Former Facebook Exec Says Social Media is Ripping Apart Society (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report on The Verge: Another former Facebook executive has spoken out about the harm the social network is doing to civil society around the world. Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007 and became its vice president for user growth, said he feels "tremendous guilt" about the company he helped make. "I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works," he told an audience at Stanford Graduate School of Business, before recommending people take a âoehard breakâ from social media. Palihapitiya's criticisms were aimed not only at Facebook, but the wider online ecosystem. "The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we've created are destroying how society works," he said, referring to online interactions driven by "hearts, likes, thumbs-up." "No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it's not an American problem -- this is not about Russians ads. This is a global problem." Also read: Sean Parker Unloads on Facebook 'Exploiting' Human Psychology

Comments

He's right.

[DogDude]

He's exactly right.

Re:He's right.

[DogDude]

But to be fair, most of humanity simply isn't ready for the Internet. The Internet is still the Wild West, full of garbage, and most people are simply not smart or savvy enough to deal with it. Giving regular people exposure to the raw Internet was going to lead them to use it for porn and TV and tabloid quality information, regardless of what "services" exist. It's true that FaceTweetGram took advantage of the uneducated masses, but somebody else would've if they didn't.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not wrong.

Unfortunately the ugly truth is Social media just pulls down the walls and reminds us that a good chunk of humanity are, in fact, just real pieces of shit.

The truth hurts.

Re:He's right.

[DogDude]

You, personally, are, in fact, smart or savvy enough to deal with the internet?

Yes, I am, thanks.

Re:He's right.

[bobbied]

It's not Facebook.... Facebook is but one of the current tools being used and abused for this.

Let's face it, the issue is cultural, not technological. We have long ago abandoned our founding principles of self reliance, personally looking out for your neighbors, tolerance, fairness and freedom. We now suffer from believing that equal outcome is the measure of fairness, where I count for more than everybody else and I am owed things like healthcare services or a college education without cost.

This isn't the fault of Facebook specifically or social networking platforms in general though they do enable the self importance, I'm important, look at me culture shift.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only a problem for stupid people, as smart people avoid facebook anyway, and always have.

Of course, most of the world is stupid....

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

The real pieces of shit are still the minority, but he internet gives them as loud of a voice as they choose to have. Take me, for example; I could never reach this large of an audience without the internet. Now, just think, I'm not even that big of a piece of shit -- and the bigger ones are louder!

That's why it seems that the world is so shitty -- one tiny pebble of poo can stink up the whole room.

Re:He's right.

[DontBeAMoran]

And since smart people avoid things like Facebook, it only amplifies the noise-to-signal ratio and makes it seem even worst than it is.

Re:He's right.

[sycodon]

Word

Re:He's right.

[jeauxkewl]

This may come as a shock to you, but some people really are of above-average intelligence.

Like, maybe half?

Re:He's right.

[JonnyCalcutta]

There are founding principles? Of what? The world? Mankind? Facebook? Your house? Or (despite the summary saying this isn't a uniquely USian issue) are you just being pathetically parochial?

I hate to say it because it just sounds like a bitch - but the view that 'other peoples opinions are the problem' IS THE PROBLEM!

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

You, personally, are, in fact, smart or savvy enough to deal with the internet?

I think the problem with the internet as it exists is there is a required level of paranoia, distrust, and other fairly anti-social tendencies required to safely navigate it.

I've had to teach my mother to view things with a high degree of skepticism and distrust, because that is what you have to do to not fall victim to the internet.

It doesn't come naturally to many people.

I think what the GP is getting at is that the degree to which you have to assume everything is being done by a lying cheating asshole out to con you or rip you off is not something most people have learned to do.

But from phishing scams, to the assholes and crooks phoning you, the default position has to be "I assume this person is a lying bastard". There's a degree of "street wise" savvy you need or you will get ripped off.

Because make no mistake about it ... the internet is full of lying cheating assholes out to rip you off. You can't just be the guy who fell off the turnip truck and hope to survive it without getting robbed, hustled, ripped off, or any number of things.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel like it's less technical savvy and more about the capabilities of a person to prioritize, to use critical thinking, to have foresight, to measure value/risk.

I'm not channeling the enlightened neckbeard or luddite grandpa, I'm talking about known performance areas of the brain, "risk assessment" isn't just some shark in a suit playing with investments, it's a certain neural path that gets tested when one, say, weighs purchases.

Abstract thinking can help insulate against the effects of socnets on one's lifestyle, on one's philosophy and behavior. This can actually approach parity with the beneficial effects that socnets have brought society. Yes, I say that as someone with no pinfacetweet, no reddiblrgram.

But individuals aside, socnets have been arguably detrimental to the pace, TFS's "fabric", the stance, the expectations of society.

Television only had a fraction of the penetration, and it still overhauled the face of society, how it viewed the picture of Ordinary-Everyday-Daily-Behavior/Thinking. It exponentially magnified the spread rate of culture, language, fashion, whatever. The information superhighway (even without socnets) did the same.

Example: Radio/Television magnified media, journalism. We became myopic about news, which by necessity is synonymous with tragedy. The world (esp USA) became an icon of crime and violence, despite statistical relief. We watched CSI and stopped letting children go outside, despite statistical relief. A child is more likely to have a heart attack than be abducted by a stranger (Source: Protecting the Gift, Gavin DeBecker) yet we ignore one to obsess over the other, spend time, money, attention, laws. I mention this as an example of our airspace, of the daily-life vista seen from our eyeballs, being open to occupation by the biggest elephants, either the orchestrated or, more often, the unintentional.

Example: Socnets magnified culture. We have reached a pace that makes the Eternal September event look trivial. The hyper PC/SJW activity since 2015 is a result of these new properties. "Memes" are a result of these properties. We've always had Killroy, or the Shave-and-a-Haircut staccato (these images render differently in the brains of those familiar) but now we have a tempo that humanity has never known. Visibility is everything. Movie trailers. Beta launches. Our natural inclinations re: things "new" or "different" are trying to keep up with a village tribe numbering millions.

I expect the effects can be more quantified by cultural industries. Fashion (scaled stuff; the catwalk sideshows are economically trivial) for one. They would tell us the pace of things is measurably changing. 1900's fads trickled in and trickled out. Even those razor scooters took time, to scale up and to fade, when compared to the flash flood of, say, hoverboards or fidget spinners. Set aside the Facebook hype and opinions about those, to consider how quickly the market reacted, harvested the hype, then rapidly fizzled, overstock being shelved and, by now, abandoned.

It's not like erasing Facebook would matter. Even with time travel, it wouldn't matter. This is what Jane and Joe Sixpack want from the internet, convergent evolution would find it. We are one pocket away from a flood of communication, echo chambers, from peers and from corporate, from politics and agendas. Much like the existence of mass-killing technology (whether that's a crowd or a nuke'able city) it's something that can't be reversed, can't be un-invented, and our only choice is to try and adapt to the new conditions.

To full circle, a well-adjusted person is at least partially insulated against these world-shrinking effects and keeps their worldview intact, but only an idiot thinks "making people change" is ever a solution to anything. So, it's kinda moot to bring up.

Re:He's right.

[gnick]

...smart people avoid facebook anyway...

FB is very customizable. If you see garbage, it's because you're following sources that post garbage. I see posts from selected members of my family, some selected friends, and a few other sources that I've picked. Of course, I also see customized ads; that plus sharing info is the cost of doing business. I hide people who post, for example, pictures of their dinner. I also see REAL news from CNN, CNN International, and BBC News. I primarily get news from their web sites, but they post headlines to FB that may not make their front page and are interesting to me.

If FB is primarily showing you stupid stuff, that's because you told it to. If you're complaining that everything your friends post is stupid, change or hide your friends.

...most of the world is stupid...

Most of the world, by definition, is of roughly average intelligence. You're just full of yourself.

Re:He's right.

[i286NiNJA]

Many of these people are actually paid shills. Who else would spend all night arguing in the comments section of a news article. Every night. For 10 hours. Not just one kook but an army of apparently unemployed night-owls demanding the end of the welfare state? Somehow it doesn't make sense.

For years I thought they had to be retirees or some other people who were on the dole themselves. But no, they're paid shills.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I dunno, maybe I'm a slovenly, ignorant USian, but those seem like pretty good universal rights and the role/responsibility of Government and the Governed seems spot-on. But I guess if you were a European who saw their power wane as the US rose, well - it could be off-putting, eh?

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it seems that the world is so shitty -- one tiny pebble of poo can stink up the whole room.

AC reporting for duty. What discussion can I derail for you today?

Re:He's right.

[LeftCoastThinker]

And where the real world has self correcting mechanisms for assholes (when someone gets in your face screaming obscenities, you tend to knock their teeth out, most people only need that experience once to modify their behavior), there is no equivalent online where antisocial, uncivil behavior can be properly discouraged.

To be clear, we are not talking about unpopular ideas or positions you don't agree with, rather just basic, civil discourse and an understanding that the other humans you interact with online are more like you than not (with bad days, goals, triumphs and failures, dreams and fears, etc.) And should be treated with the golden rule.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The founders may have a been a bunch of white males, but they did have some good ideas, one must admit.

Re:He's right.

[Opportunist]

Not on the internet. The presence of a computer shaves about 10-20 points off the IQ of the average person. 30 if he has a PhD.

I started out doing tech support for such people. In the presence of a computer, even otherwise very intelligent people behave like complete idiots.

Now imagine what these machines can do to the average idiot.

Re:He's right.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Social media didn't do that, the Internet did. And along with the pieces of shit, the Internet has also brought me little gems in the form of well thought out opinions, novel ideas and viewpoints, and a rather close look at the train of thought and reasoning of people hitherto only known to me as "left", "right", "progressive" or whatever. And a great deal of all that somehow never made it into print media or TV programming.

I also think Palihapitiya is overestimating the effect on society. The effect isn't zero, but going by my friends, colleagues and family, the 'negative' interaction on social media isn't really all that new, it's just more accessible and more widespread. And I've yet to meet a single person who got ruined by social media, or got the wrong ideas based on misinformation. I'm sure there are a few, but society remains unripped on the face of it.

Re:He's right.

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

Wow that's so insightful....

Re:He's right.

[Opportunist]

The problem is less pieces of shit, it's more the far out fringe idiots.

A couple years ago I lauded the internet for being a place where people who otherwise felt they are the only person with a certain condition or handicap can actually go and find others who share it and make them feel like they're not alone in the world. And yes, the internet also allowed people with some weird ass fetish to meet others who share that kind of ... preference. And while I don't want to go there, I'm happy for them to have found someone else they can enjoy themselves.

Unfortunately it also meant that the retards who have some really weird concept of how the world works (or should work) find others who share their, let's say, very special concept of reality and reinforce their belief that this could actually be true.

So we now don't just have to deal with religions (with increasingly strange and bizarre belief systems) but also flat/hollow/whatever Earthers, people who honestly think the moon is hollow or that we live in some kind of snow globe and even stranger bullshit. What makes it worse is that they now have a platform to spread that bullshit because, hey, look, I'm not crazy! They think the same way I do!

Want to bet that within 10 years some loudmouthed idiot group demands to teach the flat earth model as "an alternative theory" to the globe model because we should "teach the controversy"?

Re:He's right.

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

Are you an infant whose primary experience with evil is what comes out of his anus? Do you know any big boy words to express yourself?

How can you judge others when you are in a state of arrested development stuck in the 'anal' stage of development?

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

more about the capabilities of a person to prioritize, to use critical thinking, to have foresight, to measure value/risk.

I think this is it exactly. But these things are no longer taught, almost to the point of being discouraged favoring consensus seeking on the internet. It's the new way, at least in the US.

Re:He's right.

[Opportunist]

Can't they just create a YouTube account, put their head into the microwave and cement it in?

With a little bit more effort, they could have succeeded. You know, all that work of cutting him out when all you really had to do is clog the tube and wait. Just think of the clicks and views that would've gotten!

I know I would've clicked. But so... bah.

Re:He's right.

[Opportunist]

And as long as idiots stay at Facebook because they think it's all the internet is, we can still enjoy the internet.

Face it, Facebook took over the valuable service AOL provided before them: Keeping the idiots caged in.

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

Ah, the golden rule. I'm guessing you're over 30? Because I don't know anyone under 30 who even knows what that is.

We should start teaching them before it's too late.

Re: He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so smart

And you don't know the difference between the Web and the Internet?

Like the difference between billboards and the road?

Your surfing license is revoked.

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

Perhaps the worst of them are those who believe that, if at least a handful of people make a claim, that claim must be true. I do wonder how those morons reconcile 3 people claiming the earth is round and 3 more claiming it's flat, though.

Want to bet that within 10 years some loudmouthed idiot group demands to teach the flat earth model as "an alternative theory" to the globe model because we should "teach the controversy"?

No, I'd rather not think of that as even being a possibility. We have guns and they'll out themselves on the internet long before they get around to petitioning for anything.

Re: He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

It started long before the Internet age. It started with advertising as a big industry. Mad Men Times. After all isnâ(TM)t that how FB makes money, either by selling ads or selling your info so you can be (better) targeted by ads.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've yet to meet a single person who got ruined by social media

August Aimes.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

This may come as a shock to you, but some people really are of above-average intelligence.

Like, maybe half?

No, half would be above median intelligence. More than half are likely below average because I bring the average up.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Social media is the greatest group think enabler ever.

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

From your post, I take it that you would side with slave owners to count slaves equally in the census? Why would you want to give slave owners more power?

It seems you haven't done any research into the 3/5 compromise let alone try to understand it. You shouldn't call anyone a coward while posting as a coward. Hypocrite is your name.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that isn't how averages work.

For example, the set 1, 1, 1, 5 would have an average of 2. Half of the members of the set are not above-average, only 25% of the members of the set are above average, and 75% of the members are below average.

If you were of above-average intelligence, you would know this.

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

This from someone who can't use vowels in their username... except for that one "i" that somehow slipped in there.

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

I also see REAL news from CNN

Um...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I don't know how you could describe CNN as "real news".

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

in my opinion the *problem* has nothing to do with the pieces of shit or the far out fringe idiots... it's everyone else, that gives them attention and a stage to spout their bullshit. ignore them, move on with your lives. anything more risks limiting liberties online.

Re:He's right.

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

You talk like a child. You relate your idea of evil to poop like a baby or infant does. You need to be silenced.

Re:He's right.

[taustin]

This may come as a shock to you, but some people really are of above-average intelligence.

The overlap between people who are above average in intelligence and people who claim they are on the internet is very, very low.

Re:He's right.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

the golden rule...those with the gold make the rules. Is that the one?

Re:He's right.

[Mashiki]

That looks to be more like poor parenting, followed with poor schooling. I mean come on now, we knew back in the 1980's microwaves were dangerous. Playing with mercury on your skin was really bad. Eating paint chips wasn't going to help you get far in life either. But when you have a medium that promotes narcissism and attention seeking? Big shock that everyone with a mental deficiency, daddy/mommy issues/etc go out of their way to try and get some attention.

Re:He's right.

[orgelspieler]

The only people who have time to argue against the welfare state are those who make enough money at their first job to not need a second. Or third.

Re:He's right.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

got the wrong ideas based on misinformation...really? Maybe you haven't actually MET any of them, but thousands of people got conned into going out to various marches by the Internet Research Agency; aka Glavset. Unless your really are living on Europa, then you probably know someone who was conned but just doesn't realize it.

Re:He's right.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I think it more went AOL > Yahoo boards > Facebook, but yeah.

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

You may have missed the nuance in my message. Also, 'twas the AC before me who raised the idea that people are shit, I was mere expanding on that.

Also, for someone whose username appears to be complaining about SJWs, you sure have latched on to their tactics. You embrace reflection the same way they do to; what, with calling me a child whilst falling back on the most childish of argumentative strategies yourself.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree 100%. If you want real news, get it straight from Trump. Trump has proven that CNN is FAKE - Just look at his tweets.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real world also applies that correcting mechanism to people that say things others don't like. For example Trump supporters can safely post their views online. In real life they could face severe consequences, even if they have a right to their views.

Re:He's right.

[Krishnoid]

Does Google+ have the same problems with "short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops"? Also, don't a lot of people get together over Facebook groups that would never have gotten together? It seems like the problems described sit on top of a new foundation of benefits that a lot of people don't even notice since they're so much a part of a new reality in social interaction.

Relatives, people with common interests and concerns around the entire world are now able to fluidly share instant messages, pictures, video, links and games like they're almost down the street, for no cost (which scales across developing economies as well), and it seems like this is taken for granted when considering the downsides.

Re:He's right.

[JackieBrown]

I find this to be the same a sizes when it comes to men. Most likely, the smarter or bigger someone is, the dumber or smaller they are.

People smart do not need to tell people they are smart. It simply shows.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

And where the real world has self correcting mechanisms for assholes (when someone gets in your face screaming obscenities, you tend to knock their teeth out, most people only need that experience once to modify their behavior), there is no equivalent online where antisocial, uncivil behavior can be properly discouraged.

In fact, there is. The real-world equivalent of punching someone in the face is system/network penetration. Hack the bastards down to hell.

Re:He's right.

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

People scream in your face because they WANT you to fight them.
You don't just automatically win because you think you're right. You can't just successfully "knock out someone's teeth" 100% of the time some one is aggressive to you. Conflict is no sure thing.
Unless of course you are a far-leftist authoritarian and the state, whose policies you unconditionally support, solves all your arguments for you because you never stray far enough to release your grip from its skirts.

To be clear, we are not talking about unpopular ideas or positions you don't agree with

But actually it seems like most people are. There are certain opinions they consider unspeakable and refuse to deal with in any way, seeking to have everyone who talks about them thrown out of society. Are you missing this whole free speech crisis in universities and media and in society in general?

What does civility even entail? Your ideal of "the golden rule" has never worked. It has never been real. Ever. There is no case for it. People are tribalistic and warlike. At best "the golden rule" applies within a tribe SOME of the time.
"It is by the art of war that all other arts can be." Perpetual peace is a cancer. You can't determine what is real without struggle and pain. There needs to be death for there to be life.
This idea of "world peace" comes from stunted people who grew up in cities and have no concept of nature or even reality.

Real civility is simply a protocol for violence that reduces the inefficiency of war by narrowing down what we're going to fight about and why ahead of time. It does not prevent war. Nothing can stop us from giving nature its due.

You have absolutely no point and you make absolutely no sense.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do wonder how those morons reconcile 3 people claiming the earth is round and 3 more claiming it's flat, though

If it was flat, it could also be round. Now, the Earth is spherical.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now imagine what these machines can do to the average idiot.

Increase their IQ with 10-30 points?

Seriously, the internet is no different from tools like electric drills, circular saws, etc which allow average dudes to take over tasks that were previously reserved for the very skilled and highly qualified carpenters, democratizing the place and destroying the ideas of elite and excellence.

Believe it or not, it's really big that an idiot like me could compare prices by quickly drawing them into a table, instead of making a mess of everything because of my laziness, faulty memory, sub-par intelligence and short attention span.

I don't care that much that a PhD or other pretentious fool is outed to the whole world as an absolute moron unable to use simple tools or follow instructions -- those close to him were already in the secret anyway. Making a distinguished career has more to do with sucking up to the powerful and back-stabbing friends, you don't have to be very intelligent for that.

Re:He's right.

[Opportunist]

Well, since I enjoy watching those morons and their videos, I think I finally got how they tick. It seems they think that "science" means "something someone made up and everyone thought is cool". To them, it seems, that the way people (and scientists in particular) come to conclusions is by popular vote. We want it to be that way, so it is that way. So in their mind, all we have to do to change what we consider reality is to convince more people of some harebrained bullshit.

I'm not kidding nor exaggerating. The more I watch those videos, the more I get the impression that they really think "science" means "making some shit up and then convincing people of it".

Re:He's right.

[Opportunist]

We have to encourage them to outdo each other. With a hint of luck, the next one tries it without an air pipe, you know, to one-up the other one.

Re:He's right.

[Jawnn]

But to be fair, most of humanity simply isn't ready for the Internet. The Internet is still the Wild West, full of garbage, and most people are simply not smart or savvy enough to deal with it.

Don't tell me, let me guess...

You, personally, are, in fact, smart or savvy enough to deal with the internet?

Full of yourself much?

Not at all. I'm certainly realistic enough to admit that I am as susceptible as the next person to the heady seduction of a media stream of "things I want to hear". The one thing that sets me apart is that I had the good fortune to have teachers who taught me to question authority. If employing that lesson in the way I judge the veracity of things I read "on the Internet" is "full of myself" so be it, but that so many lack such discernment is beyond dispute.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN issued a correction. Obviously they're completely discredited. Thanks.

Does Trump's dick taste like Cheetos?

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

This may come as a shock to you, but some people really are of above-average intelligence.

Like, maybe half?

You are being much too generous with your estimate!

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

That really and truly is the world we live in now, it seems.

Re:He's right.

[Ian A. Shill]

+0 Ironic

But to be fair, most of humanity simply isn't ready for the Internet. The Internet is still the Wild West, full of garbage, and most people are simply not smart or savvy enough to deal with it.

Don't tell me, let me guess...

You, personally, are, in fact, smart or savvy enough to deal with the internet?

Full of yourself much?

Re:He's right.

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

Here's the thing that flushes this turd of a post down the poopoo hole:

You don't have to look at anything you don't want you.

Certain viewpoints tend to accumulate at certain venues. If you are a coward and have no self discipline and it would destabilize your mental health to see a contrary opinion, there are places you can stick to where you have a reasonable expectation of seeing only things you agree with.

This poster is literally arguing that the internet is one big uncompartmentalized room. Obviously that's just wrong.

And the language he uses is infantile. Are we in kindergarten? Is poop really a good symbol for evil? Bad allocation of mod points.

Re:He's right.

[moschner]

Most relationships (friendships or otherwise) work best when there is time apart. Spending too much time together often ruins social circles. I've seen this many times over the years. People get burnt out dealing with other people. With social media, people (and their thoughts and opinions) are always there in some form or fashion.

Also the sheltered and ignorant are finally seeing what people are actually like. The internet is a fairly accurate portrayal of humanity in both good and ill. A large number of people simply cannot handle knowing and seeing who people (others and themselves) truly are.

Re:He's right.

[gnick]

I don't know how you could describe CNN as "real news".

CNN has an excellent record of getting the facts straight. On the rare occasion that they make a mistake, they have an excellent record of promptly issuing corrections. Your links didn't impress me. Here's a bunch of other stuff that fails to damn CNN.

What's your favorite news source that outperforms CNN? PLEASE say DJT.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

People smart do not need to tell people they are smart.

...unless they're trying to get a job, because HR will always hire the guy that says that he's the smartest in the most convincing manner.

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You, on the other hand, think I should be silenced.

Who's the infant, here? Probably the moron with the week old account.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you missing this whole free speech crisis in universities and
media and in society in general?

Yes, tell me more about it.

People are tribalistic and warlike. At best "the golden rule"
applies within a tribe SOME of the time.

"It is by the art of war that all other arts can be." Perpetual
peace is a cancer. You can't determine what is real without struggle and pain.

And that's the problem, my friend. If you learned to live your life as an unappologetic, out and out faggot instead of drapping your fantasies in profound pseudo-philosophical garbage, that would be great.

It may come as a surprise to you, but for most people "pain" has no redeeming esthetical or metaphysical qualities. Go better practise your struggle and pain thing at home, with people that are into the same thing as you, 100% safe and consensual.

Don't thrust it upon the society at large.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking white male!

Re:He's right.

[CronoCloud]

A couple years ago I lauded the internet for being a place where people who otherwise felt they are the only person with a certain condition or handicap can actually go and find others who share it and make them feel like they're not alone in the world.

It still is, but we also have to deal with Conspiracy Crazies and Internet Fuckwads saying "Shitcock"

Re: He's right.

[nehumanuscrede]

I would say mostly right.

There are those who don't use mainstream Social Media because we aren't seeking approval from the masses on our opinions of any given thing.

Us old farts who were adults before the internet, smartphones and instant gratification became the norm, could give two shits if folks like / hate a post we make.

We just make it. If you agree with it, great. If not, just as great. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.

What the younger generations need to realize is most folks don't care what you had for lunch. What your kids did in school today or what level your character is in whatever MMORPG is popular these days.

Take all that out of the equation and most social media would go away.

While some rare insightful information can occasionally be found there, it has effectively become a place to brag about insignificant accomplishments and / or the life you want others to think you live.

Social Media will destroy you if:

1) You let it
2) Your self esteem requires it

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you judge others when you are in a state of arrested development stuck in the 'anal' stage of development?

There's no such thing. Actually, there was a smart guy called Freud who made a lot of fame and money long time ago by selling some cloying pseudo-scientific, unfalsifiable garbage to pretentious fools.

There's no development beyond the 'anal' stage -- even in old age, people would rather excrete the fecal matter using their anus instead of some artificial contraption.

Re:He's right.

[taustin]

People who drink heavily should not post things on the interwebs until they have a sober grown up to double check that they are writing completely, grammatically correct sentences.

Re:He's right.

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

You're the toddler that wants to make poop jokes at the meeting of the senate throwing a tantrum when you're taken back to the nursery.

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

Why is it if I criticize one news source I must automatically subscribe to another? Sheesh. So CNN is on par with FOX news... Congrats I guess.

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

If you say so.

;)

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

- but the view that 'other peoples opinions are the problem' IS THE PROBLEM!

Maybe part of the problem is people that make up quotes and assign them to others rather than read and respond to what they actually did say.

Re:He's right.

[epine]

when someone gets in your face screaming obscenities, you tend to knock their teeth out, most people only need that experience once to modify their behavior

That a nostalgic frontier-society masturbation fantasy.

Even if you do manage to show someone up physically (without going to jail yourself in the process) the target doesn't magically become socially clued-in, they just pursue different outlets to continue to indulge in their horrible behaviour (returning to the favourite haunts as soon as the teeth-busting coast is clear).

Lasting solutions almost always require the exercise of diplomacy, patience, and other grit-your-own-teeth social skills.

Absence of teeth-gritting social self-regulation might just be why you're self-pleasuring in the first place.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm not the original coward and nobody invited me when they drafted the constitution 230 years ago, but what about "only free people able to vote should be counted for representation purposes"?

I'm not from the US, but every book I've read about it, from Tocqueville to Federalist Papers suggest that they deliberately tried to give the system a conservative bias, in order to not let the big, dynamic cities from the north dictate the politics of the whole country, and protect the minority from the dictatorship of the majority (the minority being the slave owners from the south). Is that some "big lie", some hystorical myth?

Fast forward to 2017 and the system still holds -- without the electoral college and/or the disenfrenchisement of the people from DC and Puerto Rico, the red states would have no power, and they would be demoted to passive backwaters (and there would be no Republicans, Trump president and bible belt culture warriors).

Re:He's right.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Not saying it doesn't happen at all, but it doesn't seem to have the impact the author claims it has. And people got conned into marches before, by shady action committees or organisations. Even the mainstream ones aren't above spreading fake news to further their cause (see: Greenpeace & Brent Spar). Did social media really make things that much worse? I highly doubt it.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad is a prime example of a too trusting person. He was the one that would forward every e-mail chain in the late 90's. He now re-posts everything without even thinking if it is even plausible. He actually said, "It's on AOL (he still calls any form of internet activity AOL), it must be true".

Re:He's right.

[i286NiNJA]

Riiiiight. Rich people totally want to stay up all night making easily debunked or logically inconsistent arguments on the fox news website.
Please go visit fox right now. Go look at the comments section.
Now print the first comment on a t-shirt and wear it to your job. You earned it you fuck.

Re:He's right.

[gnick]

Why is it if I criticize one news source I must automatically subscribe to another?

Because there's only one other person ill-informed enough to declare CNN "FAKE news" with nothing to back it up. Siding with CNN's chief critic suggested to me that you were a fan. Apologies if you're simply like-minded.

So CNN is on par with FOX news...

Yes. They both have good records of issuing accurate, biased stories. Fox's often edge closer to editorials (e.g. justifying atrocious behavior from our President), but neither makes a habit of lying. Either is a much better source of facts than our White House.

I'll ask again: What's your source that does so much better than CNN?

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked for the Clintons for a long time, didn't it?

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

Because there's only one other person ill-informed enough to declare CNN "FAKE news" with nothing to back it up. Siding with CNN's chief critic suggested to me that you were a fan. Apologies if you're simply like-minded.

And it has nothing to do with their mark of "journalistic integrity" as of late? You don't have to love Trump to know that CNN has been in the shitter.

Yes. They both have good records of issuing accurate, biased stories. Fox's often edge closer to editorials (e.g. justifying atrocious behavior from our President [foxnews.com]), but neither makes a habit of lying. Either is a much better source of facts than our White House.

So we agree that CNN is equivalent to Fox. which both are not shining beacons of journalistic excellence. Yet, you are acting rather defensive over a biased news source. Why? Although, I haven't seen Fox blackmail someone. A new low for "journalism".

What's your source that does so much better than CNN?

I don't use one source. Aggregates and multiple sources. I lump CNN with Fox and HuffPo and Salon. I try to avoid will use with heavy dose of skepticism. You can lie by telling the nothing but the truth.

Re:He's right.

[serviscope_minor]

A couple years ago I lauded the internet for being a place where people who otherwise felt they are the only person with a certain condition or handicap can actually go and find others who share it and make them feel like they're not alone in the world.

It is and that's a blessing and a curse. Everyone can find a welcoming community of like minded people, and that includes raging assahats who need to become socialised as much as it includes people who just plain don't fit in in their community.

Re:He's right.

[gnick]

Yet, you are acting rather defensive over a biased news source. Why?

Because (Biased != Fake). And I consider questioning the legitimacy of our main stream media a big deal. You can say all kinds of nasty, accurate things about them, but you shouldn't be calling them liars when we're baited with so much misinformation from our White House. At least not without solid footing. Getting the truth right is a big deal. So is getting it wrong.

I don't use one source. Aggregates and multiple sources. I lump CNN with Fox and HuffPo and Salon.

That's dandy. You're doing a fine job telling us the sources you don't use.

Re: He's right.

[hackwrench]

How is that "tearing apart society"? Society will always be here no matter what. People are just the universe figuring itself out.

Re: He's right.

[hackwrench]

You are living in an echo chamber. So am I, but my world doesn't seem so bad because I am not a terrible person.

Re: He's right.

[hackwrench]

Not rich people but people who think they do a lot of work because they live in a place nice enough to pay people a sustainable wage and take care of the sick. These people see the sick not doing the job they can do and get jealous of that aspect of reality.

Re: He's right.

[BronsCon]

We're both here on Slashdot, my brother. Think about that for a moment.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are founding principles? Of what? The world? Mankind? Facebook? Your house?

Your mom. Obviously.

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

but you shouldn't be calling them liars when we're baited with so much misinformation

You can lie by telling the only the truth that many media organizations do and is partly why information from any source is seen as illegitimate. I agree that getting it right is a big deal and just as Rome wasn't built in a day the bed media lay in now wasn't made in a night. Again, you can lie by telling only the truth. Media and news have propped themselves into this position by bastardizing any sense of journalistic integrity. I expect the White House to promote positions favorable to the WH just like every other previous administration did before it. What I have not expected is a continued almost concerted effort to reject any sense of ethics and integrity from many media companies that would sooner parade a false narrative then report the facts. Clickbait is the game and integrity is a shame. This has been happening for years and before Trump.

How much damage does a retraction undue? How many will still believe the big lie that CNN told of collusion between Trump, Wikileaks and the Russians and are too lazy to find the truth? Many on /. have disdain for FOX and that reputation was built by continual grievances. CNN is doing their best to out do them.

You're doing a fine job telling us the sources you don't use.

I try to avoid will use with heavy dose of skepticism. I told you I use aggregate sources to find out what is "happening" and use multiple sources to find "truth". Have I used CNN or Fox or NPR? Yes. That doesn't mean I don't see their bullshit nor like it.

Because (Biased != Fake

Yes but if you are not honest about your bias upfront then your ethics are in question. I have to do more work to find the bullshit you are selling me. I don't appreciate biased sources wasting my time because they have something to sell. Nor do I like being manipulated to buy what they're selling.

Re:He's right.

[wyHunter]

I agree. It's exactly why the 'down with everything' left LOVES social media - how can we discredit, and destroy, everything? Look at the fallacy of "kids don't need dads.' Lunacy if I ever heard it - too bad my parents believed it. that was decades ago and I survived just fine, but I see kids who have divorced parents today versus non divorced parents and there's quite the difference.

Re:He's right.

[BronsCon]

This poster is literally arguing that the internet is one big uncompartmentalized room.

Actually, I'm arguing that worthless trolls like you can access many communities with minimal effort. I'm not even complaining about it, as I find your kind quite entertaining.

Re:He's right.

[twokay]

Seems like another of the Social Media trends is for passive-aggressive types to constantly slip in digs on political issues that don't meet their carefully crafted idea of how society should be run.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you live in your mother's basement and no woman will have you..

Re:He's right.

[Dread_ed]

As an amplification of your position, I have found vast discrepancies in news stories from different providers, yet each was accurate in what they reported. What was different was the tone of what was reported, what other events were connected to the story by the author, the "framing" of the issue as well as the categorizing of the "approved reactions" to the story, the conjecture about what the story means going forward, and most importantly, what was left out.

If there is a story I am interested in I will read at least a few different news site's stories about it, XOR the facts, discard the bullshit, and potentially form an opinion of my own. Note I said potentially. One of the hardest things to do is to not form an opinion. It is also one of the most valuable tools I have learned.

Re: He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us,have been internetting for 25+ years. And yes, we're able to ignore the antisocial networks and go read a book if we want.

Re: He's right.

[rtb61]

It's tearing people apart, just like the yoyo did or the hula hoop, or any other fad. Seems big today but it will fade to nothing. It creates empty relationships that fade to nothing, it inherently will destroy itself but it will cause harm on the way out. Once it is seen as uncool to be on facebook, old fashioned, out of date, it will die. For now, lets be cruelly honest, it mainly keeps the narcissists occupied and out of our lives, just don't join them on facebook and they ignore you. Same as for twitter, just don't play in the overgrown children's playground and they are not a problem for you.

The way to form better relationships, visit people with your phone off, use email and write well (snail mail is pointless) and call them. Maybe the odd text but keep the number down and strictly utility stuff, not relationship crippling stuff and of course forums express and work with ideas and thoughts. For the shallow, the nonsense of fakebook and twitter fills a need and keeps them away from us (little bit cruel but they are happy and we are happy, else they would be pestering us, why do extroverts always have pet introverts they harass with their presence but the introverts are too polite to say anything).

Re: He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

You proved his point, asshole.

Re:He's right.

[gnick]

I told you I use aggregate sources to find out what is "happening" and use multiple sources to find "truth".

And yet you won't name one source. I'd love to know a few of these sources you aggregate from that outperform CNN. I keep asking. Don't make me beg.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that isn't how averages work.

For example, the set 1, 1, 1, 5 would have an average of 2. Half of the members of the set are not above-average, only 25% of the members of the set are above average, and 75% of the members are below average.

If you were of above-average intelligence, you would know this.

Not in general, but this is true for most reasonable interpretations of "average intelligence". Criticisms aside, the most common metric for intelligence is IQ, a value that is calibrated to achieve a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15. For large finite samplings, I would expect the mean average IQ, the median average IQ, and your IQ to be all about the same.

Re:He's right.

[fluffernutter]

I totally respect journalistic integrity. CNN can be sensationalist, sure, but they also give a lot of good news.

Re:He's right.

[fluffernutter]

Does Google+ have the same problems with "short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops"?

No, and that's why no one uses it.

Re: He's right.

[Brockmire]

*Whoosh*

Re: He's right.

[Brockmire]

That is the dumbest thing I read today.

Re: He's right.

[Brockmire]

It shows. You are not smart.

Re: He's right.

[mapkinase]

reddit seems to be dealing pretty well with anti social behavior.

The problem is with circle jirk.

Re: He's right.

[Brockmire]

What shitty life you must have if that is your thought. Just forget the lifetime politicians and ignore the millionaire president with zero fucking political experience when it comes to making rules (hint, the supreme Court ruled that the immigration rules made were illegal).

Re: He's right.

[Brockmire]

Found the next super hero villian.

Re: He's right.

[Brockmire]

I thought that happened in Arkansas or Texas a few years ago. Hmm, I might be thinking of creationism. Same shit.

Re: He's right.

[Brockmire]

I don't know what the fuck you're going on about Fox News for, but I can only recall people with means complaining of welfare programs, not middle or lower income people.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more than one method to calculate an average.

If you were of above-average intelligence, you would know this.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

nope he's talking about what's formally called "the ethic of reciprocity", it's the single ethical rule that's acknowledged by every major religion and philosophy (at least with regards to the ingroup)

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

We now have several companies whose business model is essentially to be a privatized and inproved form of the stasi. Facebook and Google are just the 2 biggest ones.

Quite frankly I sincerely believe that we're all underestimating the effect that will have on society. The skinner boxes built into facebook and other social platforms are merely one of the symptoms.

Re:He's right.

[tigersha]

Bingo. The world is probably a safer place because people "Over there" are much more in your face nowadays, so the government cannot denigrate them with propaganda and make war. Go and check out US propaganda movies about Japanese in WW2. Lots of it on NetFlix. Total eye-opener. And before you blame the US, the Japanese were not any better.

This sort of stuff is much harder now because people actually interact with people around the world much more cause of the Internet.

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

I gave you three examples I have used before but ok you want more.
Aggregates: bing.com/news news.google.com and slashdot.org
Specific: It changes over time. currently NPR (radio to/from work) and Ben Shapiro (not sure why I got on a Shapiro kick lately but he is a sharp cookie). Used to be John Oliver or Stephen Colbert etc. It changes over time and it changes for a variety of reasons.

As far as out perform CNN. Is a turd better with a peanut or a kernel of corn? I have a low opinion of most media and news sources. Too many "journalists" are actually activists. I am not sure I can answer that question. I know what I don't like.

Did that satisfy you? Note, I don't have TV in my home so no channel news stations.

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

I have heard this a lot in defense of many news sources. I think it comes down to opinion pieces and news reporting which are very blurred these days. It seems like there are more activists than journalists in news media.

However, even on the news reporting CNN has gotten a lot wrong lately and has had to make a lot of retractions. One mistake, fine. But repeatedly? There is something wrong. That tells me their organization is blind to facts if they have an opportunity to push their narrative.

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

Spot on.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

And bots. Paid shills were employed for a long time, but now bots have gotten so sophisticated there are entire Facebook groups that consist about 95% of bots.

I've been joining every pro-Trump group I can come across, and analyzing the content. It's nearly 100% fake news, and almost 100% of the content is fed from bot accounts, with bots doing the vast majority of interaction on each post. But to a human coming along it looks like there are half a million other people that engaged with the group, when in reality there's about 5,000 actual people in the group.

This has held true for over 50 pro-Trump groups I've joined, from anywhere between a few hundred to a few hundred thousand members. It's almost all bots.

Re: He's right.

[i286NiNJA]

Fox news comments are one place that seem to have a sustained trolling effort. Endless shitposting along the lines of "Unlike the traitor OBUMMER! and his side BITCH the SHRILL IN CHIEF!"

Don't ask me what that shit means. But clearly the people posting in the comments are probably not people who are so rich they have time to fight the welfare state on the comments sections of news websites every day forever like oragelspeigler said.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true if the population follows a perfectly normal distribution. That being said, I think it was intended as a silly joke.

Re: He's right.

[hackwrench]

If your relationships require those things in order to be maintained, there's something already wrong with your relationships.

Re:He's right.

[gnick]

I asked you about sources you trust. If you gave me examples, I'm not seeing them. Aggregates are great. They collect headlines from a number of different sources. I'm interested in which sources you trust since you so vehemently distrust CNN. Would you say you "trust" slashdot? Or Bing or Google? Every independent article, for me, is at a different "trust" level based partially on its source. Right now, on Bing's news collection, I see "Fox News", "Los Angeles Times", and "ABC News" featured at the top. These are what I consider sources. I'm hoping you can identify some trustworthy ones. Or do you treat all of these sources with equal weight and just average the stories together? In the case of a conflict, is it majority rules or is there somebody you can identify that you trust more than the rest? I trust CNN to tell me the truth and they consistently deliver. I don't feel any need to fact-check them even though I can get very different articles on the same piece of news from other sources. For example, CNN's coverage on the 'Pocahontas' incident didn't try to blame it on Warren the way Fox News did.

John Oliver is entertaining and can be informative. The investigative pieces he does on Last Week Tonight are terrific. Steven Colbert can be entertaining but, despite a reasonable fact-checking record, should not be considered a news source. I think he's said that.

As far as out perform CNN. Is a turd better with a peanut or a kernel of corn? I have a low opinion of most media and news sources. Too many "journalists" are actually activists. I am not sure I can answer that question. I know what I don't like.

Obviously the peanut. A turd with a peanut has more protein than one with corn; a turd with a corn kernel is next to worthless. This does kind of answer my question, but I think you're overstepping by saying that sources like CNN aren't "real news". Declaring news FAKE shouldn't be done flippantly and not without something to base it on. There are a lot of sources that deliver genuine misinformation and they should not be conflated with the MSM.

Re:He's right.

[penandpaper]

You didn't ask about trust until now. You said "What's your source that does so much better than CNN?" No, I do not trust the majority of "sources" and I feel I have to fact-check nearly all news reporting. I do so if I care enough about the topic. My default trust level is distrust. I do not have a specific source I go to for trust in news if that answers your question and why it is difficult for me to answer your question. Bing/google news collection have their problems which is why I generally only use them for "happening" not specifics. For instance, If I go there in the US section I see the Alabama election is happening. If I want specifics I have to research and that doesn't mean going to a specific source but rather general searching and inquiry.

As far as Oliver or Colbert, are they comedians with a journalist twist or journalists with a comedic twist. Yes, I know what they say but that distinction is important. They say they are not a news source but that doesn't mean you can't learn about news from them which many do and have done. It's a nice out for them to say what they want which is fine. (IMO, I consider Oliver the later and Colbert the former)

I think you're overstepping by saying that sources like CNN aren't "real news. . Declaring news FAKE shouldn't be done flippantly and not without something to base it on

But I have given justification and reasoning behind why I think it fake news. You disagree which is fine. For me, CNN is trying or was "real news". They have failed basic journalistic ethics and standards repeatedly enough to damage their reputation (Clinton News Network). For me, that is enough to categorize them as fake news equivalent to propaganda and misinformation because the effect is the same. The only difference is intent, which honestly doesn't speak to CNN because that means they are too stupid or too biased to not put out manipulative misinformation.

MSM brought us war because of yellow journalism. They are not immune when they deliver misinformation just because they are well funded.

Re: He's right.

[JackieBrown]

Never said I was :)

I'm good at some things but smart overall, not at all.

Re:He's right.

[tmjva]

Apparently everything is working as planned.

Re:He's right.

[gnick]

As far as Oliver or Colbert, are they comedians with a journalist twist or journalists with a comedic twist... (IMO, I consider Oliver the later and Colbert the former)

Agreed. John Oliver's stuff is researched and (I've found) accurate. Colbert's stuff is whatever's funniest even if it's unsubstantiated.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are not fucking worth it.

Rent a vag when you want to get laid. Date women when you want some company. Then tell them all to fuck right off and leave you alone.

Re:He's right.

[Mashiki]

I always was a fan of darwinism in action.

Re:He's right.

[LeftCoastThinker]

Every serious conflict big and small has been settled by violence, not diplomacy. Diplomacy as the lasting solution to all conflict is the masturbatory fantasy of the feminized left and it is in direct conflict to thousands of years of history, both globally and on an individual level.

I did the face busting myself a few times in high school. I tried patience and tolerance first, but at some point, every self respecting person has their limit. And you know what, those assholes changed their behavior after that, not only towards me, but towards others in general. Getting laid out in the school yard and then coming to school with busted face for a week tends to cause all of your other victims to start standing up to you as well and you learn that the verbal assaults that you thought were fun can suddenly and violently explode in your face with a lot of physical pain.

Just because you are a woman or a dickless beta male that will take shit forever doesn't validate your point. In the real world, there are lines you don't cross if you are smart. If you are an asshole and go around abusing people, eventually you will find the wrong person and regret it.

Social media is only amplification

[SuperKendall]

I think the notion that social media is tearing apart the country ignores that, like soylent green, social media is people.

The problem is not really social media. It's that more and more people are growing to be far more intolerant of diverse ideas. Social media just gives us a window into the wider picture how much of a problem that has become...

We all know people that have grown far less tolerant and far more angry, I'm talking both left and right. That is a fundamental problem and I don't think it changes much if you rein in social media.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

social media is people who are being emotionally manipulated by machine learning algorithms to get them to click on more ads, with absolutely no moral oversight in play

there are no people making decisions, this is deliberately to avoid the question of "is it moral to do this?"

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize we just are coming off having a black president for the last 8 years, and damn near elected a female to follow up, right Chicken Little? It's not that we're becoming intolerant. It's that the assholes who have always been a part of society are now using the internet to organize and vocalize.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[ilguido]

That is a fundamental problem and I don't think it changes much if you rein in social media.

In my opinion there is a problem with social media. In real life, it is difficult to find a place (workplace, schoolroom, bus stop) where everybody thinks the same: you have to compare your ideas. In social media you can easily choose to talk only to similarly minded people and so you lose the ability to confront different ideas. All these snowflakes are children born from the marriage between political correctness and social media.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Exposure to vastly different ideas was supposed to make people more tolerant. Unfortunately, in practice, the opposite is true.

Re: Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no longer tolerant of a fundamental level of intolerance, which ironically, now makes me intolerant. Oh well, I gave up, the idiots won and curious approaches no longer work.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[omnichad]

Without echo chambers online, it never would have gotten so bad. People can stop interacting with those that don't agree and start to believe they are the only or majority opinion.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[DontBeAMoran]

Also known as the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Captain Splendid]

Mod parent up. Back in the day, if you were particularly bigoted, you tended to keep your mouth shut because even in your little bubble, there were very few like you. And no matter what the average slashdotter likes to believe, most people prefer not to be alone even if it means they can't share their theories on why women are so inferior.

Then along comes the internet. All of a sudden, not only are you not alone, but time and effort has gone into creating safe online spaces for you. Not only can you gab to your hearts content about The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion, there's thousands of you to do it with!

So we've spent the last two decades knitting together every single little niche group into their own global enclaves, which is great when it brings together fans of an obscure anime, less so when hordes of fascist assholes start using their newfound power.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

No people is what you do when you see a real live human being face to face. If I'm looking at someone directly, I'm very unlikely to call someone a Nazi or library. If I'm typing away on a computer it's almost a certainty going to call someone names. Why not.

Btw, your a gay Nazi snowflake.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[TheRaven64]

I think the notion that social media is tearing apart the country ignores that, like soylent green, social media is people.

For a sufficiently broad definition of 'people', that's true. It's pretty unlikely that a random person that I meet in the streets will be a marketing person (unless they identify as such) or a representative of a foreign power attempting to influence my opinions on political topics. It's also unlikely that they'll have access to a profile of me that includes the topics of news articles that I read, the people whose opinions I follow, my address, a subset of my purchasing history, and so on. This is in direct contrast to the people that you'll encounter on advertising platforms (which, for some reason, we're not calling 'social media').

Re:Social media is only amplification

[ohnocitizen]

This isn't a "both sides are doing it" problem when it comes to diverse ideas. It's a fundamental split (in the US at least, with parallels abroad) Religious conservatism on one side, and progressive secular values on the other. It comes down to how we see the world (and perceive facts). Right now - in the US - only one side is systematically denying reality and screaming "fake news" when presented with any evidence at all. It's gotten far worse recently - look at the vice interview with Roy Moore voters. Al Franken was accused of inappropriate touching and he's been pressured out of office - he stepped down. Roy Moore has been accused of molestation and rape, and not only is he still running with the full support of the president (who also stands accused), his supporters deny even a hint of merit to the accusations. They ignore his statements that are pro-slavery (and his suggestion any amendment after the 10th - which includes the right of women to vote, the abolition of slavery, and the right to elect Senators should be removed).

Just because there's two sides to an argument doesn't mean both are valid.

The anger we are seeing makes sense. On the right it's people going on faith that their leader's lies are correct and it's freaking them out. On the right it's seeing how detached from reality the right is and getting upset at the very real world damage their beliefs are doing to our lives, our world, and our future.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Kohath]

...social media is people.

Yes, but people can learn to be either good or evil.

We all know people that have grown far less tolerant and far more angry, I'm talking both left and right. That is a fundamental problem and I don't think it changes much if you rein in social media.

Narcissism is feeding the intolerance. People love themselves and tell themselves stories about how they know what's best and how future events would work out great if only everyone acted a certain way. Facebook is computerized narcissism.

I don't think reining in Facebook is the answer either. A broader cultural movement toward genuine kindness and goodness is what's needed — like the sexual revolution or the Great Reawakening, only for kindness and generosity and tolerance rather than hedonism or piety.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

We all know people that have grown far less tolerant and far more angry, I'm talking both left and right

No we are just going back to the basics. Human emotional response evolved to handle extended family level social units. Stoneage cultures that survived long enough to be documented shows this clearly. The natural tendency of a human being encountering a stranger is hostility. When people can not be distinguished on appearance, we fragment language and use speech to identify friend or foe. The Old Testament mentions Ephramites pronounced "Shibboleth" as "Sibboleth", and were slain on the banks of river Jordan, 42,000 of them and the river ran red with blood. The word shibboleth means passphrase in English.

After the domestication of dog, then cattle, sheep, goat, wheat, rice, pigs, the food supply and population explosion stratified the society. Those who learned to coexist with larger group, coalesced to form larger and larger units and formed tribes, races, nations, states and Empires. Many cultures never learned. But those who did expanded and assimilated those who did not. But their genes survive. This is just the last 5000 years. Hardly 200 generations. All those genes of assimilated people, who were normally downtrodden and poor and without rights, those who were subjegated exist today.

Given a choice, we find people who are most like us, collect around them and try to form the later neolithic extended clan. The weapons we use changed from stones to nuclear arsenal, the tools we use changed from simple seeding stick or a plough to John Deere tractor with A/C and GPS. But the brain that uses all this is driven by the same emotional machinery that drove the neolithic hunter-gatherers.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[DarkOx]

I don't know that its the echo chamber so much as the narrowness of focus. When we interact online we don't know much if anything about the rest of the 'person' only that they agree or disagree with us.

That is different than in 'real life' where usually we see more of each others lives. You see you coworker also drives a .... you see photos of his or her children on their desks doing similar activities you do with your own, you take part in conversations on other subjects where you do agree.

Basically you learn to 'respect' them. When you arrive at a topic you can't agree on, you loose the assumption of hostility. You already have accepted the premise hey this a reasonably individual, who makes the same judgements and reaches the same conclusions I do much of the time. We just differ here.

Online is more like, he disagrees with me, it must be malice or abject stupidity because what else could explain it? Without that personal context its hard for a lot of people to imagine any other possibilities.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats on cheerleading for angry intolerance. Society is not built on finger-pointing and jeering at you neighbors. Do you want to have a society? Or do you want to war against people who aren't like you?

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa there snow flake, Al Franken wasn't accused of inappropriate touching. Hard evidence was published which he did not deny. Roy Moore has been accused, with no hard evidence in existence. There's this whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which apparently you don't like. It's a topic the MSM has largely been avoiding when discussing this. Moore and Trump have accusations against them with no evidence. Franken had irrefutable proof of his misdeeds.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[ljw1004]

We all know people that have grown far less tolerant and far more angry, I'm talking both left and right.

I don't think we all know that! I see the younger generation being far *more* tolerant than the older generation. Do any of you have intolerant grandparents with whom you simply don't raise topics at Thanksgiving dinners? Think about how in the 60s how the older generation were intolerant of hippies. There's an interesting book by Stephen Pinker "The Better Angels of our Nature" where he calculates the numbers which show that human society has been becoming steadily more civilized and less violent on average over the millenia, centuries and decades. My impression is that the same is happening with tolerance.

(You might be basing your "we all know" based on your perception of US political discourse from the past 10 years? I think that's an outlier but not enough to swing the average much.)

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not likely that you would call somebody a library anyway. :)
Proof reading is your friend.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not amplification. It's distortion. By virtue of the fact you selected a UserID shows that you've already drank the kool-aid.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how furries came to exist.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[IMightB]

Minme for President!

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Decades of multicultural brainwashing is what made you think exposure to different ideas was supposed to make people more tolerant.
'Culture' is more than quirky dress and exotic foods and some cultures believe in things a little more strongly than you.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[LeftCoastThinker]

And the key ingredient indicated in that cartoon (as an Unreal Tournament junky in all it's incarnations back in the day) is anonymity (I still miss that announcer: MMMMMonster Kill!). We will probably have to take anonymity away from the internet at some point if it is to mature as a feature of society (much like we had to add license plates, turn signals and seat belts to cars for that technology to mature). It is sad but just a truth of the human condition.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[i286NiNJA]

The MSM for all it's faults ignores innocent before proven guilty because they're educated and realize that you don't need a judge's ruling in the court of public opinion. I'd like to point out that it seems like you're talking about the MSM minus fox news.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the younger generation is just as intolerant as the old, they just are bigots/intolerant about other things. In the 60s, your parents were intolerant of gays, coloreds, and communists. Now their grandkids are intolerant of Christians, stay-at-home moms, and capitalism. Try going to Berkeley and carrying a Trump poster or simply reading out loud the Bible and learn all about their "tolerance". Just because YOU agree with their bigotry doesn't mean it's not bigotry...

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

So are you speaking from your experience as a bigot then?
Back in WHAT day?

Like people always gathered together. What do you think started these internet groups?

Where is your support for what you're saying? Why do you think the internet groups aren't proportional to real-life groups?

Sorry, but your comment is extremely stupid.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Opportunist]

Your Soylent Green analogy fails.

Soylent Green is quiet and filling. Facebook is noisy and leaves you feeling kinda empty.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not news.

"For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power" - 2 Timothy 3:2-5, emphasis added

This was written by Paul (a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus), in Rome, sometime around the year 65. He was talking about "the last days", which can be established by Bible prophecy to have started in the year 1914. It took a while for "humanity" to wear off, but people have been showing these negative traits in much greater quantity and severity since that time began. Whether you believe or not, this scripture is still rather descriptive of how social graces continue to break down even now, even though it was written nearly two millennia ago.

captcha: greedy - I believe that's covered by the "lovers of money" part

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Opportunist]

Before the internet, you had to join a church if you wanted this.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[omnichad]

I take it you've never seen a meeting of church leadership before.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable news started doing this long before social media.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Captain Splendid]

So are you speaking from your experience as a bigot then?

Actually, I'm speaking from experience being an anime fan in the 70s and 80s. Even when we moved to a medium-sized city and a bigger school, finding people who'd even heard of it, let alone were into it was still like finding a needle in a haystack. I would have loved to be able to connect easily to other people on this topic.

Like people always gathered together. What do you think started these internet groups?

Why do you think the internet groups aren't proportional to real-life groups?

Because bigots are, by and large, a small minority of the population. It's one thing to have a 30-member Klan Klavern in your town. It's another thing entirely when you can co-ordinate with thousands of white supremacists all over the globe.

Sorry, but your comment is extremely stupid.

That's OK. Compared to your reply, I look like fucking Plato.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Jason Levine]

When I first found the Internet (way back in the early 90's), I was amazed by its power to bring together people with similar interests no matter what the distance. If I wanted to discuss Star Wars with someone, I didn't need to worry whether someone in my area that I happened to meet liked Star Wars. I could discuss it with a person next door just as easily as halfway around the world.

The flip side of this is that political discussions can form echo chambers. I tend to be more liberal than some other people so I might frequent forums where other liberal people dwell. We discuss our idea and viewpoints and, while we disagree on the fine points, we agree overall. The same thing happens on the conservative side. Before you know it, each views the other as a kind of "enemy." Everyone THEY know agrees with them, so those other people must be wrong. Add in the tendency for some people to lose social filters when conversing with people online (versus face to face) and you've got a recipe for disaster. It's not that the Internet is bad, per se. It's that it's a tool and can be used to bring people together or divide them apart.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Stolovaya]

I disagree. Many of them are pretty intolerant (the whole "progressive vs. regressive" thing). They believe that the ends justifies the means. That there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

Instead of moving to a future of equality, many of them are just looking to replace the current hierarchy with a new one.

Real progressives seem to be a little hard to come by, but I also realize that it's easier to sell headlines of extremists than those acting like adults. Regressives are loud and obnoxious and do tend to get a little violent. Progressives aren't given the spotlight as much.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of concern trolling rings hollow after decades of being told that Magic: The Gathering, rock and roll, movies, and Dungeons and Dragons are the work of the literal master-of-all-evil Devil. After being told that if I dared ask a fellow high-school girl on a date that I should expect her dad to stick a shotgun in my face, and that God will see me tortured for all eternity for looking at Playboy centerfolds. After a decade of being called a fake American for living within 100 miles of a coast or thinking that President (W) Bush was suspiciously eager to put troops in Iraq.

In short, your position boils down to "Mom, he hit me back". The fundies have been trying to normalize torturing gay people straight, but mean names from us will ruin society? Fuck that noise. If Nazis are going to get police protection for their marches, you can deal with a few internet posters asserting that both sides are not equally bad. You wouldn't want to be intolerant, would you?

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to let you know, "bigots" never kept their mouth shut, its just that they would get cut off, crucified, or otherwise silenced before finishing the word, for example "black".

For instance, it has become a modern pass time to crucify people for something as little as presenting actual crime data that might suggest one race commits more crime than another. The "bigots" presenting this data now have an uninterrupted platform. They can no longer be "cut off" mid sentence or be subject to "totally random" technical difficulties if they somehow got "on air". These "bigots" can now form up their arguments and data and present it to the masses. And the data is compelling. Never before have the masses been subject to this, because the media and government have spend decades hiding it every minute of the day using every means necessary.

Now this very "bigoted" data and arguments are out in the wild and the reaction from the MSM has been to double down and continue to try to hide it. First it was "fake news", i.e. "unapproved news", then it was just distraction games: labeling every trump supporter a racist such that anyone already a liberal can't even start listening without being "triggered".

The fact is, people ARE listening, learning, seeing the data for the first time, and they aren't happy they have been lied to. This process, of being "red pilled", i.e. learning the truth about your true masters (the government and MSM) results in people that are ANGRY (how could you not be). These people are now ready to red pill other people because the injustice of blaming the white man needs to stop. We are being invaded by low IQ immigrants so that corporations can have more customers and we need to stop it.

Black lives matter? A black person is 75+ time more likely to be killed by another black man than by a white man. Adjusted for population, that gets even worse. Additionally, white men are more likely to be killed by a black man than by a white man despite black men making up a tiny portion of the population. These are not racist or bigoted statistics. These are FACTS. The facts mean it actually makes sense to be scared of black people in the same way that parents should be scared of their child drowning in a pool. Risks are risks and ignoring risks because someone that doesn't have to suffer the consequences of ignoring the risk is stupid.

Tell me what black lives matters really stand for? If it is about reducing the death rate of black men at the hands of white people, then a 100% win on this front equals about a 1.5% drop in black deaths. For those that are dense: If no white man killed a black man, 98.5 out of 100 murders of black people would still happen.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Jason Levine]

I'll speak from my experience. My father is pretty bigoted. As might be expected, I started down that path. One day in class I was making fun of Jehovah's Witnesses when a kid behind me said that he was a Jehovah's Witness. All of a sudden, they weren't some faceless group that I could make fun of for laughs, but an actual person. I realized what I was doing was wrong and that I had to stop.

Now imagine a similar situation but, instead of a mixed group of kids in a classroom, I was posting in a forum filled with like-minded people. My rant against a different group of people is met with laughter and virtual high-fives instead of "hey, that's out of line" comments. Instead of changing my behavior and reducing my bigotry, I'd just reinforce my bigotry. If I got too bigoted for that group to tolerate, I'd move on to a different group where they were even more bigoted. The reinforcement loop wouldn't function to reduce bigotry and expose me to different viewpoints, but to increase bigotry and isolate me from those different than myself.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real problem is that people can't differentiate between an opinion and truth. They seem to think their opinion is true, when the truth is that the matter they have an opinion about is far more complex than they believe. It doesn't matter if they are "left" or "right", saying that makes me believe that you are part of the problem, since you generalize something which probably is more complex than that...

Personally I tend to only have an opinion about stuff where I actually know that I know what I'm talking about, so take what I wrote with a grain of salt... :-)

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

You're completely incoherent and you aren't addressing the objection. I asked you what you thought, but what I meant really, is logically why. As a matter of propriety I granted you the faith that you would be gracious enough to respond this way and not just further abuse my ears of your baseless opinion.

Let's break it down for you.
If there is a clan in your town and they are coordinating with another several clans several different places, those clans are were still in existence independently.
You are apparently trying to articulate your perception that this allows them to grow more than they could locally by comparing notes and refining strategies or something to that effect.

But whatever the advantages are, every other ideology on earth has the same advantages provided by the internet.
So why would one ideology benefit more than another? Why wouldn't the growth be proportional to the populations of the seed groups?

Dumbfuck retard.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Jason Levine]

Honestly, I think this is one of the strengths and weaknesses of the Internet, not just social media. The Internet makes it so that you can find individuals with similar interests world-wide. If you want to discuss the latest Star Wars movie but nobody around you cares about Star Wars, you can pop into a Star Wars forum and be surrounded by Star Wars fans from all over the world. The flip side, though, is that you can go to a forum where everyone agrees with you politically and never be exposed to differing opinions.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention the dehumanizing effect of interacting with screen names. If I was talking to you in person, even if I disagreed with you, societal pressure would keep us civil for the most part. Interacting with screen names, though, I might feel freer to insult "DarkOx" simply because my brain sees you as just a flicker of characters on my screen and not a "real person." (Personally, I try never to talk to people online in a manner that I wouldn't talk to them in person, but I might be in the minority with that.)

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Captain Splendid]

If there is a clan in your town and they are coordinating with another several clans several different places, those clans are were still in existence independently.

I'm not arguing otherwise, and that has nothing to do with my original comment.

You are apparently trying to articulate your perception that this allows them to grow more than they could locally by comparing notes and refining strategies or something to that effect.

Well yeah, unless you want to argue that the internet boom has not made global communications far easier and cheaper.

But whatever the advantages are, every other ideology on earth has the same advantages provided by the internet.

Something else we weren't arguing about. My point wasn't about advantages, it was about being able to forge connections that were near-impossible to do only two decades prior.

Why wouldn't the growth be proportional to the populations of the seed groups?

I dunno, this is something else I wasn't arguing about.

Dumbfuck retard.

As long as you keep it up, I'm still looking good here. Thanks!

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you want war then? I don't think you will win. I know the general public will lose. They always do. (Which is one of the reasons some of us don't want war.)

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

Your entire non-point was that these thought-criminals are gaining influence, but in order for them to do that they would have to tilt to proportions of their followers in the population........................

Re: Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Try going to Wyoming and marching with a peace sign.
Actually, all the assertions in your post are wrong. People in Berkeley wouldn't care in the least if you read from the bible(there are actually churches there), or marched with a Trump sign. You might get your face punched if you carry a Nazi sign, but that's a risk in a lot more places than Berkeley.
Now, I know you are going to howl and whine about how Berkeley doesn't support free speech because Skeletor, I mean Ann coulter, couldn't get her act together and work with the school to find a date and time where the proper security could be arranged, but keep lying to yourself.

Re: Social media is only amplification

[Kohath]

Try going to Wyoming and marching with a peace sign.

No one would give a shit. At worst, someone might make a rude comment.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

What's your point?

Did you notice how many times you said "bigot"? Why are you so focused on that word? You can describe this phenomenon and break it down, as some one usually does when they are explaining something, but you for some reason refuse to break this word down into its constituent ideas.

This is what the marxist liberals, and all blind dogmatic people, do. It implies that this word is part of the basis of their reality.

The point is the proportions of people supporting any specific ideology in the world need to change in order for the influence of the ideology to change and there's no case for how or why the proportions changed or even that they did at all.

The implicit argument is that "bigots", "racists", etc. are irrational and only operate on emotional feedback. This perception is why you label them so broadly and easily. And you won't challenge the blanket definition because you refuse to debate them because of your own emotional reaction to them.

Maybe your ridicule of that religion had the seeds of some rational discourse that you threw away because you were embarrassed by social norms?
Do you value "not hurting other people's feelings" more than the truth?
Where in your reaction to hurting that kid's feelings did you evaluate whether or not what you were saying was true?

This is the pitfall of leftism. Shame over rationality. Casting blankets over things and saying "it's all good maan". This is not a viable way to conduct a society. Which is why it's being promoted - the people in charge want to crack this society open and use its insides to build their false utopia.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a real uneven playing field when the real people have much less information about each other while the manipulators have detailed information about the real people. This is the way its being engineered for a type of asymmetrical information warfare.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Captain Splendid]

Your entire non-point was that these thought-criminals are gaining influence

Nope. Try reading my comment again.

but in order for them to do that they would have to tilt to proportions of their followers in the population

Ah, I see what the problem is, Ivan. Back to remedial English for you.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Opportunist]

They're entitled to their own opinion, that's why they don't meet in public.

Re: Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Two comments: âsocialâ media is melodrama. Itâ(TM)s about people presenting ideas, not ideas themselves. This happens mostly due to the lenght of the feedback loop: itâ(TM)s too short for digestion of the ideas and trying to understand the message the best possible way â" and itâ(TM)s too long to adjust intonation and facial expressions to activate the symphatetic brain cells of anyone. To get attention even in /. one must be the first to respond.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

So the reference to 1914 suggest to me that you are a Jehovah's Witness. Am I right?

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

Social media is forcing people to respond to different ideas. They aren't becoming fundamentally more intolerant, their intolerances are being manifested and taking up a greater proportion of their energy.

That doesn't mean people are turned off to new ideas. They will be looking for solutions to release their distress and so will actually be much more tolerant of certain ideas.

You're throwing around the idea of tolerance too generally you need to break down the semantics and context more to make a meaningful statement. You're really muddling the whole thing hopelessly.

What's really happening here is a civil war in the making. People are going to be less open to discourse and more open to warfare. They all feel like their point of view is being cheated. Some more rightly than others. There is simply no accountability in this society. The concept of freedom has been perverted to mean "do whatever you feel like whenever you want as long as you have money to do it" and has nothing to do with responsibility.
This is because of our materialistic culture that has been enforced from the top down by the endless bloating of government since the start of WW1. Our entire society has become corrupted by plutocratic industrialists and bankers, especially bankers. The industrial revolution simply unleashed too much wealth too fast and our civilization is struggling to work it out. The situation is very grim.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[gDLL]

...social media is people.

Yes, but people can learn to be either good or evil.

Except those who can't. Dum dum dum duuuuum.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

You have absolutely no point. You are just conjecturing a shaky narrative with no conclusion.

The internet does nothing but increase the scale of everything in proportion and you have no argument otherwise.

Yeah, typical, you can't argue so you try to win on a technicality of a typo. You're an animal, keep it up!

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Captain Splendid]

You have absolutely no point.

You do understand that if I have no point, you've now spent the last couple hours arguing with someone who has no point, right? How does that even work, anyway?

The internet does nothing but increase the scale of everything in proportion and you have no argument otherwise.

If you say so it must be true!

Yeah, typical, you can't argue so you try to win on a technicality of a typo. You're an animal, keep it up!

No, I was just making a topical joke. Keep your knickers on.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[rogoshen1]

without anonymity you can't really claim to have freedom of speech.

I'll handle the onus of filtering out viewpoints i don't agree with, rather than letting either the group-think hivemind or some kind of government censorship apparatus do it for me thank you very much.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the notion that social media is tearing apart the country ignores that, like soylent green, social media is people.

The problem is not really social media. It's that more and more people are growing to be far more intolerant of diverse ideas. Social media just gives us a window into the wider picture how much of a problem that has become...

Social media makes me aware of the fact that other people consider me sub-human. This makes me angry, in a way I would not be without social media.

For example: I went to highschool with a woman. I accepted her invite on Facebook to see what she did with her life. Now I read her posts, which explain her belief that any man accused of anything is guilty until proven innocent, anyone who disagrees is complicit in rape. In other words, she considers basic human rights like "innocent until proven guilty" to not apply to people of my gender. Now that I see that she considers me sub-human by virtue of my gender, I think less of her.

I don't think she is more sexist than she would have been in the past. Without Facebook, I would not have been aware that she is a sexist hatemonger. Perhaps I am better off knowing this about her, but it does give me a new reason to be angry with her and her ilk.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

So what was your point

Re:Social media is only amplification

[werepants]

No, the younger generation is just as intolerant as the old, they just are bigots/intolerant about other things. In the 60s, your parents were intolerant of gays, coloreds, and communists. Now their grandkids are intolerant of Christians, stay-at-home moms, and capitalism. Try going to Berkeley and carrying a Trump poster or simply reading out loud the Bible and learn all about their "tolerance". Just because YOU agree with their bigotry doesn't mean it's not bigotry...

I can't believe somebody modded this drivel insightful. Where in the U.S. are housewives being lynched? Show me where Christians today are segregated to their "separate but equal" alternate facilities. When was the last time a capitalist was kidnapped and dragged behind a truck until dead? I miss the old republicans... they may have been cold-hearted capitalists and shameless warmongers, but at least they weren't a bunch of pathetic whiners claiming to be oppressed.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Captain Splendid]

That's as good a punchline as I could have hoped for.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[fustakrakich]

My point wasn't about advantages, it was about being able to forge connections that were near-impossible to do only two decades prior.

Well, regardless who is doing it, the ability for easy convenient global communications is still a good thing, right? Because when I saw this, "It's one thing to have a 30-member Klan Klavern in your town. It's another thing entirely when you can co-ordinate with thousands of white supremacists all over the globe."*, I am curious if a "solution" is being implied...

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa there snow flake, Al Franken wasn't accused of inappropriate touching. Hard evidence was published which he did not deny. Franken had irrefutable proof of his misdeeds.

What I'm remembering for Al Franken was allegations that he once used some tongue during the rehearsal of a kissing scene, a few allegations of butt grabbing during photo ops, an allegation of an attempted kiss after taping a radio show, and a photo that showed him holding his hands above a female performer's chest in a creepy way, but with obvious humorous intent, while she was asleep on a military plane wearing a flak jacket.

I assume that the "hard evidence" you refer to is the photo. Of course, the other incidents were allegations based of memories of events from many years ago. But it was very striking that Al Franken didn't more forcefully deny the photo op butt grabbing - just posting something vague about not remembering. Of course, it's possible that, in some of the butt grabbing incidents, someone else was playing a prank and snuck up behind Al Franken and made it seem like Al Franken was the one doing the grabbing. But if he had really never grabbed anyone's butt during a photo op then I would have expected a much more forceful denial: "I have never grabbed anyone's butt during a photo op ever!"

Of course, I understand that, as a pragmatic political consideration, it was best for Al Franken to resign. The last thing the democrats need at this point is weeks of lurid media coverage about whether the butt grabbing was more of a light pinch or a hard pinch or more of a cupping or squeezing and whether his fingers came into contact with any other parts of the women's anatomy. And, if Al Franken did actually do these things, as seems likely, then once he was under oath it would be much harder for him to hide behind vague claims of not remembering. Butt grabbing isn't always necessarily even a crime (i.e. it gets you fired but not necessarily sent to jail). But lying under oath has a big risk of jail time.

Of course, as a man, I wouldn't really mind if Elizabeth Warren, or Nancy Pelosi, or even Hillary Clinton gave my butt a little squeeze during a photo op. But I absolutely hate it when one of my co-workers who happens to be sick lets out a huge sneeze right in immediate vicinity - with not even an attempt to go through the motions of covering it. Breathing in a cold virus aerosol and spending the next week sick is far more unpleasant than a squeeze on the butt. The key point, though, is that different people are bothered by different things. So it's good to have an environment where everyone feels comfortable talking about what bothers them. And then, as much as possible, everyone should try to be polite and respect each other's preferences.

In a world where people are routinely fired for raising legitimate concerns about their bosses decisions, it's not the end of the world if a few people are fired for not being sufficiently polite to their co-workers (but, IMHO, we should start with the sneezers first :).

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot needs to blanket-ban all of these Ivans.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Jason Levine]

My joke wasn't any sort of "rational discourse." It was making fun of all people who belonged to the Jehovah Witness religion for the sheer fact that they belonged to that religion. It stereotyped them and criticized them based on that stereotype. Honestly, I did evaluate whether or not what he was saying was true and I decided I didn't care. I'm Jewish and wouldn't like if someone made fun of my religion in a mean manner (which is what my "joke" was at the time) or stereotyped me based on my religion. Good natured joking I can take, but there's a line between a good natured joke and making fun of someone for having different beliefs/skin color/sexuality/etc. If I wouldn't want someone making fun of me for my religion, why was I making fun of people in that religion?

As far as "leftism" being "shame over rationality", I don't see it that way. At the very least, that's not the philosophy I subscribe to. My views are more in line with "accept others for how they are so long as they aren't hurting other people." Or, put another way, "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face." So I'm not going to judge someone based solely on the fact that they belong to a certain religion, because their skin is a certain color, or because they like a certain gender. I'll judge them based on the type of person they are.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Boronx]

If you have any ounce of humanity left you should just shut up and listen for a few years.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Boronx]

Do you really think someone's propensity to murder is determined by their skin pigmentation?

Re:Social media is only amplification

[vakuona]

Not just exposure to different ideas. Exposure to and interacting with people with those different ideas helps.

Currently, tolerance just means "leave those weirdos you disagree with alone" rather than, "hey, here are some weirdos who are actually good people. You might find you actually like them".

Re: Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

The data certainly indicates that it does.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

But what motivated you to make that ridicule? The echo of some objection some one made against the religion for a reason, or of some personal quarrel some one had against a member of the religion?

In any competition, the loser gets hurt. So there can be no competition? Then how will we establish right and wrong?
Pacifism does not work.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

You're an insane person.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[shanen]

I think we've had this discussion before?

I think a possible solution to the problem you've described so well would be to share some of the information the inhuman corporations are already collecting about us. Consider a second icon next to your avatar. Your avatar would link as usual to your profile and what you want to say about yourself. The second icon would be a standardized representation of your public reputation, mostly based on the reactions of other people to your public activities.

DAUPR, atAJG.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's that more and more people are growing to be far more intolerant of diverse ideas."

I disagree (how obvious!).

I would argue that the level of intolerance is the same, there are two things that are different: your exposure to the shit of the world (everyone is now a pundit), and your education level (or at least your impression of what counts as 'education').

The total level of intolerance is going up, but I would that it's a factor of being exposed to more 'bullshit'.

For example: your job at a factory (how quaint) is to put 1" (plus/minus 1/1000th of an inch on any dimension) cubes from the conveyor belt into boxes to ship to stores. Suddenly, everyone and their brother starts putting their own 'cubes' on the belt. Your old standards still apply, but because there's a lot of amateurs making bullshit, your rejection rate skyrockets.

Replace conveyor belt with media consumption, and there you go. Oh, except instead of most people going to relatively moderate newspapers/TV stations/radios for news, 42% of people only go to their Facebook feed for news.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

So you don't even know your point.
And you have done everything you accused me of doing.

Typical leftist self righteousness.
You are going to be put into a remedial education program to teach you how to clean toilets along with everyone else like you.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

"there are no people making decisions"

Oh, there are. It's just businesses as compared to the government.

Thanks, GOP. For not regulating the monopolies.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want is meaningless. The "war" as evidenced by my examples, has been proceeding for at least as long as I have been alive. The "society" you purport to defend has itself spent a great deal of time pointing fingers and jeering, and framing ohnocitizen's post as an act of warmongering is disingenuous at best.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Captain Splendid]

So you don't even know your point.

LOL. I know what my point is. Why you think I have to restate it to you because you're obsessed with missing it is beyond me. Have you thought about trying to read it again?

You are going to be put into a remedial education program to teach you how to clean toilets along with everyone else like you.

I know.

Re: Social media is only amplification

[king neckbeard]

What the data indicates much more strongly is that 1) poverty is tied to crime and 2) people tend to murder the people who live in the same area as them, as opposed to just killing random people.

If you're going to whine about facts, you should learn how to intelligently interpret statistical data.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[fafalone]

Sounds like you haven't been to the parts of the country where people use racial slurs and sexism in casual conversation and everyone else just nods in agreement or laughs at the funny n*r jokes. Welcome to dark red america.

Re: Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought in reading gp was would they consider the weight of long term socio-economic factors on a community? It didn't seem as if they would given the laser like focus on connecting very specific dots.

Re: Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

While the facts may be true, what is the cause? Institutional racism and the war on drugs may be the cause. One could probably throw in the utter failure of the public school system as a cause as well.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Dread_ed]

The aperture of social media through which a human tries to shove themselves is insufficient to encompass true humanity. It is like a semi-permeable membrane, only allowing certain components through, and only in certain concentrations. The result is still a remarkably familiar looking social landscape populated with what you think are real human beings. However, after some time in the realm you realize the interface and the rituals that have sprung up our of its common usage have reduced people to social approbation slot machines.

As for tolerance, I think that even the word "tolerance" is implicit in the problems. It contains and conveys overtones of disdain, superiority, and magnanimous expressions of self-effacing superiority. I have experienced tolerance before. I have been tolerated because of my sex and my skin color. Believe me when I say it felt more like I was spared rather than extended any genuine human consideration.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Rexdude]

Without that personal context its hard for a lot of people to imagine any other possibilities.

Maybe on earlier platforms where you didn't know anything about the person beyond an anonymous nick, but most people put their lives out on Facebook without caring to use the privacy features, so you can still (most of the time) see their profile and the kind of posts they share or pages they like to give you a general idea of their politics.

Re: Social media is only amplification

[mapkinase]

That's complete bullshit. Have you ever visited fringe - it's so fragmented you will never find a niche for youself

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because amplifying a problem isn't the same as making it worse. Oh... hold on.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Its nothing new. A-holes organized and vocalized prohibition into existence a hundred years ago without any computers. They then moved onto segregation, again without anything more sophisticated than telephones, newspapers and books.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

That "bigotry" is in reality a reaction to systematic bigotry. It is well known that America is a "Christian Nation", even though it acts the least Christian of any other nation on this planet. The Christians don't seem to care because they are at the top of the social food chain, their ideology is nothing more than a stepping stone to get what they desire. History has proven over and over that a system like that will attempt to be toppled by those the Christians walk over to get ahead. That this surprises you indicates that you aren't very familiar with history.

Nobody has issues with stay at home moms, at least nobody with any attention getting power.

Capitalism has been debated and discussed for centuries now, and we're seeing the final stages of neoliberalism unfold in front of us. It takes great courage to resist capitalism, as trillions of dollars have been spent in order to preserve the capitalist's boots on the necks of the rest of the world. Of course it can't last, and as has been proven throughout history (again, a subject those on the right seem to steer away from unless it comes from the late 70's when the right started heavily revising it) it will collapse eventually. Maybe we'll move on to a better system, but I doubt the USA will exist as a unified country for much longer.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

And to this day, you haven't taken a single step off the bigotry highway. Don't act like we forget your posts the second we log off.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

why do people think that having women or black leaders is some kind of progress?

blacks are measurably less intelligent. same thing with women. having a black or woman leader is a sign of social decay.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[fatwilbur]

To be fair, being a Jehovah's Witness is a personal choice, and thus I think open to criticism and ridicule. It may be in poor taste given the situation but I'd hardly call someone a bigot for it. I'll definitely give it far more leeway than say, making fun of the way somebody looks.

A very fine but very important distinction that is lost of people these days when talking religion is separating the skin color of the people from the belief system. The former the person has no control over, the latter they do. Somehow people started associating racism with religious criticism. Which is too bad, because not so long ago we prided ourselves in making fun of religion and it was going a long way to get rid of those crazy beliefs...

On the other hand, our principles would dictate that you fight for someone's right to believe in whatever they want. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

Re:Social media is only amplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I try never to talk to people online in a manner that I wouldn't talk to them in person, but I might be in the minority with that.

He's a minority! Get him!

He's right!

[DontBeAMoran]

Mod me up if you think he's right!

Re:He's right!

[leathered]

Reddit in a nutshell

Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I see society ripping apart social media.

There's no such thing as society.

[Anonymous Coward]

There never has been any such thing as a single society in the United States. Instead, we've glossed over the existence of millions of overlapping societies for convenience's sake.

Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[OnTheEdge]

Wouldn't the ability to process incoming information in a thoughtful, rational way trump the effects of social media's dark side?

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely could be a large contributor to social media being bad. They're not really mutually exclusive, after all

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[bobbied]

The issue is cultural... We've raised a generation or two of self important, self indulgent, I'm owed a living people who have known no real hardship. Facebook and other platforms just carry the content that reflects the views they already hold, it didn't create them.

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yeah, do you have a magic wand that will make it happen? Social media is another example of technology far exceeding the ability of society as a whole to deal with. It takes the anger and divisiveness and amplifies it ten-fold. Not sure what the solution is, expecting companies to forego profits for social responsibility isn't going to happen.

Re: Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true for traditional factual information but maybe not for social interactions and behaviors of peoples. Social media shows more of peoples' true nature. It's hard to give people the benefit of doubt and a positive outlook when you have a feed of various types of information from them and their interactions that paints the contrary.

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[jenningsthecat]

Wouldn't the ability to process incoming information in a thoughtful, rational way trump the effects of social media's dark side?

No, it wouldn't necessarily trump those effects. It can be pretty easy to bypass those critical filters. Apologies in advance for Godwinning this discussion, but I'm sure many of the people who got behind the Nazis had the ability to "process incoming information in a thoughtful, rational way". Then the Nuremberg rallies mesmerized them, and the zeitgeist took hold in their psyches.

Believing that one is proof against sociological / psychological influences, (social media, advertising, propagandistic plots in Prime Time TV, etc), simply makes one both more likely to fall for them and less likely to realize the fact.

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

We? As in social media included?

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[JonnyCalcutta]

So what particular hardship did you live through that made you the man you are today?

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[UnknownSoldier]

> Wouldn't the ability to process incoming information in a thoughtful, rational way trump the effects of social media's dark side?

1. You're assuming most people can even process information in a critical, thoughtful way.

2. That would involve actual work -- it is far easier to bitch about everything then to do anything about it. Much of social media is a knee-jerk reaction because people precisely DON'T want to think.

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

cancer. I realized life was short and nobody is going to live it for me at the old age of ten. So if I wanted to accomplish something before I died (still here), I'd better work hard to do it myself. I suppose I could have gone on disability when I turned 18 and got a disabled license plate like my mom wanted me to. But I thought about it for half a second and didn't want to waste my life watching tv which would have been my limit in that case

I went to college instead.It was really hard. I missed a lot of school because I stayed in my dorm puking a lot. I've probably puked more than any other person alive. And I never got any help because I never told anyone because I knew the real world wasn't going to help and I had to be ready for it.

tl;dr: Puking. Hours.days, weeks,months, years, decades of it

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[bobbied]

History Class

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least half of the population has the critical thinking skills of a tomato though.

Think about it like this. Take any skill for a population and it can be described by a normal distribution. That means that about half of the population has below average critical thinking skills.

And lets face it, approaching all information with critical thinking is hard, so even people that have above average critical thinking skills approach most of the information they process using things like prejudices they have and so on.

Most of the time that suffices, for example if you want to decide what to have for lunch, but not when you have to reason logically about things nor if you want to reason about subjective things like opinions.

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the ability to process incoming information in a thoughtful, rational way trump the effects of social media's dark side?

Yes, absolutely. But the problem is that there are so few of us who are capable of rational thought. For example, Slashdot probably contains one of the highest percentages of rational people on the internet, but there is still a lot of irrationality on Slashdot...

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it wouldn't necessarily trump those effects. It can be pretty easy to bypass those critical filters.

If your critical filters can be bypassed, then you're not being sufficiently critical. Recall that many of the leading scientists in Nazi Germany were critical of the Nazis, so they left the country. Erwin Schrodinger is one famous example.

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but people have been making that argument since - well, at least 1776 - and yet here we are.

If you can't tell us, specifically, how to get a population that can apply that skill, you're just blowing smoke.

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. It is manifested in rich people wearing "Stop Being Poor" shirts, and college libertarians who believe they know it all (trust me, I was one of those. And I deeply apologize for my errors in thinking back then.)

They know so little about the world, much less the country or region, they live in that they will freely generalize about it, blissfully unaware that better systems of living exist, but because they would have to personally experience hardship without daddy's money, they would never stoop to that sort of experience. So they go to college and get an MBA and continue to do nothing useful ever in their life, ignorant of their own inability.

Re:Or Lack of Critical Thinking Skills?

[Anonymous Coward]

You lost me when I saw "thoughtful", "rational" and "trump" in the same sentence.

Re:Kill Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

MAGA!

If Facebook were a drug...

[rickb928]

Oh, wait. Now what?

Re:If Facebook were a drug...

[Kohath]

There's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college...

Nah, just millenial society

[Viol8]

Those of us over about 35 really don't give a stuff, we have real lives to lead and social media or discussion boards such as this are merely an entertaining diversion to while away the working day. For millenials it is their life, since most of them don't see to have a real one, at least not from a social point of view. A rather pitiable generation really.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[Anonymous Coward]

So your using social media, which is this, to criticize an entire segment of society without interacting with them directly. I think you just proved the original post. You also showed you are a lot like they millenials you are criticizing. Of coarse they will just go on social media and criticize everyone like you for being a racist, or misogynist, or etc.

The pejorative terms being thrown about may be different, but it is really all the same game everyone is playing

Want to save society, destroy mass media and get people talking to each other again.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[tk77]

Unfortunately I know a bunch of people 35+ that can't get their faces out of Facebook. It gets annoying when trying to have a conversation with someone and they come over and shove their phone in your face to look at some pointless thing you don't care about, on Facebook. One of them even makes up excuses about how they can do their job plus keep up with whats happening on Facebook while at work (they can't even walk up or down a short flight of stairs without taking their face out of their phone.. smh). The worst part is when they get visibly angry when I ask what keeps them so enthralled for so long.

I (40) however, could care less about it. I have a Facebook account which I log into maybe once every couple months.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[jenningsthecat]

For millenials it is their life, since most of them don't see to have a real one, at least not from a social point of view. A rather pitiable generation really.

Assuming for the moment that your view of millennials is accurate, the question then becomes 'how did they get that way'? A whole generation of people doesn't just develop some critical flaw - it had to have been programmed in by the society in which they grew up. So rather than criticizing them, it might be better to ask ourselves about the things we did, and the things we failed to do, that set them up for a life of sucking on the (Fibre) Glass Teat that is the Internet.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[Anonymous Coward]

So your using social media

Grammatical error; opinion discarded.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[Anonymous Coward]

From one post-35 Anon-coward to a millennial one, yet another reason that proved the point from OP. That's something a millennial WOULD say in response.

Hell, I'll jump on this --- it's 'of course' not 'of coarse' like the salt we are rubbing in your grammatical wound, dope. And you missed that? So trying being less of a poser.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[Anonymous Coward]

Most millenials that I know stay away from most social media, especially Facebook. They see Facebook as something their parents use to spy on others. Many seem to enjoy sharing pictures and videos, but they do not seem to get into as deeply as their elders. Off hand they seem to have a better understanding about sharing information than us boomers.

Also, with respect to the guy making this statement. This is the worst humble brag ever.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[MerlTurkin]

100% correct.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[Anonymous Coward]

An entire generation+ of parents gave less than one little shit about their hellspawn once they were born and they were able to take their baby pictures to cherish while ignoring the actual children shoving them in front of whatever electronic device was popular at the moment to act as babysitter while they sat on the couch with their thumb up their ass whining about how their children's generation were turning out awfully.

But to actually think about how an entire generation of people fucked up as parents is much more introspective, and therefore difficult to face, than to just bitch about those awful kids and tell them to get the fuck off our digital lawn.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[werepants]

The worst social media offender I know is my baby boomer grandma... she fills her computer and phone with the most inane apps and malware, and when we have family events she's often the one glued to her phone the entire time. Surprise, surprise, she's also the one constantly sharing obviously phony propaganda from the "God Emperor Trump" Facebook page, like one post with a badly shopped image showing the Seahawks burning American flags in their locker room.

Millennials grew up with technology and so at least understand that you can't pass classes or succeed in life if you don't learn to control the video game/social media/tech addiction. They know from screwing around on chatrooms as kids that people will lie to you and troll you continually so you have to be suspicious of everything you hear online. Gullible boomers who catch the bug have no life context to understand that these things are drugs, and will take over your life if you let them. They are the prime targets for extremist propaganda campaigns, just like they're easy money for scammers and televangelists.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I blocked Facebook on the firewall at my job, only a few static IPs had access. If people REALLY wanted it, they could use the wifi / phone to get to it. The only department I even thought about giving access for was the marketing / web group.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[tk77]

The person I was referring to uses it on his phone using carrier data since his place of work does the same (firewalls, no wifi for employees, etc..). Funny as well because he was always wondering where all his data usage was going..

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[nealric]

This. I find the worst social media addicts are the ones who came to it late in life. A great aunt of mine is similar, but posts anti-Trump memes at a rate of about a dozen a day. I can't stand Trump personally, but the daily barrage of bad photoshops and rants gets old pretty quick. As a Millennial, I probably post something to social media around twice a YEAR on average.

Re:Nah, just millenial society

[Viol8]

"So your using social media"

I don't expect the usual lump of idiots on here to read entire posts any more, but is it really so hard to read the first fucking sentence?

Re:Kill Net Neutrality

[thaylin]

I love your analogy, Trump = villain (google|facebook) = heroes.

Thats capitalism

[fluffernutter]

Social media does nothing but accentuate the worst of humanity. Like restaurants can make more money if they make crappy food that's bad for us and we eat it up, so does social media sensationalize *everything* to get more clicks.

Hard not to blame capitalism. Until their are checks in balances in place to move in a way that is actually good for us, it's all a race into the toilet.

Re: Thats capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

And who gets to decide what is good for you? The limitless power of the government? A cadre of police who mercilessly beat down anyone who does not conform? Or would you rather decide for yourself? This is not an economic problem at all. It is a self righteous and arrogant left and right wing extreme who thinks they can make those decisions.

Re: Thats capitalism

[fluffernutter]

That's why there is democracy.

Re:Thats capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to blame capitalism. FTFY.

Re:Thats capitalism

[chispito]

Hard not to blame capitalism. Until their are checks in balances in place to move in a way that is actually good for us, it's all a race into the toilet.

It's also hard not to feel incredibly grateful when you compare it to heavily regulated countries.

Re:Thats capitalism

[fluffernutter]

Only if you cherry pick the countries you look at.

Re:Thats capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Like Canada? Most of Europe? I really don't understand why my countrymen think that American Capitalism is the only flavor that exists, let me just give you a quick tour of what kinds of market based economies exist that aren't exclusively 1970s+ AMERICAN BRAND CAPITALISM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way The current American Brand Capitalism that we have right now that is being dismantled by the GOP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy Nice Capitalism that liberals constantly misidentify as socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Ironically an American Brand that worked decently well from FDR's time until it was replaced with New American Brand Third Wayism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_corporatism A type of Nordic Capitalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model another flavor of Social Democracy, again, misconstrued as socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism An esoteric religious inspired economic model that follows a sort of SocDem model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy I believe this is the basis for Germany's economic policies today, considering they're the largest economy in Europe, I'd say they're doing pretty well, wouldn't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism Literally socialism, "Early models of market socialism trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for cooperative enterprises operating in a free-market economy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) another type of market socialism but more libertarian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism and yet another type of market socialism, except more to the left but not quite anarchism.

These aren't all the kinds of economic models in existence, but it's extremely ignorant to assume that America's system is the best all around, does it make the most money? So far yes, with the most inequality in the world compared to its GDP, I wouldn't call that something to brag about. People like yourself that complain about regulations and other nations need to ask for whom does the economy work for? What is the point of the economy? To exist for itself? Or to serve the people? And if it serves the people, is it only for a select few individuals while many are left to struggle endlessly and suffer?

The kind of answer you give speaks volumes to what kind of person you are and which side of history you'll end up being on.

Re: Thats capitalism

[Kohath]

Please elaborate. You want a vote to censor Facebook? Or outlaw it? Nationalize it?

We would like to know what authority you think 51% of the population should be allowed to exercise over Facebook.

Re: Thats capitalism

[fluffernutter]

There are countless things that can be done. It wouldn't be unheard of to break the company into smaller parts or limit consumption by minors. The important thing is that someone ensures the effect is positive on society.

Re:Thats capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

It's literally every single one.

Re:Thats capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey everyone, let's listen to this guy who says "checks in balances" and thinks that capitalism is a bad thing.

Re:Thats capitalism

[Miamicoastguard]

You missed the best of the lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The only problems which arise in capitalism are due to government intervention.

Re: Thats capitalism

[twokay]

Well Zuck already censors it, are you suggesting he should continue to be the supreme arbiter for what 100s of millions see every day on their feed? Social media needs to be censored and regulated in exactly the same way as Film or TV or medicine. Preferably by each countries government.To be honest, the Chinese might have the right idea in banning it. There needs to be some variation in the gene pool.

Re:Thats capitalism

[fluffernutter]

Well, my country has a lot of social programs and I totally think the extra taxes are worth it. Maybe you have to live in one to understand it.

Re:Thats capitalism

[fluffernutter]

I'm not sure if that would ever be possible. Greedy people will always be a part of politics and therefore have their hands in the money. Even if it is possible, how would that prevent companies like Facebook from becoming immensely powerful for doing things that are bad for people.

Re:Thats capitalism

[Miamicoastguard]

Well you'd individually vote with your wallets. For instance charities would provide social assistance, people would be more attracted to companies which return more to the public/commons.We've become very dependant on government for justice, because this that an illusion is being perpetrated that due to lack of action against these companies they must be good for you. Being left only to make these decisions independantly would lead to a commercial conscience and who knows possibly a fairer society.

Re: Thats capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Representative democracy as we currently have in the west is at best a very very weak aproximation of the core idea of democracy.

But as Churchill said: [representative] Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others we've tried.

No shit Sherlock

[ReneR]

Did someone already call Caption Obvious? In other new: our future society can not live by selling ads to each other, , Just saying.

Get out of social media!

[Anonymous Coward]

And get into crypto-currencies! You can win up to $200 worth of Bitcoin every hour, for free!

It certainly makes people more excitable

[ErichTheRed]

The thing about social media isn't so much the power it gives anyone to say anything...it's the fact that everyone is exposed to it 24 hours a day. At the same time, the algorithms used by these services put people further and further into ideological bubbles where they only hear the opinions they want to hear.

For example, consider the Trump investigations. Whatever you think of them, I guarantee you that even if they find unequivocal, smoking-gun level, zero-bias evidence against him, his millions of fans will immediately brush it off as "fake news" because they've been convinced that only their opinions are correct...and we'll have a serious problem on our hands if any moves are made to force him out. That's why he's not worried...all he has to do is tell his fans that he's under attack and they will take to the streets.

The other danger is depression...almost no one posts negative or mundane aspects of their lives unless they're looking for sympathy. If you're prone to depression, looking around and seeing everyone else having a grand time has to take a toll.

Re:It certainly makes people more excitable

[DogDude]

"No shit! You mean like CNN tries to do?"

Comrade, comparing an outwardly hostile foreign government with a long history of violence and aggression to a relatively mediocre TV news channel doesn't really make any sense. You should work on some better trolls.

Re:It certainly makes people more excitable

[i286NiNJA]

I actually think you're a paid shill. I always thought that the guys arguing with me were insane rednecks on disability followed by a wave of fat disabled SJWs.

But the paid shill explanation is by far the easiest to believe. Especially since these guys would happily argue with me that they're not poor and on welfare but they would never engage me if I accused them of being paid posters.

Re:It certainly makes people more excitable

[Anonymous Coward]

And if nothing comes of the investigation, what will happen then? I predict people like ErichTheRed will claim the media was bought off by Trump and it really was all bad and terrible and now he's being lied to. See, the issue is you only accept the facts you want, that support your position. Otherwise, I assume you consider Trump innocent of everything until proven otherwise?

Re:It certainly makes people more excitable

[Gravis Zero]

even if they find unequivocal, smoking-gun level, zero-bias evidence against him, his millions of fans will immediately brush it off as "fake news" because they've been convinced that only their opinions are correct...and we'll have a serious problem on our hands if any moves are made to force him out. That's why he's not worried...all he has to do is tell his fans that he's under attack and they will take to the streets.

If you are correct, they could be in for a rude awakening.

Re:It certainly makes people more excitable

[Anonymous Coward]

all he has to do is tell his fans that he's under attack and they will take to the streets

So they say. They'll like and retweet the hell out of the calls to take to the streets.

But then, as usual with the lot of them, we'll find out that they're just a bunch of limp dicks. Sure, we'll probably get some photos of the Three Inchers and the Boastkeepers swinging around their AK's and aiming at federal agents, but they'll slink back to their holes when they realize no one's going to put their lives on the line for Trump. No one.

Re:It certainly makes people more excitable

[naubol]

What more would you need from the investigation to concern you? Put aside considerations of impeachment, criminality, or pure espionage, are you not at least mildly perturbed that Trump said ...?

Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

Or that Trump's campaign knowingly worked with micro-targeting firms and coordinated propaganda releases with Russia?

How about the idea that Trump has taken an incredibly soft and conciliating approach to Putin on the world stage? You may think that Russia had little effective influence on the 2016 election, ... yet you are not pissed as a patriot that they tried to manipulate our system? Does it concern you that Trump isn't defending the digital invasion of our sovereignty by a state actor? What about his stated willingness to take Putin's word, over the consensus of the US intelligence community and the majority of the US senate, that Russia did not try to manipulate our election?

What about when Trump admitted in a TV interview that he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Comey. Do you not value the tradition of trying to maintain a politically independent FBI?

If you have to pivot to saying all of this is untrue or trying to justify how none of this is illegal or beyond Trump's executive privilege, you aren't arguing in good faith (given that I'm asking if any of this concerns you), or one of us needs to find a better method for ascertaining basic facts.

Not “social”! ANTI-social media! Witho

[Anonymous Coward]

It’s anonymous enough, to disable our ability to empathize, or punch somebody in the face who doesn't.

That's what's ripping society apart.

And it existed long before, in the form of ... cities. Social groups so far beyond Dunbar's number, that even the number of groups of (de-humanized) people *itself* went above Dunbar's number!

SJWs are also just a case of this. They just play the victim side of while being anti-social.

Make those same people live in the same small village for a year, forced to organize themselves, and forced to interact with each other, eye-to-eye, and aware of the fact that they may never have learned to behave like a human (aka social), and things will quickly resolve themselves.

And his qualifications are?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly where I want to get my critiques on society from, the executive of a major corporation. We all know how grounded, fair and compassionate they are.

Re:And his qualifications are?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually CEOs of corporations are more apt to be psychopaths than the general population.

+1

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the Antisocial Network instead.

Forums did this 20+ years ago

[TigerPlish]

Forums did this 20+ years ago.

Echo chamber? Sure!
Amplifier? Of course.
One guy says "This is the TRUTH" and half a million mindless parrots nod their heads and go "a-yup" and then spread that "truth" up and down the net.

Seriously, we're social animals but obviously there's only so much social socializing that can go on at a given time.

Re:Forums did this 20+ years ago

[sootman]

True. Now tell me how many people were on forums 20 years ago, and compare that to the one or two BILLION people that use Facebook.

Re:Forums did this 20+ years ago

[thinkwaitfast]

Same problem with "drones". They took weeks and months to build, cost a year of working (if you were a kid) and took months (and a lot more money) to learn to operate.

Now they practically fly themselves, are nearly free and come pre-assembled.

Alternative hypotheses

[naubol]

Can we reject the hypothesis that social media is merely revealing our differences and forcing us to deal with the results of a long process of slowly building stratification? I'd be interested to see if the sense of stratification grows over the long haul.

In my youth, my southern Baptist grandfather didn't get a daily reminder of how awful I think his policies are, viz a viz homosexuality, and he didn't get a daily reminder that I am going to burn in hell. He went about his life hoping I was still going to church and thinking society was mostly like him, white and Christian. I got to forget the depressing xenophobia of rural regions in my urban, liberal enclave. Then Facebook came along and made it clear to both of us that there were many, many Americas full of people doing things I wish they weren't doing.

My attitude is: let's give this some time. It's kinda bruising to keep being a butthole on the internet, maybe we'll work it out well enough that the culture wars become a little less ridiculous. I hear anecdotes that more and more teenagers are confidently (and often casually) uninterested in their parents' culture wars but instead adopting a political position more likely to tolerate diverse groups and less likely to tolerate political positions that disenfranchise others. While this may be quite dogmatic from a certain perspective, it could mean a future where people aren't particularly interested in fighting culture wars instead of fighting over political policies.

I'd also question the idea that we're always susceptible to outrage. Does outrage media sell as well in multicultural societies that largely tolerate intra-group differences? Does it sell as well with gen Z? As an oft-maligned millennial, my experience is that the boomers feel outrage when politics aren't serving them, gen my generation is more likely to feel outraged when anyone is being excluded, and gen Z'ers can't wait for both of us to die off.

I'm sure people blamed the newspaper for encouraging people not to like the monarchy.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[JonnyCalcutta]

Well said (I know its a boring thing to say, but I've got nothing to add)

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, all of this. We're only seeing what's right in front of us now, forgetting that generation-timeframe effects will be viewed as the ultimate fruits of social media development. It's tumultuous. That doesn't mean it's bad long-term. A world full of suffering and hate and also lots of good people *should* be tumultuous.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[slinches]

Then Facebook came along and made it clear to both of us that there were many, many Americas full of people doing things I wish they weren't doing.

This mentality is a big part of the problem. Everyone thinks they know better than everyone else how those other people should live their lives and they are all vying for the power to make everyone else think like they do. But there's a simple (if difficult) way out of that. Stop telling everyone else they're wrong and start listening to them. Feel free to provide an alternative viewpoint while being willing to accept theirs even if they aren't willing to listen to yours. It's not as immediately satisfying as shouting them down or calling them names, but it keeps the dialogue open and peaceful. If you really are right, maybe they'll eventually listen. But in the meantime, if you come across as the levelheaded well-reasoned one, your points will be heard by all of those who are listening on the sidelines.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[naubol]

I think you're right that we could all do a better job listening to each other. I think it's also important that we still attempt to have values, even as we recognize that they won't be shared by everyone. For me, the standard I try to live up to is to engage conversations in good faith.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as election politics is about culture wars and not policy there will be a strong motivation for highly divisive pervasive political messaging. The political elite can take a divide and conquer approach to the electorate and then do as they please if they make elections about culture conflict and not policy. A multicultural society is more susceptible to division and also less cohesive in general, trust is eroded not just between groups, but within groups, leading to individuals becoming more atomized and isolated and more vulnerable to manipulation by social mass media. To me it looks like a future where there will be a large number of minority groups vying against each other politically and no majority group to stabilize things is where we are headed. It isn't happening by accident, it is being pushed hard from the top down. Anyone who has a dopamine deficiency is susceptible to outrage because it provides a dopamine burst. It doesn't really matter what they get outraged about. Whatever outrages gen Z is what will be pushed on them by social media and it will harm both the individuals and society. Hopefully people will learn to resist social media influence the same way they learned to resist mass media advertising, but it isn't clear that they can.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

In my youth, my southern Baptist grandfather didn't get a daily reminder of how awful I think his policies are, viz a viz homosexuality, and he didn't get a daily reminder that I am going to burn in hell. He went about his life hoping I was still going to church and thinking society was mostly like him, white and Christian.
    I got to forget the depressing xenophobia of rural regions in my urban, liberal enclave.

Maybe you should both try not being jerks.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

"My attitude is: let's give this some time. It's kinda bruising to keep being a butthole on the internet, maybe we'll work it out well enough that the culture wars become a little less ridiculous"

The culture war in America is being lost by people like your grandfather.

Nonwhites will outnumber whites in America by 2050.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nonwhites+will+outnumber+whites+in+america+by+2050

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd also question the idea that we're always susceptible to outrage. Does outrage media sell as well in multicultural societies that largely tolerate intra-group differences? Does it sell as well with gen Z? As an oft-maligned millennial, my experience is that the boomers feel outrage when politics aren't serving them, gen my generation is more likely to feel outraged when anyone is being excluded, and gen Z'ers can't wait for both of us to die off.

You're making the rookie sociological assumption that each generation will keep its current attitudes as they grow older.

They won't. As your relative position in society changes, so does your perspective, and your views. This is incomprehensible to a lot of younger people (simply because they haven't experienced it yet), but it's true and inevitable.

"I used to be with 'it', but then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it' anymore and what's 'it' seems weird and scary. It'll happen to you!" - Abe Simpson. Wise man.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[naubol]

I got to forget the depressing xenophobia of rural regions in my urban, liberal enclave.

Maybe you should both try not being jerks.

What a wretched set of values guides those who seek to elevate themselves at the expense of others. If being slandered a jerk is my lot in life for holding such impoverishing culture in contempt, I'll wear the badge proudly.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

What a wretched set of values guides those who seek to elevate themselves at the expense of others. If being slandered a jerk is my lot in life for holding such impoverishing culture in contempt, I'll wear the badge proudly.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an excellent point, particularly about the people watching on the sidelines. I get into a lot of debates about socialism vs. right libertarianism, and I've converted hundreds of people to socialism because I don't attack my debate opponent and I only use well researched economic facts. I'll notice I have "likes" on my posts, then I'll get a message from that same person asking for more information, they were unaware of the US government's efforts to shoot socialism down, or the established business interests revising history since the 70's to white wash history and make Hitler a left winger, despite the gargantuan mountains of evidence against the idea. I've even converted a couple libertarian opponents :) A good attitude, good information, and undeniable logic will win critically thinking people over. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of critical thinkers left on the internet.

Re:Alternative hypotheses

[lucasnate1]

Here in Israel I can tell you that the youth is becoming even more bigoted and racist. We hear things like "all leftists should be exiled" frequently enoguh for it to be a concern.

But hey, I hope the civilized west will fare better.

Quit

[DaMattster]

This is precisely the reason why I quit Facebook permanently. The platform represents all that I dislike in society. Quitting Facebook was one of the best decisions that I ever made. Nothing good comes from it. It encourages us to compare ourselves negatively to others whom may have more money or more success. Facebook is psychologically damaging.

Re:Quit

[Baron_Yam]

>This is precisely the reason why I quit Facebook permanently.

Vanity pages, competing to have the most friends, and giving all your personal information to a giant corporate database. I'm not that vain, I prefer real friends over someone who agrees to be linked on my vanity page, and I don't care to give away information that will be used against me (even if the anticipated use is only targeted advertising).

Still, I joined in the early days (under a pseudonym) because Classmates was pay-for-access and it was coming up to that point in my life where a school reunion was likely. THEN I got out.

I got out long enough ago that I doubt Facebook kept anything on me, but given how good they are at building shadow profiles from 3rd party information they probably know far more about me than I'd be comfortable with.

another blithering idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why there is democracy.

There is no such thing as democracy. You've apparently been thoroughly brainwashed. Democracy is a fraud to make to make you think you can make a difference. The simple fact is that the rich and powerful run everything.

Re:another blithering idiot

[fluffernutter]

That's a completely different problem. That needs to be fixed too but not really on topic in this thread.

All The Wrong Reasons

[NicknameUnavailable]

Facebook and similar companies are evil due to their spying on users, selling user data to governments and marketing agencies, their tactics of creating shadow profiles to track and monitor even people not on their networks, and censorship of topics based on what they themselves feel is right or wrong. The dopamine high people get posting is irrelevant because only the lowest of "people" can succumb to it, honestly it probably quells violence more than anything by satisfying their poor impulses temporarily and in an unfulfilling manner leading to depression. Granted, society has been driven by people controlling masses of people with poor impulse control for eons, but that doesn't mean destroying that aspect of society is remotely a bad thing. The other issues are vastly more damaging and honestly all these "ex" Facebook executives "speaking out" against the "dopamine high" they engineer around strikes me as a low energy distraction campaign from the real issues they cause.

Reddit

[Computershack]

One only needs to take a peek at Reddit to see just exactly what he's talking about. Makes Facebook look tame especially in the news on political subs.

Re:Reddit

[i286NiNJA]

On Facebook:
I don't have to visit a political discussion to see close friends of times past cry about taxes when I know they're in a low tax bracket and possibly on welfare or see some guy who used to ask me to fix his computer for beer like monthly, ranting into the ether about how he doesn't need or want net neutrality.

If I think they might be paid shills it's ok but it's bad when I see people I kinda like with heads full paid for opinions.

smoke some more crack

[Anonymous Coward]

it probably quells violence more than anything

how much crack do you have to smoke to think that way?

TV Bad

[neoRUR]

Next they will be telling us TV is bad for society .....

Re:TV Bad

[thinkwaitfast]

How was it good?

It's time to start being smug

[i286NiNJA]

Yes the average slashdotter and early internet adopter is miles ahead of today's internet user.

Re:It's time to start being smug

[Anonymous Coward]

Was. Today's slashdotter is an internet user.

Re:It's time to start being smug

[CronoCloud]

Yes the average slashdotter and early internet adopter is miles ahead of today's internet user.

[joke[Says the "early adopter" with a 7-digit UID?[/joke]

Waits for a 5 or 4 digit slashdotter to tell my 6-digit UID self to get off their lawn where they are going to put a statue of Natalie Portman with hot grits with their beowulf cluster of libraries of congress.

More seriously, I agree with your sentiment, to a certain extent.

Re: It's time to start being smug

[thedbp]

Get off my lawn yadda yadda yadaa

Re:It's time to start being smug

[Anonymous Coward]

I pre-date whomever this grits person is...

Re: It's time to start being smug

[nnet]

no you

Re:It's time to start being smug

[i286NiNJA]

I back in the late 2000s I pre-dated natile portman but then security ruined everything.

It was going to be a great date I had reservations and everything :(

Re:It's time to start being smug

[psyclone]

I thought today's slashdotter is a typical mac user.

(old meme, but still relevant)

Re: It's time to start being smug

[reanjr]

I think I just had an acid flashback.

Re: It's time to start being smug

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot "you insensitive clod!", you insensitive clod!

Re:It's time to start being smug

[tigersha]

The average slashdotter can't move out of their mother's basement. They are ready for the Internet, sure. But for real life? Out there in the scary world??!!!

Re:It's time to start being smug

[i286NiNJA]

I too have heard of this outdoors.

A horrible backwards place where men without a character creation sheet are free to bully level 20 fighters and women refuse to put shoe on head no matter how many bitcoins you provide.

Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame capitalism for people taking advantage of others? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'd say the problem is people taking advantage of others. Whether the prize is money, sex, fame, power, prestige, or popularity, the problem is people taking advantage of others. If that didn't happen, then the ethical outlook would be a hell of a lot brighter.

Everywhere you look, there are people taking advantage of others. Want to make the world a better place? Simply don't be one of those people.

Re:Not so fast

[fluffernutter]

Absolutely that's a problem, until you start creating regulations that prevent or reduce one's ability to take advantage of another.

This is a small subset of social media

[Anonymous Coward]

Approximately 95% of social media isn't anything like what he says. It just happens that the biggest, most financially successful sites (e.g. Facebook) are like that. But most aren't.

Even Slashdot isn't like that, and this site has a lot of assholes.

Well then donâ(TM)t use it!

[cormandy]

If it is such a problem stop using it! Never had a Facebookings account. Slashdot on the otherhand....

Re:Kill Net Neutrality

[i286NiNJA]

This is not how peering works but ok.

rofl...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And it's not an American problem -- this is not about Russians ads."

oh yes it is.

That's the entire point

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

Facebook was so invested in because its potential to break down society was realized by its big investors. It wasn't a shot in the dark with their billions of dollars. It wasn't a surprise that social media would transform our society. They knew what it was to become and it profits them immensely.
Why do they want to break down society? Because they want to increase the level of control they have. Instead of programming society on the scale of groups, they want to control every atom; every individual, and open up new roads to exponentially more power.

People always explain away things like this saying "well that's just what people want and the company is just giving them what they want and making money, so this isn't really bad, this is progress! There's no conspiracy! People are smart, they aren't so easily suckered into things! They know what's good!"

The thing is that people are actually not that picky. They will accept just about ANY given solution for their basic needs as long as authority backs it consistently enough. So it becomes a question of what exactly we are progressing towards and who's interest it really is in.

Humans are not some transcendent creature with the guarantee of self awareness and intellect and rationality because of how much inherently better they are than all other life on Earth. These are optional features supported by a certain way of life. If you take away the nuances from the human way of life, if you take away the culture that support these higher functions, people go into "backward compatibility mode"; they re-adapt to a simpler, savage, prehistoric world. Simply put they devolve.

While most people don't know themselves well enough to see this, there are people who know this about humanity, and they know about it deeply. These people are leaders.
Leaders either choose to try to raise people up to their own level of awareness or leaders choose to plunge people down so they can never rise up. Leaders choose either cooperation or enslavement.

Humans are tribal creatures. They are beyond racist. They are beyond nepotistic. They will kill members of their own families who displease them. Humans are not only genocidal by default, they a fratricidal by default.
We can see this at every point in our history. We can see this in our close relatives like the chimpanzee that continue to live a way of life that we departed from eons ago.

Leaders cooperate and enslave in degrees. The closer you are to directly supporting the substance of the leader, that is, the more you share in common with the leader that you align with that leader's will, the more cooperation you will receive. The further, the more enslavement you will receive, up to the point that when your interests drift sufficiently you are immediately killed or otherwise neutralized.
What this amounts to is simple: as time goes on you will only become more distant and unable to adapt to the leader. The leader's own will replace everyone else. Eventually you drift into the zone of no return in relation to a current leader and unless the leader changes, your line will end: you, your family, your children all die and there are no more children thereafter.
Usually this takes a long time, so long that the diverse interests in the world shift and leaders change and most tribes survive at least long enough to make a compromise and intermingle with the dominant tribe. But things are becoming unusual: power is being consolidated on unprecedented scales with unprecedented stability, and it is making ever more exacting demands on its subjects as their numbers swell to challenge the Earth's ability to sustain them.
Humanity's genocidal nature has risen to the surface.

This all sounds very grim, until you consider the fact we've been up and down this situation for millions of years and have some pretty good solutions to the pitfalls and the problems that lead to them.
All the machinery is in place for us to CHOOSE our own leaders. Are you choosing yours? Are you prepare

And this is when democracy fails

[holophrastic]

The concept that everyone has a vote, and that every vote is equal falls apart when a) those voters are misinformed and when b) those votes are manipulated psychologically.

Of course, being misinformed and psychologically manipulated is the very definition of competitive marketing.

As such, combining marketing tactics with political campaigning tactics basically destroys democracy.

Sure, the voters voted for it. And I guess by that definition it's democracy, but no more than a child who votes the way his father tells him to vote, or an employee the way his boss tells him to vote, or an american the way his russian facebook friends convinces him to vote.

It's simply too easy to convince large swaths of voters of important misinformation.

This is when democracy fails.

Re:And this is when democracy fails

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us not forget that Turkey voted to end their democracy. Democracy works like capitalism, which is why they are so strongly associated with one another: it works until someone gets enough votes (dollars) to own the whole government (market).

Re:And this is when democracy fails

[Anonymous Coward]

"The concept that everyone has a vote, and that every vote is equal falls apart when a) those voters are misinformed and when b) those votes are manipulated psychologically."

No, you ignorant twat, it's when not everyone fucking votes. 90 million Americans didn't vote in 2016 that could've. 110 million Americans did.

"This is when democracy fails."

No, it only fails when people complain about the wrong fucking things. Get the lazy fucking white people in the swing states to vote, you'll never have a GOP president again.

Re:And this is when democracy fails

[holophrastic]

90 million americans were looking for a candidate worth electing, and didn't find one. they voted for nothing because there was no good vote.

that campaign of yours was so far out-of-line with what any politician or leader needs to present. you presented criminals on both sides. social criminals, financial criminals, business criminals, government criminals. you had each side accusing the other for years. each side swore to undo everything the other was fighting for. and the lies were just plain insane. it was embarrassing to watch, even as an outsider.

there's nothing wrong with a gop president, or a dem president, or an independent president. the truth is that they really don't have as much power as you think they do. the actual changes that wind up coming down the pipe, and that get to stay for more than four years, are minimally effective at best. the problem is that you have promises of power, promises of pleasure, and promises of pain to confuse you every day.

maybe, the next time you elect a leader, you should ask foreign leaders alongside which candidate they would work best -- you know, since that's probably the primary job of your top leader -- interfacing with other top leaders on a global stage.

you put up a whopping two candidates. I threw a birthday party yesterday. I made 6 different kinds of party sandwiches. maybe you should think about giving people a few more options. maybe your candidates would spend less time flinging shit at each other if there were more "eachothers" and less "shit".

Counterpoint

[WrongMonkey]

Social media might inflame people's emotions. But it neutralizes their actions.

The major revolutions of the 19th century happened because people had to physically gather in order to air their grievances, discuss their ideas, and design their plots. Once they had a crowd gathered together, it was literally a step away from marching out into the streets and taking to the barricades. The internet doesn't have that physical organizational power. Keyboard warriors fuming away at their desks are relatively harmless. Sure, you might get few lone kooks who shoot up a church. But the instant gratification of social media cannot sustain large scale organized action.

Re:Counterpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

We've seen more lone kooks shooting up churchs/schools/camps in the last 20 years than the 200 years before that. Sure, we probably won't see the return of Shay's Rebellion or another mass beheading of the bourgeoisie (thanks to the fact that the bourgeoisie controls enough military firepower to destroy everyone who isn't them), but there are plenty of people on the verge of acting out fantasies bounced around on internet echo chambers. I wouldn't be surprised if the kooks didn't use the general ennui directed at keyboard warriors to coordinate attacks and cause some "serious" damage.

Re: Counterpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh no, the internet is becoming the tool to organize protests and riots. Have you seen what happened with the Arab Spring, which was organized via Twitter and the effects of which we still feel today? The protests and riots happening in the last few years in this country alone? Organized via public and private internet forums. The internet is a powerful tool for protesting.

Hi msmash,

[sootman]

Perhaps you haven't heard, but Slashdot doesn't render some characters well.

... recommending people take a âoehard breakâ from social media...

so did the printing press

[Anonymous Coward]

After the rise of printing the books and stuff were cool but then we got the age of revolutions and heads getting chopped off etc ... The argument can be made, by me at least, that sound systems and radio helped the rise of Hitler though I wouldn't make the same argument about Stalin or Mao. Social media is ripping society apart and that's evolution at work.

And yes I got to "Facebook is worse than HITLER" in the second sentence which is a personal best.

To Zuckerberg the thieving jew... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: From a tribe of thieves - I see you tried hiding how Poland outfoxed the EU per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH_0NdPASHQ/ by David Knight of INFOWARS!

... & it outsmarted your JEW INITIATIVE to introduce muslims into Europe WHICH FAKEBOOK HAS HIDDEN CALLING IT "age unappropriate" (how is it THAT anyhow?)...

Barbara Spectre, another JEW admitted jews are behind it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ as your goal to get Christians & Muslims to WIPE ONE ANOTHER OUT (they'll never get along + you know it, hence your method & true goal).

(Muslims that we poles & Lithuanians DROVE INTO THE SANDS when everyone else RAN along with YOUR KIND too ages ago (we have the best land for food production, & your kind NEVER will))

* No rapes etc. in Poland, tons in Sweden (anyone can see this & it's impossible to deny)...

You're a thieving little snivelling whimp jewboy (or did you NOT steal facebook from the Winklevoss twins & lose a court case over it?)

APK

P.S.=> You are YOURS are filth, despised & EXILED in a dozen nations all thru history (e.g. - Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No.) - why's that JUDENBERG?

We all KNOW why - you're scum & YOU DO IT TO YOURSELVES (shall I post what the Talmud says about gentiles/goyim as you call non-jews too OR the Rosenthal Wallace interview giving away your plans/methods too?)... apk

Re:To Zuckerberg the thieving jew... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

You must understand history better to understand why you are angry with Jews and whether that really makes sense. Jews were basically used as a proxy to keep the hands clean of "Christians" who were not supposed to cheat other christians.

Social media is like cocaine

[karlandtanya]

it intensifies your personality.

But...what if you're an a------e?

And the other side is completely true

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

For example, consider the Trump investigations. Whatever you think of them, I guarantee you that even if they find unequivocal, smoking-gun level, zero-bias evidence against him, his millions of fans will immediately brush it off as "fake news"

Just like literally 90% of the Hillary Clinton supporters I know brush off all of the evidence against her, which is far more serious than anything against Trump. Heck, it's probably the most serious set of charges since the Rosenbergs just on the Uranium One pay-for-play.

See, the left loves to be all smug about how they're evidence-driven, how they live in a "reality-based community" and yet... you have tons of them who seriously believe as Ellen Degeneres does that they were no scandals under Obama. None. All made up. Obama literally did nothing but the right thing and only mean right-wingers ever accused him of less than sainthood.

Re:And the other side is completely true

[Anonymous Coward]

username checks out.

China? [Re:Social media is only amplification]

[Tablizer]

The click-inducing bots show people what they want to see. While I believe the majority of people are mature enough to see through it, enough get all out wound up via confirmation bias and conspiracy theories that they become extremists. Thus, we have more extremists, and they in turn create noise and confusion such that few know what's really going on because it takes time and effort to sort out messes and verify stuff.

I wonder how this will play out in places like China that try to micromanage social media. Many there realize they are being manipulated by the gov't and take stuff with a grain of salt. If the gov't ever needs to cash in on their credibility during tension, they'll find they have none. China's economy has been growing such that people are less likely to complain now, but bleep happens and someday their credibility will be challenged. What works when bellies are full will not work when they are empty.

Chinese commentators/defenders sometimes use the election of T as an example of the downsides of democracy and free speech. However, lack of democracy can and has resulted in iron-fisted dictators, so neither approach has proven perfect. Plus, we'll have an opportunity to dump T in 3 years, and at most he'll serve only 8 years. Getting rid of bad dictators is harder. Also, checks and balances have largely muted T's agenda.

And one can argue he was elected because the other politicians ignored the plight of the rust-belt: acting as if they were the sacrificial lambs of "free trade" so others could have cheap Walmart trinkets. (T's fixes are not really fixes, but at least he gave the problem attention.) T may be a general jerk, but he was right about one thing: he gave a voice to people ignored before.

He is wrong and gives Facebook too much credit

[guus_deleeuw]

Smart people still live normal lives and use it as a tool (or don't use it). Stupid people let it control there lives, but there will always be something for stupid people to ruin their lives, so it doesn't matter if it's Facebook or something else.

black mirror

[dr_blurb]

Time to watch this again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Easily solvable.

[WindBourne]

The real issue is not the social media, but the fact that ppl, like business executives, have ZERO responsibility. As such, they can be as destructive as they want.
Look at /..
We have trolls here that hide as AC. Cool. There is a need for ACs, but not like we have it.
Instead, we could easily solve this issue by simply allowing ppl to block ACs that are at say 1 or 0 and below. The moderators would not be allowed to do this. In addition, we should have the ability to have VETTED digital keys to verify a user and then start them off at say level 2. And yes, if they get good karma, they go up to 3. Why? Because they have reason to not want to lose that status. OTOH, ACs, many General users do not mind switching out constantly.

But, the issue comes down to responsibility. And Executives, illegal aliens, and ACs have ZERO responsibility which allows for bad behavior.

Re:Easily solvable.

[thinkwaitfast]

/. was best before it even had accounts or the notion of an AC.

typical stupid human

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is people taking advantage of others. If that didn't happen

stupid human thinks that water can run uphill

The pursuit of money

[Anonymous Coward]

When Facebook went from being a nice way to keep up with friends' lives to being a place where more money was made peddling falsities, that's when they went wrong

You have one thing wrong...

[gosand]

"everyone is exposed to it 24 hours a day."

No. That's not the case. People CHOOSE to be exposed to it, and they choose to buy into it.
I used to be on Instagram, until a little over a year ago. I enjoyed it, there were some fun things about it. Then one day I realized I was like a chicken, peck peck pecking my phone all the time. And I quit, and was much happier for it. I don't use FB either.

You can avoid these things, you don't have to pay attention to them. And if you do, you don't HAVE to like/subscribe/whatever. Just stop being a ME TOO person and stop worrying about what everyone else does or thinks.

Re:You have one thing wrong...

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I'm with you, there are a lot of things in society you can just choose not to participate in.

I did try using social media sites like Facebook for a few years, but I eventually realized there wasn't much value in spending time there. My feed consists mostly of pictures of peoples' babies, people on vacation, opinion and some links to articles. All things I don't much care about. Sure, I miss hearing about what others are doing, but if I never see or speak to them in real life then why do I even care?

I'm middle-aged and finally got the hint that I don't have as much time left as I think I do. After a youth spent playing video games, watching television and going to movies I now prefer to spend my time in reality and not fantasy. I work on things that either earn me money or improve my mind/body like studying martial arts and playing musical instruments. Once you've unplugged from our rotten popular culture, it's pretty sad to see how much others around you are invested in these false realities.

Re:You have one thing wrong...

[lucasnate1]

As someone who does both competitive gaming and performance (standup comedy), I dont understand, why do you think that learning how to play music is any more "real" than learning how to play a video game?

Facebook has....

[MerlTurkin]

...allowed the proliferation of attention whores to quicken. SO glad I'm not on it.

Soooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we ignoring the MSM and their quest to misinform while pushing products? CNN is a bastion of hate and misinformation yet people still sight them as a creditable news source. It's like a junky saying they are clean for good without going through rehab.

What? Thats not capitalism

[tacokill]

Like restaurants can make more money if they make crappy food that's bad for us and we eat it up
Wait, what? No, no no. You have it all wrong. Capitalism is not the problem, even in the analogy you provided. Did you miss the part where you can go to another restaurant if you don't like the one that serves crappy food? Capitalism is voluntary. Restaurant can choose to serve crappy food and you can choose to eat there - or take your business elsewhere.

Facebook sucking itself off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook has nearly no impact on my life. It's basically insignificant. Yawn.

Re:What? Thats not capitalism

[fluffernutter]

As an individual, how will my deciding to go to a better restaurant instead of McDonald's in any way limit McDonald's ability to do business or motivate them to have better food? Companies have long outgrown the ill effects of consumer choice unless many millions decide to do it, and that isn't going to happen. It has been long proven that many individuals cannot collectively make a decision that is the right one for the whole society.

Since I Quit Social Media

[Anonymous Coward]

My life has gotten so much better since I quit all social media. In-person human interaction is so much better, and I'd almost forgotten what it was like.

What he means to say

[Anonymous Coward]

What he means to say is the russians using social media to spread their divisive propaganda are ruining the internet.

He's being used

[TheOuterLinux]

Large companies always get a "former" executive to do an apology when they feel threatened or are about to do something even worse in their next step of entrepreneurship. It's closure for the subconscious and masses because that's how we all think now. Imagine all the people reading this article (or not reading) and going "you tell them," or "finally 'a' voice." Ergo, use one man as a representative just long enough to keep the masses at bay.

back on planet earth

[epine]

It's not Facebook.... Facebook is but one of the current tools being used and abused for this.

Oh good grief.

Facebook is the liquid metal 800-lb unsamarium-alloy gorilla in the social media space, whose very existence dictates the strategy of every other player whose business interests even vaguely impinge upon this niche.

In related news, humans are but one apex predator on planet earth (although this gasp-worthy aphorism elicited less of an eye roll after the mass synthesis of self-assembling unsamarium).

[*] Unsamarium is the name given to the element with atomic number 162—from an island of nucleic stability obtainable only with unsuspected technology of the distant future.

Re:back on planet earth

[bobbied]

It's not Facebook.... Facebook is but one of the current tools being used and abused for this.

Oh good grief.

Facebook is the liquid metal 800-lb unsamarium-alloy gorilla in the social media space, whose very existence dictates the strategy of every other player whose business interests even vaguely impinge upon this niche.

In related news, humans are but one apex predator on planet earth (although this gasp-worthy aphorism elicited less of an eye roll after the mass synthesis of self-assembling unsamarium).

[*] Unsamarium is the name given to the element with atomic number 162—from an island of nucleic stability obtainable only with unsuspected technology of the distant future.

Still, I think the problem is a cultural one and social media is not responsible for it. Social media may make it more noticeable and encourage such cultural rot, but I seriously doubt it's the source of that foul odor being complained about..

Re:back on planet earth

[fluffernutter]

The problem is that there are many of the worst parts of our culture that should not get a global platform. It also amazes me what a lack of respect people have for journalistic integrity, something that seems to have died but was there for this exact reason. These allow the extremist groups from everywhere to manipulate people like never before.

Re:back on planet earth

[bobbied]

Again, this is a cultural problem. Folks have been raised to not engage in critical thinking, I can teach myself efforts to understand a topic. They have not been educated in politics or civil debate. We as a culture are stuck on the 30 min sitcom quick fix, the one line joke and the belief that OUR cultural views are the only ones out there. We've also mistakenly equated what "sounds good" with "being right" because that's how our schools teach ethics and morals.

Less than 4 percent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by the US election, Russia's longstanding government, China, the EU, and Turkey.

Lots of others we could get into but those ones have all had headline topping stupidity in the past 2-4 years.

It's a lot more than amplification

[hey!]

The remarkable thing about people is how flexible our behavior is. That's the product of our massive human brain. Indistinguishable pints of bean soup generate both Shaker barn raisings and witch hunts; soup kitchens and genocide; puritanism and porn addiction, Shakespeare and pop music.

The potential for all that is there so it's meaningless to hold up just one possible result of many as "human nature". Human nature is contradictory.

One possible of social media might be a kind of mass symposium in which user minds are expanded; views of the world made more cosmopolitan; assumptions challenged. It's possible for humans to build communities like that. The problem is that it's not profitable. Time you spend on a site reflecting on what you find there is not time spent in behaviors that can be measured and aggregated into an "engagement metric" justifying a higher advertising fee.

So despite what it could be, what social media actually is is a kind of operant conditioning machine that trains you to be a conformist asshole. It rewards you for expressing conventional ideas in provocative ways because that's what produces large volumes of valuable responses.

Story of my life.

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents were HORRIBLY liberal when I was younger (They had been pot smoking hippies and one of them's siblings was so socially active during the 60s-70s that she had a rather extensive FBI file on her spanning the Berkeley riots and east coast activism.)

Nowadays they still CLAIM to be liberals, belittle conservative viewpoints (which granted in many cases are easy to do), but they aren't actually fighting for any social activism that matters, like more job opportunities, taxing/lack of tax breaks/financial incentives for the rich, or more tolerance towards sexual/ethnic miniorities like they were about blacks in the 60s. Instead they just smoke pot, tell me how they deserve respect because they are old, and how I need to conform to society's norms, how there are plenty of jobs for those who work for them and how your company will support you if you become invaluable to them. About the only difference between them and conservatives in my experience at this point is discussions about teh blacks (Obama in particular), gun control(maybe, most of the liberals in my family are actually gun owners/pro gun), taxes, and abortion. Meanwhile they are ignoring IP law legislation and abuses coming in from bipartisan alliances, being apologists for the police state, and generally showing the sort of intestinal fortitude of the peasant class, which seems to be making a resurgence in the modern era.

Insufficiently recursive

[shanen]

The joke is too subtle and recursive to deserve mod points.

Anyway, this problem doesn't apply on Slashdot. The moderation system is too broken. Or perhaps the other problems are just too overwhelming? There's also the factor that the "community" started out on the broken side, so to speak...

Capitalism is dead. News at 11

[shanen]

Where is this "capitalism" thing you're talking about? Related to that dead "communism" thingamabob?

Seriously, what we have now is corporate cancerism. There is no gawd but profit, and #PresidentTweety is NO prophet. According to Forbes, Apple is the #1 prophet of Gawd Profit.

Facebook is just one of the symptoms. Another is rampant bribery of the cheapest politicians to rig the rules in favor of bigger profits, with tax policies to make the rich richer while reducing our freedoms. Another symptom is disaster porn overwhelming real news. I even regard the division-and-conquest of the public school system as yet another symptom. Perhaps even the most dangerous one.

poser magnets only point down

[epine]

And since smart people avoid things like Facebook, it only amplifies the noise-to-signal ratio and makes it seem even worse than it is.

Meanwhile, the gradient of escape couldn't be limned in brighter lights.

An actual self-perpetuating feedback loop would be the small pockets of intelligent life who have sequestered themselves from social media deliberately dimming the lights and darking the drapes so as to escape notice by the ravening, mutually-loathing hoard.

Turns out, intelligent company is something one must earn by deserving to belong. And even worse, it doesn't pay for itself by being a conspicuous Mensa membership you can crow about and lord over the epsilons and deltas.

But maybe with luck, your biographer will discover your long, secret membership in the eminent Dark WELL.

Re:What? Thats not capitalism

[tacokill]

????? Are you dense or something? You motivate them by not doing business with them. If they care and want your business, then they will cater to your needs and you can both voluntarily do business. If they don't care or want your business then that is their right too. They are not obligated to bow to your demands and you are not obligated to pay them money or eat their swill.

it's pretty simple really unless you have the attitude that you are "owed" something

I quit Facebook and I'm better off

[Anonymous Coward]

I quit Facebook for many of the same cited reasons. In retrospect I wish I had done it sooner. Sure I miss out on the occasional friend or family picture or a funny joke, but more importantly I miss out on all the crap and incivility. I recommend everyone try it for a month. You'll be amazed.

FB

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook increased smartphone use. In the early days of Facebook (around 2008) your friends could tag you in a porn video or porn photos and there's no way you can disable the porn feed on your wall once you are tagged. I reported this personally to Facebook around 2008 because it is embarassing to be tagged in an adult photo or video which you cannot remove from your wall nor option (at that time) to untag/block/report. That time, I decided to own a smartphone so I can track all those who tag me real time. But I already deactivated my FB 2 years ago.

Speak for yourself (not all REAL jews either)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: However Jews stick together & are the most coordinated! So, like gangs in jail? They'll ALL clan up for it (& have to - it's like being a man that can "walk the yard" in jail, alone (RARE))

&

See subject: Ones behind it?

FAKE "ashkenazi" pharisee PSEUDO jew types Christ kicked the shit out of in the Temple & YOU MURDERED HIM FOR IT, along w/ Jeremiah doing the same pointing out their crap!

EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO or BELIEVE IN WHAT's BEING DONE by the descendants of the FALSE JEW in Ashkenazi turkic fake jew banklords? You will be PLAYED thus & THROWN UNDER A BUS!

(Rothchilds are the root of all this EVIL, Soros is their MAIN front-man funding divisory groups like AntiFa, OpenSocietyFoundation, The EFF (yes, that too), & BLM, just to bust up the USA psychologically (actually sociologically using YOUR OWN MODUS OPERANDI trying to FORCE clan mentalities)).

* I SEE YOU! ... & as far as HISTORY I posted (especially jew exilings)? It's more SOLID than your diatribe is.

Go verify it.

Lastly - not angry here - it's PITY for REAL jews & disgust @ FAKE jews.

APK

P.S.=> Right under the bus, just as Soros did FOR the Nazis - Ones behind it, again, aren't even TRUE Israeli-Sephardic jews that can trace your bloodline back to the holy land - that is WHY You will sacrifice your "own" you masquerade as... apk

The Smell Could Kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the net may be loaded with bad information it also gives exposure and availability to truth and other views of society. Just like right wing religious nuts want to reach out and control everything under the theory that kids are not innocent if they observe other ways of life, the right wing wants control of everything on the net as well. The odd ball that protested baking a wedding cake for a gay couple felt that somehow he was putting a stamp of approval on being gay if he baked that cake. Many people feel their way of life is at risk if any other way of life can be seen, known about or discussed. I say the more freedom the better.

no it's not

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we know you would very much love the US to have as much control over, and ability to censor views that they don't like as China does. But what's in it for the rest of us that aren't totalitarian assholes?

You wan't these 'trolls' that follow you around to be silenced so you can keep peddling your lies, we all understand that. But explain why you want the US web to become more like China's? Only verified names and official posts or it's off to the reeducation camps.

If anyone wanted to troll you that badly, they would just register a bunch of accounts anyway. Your non solution, to a non problem is just a power grab for those that already have their fingers deep in everyone's digital life.

Why Social Media is so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

- It makes it appear that eveyone else leads perfect lives (not only do most people only post the highlights of their lives on their, but those with the most glamorous lives post more, so you're comparing yourself to the highlights of the people with the most glamorous lives), and makes you compare yourself to other people more, and in a worse kind of way (makes you compare yourself to people who might have been dealt a completely different set of circumstances than you instead of the people with more similar circumstances like those in your community). This can cause depression and anxiety when you think about and compare them to your own life. It can also reduce the quality of relationships, as the reverse might also happen - others may get jealous of what it appears that you have which they don't.
- It makes you waste money and resources on trying to match the lives that you perceive others to have. This plays into the hands of large corporations, as it causes you to waste money you don't have on things you don't need to impress people you don't like.
- It is a massive time waster. I read somewhere that the average social media user spends 2 hours per day on social media.
- It causes you to neglect spending time and effort cultivating the relationships with the people you have around you in real life, such as your immediate family, your neighbours and your local community. Face-to-face contact with people you get along with is by far the most important type of social interaction for your mental health.
- Just posting something can cause anxiety, waiting and wondering and checking every 5 minutes what other people might have commented about your post.
- It obviously compromises your privacy, leaking it to both corporations and also to potentially unsavoury people such as that shady friend of a friend you met at that dinner party or that shady guy from highschool who you can't bring yourself to unfriend. It's also a haven for cyber scams.

FDR?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't think the FDR years helped?

One example?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are using one example to come to your conclusion?

Re:What? Thats not capitalism

[fluffernutter]

Let's circle back around to the original conversation. We were talking about making things right for society. People are touting how automated driving will save 20,000 a year, well how many people would it save (and how much easier on health care) if McDonalds had the right motivation to make healthier food. I can stop going (not that I go much anyawy), I can tell everyone I know, it won't change anything. The company is too big and has too far of a reach to respond to individual customers.

shift in humanity

[mapkinase]

technology has always been creating shifts in definition of humanity

A Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

When Facebook and Twitter burst into the scene, I don't think any of these guys expected the major societal impact these platforms would have. Sure, they probably saw the money, but probably not people organizing protests against major world governments, even succeeding in some cases in overthrowing their leaders.
Now with the Russian advertisement allegations, their increasingly brazen decisions to police and filter content, and the growing influence of these platforms, the nerds in charge are realizing just how much power they wield, and it is a terrifying amount of power they have.

No one can handle this much garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

We would be much better off if everything except scientific content was blocked from the net. No one truly needs online entertainment, online socializing, online messaging, etc. Internet is full bullshit. We need an academic net, not this steaming turd pile of spying, advertising and FUD.

Re:What? Thats not capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Until any hungry person can get food and shelter without debt, capitalism cannot be voluntary. In fact, throwing the word "voluntary" on the least voluntary economic system ever devised is a marketing tactic that works frightfully well on those without critical thinking skills that are susceptible to marketing.

setting us up for Faceberg 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

just using this as a publicity platform for the next round of fucking bullshit from the new Society Directors.

OH HOW MORAL! OH HOW THOUGHTFUL, and watch we will get more of the same from the very same fucking people who gave us facebook with a new set of so called principles for why they spy on us, manipulate us and worse.

almost no one posts negative or mundane aspects of

[Anonymous Coward]

--almost no one posts negative or mundane aspects of their lives unless they're looking for sympathy.

This is an interesting point but it begs this question. Does the expression of negative or mundane aspects in a person’s life mean:

1: They are looking for sympathy?

Or more likely

2. Hoping for a solution? or

3. Unstressing by releasing the urge to express?

4 Sharing with a friend as a way of describing what’s going in his/her life.

Or many other random possibilities, so it's not "almost no one "

There’s been times when I’ve just been “sharing” and it has evoked sympathy from the responder, and I go, “say what?” I wasn’t looking for sympathy, I was just explaining something. My house burned down in a fire long ago, sort of like recent events in CA and for a while it would like this,

Responder: So, what’s going in your life?

Me: My house burned down

Responder, “oh no really, and then 20 mins of their full angst, emotional feelings, what happened to them or even worse, a friend” soo much so, that.

After a while, I had to say.

Responder: So, what’s going in your life?

Me: “Not much, how about you?”