I’m seeing one too many people blaming social media for this and social media for that because it’s just simply - social media. I think about this because I believe that you shouldn’t blame the tool because it is a tool, but blame the person who uses the tool for their intent.
Which means I’m on the side of the camp that actually knows lots of people abuse social media and has it demonized. It’s absolutely silly to just blame a concept or an idea for just being as is. So everyone else is going around blaming and blaming social media for their problems. Not too much the individuals that have contaminated it with their empty-brained existences.
And we all know that some of the more popular social media platforms are controlled by devoid-of-reality sychophants in Zuck, Spez, Musk that sways and stirs the volume of people on their platform with their equally as devoid ideas in how to manage.
Social Media, whether you like it or not, has a use. It’s a useful tool to engage with eachother as close as possible. Might be a bit saturated with many platforms to choose from.
But I just think social media being blamed for just being as is, is such a backwards way of thinking.
Well, that you think about it easily places you in a different group then the average joes. Most people don’t think about anything that’s not relevant to their survival.
We haven’t really evolved that much in the last few millennia where our civilization started, millennia is a really small scale for evolution.
And for people like that (the majority), social media are a bane, because they abuse what we know about human mind to be es engageable as possible, even if it’s not beneficial to the human.
Social media as a concept is not the problem, the execution is.
Most people simply don’t care about abstract issues like social media and similar.
No, I don’t think it’s exaggerated.
Have you ever unplugged? If not, you simply have no possible frame of reference; you really want to find your answer, that’s how.
I’ve unplugged and absolutely nothing changed. People are absolutely full of bloodlust with or without social media and have always been. I don’t even use any corpo social media whatsoever still, I have no need or time for it.
The internet is a firehose pumped from the septic tank of the human psyche.
If it is a general feature of enough human minds, it ends up there.
So, be better, I guess?
In my opinion it ties into Dunbar’s number or the monkey sphere, where humans simply cannot be that well connected without it ultimately becoming a disaster.
The human mind just isn’t as evolved as everyone thinks it is and is built on a design that was about survival of you and your tribe.
I usually start from this point and then add in the billionaires and corporations that have learnt how to manipulate these instincts for their own gain.
Yeah I’m starting to agree. Even if some of us here are more than evolved enough for this, it doesn’t mean the average joe is.
Yes. Social media is literally just a fairly accurate reflection of us as a species and our civilization. If people wanted, things would be very different. People simply do not want equality or progress, they want to hate thy neighbour.
Social media is literally just a fairly accurate reflection of us as a species and our civilization.
Strong disagree. Capitalists sell it to us as a mirror, but it’s a distorted mirror that shows us exactly what they want us to see for whatever reason.
If they want to sell us diet pills, they will turn it into one of those amusement park mirrors that makes you look fat. If they want to overthrow democracy, they’ll turn it into a mirror where everyone standing around you suddenly look suspicious and cruel. And if the Russians want to pay them to get control of what people will see in the mirror, hell - that’s just freedom of expression.
Add on top that pretty much everyone on earth is staring mindlessly into the mirror for hours every day, and you got yourself what I would consider to be a problem.
Algorithms will show you something you already to some degree want to see see or nobody would visit social media. People like capitalism. They like authoritarian dictators. People like Trump, Musk etc. they do not act alone. Leftists and other assorted humanists and progressives are wildly unpopular because most of the public simply can’t imagine not having the sheer bloodlust they have for thy neighbor.
If people didn’t like any of this, they’d be here, not on Xitter. They know and they will make any reason up not to be here from the somewhat reasonable to the truly bizarre like pretending not to comprehend instances/servers while using discord, and that’s only if they even bother to virtue signal that lack of corporate control is something they want to appear to want, like how average joe will say in a survey he isn’t racist because he knows that’s socially desirable, even when he of course is and in reality the public love every inch of the boot.
There’s no educating them, there’s no misinformation that can be debunked, it’s all excuses and these people reason backwards from what they want to believe and because of this and the bloodlust - the natural state of humanity is a fascist one and that’s why getting someone to agree you shouldn’t throw babies in the woodchipper is like pulling teeth and whenever a guy comes around saying he’ll double the baby crushing machine capacity nationwide at the expense of healthcare for everyone, endless unwashed hordes of barbarians come out of the woodwork voting for him.
Leftists and other assorted humanists and progressives are wildly unpopular because most of the public simply can’t imagine not having the sheer bloodlust they have for thy neighbor.
Believe it or not, this is not a necessity of human nature. It’s just your society that’s fucked up. And it’s probably not even that bad if you go out and talk to people rather than judge society by the distorted reflection given on social media.
I talk to people every day. Statistically, they’d vote to take my rights away so I keep my wits about me though and thank god each day we don’t live in an actual democracy lest minority blood will run in the streets.
If there’s anything I can agree with rightoids on, it’s that the average person should have absolutely no say in anything that happens to them and god forbid anyone else, all I want is a woke dictatorship at this point where the masses are very openly and directly brainwashed unto humanist ideals by elites who know what’s good for them, except these elites should be ethical scientists, “woke moralists”, other experts and humanists and not a handful of ultra-wealthy morons.
Social media is just a canvas for the average joe to show his true colours. I for one don’t like what I see, but I don’t blame the canvas for the paint our species chose.
Yeah, I’m not going to make the argument that people are fundamentally good either, and they are shaped by the media landscape they consume.
I live in a country where trans rights are not really questioned, and where I am feeling confident that they won’t be. Of course it still has ways to go and there are bad people, but trans rights have not become effectively politicized and it’s just not a point of contention.
It’s no fundamental rule of society that we have to go around hating each other. It’s a construct. That doesn’t mean it’s not the case where you live, but it’s something that can be changed.
Oh really, what country is this might I ask?
I currently live in Denmark. I have to admit I’m not following the public debate here very carefully, and there are plenty of backwards people around who will shout loudly about just about anything, but any reversal (or anything else than gradual strengthening) of trans rights would come as a huge surprise to me.
I am open for the possibility that I’m simply not following close enough. But I think the problem with trans rights is that it has become politicized, when it is really not a political issue. The fact that I have not heard about it at all in the public debate here is therefore, in my opinion, a good sign. For sure one can dig up shitty opinions if one starts looking for it, but they have not been given a defining role in the public debate as is the case in many countries.
Believe it or not, this is not a necessity of human nature. It’s just your society that’s fucked up.
Do you look at the prisoner’s dilemma and conclude that cooperation is the obvious answer?
The prisoner’s dilemma depends on the fact that the two prisoners cannot cooperate. If you allow information to flow between them it’s literally not a dilemma any more.
So yes.
If you allow information to flow between them it’s literally not a dilemma any more.
That’s novel information. Where did you learn that?
Two prisoners are arrested.
Both are given a choice: Rat out your buddy, and we’ll let you go with one year in prison. Keep your moth shut and we’ll give you four years. If you keep your moth shut and your buddy rats you out, you’ll get ten. If you both rat, you both get eight years.
The dominant strategy of both prisoners is to speak: In either case, ratting on their buddy will lower their punishment. However, if both prisoners choose this strategy, they end up losing collectively: Rather than both receiving four years as they would if they both kept their moth shut, they both yet eight years because they both talk.
That’s the basics of the dilemma. The years don’t matter, just the ranking of preferences.
If the prisoners can communicate, they will know that the other prisoner didn’t talk, and if one prisoner opens his mouth, he will know that the other prisoner will immediately do the same.
I learned the prisoner’s dilemma when I studied game theory. The fact that it depends on a lack of information flowing between the prisoners and that snitching is only the dominant strategy when it’s a single-round game is just parts of the assumptions of the dilemma.
I should also add that the prisoner’s dilemma is only a dilemma when it is played in only one round. Once it becomes a game of several rounds cooperation arises as the dominant strategy.
Then again, I’m not sure how the prisoner’s dilemma is relevant here in the first place, I just thought it was a funny point to make.
only a dilemma when it is played in only one round.
There is no fixed solution for the repeated case:
in such a simulation, tit-for-tat will almost always come to dominate, though nasty strategies will drift in and out of the population because a tit-for-tat population is penetrable by non-retaliating nice strategies, which in turn are easy prey for the nasty strategies. Dawkins showed that here, no static mix of strategies forms a stable equilibrium, and the system will always oscillate between bounds
Yes, social media is the problem. But there are two social media spheres. The one where we are, with Lemmy and Mastodon, is not the problem. The problem is the social media that exists in the capitalist world. What happened with the internet is that we invented a lot of services that should be a human right but they are controlled by corporations. Everyone should have access to a zero knowledge email, everyone should have access to a social media platform that is not controlled by anyone (it’s a public space).
Everyone should have access
They have, and choose not to.
This. Don’t rob the public of agency, they actively choose algorithms that will dictate them what to say, think, do and feel.
I don’t disagree with that but what about the people that are not connected to information like we are? What about the average Joe that is asked for an Instagram account so that he can get the contact of a person promising a job? (Just a random example).
Are social media the root of all problems? No. Do they have a significant influence? Yes.
You mentioned spineless billionaires who eff around. There are instances of real harm. There is bullying (everywhere), there are schemes to make groups depressed (teenage girls on Insta), there is a lack of moderators that lead to genocide (Myanmar). These things deserve to be looked at by legislators when the sycophants don’t do it by themselves.
Social media addiction is a thing as well. Addictions in young people are bad. Parents should be on the front line of this. But that does not absolve social media companies from taking measures to curb certain excesses. Tobacco companies are not allowed to advertize to toddlers either.
So saying they’re just a tool, like, say, a hammer is insincere. You can use a hammer to cause real harm. You can deploy social media to cause real harm.
One of the greatest issues of social media is scale. People on the fringes of society who would be largely outcast in their communities can group and organize with much more ease. In the past, this was limited to the pub in three sheets to the wind discussions. Now you get sh!t like Q Anon, flatearthers, vax nuts, etc. - stuff that common sense in smaller communities would have moderated or stamped out now gets mass appeal. They seem much bigger as an online presence than they often are. But they get dedicated believers to start shooting.
The introduction of the internet has been compared to the introduction of the printing press in Europe. Both events caused a quantum leap in the dissemination of information with profound influences on society. After the printing press we got a century and a half of conflicts and wars. We’ll be well off if all we get here is a century of people typing in caps lock at each other.
We limit things in society. The availability of nicotine products, alcohol, the ability to drive, the availability of weaponry, antitrust laws, environmental protections, etc. I think we will not get past regulating social media somehow. By which I mean I don’t know how either.
One thing that is certain will benefit society is investing in education, teaching media savvy-ness to young children and all adults if possible, giving them the tools to sort the relevant from the distorted. We are largely unprepared for this and I include myself here having grown up with papers and landlines. But education is the saddest item in any budget, as the costs are high and the results take a generation to bear fruit.
Trump wants to dismantle the DOE…
the ones who own the social media are the source of so many problems.
The issue is not necessarily social media as a concept its how social media interacts with the profit motive to encourage addiction and hate. It is silly to blame the tool which why I blame the capitalists who have nearly monopolized ownership of the tool and use it to divide us.
Political motive too. If society was less divided, and had less authoritarian inclinations, the hate would be less prevalent. It would just be addictive to see nice things on the net
The actions of capitalist are always inherently political when they affect the working class but I know what you mean
Just finished reading Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams. No, social media isn’t the problem. We as people have had social media is some form of another for a long time.
The problem is the people running the social media. It’s always the people in charge taking advantage for money.
It’s just a catalyst. Or rather a mirror
I read a book once - i know, crazy right? - looking at Facebook’s policies, strategies, and actions and reactions in relation to driving engagement and its algorithms. They know well what they are doing in regards to hate groups and driving opinions that veer into human rights abuses. If the profit motive is removed, as is the need for ‘hours on platform’ and engagement and feeding people the worst aspects of themselves back to themselves, then much of the malignancy is dampened if not removed. Even so, if we had nothing but benign platforms, I think that a) being always in contact with people is not necessarily a good thing as is claimed, and b) being in contact is not (necessarily) being connected, and fudging or confusing that is a problem in itself.
I don’t think social media is inherently evil, but profit motive creeps into people’s private lives and fundamentally corrupts the natural premise of social connection.
Social media is huge money, all through advertising. Advertising will use anything it can to manipulate an audience’s behavior, that’s what it exists for in terms of research and how organizations decide what ads to run and where: net engagement and sales figures. Whether to sell you a product or a political idea, it is most effective when you don’t realize you’re being advertised to. This encourages ad firms and political campaigns to manipulate user psychology to get the most meaningful results they can. I think the depth of insight all the data collection tech companies do opens a window to manipulate people in ways we haven’t really come to terms with as a society.
And while the fediverse is probably more resistant to advertising than a centrally controlled system, there is nothing stopping well crafted astroturfing in this space. Political astroturfing in particular doesn’t generally look like what someone expects an ad to look like because of its ubiquitous nature and its natural network effects.
As someone who became an adult before social media was a thing, it has absolutely been a detriment to society.
There’s great aspects to it and I utilize them. But as a whole, it has FUUUUCKED us up in a very significant way.
There is a direct correlation between the rise of social media and the absolute nosedive our political discourse has taken. Misinformation is SO much more prevalent now. And that rise in misinformation is definitely having real world effects.
