Poll: Social Media: Good or Bad? (no politics)

[bikewanker]

Good for deep thinkers.

Bad for the shallow ones.

Barf is exempt

I’m shallow, social media bad, BARF excepted.
Me thinks the bigger they are the greater the control and censorship.
To the sink!

 

[W800]

They're designed to give people what they want, just like the thuh-me-de-yuh. Stop wanting trash and you won't get trash.

Yes. Fentanyl also gives people what they want. Keeps the poor in a stupor. Creates profit centers for anti-homeless initiatives, the police, other first responders, Narcan maker, politicians, and prisons.

Social media does exact same thing in certain arenas.

 

[byke]

It's more like a cheeseburger, where person A asks for a gnarly greasy triple bacon cheesebuger and gets it, then some other person B is like, "you know, that cheeseburger isn't good for that guy, we should make sure he can only eat something healthy". Person B would be you trying to decide for others, *if* you actually wanted to do something about it. Otherwise, if you're just saying the burger sucks and that's the way it must be, then all good.

 

[W800]

Just wanted to add something. The reason I posted this poll is because there's some thinking that humanity's biggest SHORT TERM challenge isn't climate change.

It's social media and the way it's tearing apart the bonds that somewhat hold us together. Idea is this will lead to constant melee.

I think we are in a dynamic called "inverted tolitarianism." Has nothing to do with left or right. It's a means of control.

 

[Climber]

The poll needed the option of 'Social Media is Both Good and Bad'. :x

The option of 'neither good nor bad' is not an equivalent option.

I think like religion, it brings both an upside and a downside.

 

[byke]

Just wanted to add something. The reason I posted this poll is because there's some thinking that humanity's biggest SHORT TERM challenge isn't climate change.

It's social media and the way it's tearing apart the bonds that somewhat hold us together. Idea is this will lead to constant melee.

I think we are in a dynamic called "inverted tolitarianism." Has nothing to do with left or right. It's a means of control.

I think it boils down to a simple question; do you want people to have the freedom to be pieces of shit, or do you want to reduce freedom by removing all the things you think are bad for people, i.e. a bumper bowling society?

 

[W800]

The poll needed the option of 'Social Media is Both Good and Bad'. :x

The option of 'neither good nor bad' is not an equivalent option.

I think like religion, it brings both an upside and a downside.

Good point! But then people would not take stance. Reason is everything is both good and bad. Example is water. Drinking water is good! But drinking water is also bad!

(People have died from drinking too much water and messing up their internal electrolytes).

 

[W800]

I think it boils down to a simple question; do you want people to have the freedom to be pieces of shit, or do you want to reduce freedom by removing all the things you think are bad for people, i.e. a bumper bowling society?

The poll wasn't about removing social media. It's more about hearing opinions. Personally I think we will see increased discord. Here's where it gets interesting:

Whenever anything becomes "a thing," people will monetize it. Once it becomes monetized, it never goes away. Too many people have new vested interest.

There's a lot of anti-system yelling in the real world right now. It's driven by social media and it uses social media to organize. It's also making the system rich.

That yelling will thus continue. The people not getting rich are the yellers, except for the smart ones who know how to game it.

ETA: this is why and how the "useful idiot" concept works. People think they are doing one thing, when in reality they are causing opposite to happen. For example, say I wanted to "defund" Parks and Recreation. Then I went and drove a monster truck all over every park. That would cause Parks and Recreation to get bigger, not smaller. People like their peaceful parks, and property values are related to parks.

But here's the thing. Parks and Rec wouldn't want to entirely stop monster truck assholes. The people doing the defund park thing are now causing Parks and Rec to get more money. The extra $$ just comes in to something like "Truck Deescalation Outreach."

 

[bojangle]

They're designed to give people what they want, just like the thuh-me-de-yuh. Stop wanting trash and you won't get trash.

Yes, but even if one did that, algorithms are bad in that it still gives the user a skewed perspective. The barf example is better because it shows posts in chronological order, and gives the user control over which topics they want to read and participate in. It doesn't promote certain topics and hide others. That only serves to create individual false realities. A platform like barf gives everyone the same reality, with minor exceptions to things like admin only forums, moderator only forums, women's forum, and the PF limited by choice forum.

I think it boils down to a simple question; do you want people to have the freedom to be pieces of shit, or do you want to reduce freedom by removing all the things you think are bad for people, i.e. a bumper bowling society?

The bigger the bumper the more control is handed to those in charge of a social media platform, which gives more leverage for those in control to do bad things. Either way, people won't escape bad actors. The question is, are people better off controlling their own exposure to individual bad actors, or are they better off having those in charge do it, and being subject to bad actors in charge. I think the answer lies in a balance between the two, while leaning heavier on the side of individual freedom to choose content from what is available, and not from a false reality.

 

[Blankpage]

As mentioned it’s like alcohol, if you’re an asshole it will expose what’s being suppressed in IRL


‘

 

[BillSmith]

bojangle- In other words, the bad always comes with the good. It is the price we have to pay.

One must understand the above to reconcile some of the 'costs' of freedom.

 

[byke]

The poll wasn't about removing social media. It's more about hearing opinions. Personally I think we will see increased discord. Here's where it gets interesting:

Whenever anything becomes "a thing," people will monetize it. Once it becomes monetized, it never goes away. Too many people have new vested interest.

There's a lot of anti-system yelling in the real world right now. It's driven by social media and it uses social media to organize. It's also making the system rich.

That yelling will thus continue. The people not getting rich are the yellers, except for the smart ones who know how to game it.

But I said, "do anything about it", not, "get rid of it". Do you want to force any social media platform, via legislation, to do anything different? I agree that, "social media is bad", as long as that's the incorrect arrangement of words really meant to convey, "the world is worse off with people being so easily able to express how awful and dumb they are and that's the way it must be".

Yes, but even if one did that, algorithms are bad in that it still gives the user a skewed perspective. The barf example is better because it shows posts in chronological order, and gives the user control over which topics they want to read and participate in. It doesn't promote certain topics and hide others. That only serves to create individual false realities. A platform like barf gives everyone the same reality, with minor exceptions to things like admin only forums, moderator only forums, women's forum, and the PF limited by choice forum.

There's no such thing as a bad algorithm. You can't tell me, especially in the early days of porn, that you didn't click on something and get a popup of a couple dudes blowing each other, not that there's anything wrong with that, but did you immediately run out and start blowing people?

The bigger the bumper the more control is handed to those in charge of a social media platform, which gives more leverage for those in control to do bad things. Either way, people won't escape bad actors. The question is, are people better off controlling their own exposure to individual bad actors, or are they better off having those in charge do it, and being subject to bad actors in charge. I think the answer lies in a balance between the two, while leaning heavier on the side of individual freedom to choose content from what is available, and not from a false reality.

Better off isn't the question though. Think of how you can use that logic to try and create Pleasantville overnight, that's the same thing as seeking a bumper bowling society. Remember, they left Pleasantville in the end.

 

[W800]

There's no such thing as a bad algorithm. You can't tell me, especially in the early days of porn, that you didn't click on something and get a popup of a couple dudes blowing each other, not that there's anything wrong with that, but did you immediately run out and start blowing people?

It's usually the other way around. I'm lazy.

Re: legislation - it won't have much effect one way or other. It basically allows politicians to get votes and tech companies to play victim. Like in my recent "how to fix world" thread, it's my opinion that each person needs to get better. We are kind of in a post-legislation reality now. Most social change you will see won't be due to laws, it will be due to changes in money flow.

Right now money is flowing out of middle and classes. That's biggest driver.

 

[Climber]

The bigger the bumper the more control is handed to those in charge of a social media platform, which gives more leverage for those in control to do bad things. Either way, people won't escape bad actors. The question is, are people better off controlling their own exposure to individual bad actors, or are they better off having those in charge do it, and being subject to bad actors in charge. I think the answer lies in a balance between the two, while leaning heavier on the side of individual freedom to choose content from what is available, and not from a false reality.

I personally think that the more that a for-profit entity puts their hands into the interactions, the worse the outcome will be.

Let's face it, for-profit approach will ALWAYS want more conflict, more Anger, more Emotion, more Reactions. They will ALWAYS choose to blow things up rather than calm them down. There will ALWAYS be more money to be made by stirring shit up. That's just a FACT.

 

[byke]

It's usually the other way around. I'm lazy.

Point being, getting something we don't ask for isn't anything new. Every single commercial we see on tv or hear on the radio or even a billboard we glance at inadvertently, is getting something we didn't ask for. That's not a foundation we could use as an argument because it'd be shot down very quickly for inconsistency and inconsistency is the first sign of something misleading, as ironic as it may be.

Re: legislation - it won't have much effect one way or other. It basically allows politicians to get votes and tech companies to play victim. Like in my recent "how to fix world" thread, it's my opinion that each person needs to get better. We are kind of in a post-legislation reality now. Most social change you will see won't be due to laws, it will be due to changes in money flow.

Right now money is flowing out of middle and classes. That's biggest driver.

Well this feels a little like moving the goal post, but certainly social media drawbacks are a symptom of a sick society, but it's also kinda making my argument for me in that the issue is people, not the medium people use. On the subject of how to create better people, you start with not becoming shitty in the first place. Now that we're shitty, how do we unshitty ourselves? Engine rebuilds caused by neglect require a lot more money and skill than regular maintenance.

 

[Removed 3]

I think young people need to be reminded to not measure themselves against what others are posting. The harm takes the form of self-esteem issues


Otherwise, if you're a full grown adult, you know what the risks are in sharing too much


You can't deny that social media is just another medium to talk to more people than you would otherwise meet in person. You get to read perspectives or see images you wouldn't otherwise hear/see from your circle of friends and family

Slapping a good or bad label on something is too simplistic

social media drawbacks are a symptom of a sick society

What about the pre-social media concept of keeping up with the Jones'? Now you have a tool that allows you to seek validation via sharing pics of all the material things you've gotten your hands on. Not everyone is into doing that (thank god) but there is something about society in general that motivates individuals to prove that they are worthy of respect or attention

 

[W800]

Point being, getting something we don't ask for isn't anything new. Every single commercial we see on tv or hear on the radio or even a billboard we glance at inadvertently, is getting something we didn't ask for. That's not a foundation we could use as an argument because it'd be shot down very quickly for inconsistency and inconsistency is the first sign of something misleading, as ironic as it may be.



Well this feels a little like moving the goal post, but certainly social media drawbacks are a symptom of a sick society, but it's also kinda making my argument for me in that the issue is people, not the medium people use. On the subject of how to create better people, you start with not becoming shitty in the first place. Now that we're shitty, how do we unshitty ourselves? Engine rebuilds caused by neglect require a lot more money and skill than regular maintenance.

It's always about people just getting better vs. government trying to make them better. This goes back at least 2500 years. Think of Lao Tzu. One of the things that he said was that more laws create more criminals. It's in the second half of the Tao that talks about governance.

The point is that this pattern we see is neither unique nor new. But the key here is "see." Only by seeing it will we have mental armor against it.

I think it was in Ephesians where it was said "our battle is not against flesh and blood." Our battles are spiritual. Or psychological for people who aren't spiritual. Same basic concept.

The danger I see with social media is that it came upon us so fast. People have no mental defense. Watch some of the "yelling" videos. People are becoming unhinged. People who grew up on this lack the capacity to understand that their view of reality is heavily mediated.

Example: I know someone who only gets their news from Facebook. They are in an echo chamber. Tangible reality is much more chaotic, subtle, unpredictable, and hard to really grasp.

They literally can't grasp it.

ETA: the concept of "virality" has been known about for a long time. Single words or ideas can spread. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes this is bad. Think about what ideas or words you see in social media now. Think about how fast they can spread.

 

[byke]

Aw man you're too philosophical to question whether or not social media is good/bad, unless you're asking the question from a devil's advocate position of trying to find out how many are sucked into the game.

Also, echo chambers aren't really a thing, at least at face value. It's a manipulative tool created by people wanting to dismiss things they don't like that they've heard more than once.

 

[Removed 3]

byke bringing his A-game to this thread :thumbup

 

[W800]

Aw man you're too philosophical to question whether or not social media is good/bad, unless you're asking the question from a devil's advocate position of trying to find out how many are sucked into the game.

Also, echo chambers aren't really a thing, at least at face value. It's a manipulative tool created by people wanting to dismiss things they don't like that they've heard more than once.

I'm trying to hear opinions. The echo chamber thing is real. I see it every day. I have multiple twitter accounts. A couple for work and a personal one. I don't post anything. I just read the feeds. Depending on which account I am looking at, reality looks completely different.

Same with Google. I can do the same search logged into different Google accounts and get different results. It's even more interesting when I compare qwant and DDG.

What the echo chambers do is tribalize people. Because they don't understand how the echo chamber works, they think they see reality. They are like the poor sots in Platos's Cave.