"Social Media" is societal cancer
Discussion
V8mate said:
Ok, but then you're saying that your only choice is to abstain. That's no choice.
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.
It’s not abstaining, it’s just using these platforms in a way that suits you or is better for your wellbeing. 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.
I use them but I don’t engage in 2 way communication with people I don’t know.
I’m not tweeting my opinions about politics and I don’t care what some strangers think either.
Social media is definitely creating poor behaviour but it’s entirely up to you how you respond to it or even if you receive any of it at all.
There’s all kinds of news media and social media, there’s no need at all to be getting abuse from strangers, it’s completely under your control how your interact with these different platforms.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BBC & ITV have to air party political broadcasts. They are regulated by Ofcom or whatever. They can't choose to not put out the ones they don't agree with. But Facebook and Twitter could ban the Labour party, or Conservatives, etc. If they chose to.
Sure and why shouldn’t they be able to? They’re not a public service, they’re a business that you can opt to use if you want. Why would you expect freedom of choice in someone’s business.
Presumably, you don’t need to use Facebook or twitter for news?
It’s like people complaining about moderation in here and not having freedom of speech. Of course you don’t have freedom of speech, it’s a business.
Social media isnt our life, or a service or the government it’s just some computer code to make money. We don’t own it. Just make it work for you and if it’s making you unhappy switch it off.
El stovey said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BBC & ITV have to air party political broadcasts. They are regulated by Ofcom or whatever. They can't choose to not put out the ones they don't agree with. But Facebook and Twitter could ban the Labour party, or Conservatives, etc. If they chose to.
Sure and why shouldn’t they be able to? They’re not a public service, they’re a business that you can opt to use if you want. Why would you expect freedom of choice in someone’s business.
Presumably, you don’t need to use Facebook or twitter for news?
It’s like people complaining about moderation in here and not having freedom of speech. Of course you don’t have freedom of speech, it’s a business.
Social media isnt our life, or a service or the government it’s just some computer code to make money. We don’t own it. Just make it work for you and if it’s making you unhappy switch it off.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Friday 27th April 15:08
4x4Tyke said:
El stovey said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BBC & ITV have to air party political broadcasts. They are regulated by Ofcom or whatever. They can't choose to not put out the ones they don't agree with. But Facebook and Twitter could ban the Labour party, or Conservatives, etc. If they chose to.
Sure and why shouldn’t they be able to? They’re not a public service, they’re a business that you can opt to use if you want. Why would you expect freedom of choice in someone’s business.
Presumably, you don’t need to use Facebook or twitter for news?
It’s like people complaining about moderation in here and not having freedom of speech. Of course you don’t have freedom of speech, it’s a business.
Social media isnt our life, or a service or the government it’s just some computer code to make money. We don’t own it. Just make it work for you and if it’s making you unhappy switch it off.
If Facebook or twitter etc themselves had a news channel where they produced the news then in might be different but all they’re doing is collating a load of people’s views.
There not creating news they’re the comments section below a news article.
4x4Tyke said:
El stovey said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BBC & ITV have to air party political broadcasts. They are regulated by Ofcom or whatever. They can't choose to not put out the ones they don't agree with. But Facebook and Twitter could ban the Labour party, or Conservatives, etc. If they chose to.
Sure and why shouldn’t they be able to? They’re not a public service, they’re a business that you can opt to use if you want. Why would you expect freedom of choice in someone’s business.
Presumably, you don’t need to use Facebook or twitter for news?
It’s like people complaining about moderation in here and not having freedom of speech. Of course you don’t have freedom of speech, it’s a business.
Social media isnt our life, or a service or the government it’s just some computer code to make money. We don’t own it. Just make it work for you and if it’s making you unhappy switch it off.
I'm probably more in Zuckerburgs political camp than Trump / Farage, but that power still doesn't sit comfortably with me.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's really my point. My impression of Zuckerburg is that he is kind of left leaning liberal, which is fine. His background is Jewish intellectual so perhaps typical of that East / West coast attitude. Good for him., it's a free world. So what if the owners of Youtube and Twitter were of a similar mindset, they got together and decided to ban conservative/right wing content?
I'm probably more in Zuckerburgs political camp than Trump / Farage, but that power still doesn't sit comfortably with me.
But that’s the problem, you expecting to get news or newsworthy political content from Facebook YouTube or twitter. It’s just people’s unverified and non fact-checked opinions. I'm probably more in Zuckerburgs political camp than Trump / Farage, but that power still doesn't sit comfortably with me.
If it does become too restrictive to people’s opinions, then other sites will open that will be more open or allow opinion from the opposite side.
The problem isn’t social media. It’s what you expect from it and how you use it.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 27th April 13:21
El stovey said:
If it does become too restrictive to people’s opinions, then other sites will open that will be more open or allow opinion from the opposite side.
That would be nice if true, but when the incumbents become so dominant in a marketplace, it's very hard to set up from scratch against them. There are many better search engines than Google, but they still struggle to get a foothold. It would be very hard for a new startup to take on Facebook or Youtube.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
El stovey said:
If it does become too restrictive to people’s opinions, then other sites will open that will be more open or allow opinion from the opposite side.
That would be nice if true, but when the incumbents become so dominant in a marketplace, it's very hard to set up from scratch against them. There are many better search engines than Google, but they still struggle to get a foothold. It would be very hard for a new startup to take on Facebook or Youtube.
My kids don’t use Facebook at all. They’re all on snapchat and instagram, Facebook is old hat to them and something their parents use.
In China everyone’s on Wechat, if you haven’t seen it, it’s like Apple Pay, instagram, Facebook Uber and WhatsApp all combined.
I think something like this that covers payments and IM and has a social element will replace Facebook and possibly be run by amazon or google even after they buy up all the other providers.
El stovey said:
Maybe that’s what people said about yahoo or aol or MySpace or friends reunited.
My kids don’t use Facebook at all. They’re all on snapchat and instagram, Facebook is old hat to them and something their parents use.
In China everyone’s on Wechat, if you haven’t seen it, it’s like Apple Pay, instagram, Facebook Uber and WhatsApp all combined.
I think something like this that covers payments and IM and has a social element will replace Facebook and possibly be run by amazon or google even after they buy up all the other providers.
Snapchat, is like pornographic version of instagram, you know that right ?My kids don’t use Facebook at all. They’re all on snapchat and instagram, Facebook is old hat to them and something their parents use.
In China everyone’s on Wechat, if you haven’t seen it, it’s like Apple Pay, instagram, Facebook Uber and WhatsApp all combined.
I think something like this that covers payments and IM and has a social element will replace Facebook and possibly be run by amazon or google even after they buy up all the other providers.
El stovey said:
But that’s the problem, you expecting to get news or newsworthy political content from Facebook YouTube or twitter. It’s just people’s unverified and non fact-checked opinions.
If it does become too restrictive to people’s opinions, then other sites will open that will be more open or allow opinion from the opposite side.
The problem isn’t social media. It’s what you expect from it and how you use it.
Quite. Anyone getting their news from Facebook is already a lost cause. Like Daily Mail or Mirror readers.If it does become too restrictive to people’s opinions, then other sites will open that will be more open or allow opinion from the opposite side.
The problem isn’t social media. It’s what you expect from it and how you use it.
Edited by El stovey on Friday 27th April 13:21
fblm said:
El stovey said:
But that’s the problem, you expecting to get news or newsworthy political content from Facebook YouTube or twitter. It’s just people’s unverified and non fact-checked opinions.
If it does become too restrictive to people’s opinions, then other sites will open that will be more open or allow opinion from the opposite side.
The problem isn’t social media. It’s what you expect from it and how you use it.
Quite. Anyone getting their news from Facebook is already a lost cause. Like Daily Mail or Mirror readers.If it does become too restrictive to people’s opinions, then other sites will open that will be more open or allow opinion from the opposite side.
The problem isn’t social media. It’s what you expect from it and how you use it.
Edited by El stovey on Friday 27th April 13:21
You pretty much have to use Facebook for if you run a business.
I try to keep a professional and updated Facebook page for my business, and it is extremely surprising how many of our enquiries and messages (from people of all ages) come via Facebook. People almost use it like google now to search for businesses, look up opening times and contact details, read reviews etc.
People love looking at photos of your work, so naturally Facebook is good for that.
I am also increasingly finding that you can't do without Facebook in a personal capacity if you have hobbies and interests.
Most car meets, drive outs, car events, car shows etc are organised, advertised and discussed via Facebook these days. Local car clubs and groups, along with national and global Owners clubs are huge on Facebook.
My main interests are cars and photography, and it's pretty much all on Facebook now.
Even buying and selling is huge on Facebook now. I put all my Nikon DSLR camera gear for sale on Facebook and on eBay a couple of weeks ago, and within 24 hours someone had seen it on facebook's 'Marketplace' and bought it. I forgot about the ebay advert and left it running for a few days, but didn't get a single watcher or bid.
So yeah... sadly can't really do without it now, even if you don't use it for much personal stuff.
I try to keep a professional and updated Facebook page for my business, and it is extremely surprising how many of our enquiries and messages (from people of all ages) come via Facebook. People almost use it like google now to search for businesses, look up opening times and contact details, read reviews etc.
People love looking at photos of your work, so naturally Facebook is good for that.
I am also increasingly finding that you can't do without Facebook in a personal capacity if you have hobbies and interests.
Most car meets, drive outs, car events, car shows etc are organised, advertised and discussed via Facebook these days. Local car clubs and groups, along with national and global Owners clubs are huge on Facebook.
My main interests are cars and photography, and it's pretty much all on Facebook now.
Even buying and selling is huge on Facebook now. I put all my Nikon DSLR camera gear for sale on Facebook and on eBay a couple of weeks ago, and within 24 hours someone had seen it on facebook's 'Marketplace' and bought it. I forgot about the ebay advert and left it running for a few days, but didn't get a single watcher or bid.
So yeah... sadly can't really do without it now, even if you don't use it for much personal stuff.
Shakermaker said:
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 content
It's not though. Youtube was set up to be non-judgemental in terms of what was uploaded. It's part of the reason a) it grew so fast and b) they're now having so many 'issues' e.g. Logan Paul, Alex Jones et al. There were deliberately few checks on content, so it was a number of years before they developed a way of 'banning' copyrighted music for example.They are now in the process of hiring 10000 new auditors to oversee what gets approved. 450hrs a minute gets uploaded, so f
k knows if that's even enough. And who knows what guidelines they're given, but it has been said they're advised to only watch 2hrs worth at a time. So now they are wanting to control the output, but is it too late? What will the parameters be? Will they be public about it? Aside from YT, the thing which gets me about Facebook in particular is the way so many people now use it as 'the internet'. Asking for things which it would be quicker and easier to Google, but staying within the Facebook ecosystem meets their search needs, social, messaging etc. Who needs email? Google? I guess it's partly due to phones, but it's certainly perfect for Facebook.
fblm said:
Quite. Anyone getting their news from Facebook is already a lost cause. Like Daily Mail or Mirror readers.
All the big media outlets have pages on Facebook (and Twitter), both can be used as reliable news feeds. The top of my list includes the New Scientist, The Economist, New Statesman and all the broadsheets. I also have the Register, Slashdot & , local Police and Fire services, Humanist UK, Secular Soc., local theatres, gigs, and 'chatty' community groups. Like it or not Social Media is an audience multiplier for them all.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Saturday 28th April 10:07
4x4Tyke said:
fblm said:
Quite. Anyone getting their news from Facebook is already a lost cause. Like Daily Mail or Mirror readers.
All the big media outlets have pages on Facebook (and Twitter), both can be used as reliable news feeds. The top of my list includes the New Scientist, The Economist, New Statesman and all the broadsheets. I also have the Register, Slashdot & , local Police and Fire services, Humanist UK, Secular Soc., local theatres, gigs, and 'chatty' community groups. Like it or not Social Media is an audience multiplier for them all.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Saturday 28th April 10:07
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th April 23:33
The Russians appear to agree that it's all about what you do with it.
'The first evidence of Russian attempts to influence the result of the general election by promoting the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has emerged in a ground-breaking investigation into social media by this newspaper (Sunday Times) through research in conjunction with Swansea University'
Between 6000 and 7000 bots twittering away in support of Corbyn. JC sure brings a lot of failure to Bear on a lot of assistance.
'The first evidence of Russian attempts to influence the result of the general election by promoting the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has emerged in a ground-breaking investigation into social media by this newspaper (Sunday Times) through research in conjunction with Swansea University'
Between 6000 and 7000 bots twittering away in support of Corbyn. JC sure brings a lot of failure to Bear on a lot of assistance.
Telegraph said:
Russia attempted to influence the results of the general election by promoting the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been claimed.
6,500 Russian Twitter accounts, many of which are run by internet robots known as "bots", supported Labour in the run up to last year's election, an investigation by The Sunday Times (see above) has found.
The social media accounts, most of which were created in the weeks before polling day, denigrated the Conservatives and promoted Labour during key points of the campaign, according to reports.
6,500 Russian Twitter accounts, many of which are run by internet robots known as "bots", supported Labour in the run up to last year's election, an investigation by The Sunday Times (see above) has found.
The social media accounts, most of which were created in the weeks before polling day, denigrated the Conservatives and promoted Labour during key points of the campaign, according to reports.
El stovey said:
Free choice isn’t an illusion. You’ve got complete control over who you follow on social media who you are friends with or even if you have any social media accounts at all. If social media is causing you problems or making you unhappy then just don’t look at it. You don’t need any social media accounts at all. If everyone uses an aspect of messaging that uses social media you can do that without ever reading the posts and adverts.
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.
I worked in advertising for some years when I was in my 20s. There was a fair bit of research around then which indicated that the person who is most susceptible to advertising is the one who considers themselves immune. Various reasons were put forward for this but without evidence.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.
Skip forward a few decades and I'm writing on advertising. There is much more research now, lots of it is easily available online. I've noticed a bit of a change in the conclusions. Everybody is affected by advertising and there's little anyone can do about it. So those who consider themselves immune may or may not be more vulnerable. However, they are not less vulnerable.
I still read research on advertising and despite this, I'm as vulnerable as anyone else. A slight difference might be that I recognise in a few cases why I might feel a particular way about a product, and why I buy it but the thing, the irritating thing, is I still want it, I still buy it.
Advertising is a bit like evolution; it works whether you believe in it or not. From pricing to location, from subtle to overt. we are being hit by adverts all day and every day. Now the same, well proven, systems are being used to influence us politically. I've been influenced and so has everyone reading this.
Influence is a technology. It's an -ism. It is extremely well researched. We are all startled rabbits in the headlights of advertising.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff