5 ms·

Yeah, this is one tired trope. I'm especially bored of the "Facebook causes the rise of nationalism/fascism" rhetoric - I think it's pretty convenient to scapeg

Yeah, this is one tired trope. I'm especially bored of the "Facebook causes the rise of nationalism/fascism" rhetoric - I think it's pretty convenient to scapegoat the Zuck (who is an asshole, oblivious, naive, etc.) with something so complex and fueled by so many factors outside of the internet. "Russians made us do it because Facebook" is such a wonderful cop out because it means we can't really do anything to fix it, and it's totally not our fault. And we're addicted to such messages - that the terrorists hate our freedom, that poor people are just jealous losers, that scientists are moralizing assholes for telling us not to eat steak every day - and we even prefer these messages because they let us be the victim of the cruel outside world, rather than understanding how our own complacency, ignorance, or greed has worsened situations. None of these articles place as much emphasis on the selling-off of our regulatory systems, the dismantling of election law, the homogenization of American thought in the televisual era, or the truly rampant epidemics of complacency, addiction, hedonism, and consumerism as possible catalysts behind a nation rapidly declining into total social schism.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
igor47 7y ago
> Yeah, this is one tired trope. this sentiment is illustrative of the world that the internet has created. on the internet, you never have to deal with something that bores you -- you can always open a new tab and do something else. in the real world, unfortunately, the same old annoying stuff keeps coming up, and you have to keep dealing with it. like... i'm going to have to brush my teeth twice a day for the rest of my life, there will never come a time when i can just stop watching what i eat, and i'm going to have to keep dealing with the consequences of social media, including talking about it's effects, making choices about it, and convincing my friends and anyone who will listen to make choices about it, no matter how old and annoying it may have become. one thing that gives me energy on stuff like this (by stimulating my brain) is to use my imagination. what i mean is, it seems like we've talked this subject to death, but nothing's really changed so far. maybe a slight shift in public opinion, maybe people don't assume technology must be good quite so readily as before. but try to imagine what the world could look like. reality has this oppressive weight that restricts your thinking. "this is how the world is, so this is how it must be; in fact, this is good simply for existing. anyone who questions it doesn't get it.". it's much harder to imagine a counterfactual better world. for instance, what if instead of clumping into like-minded herds that re-enforce each other's ideas even when wrong, people on the internet connected with others who are really unlike them most of the time (maybe through something like airbnb)? or, what if there was a group/agency charged with maintaining factual accuracy on the internet (this idea comes from a novel called infomacracy). or, what if you could get people to connected better in real life (like the bash' in "too like the lightning"). imagining different worlds gives you a lens through which to critique the current one, and also gives you something to work towards.
- scottlegrand2 7y ago
  I think one of the subtle problems here is all the pay walls on the more reputable news sites. Yes I know they need to make money but by closing themselves off to people unwilling to pay for their material, that increases the chance that sites like Twitter and Facebook become their only source of news. Nothing good comes from that. That's not blaming Facebook by the way.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    They are in a bind. Paywalls limit their exposure. But relying on ads instead destroys their reputability. Ad-driven business model is literally why fake news exists and propagates, and why even the "reputable" outlets keep publishing clickbait and lying headlines.
    - rblion 7y ago
      This is very true. How do you think this problem could be fixed?
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        I don't know. The best idea I can think of today is to get rid of advertising-based business model (possibly through regulation) and have all news sites paywalled - but, and here's the trick - make money spent on news stories tax deductible, or even 100% reimbursable. This preserves the market dynamics and keeps the government from controlling the press, while still effectively making the press government-funded, as it should be, because access to timely and accurate news is a public good.
  - rblion 7y ago
    What other solution do they have? Social media decimated their business model. Remember all the layoffs over the last decade?
    - scottlegrand2 7y ago
scarejunba 7y ago
Exactly. Facebook is a convenient scapegoat because people can't simultaneously hold in their head the two concepts "My grandfather is loving and kind and good to his family" and "My grandfather hates Mexicans and gay people". An easy way to resolve this is "Zuckerberg deceived him!".
- opportune 7y ago
  It’s the same with the Russians thing, people would rather talk about the Electoral College or foreign election interference instead of the fact that 49% of people voted for someone they abhor. Although in this case it’s less about an individual and more about the state of the general population
- ordinaryradical 7y ago
  I think this misses that it's easy to type some of the nastiest things you can imagine into a comment prompt, but it is substantially harder to set up a box on a college campus and shout them through a megaphone, particularly when you start getting nasty looks, jeered at, or harrassed. Facebook is the perfect outlet for every dingus who thinks themselves transgressive for having a cruel opinion or two but who can't handle the the cost of social ostracism. This outlet reinforces and radicalizes beliefs gradually because there is no obvious "cost" or "censure" for saying horrible things about your fellow man except, perhaps, being unfollowed. The most unwell in our society use sites like facebook and 4chan and particularly their say-anything mechanism as incubators for their paranoia and rage and then go kill people. There's an obvious cause and effect here, even if the person was unwell prior to engaging with the site. So, no, it's not Facebook's fault that people think and say this stuff, but it has created a mechanism to amplify it. And the design of the system, driven by "engagement" (aka addiction), creates a negative feedback loop. The more awful something is, the angrier we get, the more we engage, comment, argue, and the higher it climbs in the feed. They are definitely responsible for this algorithm, at the very least.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
  When the leftist utopia fails, when dreams cant be written into reality, when human nature proofs resistant and resilient to change, those who tryied to accelerate the revolution, turn around to search for traitors and treason. Because that would mean humanity is still capable, if only all get purged who hold us back. If thats the case, the ideology can self-repair, and rise again. Everything else is just defeat- with extra steps. And to actually look at what humanity is, to be realistic about what can be archieved, that is defeat in our lifetime. Glacial progress at best, under best conditions. Sandcastles built into the economic tides in the worst case. Better to find all those traitors.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

igor47 7y ago

> Yeah, this is one tired trope. this sentiment is illustrative of the world that the internet has created. on the internet, you never have to deal with something that bores you -- you can always open a new tab and do something else. in the real world, unfortunately, the same old annoying stuff keeps coming up, and you have to keep dealing with it. like... i'm going to have to brush my teeth twice a day for the rest of my life, there will never come a time when i can just stop watching what i eat, and i'm going to have to keep dealing with the consequences of social media, including talking about it's effects, making choices about it, and convincing my friends and anyone who will listen to make choices about it, no matter how old and annoying it may have become. one thing that gives me energy on stuff like this (by stimulating my brain) is to use my imagination. what i mean is, it seems like we've talked this subject to death, but nothing's really changed so far. maybe a slight shift in public opinion, maybe people don't assume technology must be good quite so readily as before. but try to imagine what the world could look like. reality has this oppressive weight that restricts your thinking. "this is how the world is, so this is how it must be; in fact, this is good simply for existing. anyone who questions it doesn't get it.". it's much harder to imagine a counterfactual better world. for instance, what if instead of clumping into like-minded herds that re-enforce each other's ideas even when wrong, people on the internet connected with others who are really unlike them most of the time (maybe through something like airbnb)? or, what if there was a group/agency charged with maintaining factual accuracy on the internet (this idea comes from a novel called infomacracy). or, what if you could get people to connected better in real life (like the bash' in "too like the lightning"). imagining different worlds gives you a lens through which to critique the current one, and also gives you something to work towards.

scottlegrand2 7y ago
I think one of the subtle problems here is all the pay walls on the more reputable news sites. Yes I know they need to make money but by closing themselves off to people unwilling to pay for their material, that increases the chance that sites like Twitter and Facebook become their only source of news. Nothing good comes from that. That's not blaming Facebook by the way.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  They are in a bind. Paywalls limit their exposure. But relying on ads instead destroys their reputability. Ad-driven business model is literally why fake news exists and propagates, and why even the "reputable" outlets keep publishing clickbait and lying headlines.
  - rblion 7y ago
    This is very true. How do you think this problem could be fixed?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I don't know. The best idea I can think of today is to get rid of advertising-based business model (possibly through regulation) and have all news sites paywalled - but, and here's the trick - make money spent on news stories tax deductible, or even 100% reimbursable. This preserves the market dynamics and keeps the government from controlling the press, while still effectively making the press government-funded, as it should be, because access to timely and accurate news is a public good.
- rblion 7y ago
  What other solution do they have? Social media decimated their business model. Remember all the layoffs over the last decade?
  - scottlegrand2 7y ago

scarejunba 7y ago

Exactly. Facebook is a convenient scapegoat because people can't simultaneously hold in their head the two concepts "My grandfather is loving and kind and good to his family" and "My grandfather hates Mexicans and gay people". An easy way to resolve this is "Zuckerberg deceived him!".

opportune 7y ago
It’s the same with the Russians thing, people would rather talk about the Electoral College or foreign election interference instead of the fact that 49% of people voted for someone they abhor. Although in this case it’s less about an individual and more about the state of the general population
ordinaryradical 7y ago
I think this misses that it's easy to type some of the nastiest things you can imagine into a comment prompt, but it is substantially harder to set up a box on a college campus and shout them through a megaphone, particularly when you start getting nasty looks, jeered at, or harrassed. Facebook is the perfect outlet for every dingus who thinks themselves transgressive for having a cruel opinion or two but who can't handle the the cost of social ostracism. This outlet reinforces and radicalizes beliefs gradually because there is no obvious "cost" or "censure" for saying horrible things about your fellow man except, perhaps, being unfollowed. The most unwell in our society use sites like facebook and 4chan and particularly their say-anything mechanism as incubators for their paranoia and rage and then go kill people. There's an obvious cause and effect here, even if the person was unwell prior to engaging with the site. So, no, it's not Facebook's fault that people think and say this stuff, but it has created a mechanism to amplify it. And the design of the system, driven by "engagement" (aka addiction), creates a negative feedback loop. The more awful something is, the angrier we get, the more we engage, comment, argue, and the higher it climbs in the feed. They are definitely responsible for this algorithm, at the very least.
LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
When the leftist utopia fails, when dreams cant be written into reality, when human nature proofs resistant and resilient to change, those who tryied to accelerate the revolution, turn around to search for traitors and treason. Because that would mean humanity is still capable, if only all get purged who hold us back. If thats the case, the ideology can self-repair, and rise again. Everything else is just defeat- with extra steps. And to actually look at what humanity is, to be realistic about what can be archieved, that is defeat in our lifetime. Glacial progress at best, under best conditions. Sandcastles built into the economic tides in the worst case. Better to find all those traitors.