How about making the politicians that look to regulate social media regularly more accountable to their own trespasses. That alone would fix the majority of the problems. Who watches the watchers?
This article is very good and full of insights illuminating much.
It is essentially confirming that the best way to use social media is to stop using it. I get the irony of saying that on a social media platform.
I stopped using Xitter on the third day after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It became impossible to sort out real news (which I call factual truth) from opinion, speculation, viral and misleading smart phone videos, Russian trolls, etc.
Before this I had had my belly full of Social Justice Jihadists, the word police and the beginning of the woke/antiwoke Kulturkampf and the armies left and right compelled to educate us in 168 characters or less.
I am a committed Never Trump (and his allies) voter. But I saw social media exploding every time Trump did something to trigger or "own" the libs. This was exactly what Trump and his followers wanted It was proof of his power over them every time Rachel Maddow lit her hair on fire over the latest "outrage." Because so many journalists use Xitter (and still do) news programing started to be driven by Xitter itself. News report after news report amplifying what was happening and important on Twitter and not necessarily in the real world.
David Chappell once noted that "Twitter is not a real place." I think in response to the dragging he received because of some jokes he made about trans persons. What matters to him is how he treats trans persons in his actual real life just like the other people who fill his diverse life.
On Facebook the only people that I friend are people that I actually have known at some point in my life. Family members, classmates from high school and college, people I have met through work or through volunteer organizations. I don't belong to any politically oriented Facebook Groups. With the introduction of Reels the Facebook algorithms have filled my timeline/feed with lip-syncing body builders flexing and thrusting their pelvis in my face. At some point Facebook decided THAT is what I want to see... it remains a mystery to me.
That is how I manage my social media experience. First, I generally pay for access to the fora in which I participate. People who subscribe to a platform tend to respect others because they tend to be smaller communities. Second, I do not use a pseudonym I own everything I say online. Third, I do not feel compelled to respond to everything that I or anyone else posts especially if I disagree. I tend to endorse and extend the thoughts with which I agree and not correct the thoughts of others. Fourth, I try (I mean I really, really ,really try!) to avoid being snarky because that is probably the most common way I have to diminish and devalue others. That is just wrong. Finally I follow no one and never follow back.
I am a free speech and free market fundamentalist. If Xitter wants to be a cesspool that is fine. I just don't buy what they are marketing. Perhaps people feel an overwhelming need to be an influencer and others have a need to follow them. I suppose there will be a market for this so long as there is money to be made, books to sell, products to endorse and online "virality" is a marker of significance.
But in the end its just like People Magazine and The National Enquirer 40 years ago only with less moderation and the ability for the readers to react in real time with pseudonymous masks. If that is what the market wants then that is what the market should give them.
Each of us is responsible for what we choose to consume and how we choose to behave. Julian Assange once encouraged his followers to "Be the troll you want to see in the world." And many people have taken that to heart giving the troll in all of us permission to come out. The choice is to fight against that permission and to refuse to consume what is poisonous.
I thought this was really insightful. Hadn't really considered much how various social platforms incentivize different interactions between users. Seems silly that haven't consider that, but honestly I haven't been a big user a lot of social media platforms just because I am generally skeptical of them and don't like how addicting I can find them. But I also recognize they're kind of a necessary part of current media landscape and can also be beneficial. Seems like they are here to stay, even though individual platforms are constantly changing. Learning to use them responsibly seems important.
I have been thinking a lot lately about what I would call different thought distorting forces common in media platforms, especially online. Nothing new, just things thrown around for awhile, like audience capture, group think and information silos. I have heard these terms used a fair bit, but I don't think I have actually read research that dealt specifically with these topics. Does have anyone have suggestions of stuff to listen to or read related to this? Seemed like this article closely aligned those topics.
The podcast Decoding the Gurus with Chris Kavanagh and Matt Brown has helped me a lot rethink how I consume media.
"Promote positive dialogue"? If you think that questioning the idea that 'whiteness' is a toxic social construct which should be explored in the public education system, or that questioning the mask mandates and closures of the COVID-era, or that questioning the idea that the huge increases in teen girls with gender dysphoria should be affirmed in their confusion and often prescribed pharmaceuticals are "positive dialogue" then you would have to allow that the dialogue has gotten much more positive in recent years online. You would have to grant that attempted government influence of social media activities and the opacity of Twitter and Facebook and the efforts of much of the (self-appointed) anti-'disinformation' researchers were markedly harmful for positive dialogue.
The problem (one problem, anyway) is that there is a small minority of privileged and influential journalists and academics and executives who do NOT believe these conversations are positive dialogue and are determined to not have them. I include anyone who reflexively labels anti-CRT legislation 'racist' (despite it being supported by dozens of outstanding black thinkers) as part of this group.
I would love to hear/read a feature in which Renee (who I've been following for 6-7 years now) admits the harm her and her colleagues have done to our national conversations (surely there are some, even in her own mind) and areas in which her recommendations and policy ideas did not work. You know... intellectual honesty.
How about making the politicians that look to regulate social media regularly more accountable to their own trespasses. That alone would fix the majority of the problems. Who watches the watchers?
This article is very good and full of insights illuminating much.
It is essentially confirming that the best way to use social media is to stop using it. I get the irony of saying that on a social media platform.
I stopped using Xitter on the third day after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It became impossible to sort out real news (which I call factual truth) from opinion, speculation, viral and misleading smart phone videos, Russian trolls, etc.
Before this I had had my belly full of Social Justice Jihadists, the word police and the beginning of the woke/antiwoke Kulturkampf and the armies left and right compelled to educate us in 168 characters or less.
I am a committed Never Trump (and his allies) voter. But I saw social media exploding every time Trump did something to trigger or "own" the libs. This was exactly what Trump and his followers wanted It was proof of his power over them every time Rachel Maddow lit her hair on fire over the latest "outrage." Because so many journalists use Xitter (and still do) news programing started to be driven by Xitter itself. News report after news report amplifying what was happening and important on Twitter and not necessarily in the real world.
David Chappell once noted that "Twitter is not a real place." I think in response to the dragging he received because of some jokes he made about trans persons. What matters to him is how he treats trans persons in his actual real life just like the other people who fill his diverse life.
On Facebook the only people that I friend are people that I actually have known at some point in my life. Family members, classmates from high school and college, people I have met through work or through volunteer organizations. I don't belong to any politically oriented Facebook Groups. With the introduction of Reels the Facebook algorithms have filled my timeline/feed with lip-syncing body builders flexing and thrusting their pelvis in my face. At some point Facebook decided THAT is what I want to see... it remains a mystery to me.
That is how I manage my social media experience. First, I generally pay for access to the fora in which I participate. People who subscribe to a platform tend to respect others because they tend to be smaller communities. Second, I do not use a pseudonym I own everything I say online. Third, I do not feel compelled to respond to everything that I or anyone else posts especially if I disagree. I tend to endorse and extend the thoughts with which I agree and not correct the thoughts of others. Fourth, I try (I mean I really, really ,really try!) to avoid being snarky because that is probably the most common way I have to diminish and devalue others. That is just wrong. Finally I follow no one and never follow back.
I am a free speech and free market fundamentalist. If Xitter wants to be a cesspool that is fine. I just don't buy what they are marketing. Perhaps people feel an overwhelming need to be an influencer and others have a need to follow them. I suppose there will be a market for this so long as there is money to be made, books to sell, products to endorse and online "virality" is a marker of significance.
But in the end its just like People Magazine and The National Enquirer 40 years ago only with less moderation and the ability for the readers to react in real time with pseudonymous masks. If that is what the market wants then that is what the market should give them.
Each of us is responsible for what we choose to consume and how we choose to behave. Julian Assange once encouraged his followers to "Be the troll you want to see in the world." And many people have taken that to heart giving the troll in all of us permission to come out. The choice is to fight against that permission and to refuse to consume what is poisonous.
I thought this was really insightful. Hadn't really considered much how various social platforms incentivize different interactions between users. Seems silly that haven't consider that, but honestly I haven't been a big user a lot of social media platforms just because I am generally skeptical of them and don't like how addicting I can find them. But I also recognize they're kind of a necessary part of current media landscape and can also be beneficial. Seems like they are here to stay, even though individual platforms are constantly changing. Learning to use them responsibly seems important.
I have been thinking a lot lately about what I would call different thought distorting forces common in media platforms, especially online. Nothing new, just things thrown around for awhile, like audience capture, group think and information silos. I have heard these terms used a fair bit, but I don't think I have actually read research that dealt specifically with these topics. Does have anyone have suggestions of stuff to listen to or read related to this? Seemed like this article closely aligned those topics.
The podcast Decoding the Gurus with Chris Kavanagh and Matt Brown has helped me a lot rethink how I consume media.
"Promote positive dialogue"? If you think that questioning the idea that 'whiteness' is a toxic social construct which should be explored in the public education system, or that questioning the mask mandates and closures of the COVID-era, or that questioning the idea that the huge increases in teen girls with gender dysphoria should be affirmed in their confusion and often prescribed pharmaceuticals are "positive dialogue" then you would have to allow that the dialogue has gotten much more positive in recent years online. You would have to grant that attempted government influence of social media activities and the opacity of Twitter and Facebook and the efforts of much of the (self-appointed) anti-'disinformation' researchers were markedly harmful for positive dialogue.
The problem (one problem, anyway) is that there is a small minority of privileged and influential journalists and academics and executives who do NOT believe these conversations are positive dialogue and are determined to not have them. I include anyone who reflexively labels anti-CRT legislation 'racist' (despite it being supported by dozens of outstanding black thinkers) as part of this group.
I would love to hear/read a feature in which Renee (who I've been following for 6-7 years now) admits the harm her and her colleagues have done to our national conversations (surely there are some, even in her own mind) and areas in which her recommendations and policy ideas did not work. You know... intellectual honesty.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/