Do you think technology and social media is the evil people suppose it to be?

completedit

deleted

corner of hells

completedit wrote: »

I just watched the Social media dilemma on Netflix and have read a book by one of the early investors(contributor on the show, as well) of Facebook in which he speaks out about how Facebook has waivered from its original purpose; instead solely focused on growth and advertising revenue.

But from the interviews I can't help but think these tech dorks live in a bubble. It's not as if other forms of technology have not been used for malicious propaganda; the radio was used by the Nazi's to spread nefarious propaganda. If you listened to people on this show, you'd swear life was all candy floss and ice cream before the advent of/and explosion of social media. I have seen statistics of teenage suicides which have skyrocketed since 2009(year smartphones began to become ubiquitous) but as the first kernel of statistics goes 'Correlation does not imply causation'- There could be a huge number of other factors at play that have led to this jump. Perhaps its a blowback against the fallacy that 'you can be anything you want' or less religion or the increased inequality in the west world. Nobody has a framework to live their life anymore. Just 'be you' and 'find yourself' seems to be the extent of it.
I'm not saying social media isn't to blame but I think these dorks want to have a life mission after making millions; so they resist the very thing that contributed to their wealth. Just an idea; don't get me wrong social media has downfalls(the hysteria over coronavirus, polarization, the way it can be used to drum up hatred) but I think its overstated.

Portend it is .

Infowars tells me it is, that lad broadcasting from his dingy bedroom warning that liberalism will unironically shut down all of our liberties.

Some people need more fresh air.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Greater connectivity has simultaneously brought about greater isolation for many people.

Because having 500 friends on facebook doesn't necessarily mean you have a deep connection with any of these people on a human level... you are digitally connected to their lives, but you are mostly just friends with your smartphone!

Technology has actually enabled many people to create a barrier between them and the rest of the world. Whether that is intentional or incidental.

completedit

My OP was too long so I deleted it. I basically don't think it is; technology can always be used for nefarious ends. Goebbels had radios distributed throughout Germany to spread their word.
Correlation does not imply causation. Suicides may have spiked in the western world(America) amongst young people since 2009(year smartphones became ubiquitous) but there could be many many many factors contributing to this(inequality, liberalization and individualism at its peak, lack of religion, financial crisis and the fallout) Watched the social media dilemma on facebook and the tech nerds rallying against it seem to be caught up in their own bubble of self-importance.

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Infowars tells me it is, that lad broadcasting from his dingy bedroom warning that liberalism will unironically shut down all of our liberties.

Some people need more fresh air.

Ahhh...
The paradox exposed!
How do we know it's an existential threat?
If a social media or website powered by the deadly threat doesn't tell us so? :eek:

Gregor Samsa

completedit wrote: »

My OP was too long so I deleted it.

You should probably put it, or at least something, back.

Otherwise we don't know what the point of the thread is.

Ger Roe

No. Tech and social media are one of mankind's greatest achievements. The problem is people.

Once you make it easy for everyone to access, you drop to the standards of the lowest levels of society and it all goes downhill. People abuse the facility that is presented to them, because it has been made easy for them do so.

Tech and social media can do so much for us, but people will always let us down.

touts

Visit Egypt. Monuments built 4000 years ago are covered with engravings displaying the might of the Pharos (even if they had lost the battles). That was the latest high tech media of that time.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

I don’t like that it reads my mind and then uses that knowledge to suggest products to me.

completedit

Steyr 556 wrote: »

I don’t like that it reads my mind and then uses that knowledge to suggest products to me.

It's my own belief on the individual level it's not that big of a deal. I think people are told they should care about something but their actions contradict this. Cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

completedit wrote: »

It's my own belief on the individual level it's not that big of a deal. I think people are told they should care about something but their actions contradict this. Cognitive dissonance is amazing.

People take part in the matrix, doesn't necessarily mean they like being stuck in it!

ranto_boy

Social media is designed to keep you "engaged" and wanting more of it. Fear and anger are pretty good emotions to nudge you into wanting more of it. I don't know a single person who uses Twitter actively, who isn't in a near daily enragement or busy backing up "their team" on whatever the trending issue of the day is.

I don't think that's healthy.

People can't even picture just sitting back and enjoying a good shte without whipping their phones out.

B.A._Baracus

People are the problem. They are the ones writing their bile and clicking post.
social media is a platform for people to share that. Before it, it was internet forums like this very one that the same sort used. You even still read bile posted on here.

jaxxx

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

People are the problem. They are the ones writing their bile and clicking post.
social media is a platform for people to share that. Before it, it was internet forums like this very one that the same sort used. You even still read bile posted on here.

This. This. 100000x this. Technology and social media is just an outlet, not the source.

indioblack

completedit wrote: »

deleted

Not sure.
But it's been essential this year.

McGinniesta

Technology and social media have tremendous power and potential for good if used in the correct fashion.

However, most social media websites have a dark side to them that can be very easily demonstrated.

Twitter has become a digital sewer and the glory days of youtube are well and truly over.

Others will follow.

Girls putting pictures of their breakfasts and their arses up on instagram has become tiresome.

I have no problem with technology or social media really. We are users of boards.ie here. It is also a social media platform of sorts.

What I have a problem with is any social media that uses an algorithm to decide what I should see.

Facebook started to get popular when I was in college. It was very much like boards. The posts of other people were shown to me in a FIFO / LIFO format.

Before I deleted Facebook and most of my other social media accounts however the algorithm was deciding what I should see. Some of my friends could post 100 things and I would see nothing of it. Another friend might post one thing and it would go to the top of the feed.

That I think is absolutely toxic and I will not use any social platform that over relies on using it. At the very least to use such a platform again it should _default_ to that algorithm but allow users to change this to FIFO/LIFO if they so wish.

Deise Vu

jaxxx wrote: »

This. This. 100000x this. Technology and social media is just an outlet, not the source.

I can’t agree with this. Unregulated social media is an opportunity for every crackpot and amoral human to spew their bile, misinformation and misdirection when it suits, for personal gain, nefarious purposes or just for the sheer hell of it.

Mankind has been given a tool that allows anyone with a phone connection access to pretty much every library of information ever written. Yet the world has never been dumber in my opinion.

Deise Vu

Deise Vu wrote: »

I can’t agree with this. Unregulated social media is an opportunity for every crackpot and amoral human to spew their bile, misinformation and misdirection when it suits, for personal gain, nefarious purposes or just for the sheer hell of it.

Mankind has been given a tool that allows anyone with a phone connection access to pretty much every library of information ever written. Yet the world has never been dumber in my opinion.

But who is going to do the regulation?

jaxxx

Deise Vu wrote: »

I can’t agree with this. Unregulated social media is an opportunity for every crackpot and amoral human to spew their bile, misinformation and misdirection when it suits, for personal gain, nefarious purposes or just for the sheer hell of it.

Mankind has been given a tool that allows anyone with a phone connection access to pretty much every library of information ever written. Yet the world has never been dumber in my opinion.

So it's technology's fault, not people's?


Oh brother.. .. .. Accountability, people need to take accountability for their actions. Don't blame technology when technology doesn't act with a will. As I said, tech is only another outlet. It's people that are the cause. If we remove tech, another way will be found. Chaos is part and parcel of human nature.

completedit

completedit wrote: »

Watched the social media dilemma on facebook and the tech nerds rallying against it seem to be caught up in their own bubble of self-importance.

Sam Harris and Tristan Harris (no relation I believe) had a fairly decent conversation about it this week. I have not seen "The Social Dilemma" myself - but perhaps a 1:1 interview with Tristan is less injected with Self Importance than a movie featuring him put together by producers editors and directors of a documentary?

I did not get a smack of self importance off the conversation anyway. More genuine concern from him.

jaxxx

jaxxx wrote: »

Accountability, people need to take accountability for their actions. Don't blame technology when technology doesn't act with a will. As I said, tech is only another outlet. It's people that are the cause.

Viruses and Bacteria also do not act with a will. But they simulate goals and agendas quite well all the same. And their effects do moderate human behaviour.

We should of course hold people accountable _to_ that behaviour. Panic Buying during the first wave of the pandemic for example. But we would be remiss to ignore the role the virus played in bringing out or accentuating that behaviour.

I would say the same for our social media algorithms. I agree with you that human nature and behaviour is the issue - but I would not ignore how the algorithms primed to promote outrage exacerbate that issue either.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

jaxxx wrote: »

So it's technology's fault, not people's?


Oh brother.. .. .. Accountability, people need to take accountability for their actions. Don't blame technology when technology doesn't act with a will. As I said, tech is only another outlet. It's people that are the cause. If we remove tech, another way will be found. Chaos is part and parcel of human nature.

Well people, with all of our failings and foibles, are the ones that created the technology... so if it was created by imperfect creatures, why would we assume that the technology is blameless or faultless?

I would strongly argue, that platforms like bookface and twatter etc were inherently flawed ideas to begin with... which is why they are creating so much dysfunctional behaviour in society.

It's not just people misusing these mediums - the mediums themselves are a serious problem. The way they're designed is a big issue.

_Brian

No different mostly to printed media or spoken word.

They can all be used as either a positive or negative force.

Like a piece of a stick, it can be given to someone to use as a crutch to help them or it could be used to bludgeon them to death.

McGinniesta

jaxxx wrote: »

So it's technology's fault, not people's?


Oh brother.. .. .. Accountability, people need to take accountability for their actions. Don't blame technology when technology doesn't act with a will. As I said, tech is only another outlet. It's people that are the cause. If we remove tech, another way will be found. Chaos is part and parcel of human nature.

This is true. However, while people who use social media and techologywill inevitably abuse it then so will those who administer and design it.

We've all heard about hacking and misuse of information and other abuses. This is a two way street.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

_Brian wrote: »

No different mostly to printed media or spoken word.

They can all be used as either a positive or negative force.

Like a piece of a stick, it can be given to someone to use as a crutch to help them or it could be used to bludgeon them to death.

Too simplistic.

Social media is not some inanimate object, it's alive and pulls unsuspecting people into it's twisted web...

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

No different mostly to printed media or spoken word.

They can all be used as either a positive or negative force.

Like a piece of a stick, it can be given to someone to use as a crutch to help them or it could be used to bludgeon them to death.

That's a great phrase.

El Tarangu

In my life, I have only ever seen the upsides - handy for keeping on contact with people (I'm living abroad), I can follow interesting pages that cater to my interests and learn new things, etc.

But you only have to look and see all the Covid-truthers, vaccine-deniers, Gemma O'Doherty followers, etc etc, so see that there are negative impacts also.

Imagine someone had told you 20 years' ago that in 2020, there would be a vibrant and growing community of people in the world who think that the earth is flat - you'd have laughed them out of it. So it does give oxygen to some of the more fringe (and sometimes dangerous) delusions.

completedit

El Tarangu wrote: »

In my life, I have only ever seen the upsides - handy for keeping on contact with people (I'm living abroad), I can follow interesting pages that cater to my interests and learn new things, etc.

But you only have to look and see all the Covid-truthers, vaccine-deniers, Gemma O'Doherty followers, etc etc, so see that there are negative impacts also.

Imagine someone had told you 20 years' ago that in 2020, there would be a vibrant and growing community of people in the world who think that the earth is flat - you'd have laughed them out of it. So it does give oxygen to some of the more fringe (and sometimes dangerous) delusions.

But is part of public debate not allowing people express their view? Like there is justification for the protests about Covid. Gemma O'Doherty is a loon but she was protesting that it wouldn't be illegal for people to congegrate. People criticised her on Twitter and then went and congregated in Dame Lane or wherever else.

Greyfox

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What I have a problem with is any social media that uses an algorithm to decide what I should see.

It works though, YouTube is very addictive for this reason as theirs always interesting videos been suggested. Particularly the way twitter/facebook works it creates more stupid and ignorant people that dont realise their feed is showing only one side of an argument but again it's stupid people who are to blame not social media

completedit

Greyfox wrote: »

It works though, YouTube is very addictive for this reason as theirs always interesting videos been suggested. Particularly the way twitter/facebook works it creates more stupid and ignorant people that dont realise their feed is showing only one side of an argument but again it's stupid people who are to blame not social media

But in all walks of life we put out hat one side of the debate and that's our base position. Look at Economics, philosophy, politics etc.

We see what we want to see; with or without social media. I see myself guilty of it when it comes to the environment. No matter what I read(and believe me I try to get different takes) my base position is always that we've gone too far and that any sort of attempt beyond scaling down economic activity will be in vain(I also believe in the long run, humanity will sort out those problems and circumvent them)

I have always found it a little too easy to think it takes stupid people to believe stupid things. Direct experience has schooled me on this too often. Quite often the people believing the dumbest things are themselves really very intelligent and-or articulate people.

Feisar

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Too simplistic.

Social media is not some inanimate object, it's alive and pulls unsuspecting people into it's twisted web...

Yes but I don’t think there is a hive mind or mastermind behind it all.

JasonStatham

completedit wrote: »

deleted

Yes, yes, delete social media. I think it's a great thing you have done. Haha

Church on Tuesday

I think Rino, as usual, sums it up best:

Hyperbollix

I don't think Trump could be elected and have a good chance of staying elected without social media. There's a reason his twitter feed is something he spends a large percentage of every day attending to.

Similarly Brexit. Ok, the Brit's might be predisposed to delusions of grandeur but to get enough of them convinced to happily commit economic suicide for no real reason at all takes a river of propaganda and nonsense the likes of which only facebook et al can supply.

completedit

Hyperbollix wrote: »

I don't think Trump could be elected and have a good chance of staying elected without social media. There's a reason his twitter feed is something he spends a large percentage of every day attending to.

Similarly Brexit. Ok, the Brit's might be predisposed to delusions of grandeur but to get enough of them convinced to happily commit economic suicide for no real reason at all takes a river of propaganda and nonsense the likes of which only facebook et al can supply.

The problem with your rationale is that the people who voted for Brexit aren't committing economic suicide. Their world was destroyed by globalisation. On the aggregate the UK is far better off but not everyone gains. Millions haven't.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Hyperbollix wrote: »

I don't think Trump could be elected and have a good chance of staying elected without social media. There's a reason his twitter feed is something he spends a large percentage of every day attending to.

Similarly Brexit. Ok, the Brit's might be predisposed to delusions of grandeur but to get enough of them convinced to happily commit economic suicide for no real reason at all takes a river of propaganda and nonsense the likes of which only facebook et al can supply.

This speaks more to the fact that the liberal elite control mainstream media, so in order to get any sort of alternative view out to the masses... you've gotta be creative.

It is a rather sad indictment on our society, that the leader of the free world has to make tweets in order to get his voice heard in an unfiltered way. If it was left up to the liberal media, his views would be twisted and contorted to suit their own very obvious political bias!

Regardless of what your politics are, this is not a good scenario for society... we need a more balanced representation in our media in the west. Otherwise you risk creating a huge disconnect between the average person on the street, and the intellectuals in society.

Rubberchikken

Technology is wonderful. It's people who are disappointing.

JohnnyFlash

The idea that social media is actually social, useful, or leads to the democratisation of knowledge is a very flawed one. It isn't.

McGinniesta

Deleted User wrote: »

I have always found it a little too easy to think it takes stupid people to believe stupid things. Direct experience has schooled me on this too often. Quite often the people believing the dumbest things are themselves really very intelligent and-or articulate people.

Stupid things are not the same as things that you may disagree with.

Hyperbollix

completedit wrote: »

The problem with your rationale is that the people who voted for Brexit aren't committing economic suicide. Their world was destroyed by globalisation. On the aggregate the UK is far better off but not everyone gains. Millions haven't.

It's cool to repeat the mantra globalisation is evil. It's also the reason those same Brits can buy an affordable brand new Kia or Hyundai with a long warranty and impeccable reliability vs the clapped out Austin's and Triumph's their parent's and grandparents drove.
The EU was nothing more than a bogeyman for right leaning vested interests to point to in order to blame any and all ill's in British society, the majority of which have been caused by domestic governments, not least the last 10 years of Tory austerity. A Brexit deal will be bad for Britain for many years. A no deal will be catastrophic.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

This speaks more to the fact that the liberal elite control mainstream media, so in order to get any sort of alternative view out to the masses... you've gotta be creative.

It is a rather sad indictment on our society, that the leader of the free world has to make tweets in order to get his voice heard in an unfiltered way. If it was left up to the liberal media, his views would be twisted and contorted to suit their own very obvious political bias!

Regardless of what your politics are, this is not a good scenario for society... we need a more balanced representation in our media in the west. Otherwise you risk creating a huge disconnect between the average person on the street, and the intellectuals in society.

Trump doesn't have to tweet to get his point across. He can do that at any press conference and at any interview. He chooses to use twitter simply because he can lie and propagandize eregiously with no one to rebutt his nonsense with truth and facts. All the famous dictators and despots of history would have been keen Twitter users, I have no doubt.

Hector Savage

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54367998

Imagine posting a b+w styled photo of yourself after having a miscarriage to instagram.
imagine the narcissism .... sick sick sick person ..

^ I am not sure which I am struggling to understand more. What that has to do with this thread. Or what the actual problem is or what she is meant to have done wrong.

dotsman

For me, it is quite simple. Tech, on the whole has been for the good. Social Media, on the whole, has been for the worse.

Two of the biggest components of social media are vanity/fakeness and controversy/outrage. Both bring out the worst in humans.

Deleted User wrote: »

^ I am not sure which I am struggling to understand more. What that has to do with this thread. Or what the actual problem is or what she is meant to have done wrong.

You don't understand what this has to do with the thread? You don't see it as an example of just how fcuked up social media is?

completedit

Hyperbollix wrote: »

It's cool to repeat the mantra globalisation is evil. It's also the reason those same Brits can buy an affordable brand new Kia or Hyundai with a long warranty and impeccable reliability vs the clapped out Austin's and Triumph's their parent's and grandparents drove.
The EU was nothing more than a bogeyman for right leaning vested interests to point to in order to blame any and all ill's in British society, the majority of which have been caused by domestic governments, not least the last 10 years of Tory austerity. A Brexit deal will be bad for Britain for many years. A no deal will be catastrophic.



Trump doesn't have to tweet to get his point across. He can do that at any press conference and at any interview. He chooses to use twitter simply because he can lie and propagandize eregiously with no one to rebutt his nonsense with truth and facts. All the famous dictators and despots of history would have been keen Twitter users, I have no doubt.

To be fair, even noble peace prize winners in international trade and advocates recognize that while countries gain on the aggregate from trade, groups within countries suffer.

Allinall

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54367998

Imagine posting a b+w styled photo of yourself after having a miscarriage to instagram.
imagine the narcissism .... sick sick sick person ..

The BBC are no better.

They put it in the "Entertainment and Arts" section.

dotsman

dotsman wrote: »

You don't understand what this has to do with the thread? You don't see it as an example of just how fcuked up social media is?

I would have thought my saying I did not understand it was clear evidence that I do not understand it. Not sure how to clarify that any further either

I don't (yet) see the problem - nor do I (yet) see it relevant in a thread about social media being "evil".

dotsman

Deleted User wrote: »

I would have thought my saying I did not understand it was clear evidence that I do not understand it. Not sure how to clarify that any further either

I don't (yet) see the problem - nor do I (yet) see it relevant in a thread about social media being "evil".

They have just suffered a miscarriage. Yet, their main priority was to pose for an intimate photograph for random strangers to "get the likes". What does this do for anyone, other than massage their egos? As supposed "celebrities", what influence do you think this has on the children who follow them? It's the same with people who would rather video a person in distress rather than help or call emergency services. What next? Selfies & tiktoks from a funeral? You don't see how, for many people who use social media, it has completely warped their senses?

Have you been to a match or concert in the last 10 years? You can immediately tell who is addicted to social media via the fact that they care more about recording it on their phone than actually enjoying the concert/game? They care more about people knowing they are at the concert/game rather than the concert/game itself. They define their life by the "likes" rather than enjoying life itself.

dotsman

dotsman wrote: »

They have just suffered a miscarriage. Yet, their main priority was to pose for an intimate photograph for random strangers to "get the likes".

The first response I find coming to my mind when I read your text here is that you are judging the actions of another person from a position of relative cogency and privilege - when they are not in that place. They have just suffered a trauma. And as such it seems crass and privileged in the extreme to be judging how they act under that situation. Expecting rationality or perfect etiquette from someone in the place they are in is a bad position to be starting from.

The second thing that jumps to mind as natural progression from that is to acknowledge that that person has been using social media for a long time. As such it is a place they probably go for support and feedback and community all the time. In fact the message attached to the picture says as much "Thank you to everyone who has been sending us positive energy, thoughts and prayers. We feel all of your love". Who are you/we to judge that? I remember one huge trauma I suffered in my life. You know what I did? I went back to work. People were aghast at this. How could I possibly work at a time like that some asked me. It was what _I_ needed to do. It was my familiar safe space. So I went there first. What is wrong with that?

The third thing that jumps to my mind is you are projecting the agenda of "get the likes" on it. You have no idea why they post what they post or how they post. Only they know this. And if they felt in a dark time that social media would be a positive force against their pain - then that is a point _for_ social media not against.

The next thing to jump to my head is in response to your next (rhetorical) question -

dotsman wrote: »

What does this do for anyone, other than massage their egos?

- if you open the link the Hector posted and look under the article the first related article is "Katherine Ryan says miscarriage made her feel 'shameful'"

Now that truely is something to be horrified at. Genuinely horrified not this snowflake triggered reaction of Hectors. The very idea that having a miscarriage - one of in fact the most natural things in the world as upsetting as they may be - could make someone feel shame is horrible.

So if some social media celebrity can post their miscarriage experieces to process _their_ grief in _their_ way and help even one other woman to show them this is not something to be ashamed of - well that answers your rhetorical question quite roundly I feel.

dotsman wrote: »

It's the same with people who would rather video a person in distress rather than help or call emergency services.

Woah the horse right there - that is absolutely not the same at all. Someone using social media to process their own grief in their own way is _nothing_ like standing back and watching a crime and/or emergency situation and recording it for kicks. To even compare the two at all is extreme.

In one case a person is doing _what they want with their own pain_. In the other someone is exploiting the pain of others for their own gain. Nothing. Whatsoever. Alike.

dotsman wrote: »

Have you been to a match or concert in the last 10 years?

Actually I have been addicted to going to live concerts for 25 years so you ask the right question of exactly the right person. And long before mobile phones people were addicted to watching the concert through their cameras. Or the worst kind of person were the people experiencing the concert through their minidisks or other recorders who would punch the people who dared sing along around them to shut them up because their piracy of the show was picking it up too and "spoiling" it for them.

Or to use a similar example - holidays. It is not mobile phones and social media there. I have seen people on holiday or been on holiday with them who experienced the whole thing through a camera to show people at home later. Where I would walk up to something like the "Western Wall" and lay my hands on it and close my eyes (even as an "atheist") and contemplate the history before me and the ebb and flow of the emtoions of the people around me - others were just jabbering and pointing cameras.

So you are on completely the wrong road blaming social media for this. That has been a trait of people for a long time. And I agree with you it is a trait I am not proud of in our species.