Finally watched it last night. I did not learn anything that was not already intuitive to me but putting it all together the way they did was disturbing. The thing that I find most disturbing is the we as Americans cannot come to an agreement on what is true. It seems as though Social Media can be held accountable. Do you find this to be true also? Please leave out sides of the political spectrum in your responses. Have any of you watched? If you have not, I recommend it. If you have watched, what did you think?
From when my wife and some close friends got their first iPhones, it changed them in some fundamental ways.
As a school teacher since 2001, I can see the profound change it has had on teenagers and made me worry about my own children now.
This is on my watchlist, but I’d prefer it was on some people close to me’s watchlist instead.
Let’s just say a comparison could be drawn between social media companies and the cigarette industry.
Now social media has given them an audience of millions to disseminate their nonsense.
1) helped me to reconcile why people I thought were relatively smart can be so stupid right now with their political beliefs...they have been exposed to falsehoods that they accept as fact
2) Makes me realize that those people may now think the exact same as me, about me...
Paradox being... I still am certain what the truth is. But, so are they!
So.. maybe we are confusing "truth" with the different lens through which we see the world, and social media just magnifies those lenses. Instead of us all recognizing the grey, we see black and white because the facts are presented as black and white in the magnified state.
It's entirely possible that when presented with the same indisputable fact.. I can be appalled by it, and another person might see nothing is wrong with it. It's the framing of the fact that is different, not the fact itself.
Tough to give an example without leaving "center", so hope that makes sense.
I learned to play chess at 4 by watching. You could fill libraries with what I don't know but I am not not stupid. It would humiliate me to share things that are untrue and even with the rigor that I apply to research the veracity of what I share, I have shared some untrue things when I responded in anger and failed to check first. I have concerns for the survival of our species based on our inability to agree on what is true, specifically when it involves science.
Quote:
but what would social media be held accountable for?
Let’s just say a comparison could be drawn between social media companies and the cigarette industry.
In my view The union of phones and social media has been a toxic and awful influence on far too many people. Some can handle it, many cannot. It’s change the very consciousness of people. And not in a good way. It’s also led to a lot of stupid being spread like a virus.
Quote:
In comment 14976082 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
but what would social media be held accountable for?
Let’s just say a comparison could be drawn between social media companies and the cigarette industry.
In my view The union of phones and social media has been a toxic and awful influence on far too many people. Some can handle it, many cannot. It’s change the very consciousness of people. And not in a good way. It’s also led to a lot of stupid being spread like a virus.
1) helped me to reconcile why people I thought were relatively smart can be so stupid right now with their political beliefs...they have been exposed to falsehoods that they accept as fact
2) Makes me realize that those people may now think the exact same as me, about me...
Paradox being... I still am certain what the truth is. But, so are they!
So.. maybe we are confusing "truth" with the different lens through which we see the world, and social media just magnifies those lenses. Instead of us all recognizing the grey, we see black and white because the facts are presented as black and white in the magnified state.
It's entirely possible that when presented with the same indisputable fact.. I can be appalled by it, and another person might see nothing is wrong with it. It's the framing of the fact that is different, not the fact itself.
Tough to give an example without leaving "center", so hope that makes sense.
I think this is exactly right. I would only add that social media makes it possible to "stay in a bubble", only interacting with people of the same beliefs as you. Since you never talk to people who think differently, and listen to their point of view, you become even more certain. It also makes the "opposite view" the enemy. Ideally we would hear all points of view before forming an opinion, and that opinion would likely be a little of both. However today this compromising is a dirty word.
Many people take the low information bait social media offers. These aren't dumb people, perhaps intellectually lazy or unpracticed in critical thinking -- they don't exert the time or energy to challenge their beliefs. They too quickly stake themselves to a position and dig-in.
Quote:
Is whether the documentay:
1) helped me to reconcile why people I thought were relatively smart can be so stupid right now with their political beliefs...they have been exposed to falsehoods that they accept as fact
2) Makes me realize that those people may now think the exact same as me, about me...
Paradox being... I still am certain what the truth is. But, so are they!
So.. maybe we are confusing "truth" with the different lens through which we see the world, and social media just magnifies those lenses. Instead of us all recognizing the grey, we see black and white because the facts are presented as black and white in the magnified state.
It's entirely possible that when presented with the same indisputable fact.. I can be appalled by it, and another person might see nothing is wrong with it. It's the framing of the fact that is different, not the fact itself.
Tough to give an example without leaving "center", so hope that makes sense.
I think this is exactly right. I would only add that social media makes it possible to "stay in a bubble", only interacting with people of the same beliefs as you. Since you never talk to people who think differently, and listen to their point of view, you become even more certain. It also makes the "opposite view" the enemy. Ideally we would hear all points of view before forming an opinion, and that opinion would likely be a little of both. However today this compromising is a dirty word.
While I agree with you on the fundamental level, I think you're underestimating how insular (staying in our bubble) we all are in our daily lives with or without social media. I agree that ideally we would listen to opposing views, but in reality, we hang out with and spend time with people we have things in common, and most of the time it's based on our common social-economic (influencing our political views) status.
Social media didn't cause or even make us more divisive. It just gave us the ability to be more vocal about our divisiveness. We've always been divisive to a point but only in our own little worlds.
Many people take the low information bait social media offers. These aren't dumb people, perhaps intellectually lazy or unpracticed in critical thinking -- they don't exert the time or energy to challenge their beliefs. They too quickly stake themselves to a position and dig-in.
I think that's largely a fair take. However I do think that some popular social media platforms which purport to do some fact-checking and labeling of things are very uneven and unobjective in doing so. And if you say you're doing it, but then do it poorly, you exacerbate the problem.
Sadly, such measures aren't even in discussion in this election cycle.
Sadly, such measures aren't even in discussion in this election cycle.
But then who would hold the enforcers accountable? Why only focus on the media? We've seen that inspector generals charged with identifying misdeeds of the enforcing bodies are powerless, so how do you fix the other half of the problem?
They’re either a public utility or a publisher - platform is way in the rear view.
We’ve got plenty of laws regarding communication already. Libel, slander, incitement...What more do we need?
Sadly, such measures aren't even in discussion in this election cycle.
Funny you speak out against misinformation, yet call this country a democracy. Although there are certainly some democratic principles in this country, at its heart the country is a constitutional republic. Our founders understood the dangers of democracy, ie failure to protect minority rights. Famously, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner:
"Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."
Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."
James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Sadly, such measures aren't even in discussion in this election cycle.
because no one agrees on the source of truth and it's far more nuanced than most on here want to acknowledge. Journalism is dead, and those who seek advantage or to manipulate people, seize on that and run with their own narrative, unchecked (or worse they are enabled).
no one is there to fact check the fact checkers.
People have no trust in media and deservedly so, so they believe what they find most believable or with what aligns to their beliefs.
I do think social media exacerbated this problem because those in the media have found the need to blend social media into traditional media and it's blurred the lines of opinion vs news. not on one side, all sides, everywhere.
Facts are incontrovertible, yet when some people are presented with facts they don't like (either way) they chalk it up as conspiracy theory or anti-science or from a biased source, or whatever other label du jour.
no one is unbiased, everyone wants an echo chamber, and confirmation bias rules the day. - those haven't changed from any point in history, but social media has definitely made it easier to build that echo chamber - though some people choose not to - the majority do.
kind of the same thing, right? People live where they're most comfortable.
And yet, before social media we had network news anchors losing their jobs for lying about the news. But, yeah. Blame Zuckerberg.
Quote:
Social media killed it.
And yet, before social media we had network news anchors losing their jobs for lying about the news. But, yeah. Blame Zuckerberg.
It's not about individual bad actors in the media. And frankly, citing examples of them getting fired is actually an argument against them being a real systemic problem.
It's more than Zuckerberg. It's twitter, instagram, reddit, 4chan, all of it. The problem is that if I want to believe something that is not true, I can find my corner of the internet and submerge myself in that falsehood. Anti vaxxer facebook pages, QAnon/Pizzagate, global warming denial, holocaust denial, Sandy hook was a hoax. Misinformation will be brought to my face daily and I will constantly be fed this falsehood over and over. The truth will be impossible to find.
The businesses that are used to feed this information are incentivized to feed the bullshit because they can measure the amount I am engaged with the bullshit. And it turns out the more bullshitty, the better for engagement. Clicks for cash. Conspiracy theories resonate on the internet. They grow.
Because everyone has the internet practically attached to their face by a phone, we consume more media than ever but very few of us are skilled enough consumers to navigate the tidal wave of bullshit. Something as clear as whether masks are effective in fighting a virus cannot be established as true or false. Because whatever the truth actually is, there's a pocket of people who will never believe the truth because they get daily reaffirmation that their ignorance is a virtue.
I mean we have a group of flat earthers now which is just incredible. I don't know how we do it organically, but its probably best to get away from "personalized" search results (echo chambers).
It's also very easy for misinformation to be reinforced even when you're initially skeptical of it. Do a cursory, perhaps not-well-crafted Google query on any factually inaccurate headline or a popular conspiracy theory, and you're likely to see a lot of results that corroborate it.
My effort to point this out on the particular Twitter thread did not go well.
As said above, this isn't a new issue, it's amplified by social media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&A - ( New Window )
Look forward to seeing this one for sure!
phones at the dinner table, or overuse? used to be TV. If your kid can't put the phone down at dinner, don't blame social media. Blame the adult supervision.
Kid is being picked on via social media? Used to be called elephant ears in person.
The dynamics are changing, but the concepts aren't.
I'm reminded of my youth, when future shock was the buzzword. We were going to be incapable of handling an ever quickening pace of life/technology. 50 years later, the generation that was so incapable fully embrace it, and marvel at how we survived in such archaic times decades ago.
Every generation has their version of music/media/etc that is going to shock and ruin society.
We've been led and manipulated for quite some time now.
As for news, yeah, there's a lot of bullshit out there. But at least we have access to a wide range of information, unlike the good old days of extremely limited news scripting a manipulative narrative. Read Grandpa's history books if you don't believe me. We were fed a lot of bullshit then, too. We didn't have access to alternate views.
Quote:
but what would social media be held accountable for?
Let’s just say a comparison could be drawn between social media companies and the cigarette industry.
Good comparison. They knew what they were doing for the most part, as The Social Dilemma makes clear.
This is accurate, but twitter and Reddit (for news) aren't better. In an ideal world, they'd *all* be gone.
My effort to point this out on the particular Twitter thread did not go well.
Yup. Even wanting a basic concern with evidence makes you "for the other side" and somehow bad.
Cable news accelerated this trend, and social media has just blown it wide open.
1) helped me to reconcile why people I thought were relatively smart can be so stupid right now with their political beliefs...they have been exposed to falsehoods that they accept as fact
2) Makes me realize that those people may now think the exact same as me, about me...
Paradox being... I still am certain what the truth is. But, so are they!
So.. maybe we are confusing "truth" with the different lens through which we see the world, and social media just magnifies those lenses. Instead of us all recognizing the grey, we see black and white because the facts are presented as black and white in the magnified state.
It's entirely possible that when presented with the same indisputable fact.. I can be appalled by it, and another person might see nothing is wrong with it. It's the framing of the fact that is different, not the fact itself.
Tough to give an example without leaving "center", so hope that makes sense.
Yes, it does make sense. I am now sitting here wondering what else I can say without getting political. In a similar vein, on FB I sit and wonder what else I can say without using foul language and insults. Those of you who might remember me from when I used to post here more or les regularly, I imagine you wouldn't recall seeing me use foul language or insults, because I didn't ... it's never been a part of my personality, but sadly it is now.
I did not watch the documentary, but I think the biggest difference between then and now is not social media but the politics of the last 4 years. At the ripe old age of 77 years, I have never been politically active, but now I believe we are at an extremely dangerous time in the history of our democracy and as a consequence I have become active.
Social media did not create this dangerous moment, but it has facilitated the discourse and sharing of information as never before. It has also lifted the veil from the face of this country and has led to my disenchantment if not disgust over what has surely always been a part of our country though the extent was hidden. Social media has revealed all. The jury is out on whether that's a good thing or a path to disaster.
Stop believing everything you read. especially about "the fight of our lives" or dangers or other dramatic histrionics.
the problem with the access and reach provided by social media is not flat earthers or holocaust deniers or 9-11 conspiracy theorists - those people are fringy (and stupid) and have existed with the conspiracy du jour throughout time.
the threat is not the fringe, they will always be here and it's unfortunate, but limited even with the expanded reach social media provides, but the real threat is people like River Mike who have been manipulated to think what others want him to think with zero substance to warrant his fears.
Stop believing everything you read. especially about "the fight of our lives" or dangers or other dramatic histrionics.
the problem with the access and reach provided by social media is not flat earthers or holocaust deniers or 9-11 conspiracy theorists - those people are fringy (and stupid) and have existed with the conspiracy du jour throughout time.
the threat is not the fringe, they will always be here and it's unfortunate, but limited even with the expanded reach social media provides, but the real threat is people like River Mike who have been manipulated to think what others want him to think with zero substance to warrant his fears.
You have made assumptions about me based on your interpretation of what I wrote. That's understandable as you don't know me and have no other way to judge. But you're way off base. The opinions of FB posters have literally no influence on me at all, much less manipulation. Much of my posting on there is in fact directed at pointing out the absurdities of conspiracy theories.
My opinions are formed by the writings and speech of primary sources and respected conservative voices such as George Will, Bret Stephens, David Brooks, and prior to his passing, William F. Buckley, and liberal voices such as Thomas Friedman, Nick Kristof, Eugene Robinson, et al.
Engaging you further would be pointless as is most of the discourse on social media. Have a good day.
Quote:
was "literally" going to kill people? Or events almost two years ago and parallel to the events right now were "literally" going to kill people?
Stop believing everything you read. especially about "the fight of our lives" or dangers or other dramatic histrionics.
the problem with the access and reach provided by social media is not flat earthers or holocaust deniers or 9-11 conspiracy theorists - those people are fringy (and stupid) and have existed with the conspiracy du jour throughout time.
the threat is not the fringe, they will always be here and it's unfortunate, but limited even with the expanded reach social media provides, but the real threat is people like River Mike who have been manipulated to think what others want him to think with zero substance to warrant his fears.
You have made assumptions about me based on your interpretation of what I wrote. That's understandable as you don't know me and have no other way to judge. But you're way off base. The opinions of FB posters have literally no influence on me at all, much less manipulation. Much of my posting on there is in fact directed at pointing out the absurdities of conspiracy theories.
My opinions are formed by the writings and speech of primary sources and respected conservative voices such as George Will, Bret Stephens, David Brooks, and prior to his passing, William F. Buckley, and liberal voices such as Thomas Friedman, Nick Kristof, Eugene Robinson, et al.
Engaging you further would be pointless as is most of the discourse on social media. Have a good day.
Well if you saw the documentary, you'd know that just being on Facebook and the like does have an influence on the way you think. Just because it skews what reality is and what the messaging they want you to hear so they can make the most money. It's very subtle for most people and that's what the most scary part is. It isn't just dummies who are prone to believing consipiracy theories.
Many people take the low information bait social media offers. These aren't dumb people, perhaps intellectually lazy or unpracticed in critical thinking -- they don't exert the time or energy to challenge their beliefs. They too quickly stake themselves to a position and dig-in.
Agree, lack of critical thinking is the biggest problem I see with my team at work. And if I’m being honest, I think people are intellectually lazy and incurious, they seem to be okay with “whatever” in a way I never have been. Maybe that’s all fruit from the same tree? Maybe it’s, “old man yells at cloud”. As the kids say, idk?
Quote:
the problem that social media amplifies is the inability of most people to practice 'critical thinking.'
Many people take the low information bait social media offers. These aren't dumb people, perhaps intellectually lazy or unpracticed in critical thinking -- they don't exert the time or energy to challenge their beliefs. They too quickly stake themselves to a position and dig-in.
Agree, lack of critical thinking is the biggest problem I see with my team at work. And if I’m being honest, I think people are intellectually lazy and incurious, they seem to be okay with “whatever” in a way I never have been. Maybe that’s all fruit from the same tree? Maybe it’s, “old man yells at cloud”. As the kids say, idk?
I've been retired for quite a while so I can't comment on coworkers, but since the subject is social media, I will say that lack of critical thinking there is striking. And I agree that very many, if not most, are definitely intellectually lazy. I do have to admit that being retired affords me the luxury of research and often digging down to primary sources, and most people don't have the time for that.