By Stephen Fontenot | While social media algorithms have become excellent at matching a user’s viewing habits with targeted, personalized content, psychologists at The University of Texas at Dallas have determined that these algorithms may have a negative influence on a user’s mental health. Dr. Alva Tang, assistant professor of psychology in the School of Behavioral […]
Social media has the power to do so much good: connecting people across the globe, enabling the sharing of information across language barriers and in circumvention of government censorship, and more. But because the world is run by greedy power-hungry pigs, we can’t have social media without it being exploited to the furthest extent possible in the name of profit. The mental health of the public is not even a secondary concern - it is completely disregarded in favor of squeezing further growth out of a saturated market for a service that should be both simple and free.
Before all that - and you are right on your take - there is a more basic flaw that affects social media: people do not know how to act properly.
The anonimity emboldens the small minds that use it to mistreat, slander and ridicule others and spread lies and rumours.
Unless we can force people to act with civility - which implies people being fairly conscious of the consequences of their words and actions - social media will remain what it is: a cesspool where the worst of our species destils into a refined poison.
That doesn’t work. The average individual is too hedonistic to refrain from any pleasureable or self reinforcing loop. It’s been a cautionary tale in stories since ancient times.
That is a system predicated on getting rid of the problematic, like the one it exists today, just with an added layer of distancing, to ease the rest of the population’s mind. It does not solve any problem.
I am going to repeat my point as many times as necessary until it gets through: your example is only a punishment system with an extra layer to be more palatable to the society where it is inserted.
Being free does not imply in any moment an individual can do whatever they may concieve or desire; freedom requires and demands constraint, precisely because the freedom of the other is the boundary of my own. Life in society predicates on this. There is no society of one; the individual often finds a swift end if insisting on it, by its own actions.
A society that simply represses or discards individuals because they engaged in destructive behaviour is not doing anything to in fact solve a problem. A society is as responsible by its individuals as the individuals are by their society. And a society that so simply and easily opts by fractioning itself just to allow more (blatantly artificial) freedom to its elements is not a society. It is something I lack the word to describe but a society it is not.
They do, in communities where rules exist and are enforced. Anonymity may lead some people to feel more emboldened to act out, but when handled properly I believe the vast majority of them will just settle down and either learn how to participate in good faith or find somewhere else to be. The bad behavior patterns we see in some places are, in my opinion, the result of insufficient social norms and enforcement thereof. This is also a situation capitalists will foster, because it drives engagement and inflates content.
Unless we can force people to act with civility - which implies people being fairly conscious of the consequences of their words and actions
So you already understand that this is a problem that only exists in places where bad actors are given license to continue acting out.
If I didn’t understood there is already a problem of bad actors, I wouldn’t have approached your reply. And deny it in any way would be bad faith from me.
What I feel the need to underscore is that individuals make and influence groups and even the most progressively thought out environment is open to being corrupted if any individual present there lacks, in any way, the self awareness that their attitude is damaging.
It’s not the group that needs to regulate the individual; the regulation needs to arise from the individual themselves, in the first place. And most individuals lack that hard individual sense of responsability.
When television started it had all the same potentials you mention in your first sentence, but by far its main use has been to convince people to buy crap they don’t need with money they don’t have. And that’s how it is now with the internet.
That may be true, but TV also brought me Star Trek TNG, Captain Planet, Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, and many others that instilled values in me that are core to who I am today. Let’s not let perfection be the enemy of progress, and keep working to put our tools to better use.
I get that - I had my favorite shows too that were important in me becoming who I am. But before TV people had been developing good values for thousands of years, without degrading their attention spans or other mental functions, and in the 75 or so years of its history I really don’t see any evidence that the industry is working toward putting it to any better use.
Everyone has TV shows they like - this doesn’t in any way imply that the television industry is working toward making better use of it. It just means television has never been “all bad”. Whatever fight you’re looking for, I’m not interested.
The industry is not a monolith. It’s up to individuals and individual organizations to use TV for whatever purpose they choose. People like Mr. Rogers chose to turn television into an instrument to teach children about life and how to live it, about themselves and others, how we’re different and alike. To look at that and still be mad because every other individual or organization that ever went on air didn’t do the same thing is just mind-blowingly out of touch with reality.
Whatever fight you’re looking for, I’m not interested.
Shit, I’m still waiting for you to make a valid point. Get blocked then, I guess.
Where’s the structural societal incentive to “do so much good”, and why would we need it?
That’s a great question. There are some college courses that can help you answer that. The short answer is “because in terms of the flourishing of an entire species, cooperation trumps competition, but it’s a recent evolution and doesn’t come naturally to everyone”. If we are to flourish and advance instead of strangling ourselves in the crib, we need to stop tolerating the kinds of selfish behaviors that prove detrimental to every society that permits them.
Social media has the power to do so much good: connecting people across the globe, enabling the sharing of information across language barriers and in circumvention of government censorship, and more. But because the world is run by greedy power-hungry pigs, we can’t have social media without it being exploited to the furthest extent possible in the name of profit. The mental health of the public is not even a secondary concern - it is completely disregarded in favor of squeezing further growth out of a saturated market for a service that should be both simple and free.
Before all that - and you are right on your take - there is a more basic flaw that affects social media: people do not know how to act properly.
The anonimity emboldens the small minds that use it to mistreat, slander and ridicule others and spread lies and rumours.
Unless we can force people to act with civility - which implies people being fairly conscious of the consequences of their words and actions - social media will remain what it is: a cesspool where the worst of our species destils into a refined poison.
Removed by mod
That doesn’t work. The average individual is too hedonistic to refrain from any pleasureable or self reinforcing loop. It’s been a cautionary tale in stories since ancient times.
Removed by mod
That is a system predicated on getting rid of the problematic, like the one it exists today, just with an added layer of distancing, to ease the rest of the population’s mind. It does not solve any problem.
Removed by mod
I am going to repeat my point as many times as necessary until it gets through: your example is only a punishment system with an extra layer to be more palatable to the society where it is inserted.
Being free does not imply in any moment an individual can do whatever they may concieve or desire; freedom requires and demands constraint, precisely because the freedom of the other is the boundary of my own. Life in society predicates on this. There is no society of one; the individual often finds a swift end if insisting on it, by its own actions.
A society that simply represses or discards individuals because they engaged in destructive behaviour is not doing anything to in fact solve a problem. A society is as responsible by its individuals as the individuals are by their society. And a society that so simply and easily opts by fractioning itself just to allow more (blatantly artificial) freedom to its elements is not a society. It is something I lack the word to describe but a society it is not.
Removed by mod
Sounds like a society that exists only because it tramples the rights of others. Nah, fuck that.
They do, in communities where rules exist and are enforced. Anonymity may lead some people to feel more emboldened to act out, but when handled properly I believe the vast majority of them will just settle down and either learn how to participate in good faith or find somewhere else to be. The bad behavior patterns we see in some places are, in my opinion, the result of insufficient social norms and enforcement thereof. This is also a situation capitalists will foster, because it drives engagement and inflates content.
So you already understand that this is a problem that only exists in places where bad actors are given license to continue acting out.
If I didn’t understood there is already a problem of bad actors, I wouldn’t have approached your reply. And deny it in any way would be bad faith from me.
What I feel the need to underscore is that individuals make and influence groups and even the most progressively thought out environment is open to being corrupted if any individual present there lacks, in any way, the self awareness that their attitude is damaging.
It’s not the group that needs to regulate the individual; the regulation needs to arise from the individual themselves, in the first place. And most individuals lack that hard individual sense of responsability.
When television started it had all the same potentials you mention in your first sentence, but by far its main use has been to convince people to buy crap they don’t need with money they don’t have. And that’s how it is now with the internet.
That may be true, but TV also brought me Star Trek TNG, Captain Planet, Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, and many others that instilled values in me that are core to who I am today. Let’s not let perfection be the enemy of progress, and keep working to put our tools to better use.
I get that - I had my favorite shows too that were important in me becoming who I am. But before TV people had been developing good values for thousands of years, without degrading their attention spans or other mental functions, and in the 75 or so years of its history I really don’t see any evidence that the industry is working toward putting it to any better use.
Okay, so? That doesn’t prove TV doesn’t help with that. We got along wiping our asses with sticks just fine before toilet paper, I’m sure.
I literally just explained how, and you agreed with it. Are you sure you’re having the conversation you think you are?
Everyone has TV shows they like - this doesn’t in any way imply that the television industry is working toward making better use of it. It just means television has never been “all bad”. Whatever fight you’re looking for, I’m not interested.
The industry is not a monolith. It’s up to individuals and individual organizations to use TV for whatever purpose they choose. People like Mr. Rogers chose to turn television into an instrument to teach children about life and how to live it, about themselves and others, how we’re different and alike. To look at that and still be mad because every other individual or organization that ever went on air didn’t do the same thing is just mind-blowingly out of touch with reality.
Shit, I’m still waiting for you to make a valid point. Get blocked then, I guess.
Removed by mod
That’s a great question. There are some college courses that can help you answer that. The short answer is “because in terms of the flourishing of an entire species, cooperation trumps competition, but it’s a recent evolution and doesn’t come naturally to everyone”. If we are to flourish and advance instead of strangling ourselves in the crib, we need to stop tolerating the kinds of selfish behaviors that prove detrimental to every society that permits them.
Removed by mod