"Social Media" is societal cancer
Discussion
As above.
Social media, as the name implies, is a reflection of society. There's good points, and bad points, its up to the individual to decide where to look. Remove social media altogether, and travel around the world, and you'll find good & bad points.
Everything, literally everything in life has positives and negatives, which you choose to focus on, is up to you.
Social media, as the name implies, is a reflection of society. There's good points, and bad points, its up to the individual to decide where to look. Remove social media altogether, and travel around the world, and you'll find good & bad points.
Everything, literally everything in life has positives and negatives, which you choose to focus on, is up to you.
skinnyman said:
As above.
Social media, as the name implies, is a reflection of society. There's good points, and bad points, its up to the individual to decide where to look. Remove social media altogether, and travel around the world, and you'll find good & bad points.
Everything, literally everything in life has positives and negatives, which you choose to focus on, is up to you.
I don't think it is anywhere near as simple as that.Social media, as the name implies, is a reflection of society. There's good points, and bad points, its up to the individual to decide where to look. Remove social media altogether, and travel around the world, and you'll find good & bad points.
Everything, literally everything in life has positives and negatives, which you choose to focus on, is up to you.
The notion of "choice" is extremely complex - a trillion dollar advertising industry is predicated on the knowledge that people and society are influencable in many ways.
Companies such as Cambridge Analytica are the next step in the development of control.
We now live in an age where "free choice" is increasingly becoming an illusion, and I don't think anyone is immune from the technology that exists to shape the way we think.
There are plusses and minuses to social media
Everyone now has to be aware of it, from companies to organisations, sports people, managers, everyone.
But it also allows people to be careless, easy to criticise and very hurtful at times.
I find it OK but I don't embrace it fully.
I think if you have never known any different, you might be more susceptible to harm
Everyone now has to be aware of it, from companies to organisations, sports people, managers, everyone.
But it also allows people to be careless, easy to criticise and very hurtful at times.
I find it OK but I don't embrace it fully.
I think if you have never known any different, you might be more susceptible to harm
I don’t think social media is itself a particularly bad thing. It has its practical and good uses too.
However, the common rise of narcissistic tendencies and the “look at me” generation that have embraced it are.
One quick look at Facebook, Instagram, etc, and everyone is preening like a f
king peacock for their audience.
However, the common rise of narcissistic tendencies and the “look at me” generation that have embraced it are.
One quick look at Facebook, Instagram, etc, and everyone is preening like a f
king peacock for their audience. TheFlyingBanana said:
skinnyman said:
As above.
Social media, as the name implies, is a reflection of society. There's good points, and bad points, its up to the individual to decide where to look. Remove social media altogether, and travel around the world, and you'll find good & bad points.
Everything, literally everything in life has positives and negatives, which you choose to focus on, is up to you.
I don't think it is anywhere near as simple as that.Social media, as the name implies, is a reflection of society. There's good points, and bad points, its up to the individual to decide where to look. Remove social media altogether, and travel around the world, and you'll find good & bad points.
Everything, literally everything in life has positives and negatives, which you choose to focus on, is up to you.
The notion of "choice" is extremely complex - a trillion dollar advertising industry is predicated on the knowledge that people and society are influencable in many ways.
Companies such as Cambridge Analytica are the next step in the development of control.
We now live in an age where "free choice" is increasingly becoming an illusion, and I don't think anyone is immune from the technology that exists to shape the way we think.
I haven’t been influenced by Facebook today because I haven’t opened it and don’t get notifications. I haven’t looked at Reddit and don’t have snapchat and don’t use Instagram.
It’s totally up to me how or even if it influences me. I know heroin is addictive so I don’t try it. I drink moderately so I don’t become an alcoholic and don’t smoke, it’s about personal responsibility and being in control of the things we use and interact with them.
Social media is good or bad depending entirely on how you use it.
chunder27 said:
I think if you have never known any different, you might be more susceptible to harm
Interesting point. Youngsters who have never experienced life without the internet, email, smartphones etc will view the current context as natural, and know no different.Having lived and worked for quite some time before such technology and sm existed, I'm not drawn to it in the form of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and so on, and won't be getting any accounts any time soon.
PH had more of a 'shared interest' feel in the early days. More recently the impression is given that PH accounts are created for the purpose of trolling by individuals with little or no interest in cars, motoring and related matters. That's one of the downsides of sm but there are still many PHers with valuable experience and expertise they're willing to share and that outweighs the downsides for me.
There's still no chance of me facebooking, twittering or instagramming (whatever that would entail).
El stovey said:
TheFlyingBanana said:
skinnyman said:
As above.
Social media, as the name implies, is a reflection of society. There's good points, and bad points, its up to the individual to decide where to look. Remove social media altogether, and travel around the world, and you'll find good & bad points.
Everything, literally everything in life has positives and negatives, which you choose to focus on, is up to you.
I don't think it is anywhere near as simple as that.Social media, as the name implies, is a reflection of society. There's good points, and bad points, its up to the individual to decide where to look. Remove social media altogether, and travel around the world, and you'll find good & bad points.
Everything, literally everything in life has positives and negatives, which you choose to focus on, is up to you.
The notion of "choice" is extremely complex - a trillion dollar advertising industry is predicated on the knowledge that people and society are influencable in many ways.
Companies such as Cambridge Analytica are the next step in the development of control.
We now live in an age where "free choice" is increasingly becoming an illusion, and I don't think anyone is immune from the technology that exists to shape the way we think.
I haven’t been influenced by Facebook today because I haven’t opened it and don’t get notifications. I haven’t looked at Reddit and don’t have snapchat and don’t use Instagram.
It’s totally up to me how or even if it influences me. I know heroin is addictive so I don’t try it. I drink moderately so I don’t become an alcoholic and don’t smoke, it’s about personal responsibility and being in control of the things we use and interact with them.
Social media is good or bad depending entirely on how you use it.
FB offers much greater scope to limit the range of interaction. The destructive side comes from those platforms which give every user a 'Speaker's Corner' - a two-fold offer which both allows people to say what they want, but also the inability to choose who's listening. And who therefore responds.
Overlay that with the issue I raised earlier regarding the ability to use usernames and fake accounts, and the whole thing becomes the melting pot it has. Which is disappointing, as I think that those who, in some ways understandably, reject all social media, are genuinely missing out on the benefits.
V8mate said:
You keep using Facebook as the definition of social media. It's not.
FB offers much greater scope to limit the range of interaction. The destructive side comes from those platforms which give every user a 'Speaker's Corner' - a two-fold offer which both allows people to say what they want, but also the inability to choose who's listening. And who therefore responds.
Overlay that with the issue I raised earlier regarding the ability to use usernames and fake accounts, and the whole thing becomes the melting pot it has. Which is disappointing, as I think that those who, in some ways understandably, reject all social media, are genuinely missing out on the benefits.
FB offers much greater scope to limit the range of interaction. The destructive side comes from those platforms which give every user a 'Speaker's Corner' - a two-fold offer which both allows people to say what they want, but also the inability to choose who's listening. And who therefore responds.
Overlay that with the issue I raised earlier regarding the ability to use usernames and fake accounts, and the whole thing becomes the melting pot it has. Which is disappointing, as I think that those who, in some ways understandably, reject all social media, are genuinely missing out on the benefits.
Looking through that list, I’m not seeing (m)any platforms where the user doesn’t control entirely who they receive posts/tweets/messages/whatever from.
If you’re reading messages from people you don’t like or can’t identify, that must be because you’ve decided that’s how you want to use the platform.
My biggest concern with social media is the power of the platform owners.
Alex Jones, American far right nutjob and conspiracy loon, has been shut down by Youtube, where his crazy videos attracted millions of hits. I think he's now been partially reinstated but it's an ongoing dispute.
Now I have no truck with Alex Jones and his ilk, but it's worrying that the directors at Youtube can decide who does and doesn't get to air their videos.
Without access to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, how can any organisation effectively spread their message. Just because the message isn't one I agree with, doesn't mean it should be shut down. If it isn't breaking any laws.
Alex Jones, American far right nutjob and conspiracy loon, has been shut down by Youtube, where his crazy videos attracted millions of hits. I think he's now been partially reinstated but it's an ongoing dispute.
Now I have no truck with Alex Jones and his ilk, but it's worrying that the directors at Youtube can decide who does and doesn't get to air their videos.
Without access to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, how can any organisation effectively spread their message. Just because the message isn't one I agree with, doesn't mean it should be shut down. If it isn't breaking any laws.
PopsandBangs said:
I think social media will, very soon, be regarded as the cause of an extremely serious, deep seated and unbelievably widespread mental health crisis which has already altered a generation irreversibly.
Anyone who read the full thing, did he make a coherent point? I couldn't get past this "I hate young people" bit.Social media is still new, so we just haven't gotten used to it. Its going to get to a point where we are with other forms of broadcast and communication. The majority of people just aren't worth listening to (quoted poster I suspect is a prime example). In other words, moaning on Twitter will become so passe that no-one pays attention to it, much like the Daily Mail.
El stovey said:
V8mate said:
You keep using Facebook as the definition of social media. It's not.
FB offers much greater scope to limit the range of interaction. The destructive side comes from those platforms which give every user a 'Speaker's Corner' - a two-fold offer which both allows people to say what they want, but also the inability to choose who's listening. And who therefore responds.
Overlay that with the issue I raised earlier regarding the ability to use usernames and fake accounts, and the whole thing becomes the melting pot it has. Which is disappointing, as I think that those who, in some ways understandably, reject all social media, are genuinely missing out on the benefits.
FB offers much greater scope to limit the range of interaction. The destructive side comes from those platforms which give every user a 'Speaker's Corner' - a two-fold offer which both allows people to say what they want, but also the inability to choose who's listening. And who therefore responds.
Overlay that with the issue I raised earlier regarding the ability to use usernames and fake accounts, and the whole thing becomes the melting pot it has. Which is disappointing, as I think that those who, in some ways understandably, reject all social media, are genuinely missing out on the benefits.
Looking through that list, I’m not seeing (m)any platforms where the user doesn’t control entirely who they receive posts/tweets/messages/whatever from.
If you’re reading messages from people you don’t like or can’t identify, that must be because you’ve decided that’s how you want to use the platform.
El stovey said:
El stovey said:
Looking through that list, I’m not seeing (m)any platforms where the user doesn’t control entirely who they receive posts/tweets/messages/whatever from.
If you’re reading messages from people you don’t like or can’t identify, that must be because you’ve decided that’s how you want to use the platform.
Try using Facebook without an adblocker.If you’re reading messages from people you don’t like or can’t identify, that must be because you’ve decided that’s how you want to use the platform.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My biggest concern with social media is the power of the platform owners.
Alex Jones, American far right nutjob and conspiracy loon, has been shut down by Youtube, where his crazy videos attracted millions of hits. I think he's now been partially reinstated but it's an ongoing dispute.
Now I have no truck with Alex Jones and his ilk, but it's worrying that the directors at Youtube can decide who does and doesn't get to air their videos.
Without access to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, how can any organisation effectively spread their message. Just because the message isn't one I agree with, doesn't mean it should be shut down. If it isn't breaking any laws.
That's just the same as any other media organisation though. YouTube decides what content to put on just as the BBC, ITV, Sky News etc decide what content makes their news bulletins, same with the printed news and online news, they decide the contentAlex Jones, American far right nutjob and conspiracy loon, has been shut down by Youtube, where his crazy videos attracted millions of hits. I think he's now been partially reinstated but it's an ongoing dispute.
Now I have no truck with Alex Jones and his ilk, but it's worrying that the directors at Youtube can decide who does and doesn't get to air their videos.
Without access to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, how can any organisation effectively spread their message. Just because the message isn't one I agree with, doesn't mean it should be shut down. If it isn't breaking any laws.
Shakermaker said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My biggest concern with social media is the power of the platform owners.
Alex Jones, American far right nutjob and conspiracy loon, has been shut down by Youtube, where his crazy videos attracted millions of hits. I think he's now been partially reinstated but it's an ongoing dispute.
Now I have no truck with Alex Jones and his ilk, but it's worrying that the directors at Youtube can decide who does and doesn't get to air their videos.
Without access to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, how can any organisation effectively spread their message. Just because the message isn't one I agree with, doesn't mean it should be shut down. If it isn't breaking any laws.
That's just the same as any other media organisation though. YouTube decides what content to put on just as the BBC, ITV, Sky News etc decide what content makes their news bulletins, same with the printed news and online news, they decide the contentAlex Jones, American far right nutjob and conspiracy loon, has been shut down by Youtube, where his crazy videos attracted millions of hits. I think he's now been partially reinstated but it's an ongoing dispute.
Now I have no truck with Alex Jones and his ilk, but it's worrying that the directors at Youtube can decide who does and doesn't get to air their videos.
Without access to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, how can any organisation effectively spread their message. Just because the message isn't one I agree with, doesn't mean it should be shut down. If it isn't breaking any laws.
4x4Tyke said:
2000-2010 era blogging feels the optimum for me.It's beyond doubt that, as a general rule, old people fear new tech phenomena. See: mills, the Beatles, newspapers, grand theft auto - all have been hailed as the end of days before. Keeping a technical barrier just because is stupid.
But whilst you don't have to be technically proficient to blog... you seem to have ownership and pride, in a way FB et. Al lack.
Forums have been cesspools since September, but harmless cesspools for the most part.
When I was 16, one of my first dates was with someone who made it very clear I would need a FB account if we were to date. A decade later and I may hang out with a far less shallow crowd, but still - events are organised on FB and only FB. I grab a coffee, boot up my laptop - and I've missed out, because everyone else is using the f
king Orwellian wet dream of an app. A few years ago, text messages and emails carried the same information.Technically I have a choice, but what kind of choice is that? Live a hermit, or use the platform others are using, even if it is a monster.
f
k FB.Edited by paranoid airbag on Friday 27th April 11:03
V8mate said:
Comms are two-way things. You've shared a perspective on receiving opinions. Go and Tweet 'I hate Jeremy Corbyn'. Let me know how you get on.
But that’s your choice. You’re using twitter to tweet to strangers and are willing to receive messages from them. You might as well be standing up in a student union or in the middle of a high street and shouting you hate Corbyn.
On Twitter I follow a few sports players the red arrows and a few friends of mine. I’m not getting abuse and I’m not interested in tweeting to people I don’t know either.
You can’t really tweet stuff to any old person and be surprised if some of them don’t like your tweets.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Shakermaker said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My biggest concern with social media is the power of the platform owners.
Alex Jones, American far right nutjob and conspiracy loon, has been shut down by Youtube, where his crazy videos attracted millions of hits. I think he's now been partially reinstated but it's an ongoing dispute.
Now I have no truck with Alex Jones and his ilk, but it's worrying that the directors at Youtube can decide who does and doesn't get to air their videos.
Without access to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, how can any organisation effectively spread their message. Just because the message isn't one I agree with, doesn't mean it should be shut down. If it isn't breaking any laws.
That's just the same as any other media organisation though. YouTube decides what content to put on just as the BBC, ITV, Sky News etc decide what content makes their news bulletins, same with the printed news and online news, they decide the contentAlex Jones, American far right nutjob and conspiracy loon, has been shut down by Youtube, where his crazy videos attracted millions of hits. I think he's now been partially reinstated but it's an ongoing dispute.
Now I have no truck with Alex Jones and his ilk, but it's worrying that the directors at Youtube can decide who does and doesn't get to air their videos.
Without access to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, how can any organisation effectively spread their message. Just because the message isn't one I agree with, doesn't mean it should be shut down. If it isn't breaking any laws.
They could also choose to block Owen Jones I guess (are he and Alex brothers?) if they decided they didn't like his content either. I don't know if he makes YouTube videos or not his was just the first name that came into my head as someone on the Left
El stovey said:
V8mate said:
Comms are two-way things. You've shared a perspective on receiving opinions. Go and Tweet 'I hate Jeremy Corbyn'. Let me know how you get on.
But that’s your choice. You’re using twitter to tweet to strangers and are willing to receive messages from them. You might as well be standing up in a student union or in the middle of a high street and shouting you hate Corbyn.
On Twitter I follow a few sports players the red arrows and a few friends of mine. I’m not getting abuse and I’m not interested in tweeting to people I don’t know either.
You can’t really tweet stuff to any old person and be surprised if some of them don’t like your tweets.
Part of the cancer the OP is complaining about is that social media is drawing out behaviours which are supra to normal life, and he's right. It's not acceptable that people should be attacked for their (non-extreme) opinions - shouted down by the rabble so that normal people end up disengaging. There's a world apart between not liking someone's opinion and threatening to rape them because of it.
And it's not just individuals. Look at the damage a tiny minority of noisy and aggressive people have done to major brands, forcing them to change their advertising practices. I know I keep on harping on about it, but until people have to stand by their actions online, we won't cure the rotten element.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff