Has social media made us less tolerant?

[irocfan]

In theory SM is a great tool for people to mix and learn - however, it seems as if the opposite is actually the case. Over the last 10years or so we seem to be reversing our acceptance of differing points of view (obviously a massive example in the UK is the 'B' word, the US has got "orange man bad/Obama bad" as a default reaction no matter what they've achieved. I don't doubt there are localised examples all over the world)

Is this actually the case or is it that fringe nutjobs shriek loudest and so get noticed and, by and large, people do get along better?

[CustardOnChips]

fk off!

[Jonmx]

Custard beat me to it!
I only really use YouTube and it's nigh on impossible to discuss anything on there without ad hominem attacks left right and centre. I was called a racist yesterday for saying I had changed my views on the EU over the last 4 years. As a younger lad at school and uni, debating society stuff got heated, but very rarely to the point of name calling etc. So I'd say yes, it's made people far less tolerant and being faceless seems to make people grow a virtual set of balls and become keyboard warriors happy to throw threats and insults around without a care.

[Puggit]

Obviously there is the angle that it gives anonymity to individual keyboard warriors who can use that to go around saying things they would never say away from their closest allies.

It has also allowed the 'tolerant' left to group together and attack individuals en-masse for stating anything that they don't agree with. It may well happen on the far right as well, but not something I have noticed.

[Johnnytheboy]

I think people with fairly nutty views used to keep them to themselves to avoid ridicule.

Now you go on the internet and there are bound to be many people just as nutty as you.

Add in anonymity and it emboldens people to say things they'd never say out loud.

Even on PH there are people who if they opened their mouths in the average pub would get at best barred and at worse duffed up.

[vikingaero]

Social Media brings out kneejerk reactions in many people. If someone posts something up, then that post is taken as gospel. The replies are instant outcry and damnation:

"Sainsburys kicked me out of the store for no reason at all!!!!"

"OMG! That's disgusting. You should rite a complaint n' go to the news."

[Real reason: Persistant shoplifter asked to leave Sainsburys]

[DanielSan]

Nothing has really changed with people's views, social media just let's those views be easily seen by a larger group of other people.

[anonymous-user]

DanielSan said:

Nothing has really changed with people's views, social media just let's those views be easily seen by a larger group of other people.

I think it’s made a difference in that the views are often anonymous and also not face to face.

Also social media algorithms end up showing you more of your opinions in targeted news and articles and suggested groups or posts, so you get even more polarised and think more people agree with you etc.

[320d is all you need]

irocfan said:

In theory SM is a great tool for people to mix and learn - however, it seems as if the opposite is actually the case. Over the last 10years or so we seem to be reversing our acceptance of differing points of view (obviously a massive example in the UK is the 'B' word, the US has got "orange man bad/Obama bad" as a default reaction no matter what they've achieved. I don't doubt there are localised examples all over the world)

Is this actually the case or is it that fringe nutjobs shriek loudest and so get noticed and, by and large, people do get along better?

I believe it just causes a further divide.

Everyone has an opinion, prior to social media, this wasn't a problem because you didn't have to read it.

Now you have comments , likes, etc.
For many it's just entertainment so they like any old rubbish because it's provoking, not because it has a good point behind the provocation.

you mention the fringe nut jobs well these are another problem in themselves, like you say these shout the loudest

we also have a "cancel culture" where you can't have any opinions at all otherwise you risk being "cancelled" by the "twitter mob" , losing your job or facing lots of repurcussions.

An example being that Disney chick and also prior to that a woman who was white with Dreadlocks was "cancelled" by Twitter and apparently called out for cultural appropriation... instead of telling them to fk OFF she APOLOGISED!!!! WHAT THE fk

So we have 2 issues

loudest shouting voices driving changes in sociology of humans
weak willed population at the receiving end afraid of standing up for themselves because of the loudest shouting people having so much power.

I like the idea of Facebook, sharing stories and messages but the reality is that it's a really bloody toxic place to be.

[toon10]

I think social media is largely to blame for making us less tolerant and more polarised. If you have slightly mild views on something and hover over a video supporting that view or worse, click on the link, then you will receive a lot more similar videos/news stories. It's how the algorithm is designed to keep you scrolling and using their platform. A lot of people are still not really aware of how this works so the more content they see with that particular view, the more it normalises and reinforces it.

As an example, I have a mate who would display some casual racist views when drunk but would never come out with such garbage in public or when not drunk. These days, his Facebook feed is proudly full of very biased one sided Muslim rape gang stories and criminal stories which only feature black perpetrators. It's as if he doesn't believe good old white Christian folk commit crimes. His feed will be a constant bombardment of stories like this whereas mine just seems to be full of expensive watch adverts. Damn my interests.

[J4CKO]

toon10 said:

I think social media is largely to blame for making us less tolerant and more polarised. If you have slightly mild views on something and hover over a video supporting that view or worse, click on the link, then you will receive a lot more similar videos/news stories. It's how the algorithm is designed to keep you scrolling and using their platform. A lot of people are still not really aware of how this works so the more content they see with that particular view, the more it normalises and reinforces it.

As an example, I have a mate who would display some casual racist views when drunk but would never come out with such garbage in public or when not drunk. These days, his Facebook feed is proudly full of very biased one sided Muslim rape gang stories and criminal stories which only feature black perpetrators. It's as if he doesn't believe good old white Christian folk commit crimes. His feed will be a constant bombardment of stories like this whereas mine just seems to be full of expensive watch adverts. Damn my interests.

Someone I know loves posting bad st brown people have done, its not nice, any mention of Lewis Hamilton he is off.

I made a comment on a local group yesterday when someone suggested that the cycle lane improvements were a waste of money because elderly people couldn't use them,

I said,

"My dad is 73 and cycles most days, my next door neighbour is older than that and cycles huge distances. Plenty of older cyclists out there."

And got this back,

"my son cant walk. Hes 43. What about that? Hes not the only one .Bit of diplomacy"


So, cant mention cycling as her disabled son cant walk ? Not worth commenting any further after making what was a fairly positive comment.

Before SM we were all in our little bubbles and interacted mainly with folk we knew and what to avoid, now we are interacting with so many people, sometimes knowingly, other times inadvertently.


Now we speak to people with some very extreme views and little tolerance for any other, some folk are simply contrarian in nature, some are just nasty pig st thick racist Neanderthals. Facebook car groups are the absolute worst, no discussion or debate, just that's st, you are a wker for saying anything to the contrary.

Should need to do a basic test to be allowed on the internet, to prove you arent a massive and can be trusted with a keyboard.

I always assume as if I will meet someone in person and wont say anything I wouldn't to their face, saw that happen early on via Scoobynet, awkward moment when two chaps met, one of which had been giving it large and for a minute, looked like was going to be fisticuffs, an hour later they were getting on famously.

I think thats key, its easy to disrespect someone at a distance who you cant see, cant read body language and nuance is sometimes missed, some people dont have much idea how to phrase things or go overboard, then there is alcohol, someone in a bad mood and all sorts of reasons, maybe just after some attention of any kind.

Too much information compared to pre internet where there wasnt enough, so many just swallow and regurgitate stuff without any kind of filtering, saw someone saying a nurse who had the Covid Vaccine and fainted (didnt like needles) had died, a quick search showed she hadnt died and was alive and well, so many agendas being pushed and people eager to lap stuff up that confirms their world view, hence why the Daily Mail exists.

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

I'm not sure people are less tolerant...but social media certainly allows people to vent their anger to a very willing audience. The local Facebook group is used mainly by women to moan about, well, anything and everything. I do wonder if it's a British thing, or if there are local FB groups around the world with similar posts about missing cats, dog mess, speeding cars, potholes etc etc etc? There's a core group of women in our village who moan a lot, and there's a sort of hierarchy where leaders seem to emerge, usually the ones who are on the phone to the council 24/7. You get the occasional man joining in who is probably after a shag, but they are very much outside the core clique. It's fascinating to watch.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

J4CKO said:

I made a comment on a local group yesterday when someone suggested that the cycle lane improvements were a waste of money because elderly people couldn't use them,

I said,

"My dad is 73 and cycles most days, my next door neighbour is older than that and cycles huge distances. Plenty of older cyclists out there."

And got this back,

"my son cant walk. Hes 43. What about that? Hes not the only one .Bit of diplomacy"

I think this is more because of a couple of things that have crept into a national psyche in recent years.

1. People think they have a right to go thru life without being offended. They haven't.
2. People don't realise that just because they are offended, that doesn't make them right.

I would have replied to the above "My son's 9 months old, and he can't walk either, but I'm not on social media looking for sympathy."

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Thursday 11th February 15:42

[Groat]

Most humans have things they like and things they dislike. And things they intensely like and intensely dislike. They also have things they believe/disbelieve. And things they vehemently believe/disbelieve. Some of this is rational and some of it irrational.

So when they encounter other humans who don't share their intense/vehement feelings and in fact like and believe what they dislike and disbelieve then they can very quickly go into quarrel/fight mode.

It isn't possible for them to tolerate something they intensely or vehemently dislike or disbelieve and SOMETIMES it isn't possible to suppress their urge to express that intolerance.

'Trouble' can (and does) quickly result especially (imo) if it's all based on irrational thoughts and feelings.

All social media's done is widen the range of opportunistic meetings between individuals with these different vehement opinions on things.

[J4CKO]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

J4CKO said:

I made a comment on a local group yesterday when someone suggested that the cycle lane improvements were a waste of money because elderly people couldn't use them,

I said,

"My dad is 73 and cycles most days, my next door neighbour is older than that and cycles huge distances. Plenty of older cyclists out there."

And got this back,

"my son cant walk. Hes 43. What about that? Hes not the only one .Bit of diplomacy"

I think this is more because of a couple of things that have crept into a national psyche in recent years.

1. People think they have a right to go thru life without being offended. They haven't.
2. People don't realise that just because they are offended, that doesn't make them right.

I would have replied to the above "My son's 9 months old, and he can't walk either, but I'm not on social media looking for sympathy."

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Thursday 11th February 15:42

Just seemed like a strange comment to make, dont mention cycling as my son cant do it, it was in the context of a discussion about cycle paths so being able to cycle was implicit.

And I have met several disabled cyclists over the years, some dont have use of their legs and use hand pedals on a recumbent bike, so many different levels of capability and types of disability.

I didnt like the implication that elderly people cant cycle, my next door neighbour is mid eighties and is slim, trim and very mobile, he doesnt look anywhere near that age, i think people assume cyclist = young and its difficult to tell with a cycle helmet, shades and whatever else. Plenty of folk at utterly knackered before that age because they didnt do any exercise, sometimes its just bad luck but a lot of the time its just a crap lifestyle.

[Spare tyre]

We had a fella get branded as a nonce and everyone was up in arms

Turns out he was just working on behalf of the council updating some of the local oiks houses for whatever.

He was driving about trying to find the houses, but none of them had numbers on.

Old Karen reports a pedo roaming looking for kids, few alpha males step up to confront the bloke

Should be an iq test before getting a smartphone

[KingNothing]

You used to have to trek all the way to the village square if you wanted to see the idiots, now you get them beamed directly into your hand with the use of modern technology. Local newspaper facebook pages are ground zero if you're looking for idiotic social commentary.

[SturdyHSV]

Groat said:

All social media's done is widen the range of opportunistic meetings between individuals with these different vehement opinions on things.

Whilst that is obviously a part of it, that isn't the particularly damaging thing in my opinion (let's fight about it online, immediately! )

It has been mentioned a few times above, but the way you are fed more of what you like is what is polarising everyone. This isn't deliberate by social media, it's a result of the algorithms that decide what to show you getting more sophisticated and more accurate.

The intention is just to keep you engaged so that you see more adverts, but the result is you only see more and more of what you want to see.

You look for news articles you get tailored search results that are known to reflect your views based on what you've paused to look at or clicked on on facebook (for example). You scroll through social media you are fed examples of what you like, shown things other people that think the same way are shown and have engaged with.

Your views are firmed up because you never see any contrasting evidence to your opinion, because you wouldn't engage with that, you get the impression everyone thinks the same way as you do because that is all you see of the world, and clearly anyone who thinks differently must be an absolute idiot, how can they see all this evidence you see and not believe it? So you call them a moron and dismiss their opinion and on and on it goes.

It's just a result of how our brains work, they are used to establishing patterns and gaining understanding and views from what they see, and those mental processes aren't equipped to cope with everything being tailored to the view they already have etc.

It is a form of self brainwashing really, and things like notifications etc. are a brilliant tool to pull you back to your phone to (voluntarily) continue consuming adverts. I don't believe it's some sort of conspiracy theory or deliberately malicious, but do feel that social media is damaging both on an individual level and societal level.

<checks facebook >

[TwigtheWonderkid]

KingNothing said:

You used to have to trek all the way to the village square if you wanted to see the idiots,

Social media has turned the village idiot into the global idiot. But he/she is still a fking idiot.

[J4CKO]

Spare tyre said:

We had a fella get branded as a nonce and everyone was up in arms

Turns out he was just working on behalf of the council updating some of the local oiks houses for whatever.

He was driving about trying to find the houses, but none of them had numbers on.

Old Karen reports a pedo roaming looking for kids, few alpha males step up to confront the bloke

Should be an iq test before getting a smartphone

Nothing some demographics love more than a peado hunt, whether someone is an actual peadophone is immaterial, being different in any way is usually good enough.

A friend from work had some French friends want to live over here and work for a year, they asked for recommendations and she suggested Wilmslow which is where I live, they duly found somewhere and moved in. They were hounded by the local youth initially, there was a scuffle and the harassment intensified, some of the adults got involved, not to quell it but actually joined in, the chap got beaten quite badly and they went back to France. They picked the council estate as it was the right area thy had been told and it fitted their budget but it has a fairly medium to high scratter population amongst the decent ones and they make life a misery,

Any person that doesnt fit their profile gets hounded, if they area bit middle class, gay, different looking, different race etc they get pulled to bits, no always but it does happen, "Proud to be British" I bet if you asked them all but yet treat visitors from another country like that, what fine ambassadors.

Paedophiles are their favourite subject, see it on Facebook, post a picture of someone and put a caption to it saying they have been contacting kids or anything along those lines and they are baying for blood, torture and execution despite no actual proof.

Social Media is gold for that kind of activity, now we have self appointed "Paedophile hunters", anything like that report it to the Police, provide evidence and let them deal with it.