away, having you constantly checking for new comments or content is just a strain on their servers and therefore additional cost.

    So anyone hosting themselves for free would ideally not like too many users to cope with. So a sweet spot needs to be met where it is not a too big dent in the hoster's/maintainer's personal budget, but still vivid enough to be engaging and useful. If it becomes too crowded, it becomes to expensive to run (both in time and money), which is why we see many self-hosted (nodes of federated) social networks get killed off in the height of its popularity (s.c. Mastodon nodes).

    In a paid subscription (or donation etc.) system, the incentive is to have as many paying users as possible, while not pushing for activity too much.


    This comment borrows heavily from previous comments of mine in the Does anyone (else) not use social media in its entirety? What are your reasons? thread

    8 votes
  6. [5]
    andre
    Link
    This comment may not necessarily apply specifically to social media, but I think it's related enough to post. I don't engage very much on social media, but I can feel negative effects on my...

    This comment may not necessarily apply specifically to social media, but I think it's related enough to post. I don't engage very much on social media, but I can feel negative effects on my attention capacity even as a simple consumer of content on Reddit, Twitter, and Hacker News.

    It's too easy to mindlessly waste time scrolling through an infinitely loading source of shallow entertainment. When I find something deep and interesting to read, I usually just bookmark it into my "read later" queue, which is ever growing, and waste another 20 minutes on bullshit instead.

    I've never had attention deficit issues in the past, but I now find myself needing to mindfully practice focus and willpower. It's not easy - the habitual nature of short content is powerful. When was the last time you didn't check your phone when you had a free 2 minutes? Fiancee pauses a show to go to the kitchen for a snack? Better refresh /r/all. Waiting in a quickly moving line at the grocery store? Better see if there's any new Tweets.

    Consuming deep content is effortful, and our ability to do so is eroding.

    8 votes
    1. [4]
      Omnicrola
      Link Parent
      That was what really helped me change my behavior a few years ago. The knowledge of conditioned behaviors, dopamine responses, and then realizing that I'd been scrolling through reddit for a solid...

      That was what really helped me change my behavior a few years ago. The knowledge of conditioned behaviors, dopamine responses, and then realizing that I'd been scrolling through reddit for a solid 10min not because I was interesting in reading something on any particular topic, but just hoping for something new. Didn't even matter if it was good, I just needed that small spike of dopamine from discovering something new and potentially interesting.

      I quit FB completely after the CA scandal, but before that I would only check it at a specific time each day, then ignore it. Reddit I only check at certain times of the day.

      The situation that most exemplifies this phenomenon happens at work on a regular basis. I will be in the bathroom at work, and the person next to me will be on their phone while standing at a urinal. Of all the places to decide that "yea, this 30sec span is definitely something that needs to be filled by checking my phone", this one baffles me the most. I'm totally guilty of reading my phone while sitting on a toilet, but.... really? The 30sec at a urinal?

      4 votes
      1. [3]
        kfwyre
        Link Parent
        I can, ashamedly, relate to this. Not the urinal specifically, but I recently realized that I was checking my phone while brushing my teeth. I didn't consciously realize it was even happening...

        I can, ashamedly, relate to this.

        Not the urinal specifically, but I recently realized that I was checking my phone while brushing my teeth. I didn't consciously realize it was even happening until one night when I was brushing away and was surprised when I went to get out my phone and realized I'd left it on the charger. It wasn't that I had any need for it--it was just sheer compulsion fueled by having the "downtime" of teeth brushing. It's a wakeup call that I've legitimately forgotten how to be "idle" and just let my brain rest or focus on a single, non-cognitive/social task.

        3 votes
        1. [2]
          Omnicrola
          Link Parent
          If you want a real wakeup call, try deliberately leaving your phone at home for a day. (Maybe not a work day, depends on your job). Then make a mental note of all the times you instinctively reach...

          If you want a real wakeup call, try deliberately leaving your phone at home for a day. (Maybe not a work day, depends on your job). Then make a mental note of all the times you instinctively reach for the phone. It's rather eye opening.

          I find it makes me more relaxed in a lot of ways that simply silencing it or putting it in a drawer does not. Nothing and nobody can interrupt me while I go about doing whatever it is I need to do.

          3 votes
          1. Deimos
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            I've also seen some people talk about doing something like wrapping a piece of paper around their phone with a rubber band, so that they have to "unwrap" it every time they want to use it. That...

            I've also seen some people talk about doing something like wrapping a piece of paper around their phone with a rubber band, so that they have to "unwrap" it every time they want to use it. That makes it into much more of a conscious process instead of something that you can just do idly.

            4 votes
  7. [4]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [2]
      JesusShuttlesworth
      Link Parent
      One of the most frustrating things to me about twitter is the character limit. How can anything of substance be said in under 140 characters? What it leads to is people "reporting" attention...

      One of the most frustrating things to me about twitter is the character limit. How can anything of substance be said in under 140 characters? What it leads to is people "reporting" attention grabbing headlines that omit key details. Even worse, every journalist wants to be the first to publish their scoop, so they put little to no effort in the articles that they write.

      2 votes
      1. Silbern
        Link Parent
        In Twitter's defense though, it wasn't originally designed for in depth things of substance, and the character limitation comes from technical reasons. SMS messages had a 160 character limit iirc,...

        In Twitter's defense though, it wasn't originally designed for in depth things of substance, and the character limitation comes from technical reasons. SMS messages had a 160 character limit iirc, so 20 characters were set aside for handles and the remaining 140 could be used for content. Twitter intended to be a personal microblogging service that would be available to anyone with an SMS capable phone, since smartphones were not common in 2006, and not a discussion service like we use it today. And these days, it's actually 280 characters I believe.

        5 votes
    2. Akir
      Link Parent
      I don't think that's so much a problem with Twitter as it is a problem with news media. News desks have editors, and they are supposed to know better than to use Twitter as a source except under...

      I don't think that's so much a problem with Twitter as it is a problem with news media. News desks have editors, and they are supposed to know better than to use Twitter as a source except under very specific circumstances.

      Honestly, in most cases, if a news outlet is providing tweets for reactions, I take that as a sign to completely ignore the entire outlet.

  8. [3]
    DonQuixote
    Link
    I think that effect is still being discovered. Intuitively and given what I read about the advances in technology and Artificial Intelligence, we've adopted and invested in a system that is...

    I think that effect is still being discovered. Intuitively and given what I read about the advances in technology and Artificial Intelligence, we've adopted and invested in a system that is changing in non-obvious ways, incorporating the desires and aims of diverse influences attempting a sort of tug-of-war with both the system and each other. Behaviorists can debate on the details for eons or decades, however long we have.

    For now we've entered an age of uncertainty on a new level. Where before it seems our game was played in the field of reality, with corporations and others in positions of power as the players, now it seems the 'virtual world' is the tail wagging the reality dog, with every individual online a player or at least a raw material in the game.

    I see existential crisis in humans much more than I did in years past. In most cases their belief systems are inadequate to deal with such a crisis. As a result, I see people giving up. Social media is just spreading this attitude more quickly than it would be otherwise.

    The polarization and increasing resistance to consensus and dare I say compromise is a symptom of fear. We've always had fear in civilization, but now we have more of a chance to let it screw us over than ever before. It's like we've held up a mirror to society and, horrified at what we see, are trying to escape into the mirror rather than putting it down and getting to work on the problems, self included. We've become a society of yammerheads.

    5 votes
    1. [2]
      Akir
      Link Parent
      I agree with what you are saying about fear and uncertainty, but I think I have a different take as to what the fear is. I am now working with a co-worker who is the worst racist I have ever had...

      I agree with what you are saying about fear and uncertainty, but I think I have a different take as to what the fear is.

      I am now working with a co-worker who is the worst racist I have ever had to deal with. I do everything possible to get along with him and try to be his friend in spite of how much I hate that part of him. And as a result I'm starting to understand the mechanisms of how racism works in modern society. The scary part about it is that they are the same mechanisms that drive everyone to act the way they do.

      The thing about racists is that they will not admit that they are racist. They will not even admit it to themselves. They view themselves as virtuous people, and how could a virtuous person be racist? And that is the multi-faceted fear I think that society is dealing with - the fear that they may find they aren't the person they wanted to be, the fear that they may be rejected by society, that they don't really know themselves and what they are capable of, or that they may need to make changes to the life they already know. It's much easier to reject truth than to acknowledge it.

      Perhaps because it's painful to change, it's become somewhat taboo to mention when someone needs to consider it. It's very easy to come across as if you are trying to tease the person about the aspect in question. If you look at self-help books, most of them tend to just assume that the reader is a good person already.

      I think that society (English-speaking society, to be specific) needs a new source from which to learn morals and ethics. It seems now that people choose their thought leaders specifically so that they don't have to acknowledge their biases and faults. What we need is a single figurehead who everyone can agree with - a new Mr. Rogers. But that's a very tall order to fulfill.

      6 votes
      1. DonQuixote
        Link Parent
        I have a relative who is in the same boat. Actually, his whole family is that way, and there are plenty people around him who support each other in this. There's no cognitive dissonance at all,...

        I have a relative who is in the same boat. Actually, his whole family is that way, and there are plenty people around him who support each other in this. There's no cognitive dissonance at all, even though he helps people of all races out in times of need, even going the extra mile. I'd say it's an intelligence issue, but his wife is above average in intelligence and shares the same views.

        To tell you the truth, I've found this ability to ignore information in many other areas in many other's lives. I was asked the other day, "are all of us mentally deranged?" The truth is that biases exist in all of us and so does our blindess to those biases. It's a wonder that democracy can exist at all.

        2 votes
  9. Gaea
    Link
    I keep musing about a platform for people who care about these issues and more. Less a social media platform than a club, but the only qualification being a willingness to participate...

    I keep musing about a platform for people who care about these issues and more. Less a social media platform than a club, but the only qualification being a willingness to participate legitimately. It would have “validated anonymity,” such that every member must have their real life identity verified and tied to one account, but which can never be hacked or linked. You would be committed to one identity, and your credibility would follow you forever, just as in real life, but your personal information would never be used in any fashion except to ensure you maintain a single account. I say all this only because I believe that the freedom to create multiple accounts and delete and restart at whim greatly exacerbates the problems being discussed. The issue is credibility. There needs to be a real value to cultivating one’s credibility, so in that way members share a motivation to earn it.

    4 votes
  10. gergir
    Link
    Without malice or sarcasm: SM has made at least part of the upcoming generation acutely wary of strangers and disinclined to (blanket-)respect their elders.

    Without malice or sarcasm: SM has made at least part of the upcoming generation acutely wary of strangers and disinclined to (blanket-)respect their elders.

    1 vote
  11. stromm
    Link
    I almost 50, got a computer in the house when I was 6. Have grown up "online" from using a 30BAUD acoustic modem to dial in to a University's system, through the BBS days, into CompuServe type...

    I almost 50, got a computer in the house when I was 6. Have grown up "online" from using a 30BAUD acoustic modem to dial in to a University's system, through the BBS days, into CompuServe type environments and News Groups, then into full Internet/Web services. As a kid, we also went from a party line for phone service, to our own number, and I got my first cell phone in 1989 and have never been without one since. Heck, I've even experienced only over the air, to 4 channels over cable, to 30 to hundreds and analog to digital.

    IMHO, social media has enabled too many people to feel that what they want, should over ride what another wants. And not in a good way. And it really pisses me off when someone gets upset with me, because I refuse to think their way, even though I don't treat them less because of it.

    To many people nowadays are 1. Looking for a way to be "more" equal than everyone else. 2. Expect everyone else to treat them better than everyone else. 3. Convinced that freedom is free. 4. Everyone should be given what everyone else has worked hard for.

    People look back and think the civil "rights" movements in the 50's and 60's was unheard of. It wasn't. It's happened over and over and over. And they think what's happening now is even more amazing.

    What they are blind to is that, what's happening now isn't about equality. It's about segregation. And it's going to backfire hard for all of society.