Is social media causing more harm than good?

[February203]

I'm looking at a video today while web surfing. I saw a video of taller woman having a psychotic break in beating on a random smaller teenage girl. While people watched, laughed and recorded on their phones.

This was probably the worst day of that girl's life and people were actually recording it instead of helping. Instead of seeing a victim, people saw an opportunity to siphon clout and attention from a desperate girl.

Luckily the girl came out okay. She did an interview where she claimed she was worried that she was going to be publicly beaten to death. While people laughed and did nothing. It makes me think if people wouldn't help a teenage girl getting attacked in public.

There's a good chance and no one would help me if I was attacked. It's just super disappointing. It's like a certain percentage of the population are living for social media, people are going through life desperately,
hoping something interesting or exciting will happen so they can post it. People have become so desperate that we're willing to sacrifice the health and well-being of one another just for attention. It's really depressing .

 

[TheRealCallie]

I don't think social media is necessarily to blame. Social media sites work how you want it to work. If you want attention, you post the things that will get attention. If you want to be mean, you post mean things. The only real difference is that the rumors spread faster than the did before social media. And obviously the "evidence" is more damning because you can sit there and post videos.

I'm sure in the example you gave that there was SOMEONE there who wanted to help, people likely just prevented it or they were too scared to actually do anything. Let's be honest, we don't know who does and does not have a weapon anymore. Someone near me stopped to help someone on the side of the road (their car broke down) The driver shot them. He only asked if he needed any help. Today's world is a scary place, you never know what people are going to do.

So yeah, in my opinion, social media is what you make it. If you want it to be evil (for whatever reason) it will be. If you want it to be a competition, it will be. If you want it to be good, it will be. It's just like any part of life. It will be whatever you think it is. Perspective matters, as a collective and as an individual.

 

[February203]

I don't think social media is necessarily to blame. Social media sites work how you want it to work. If you want attention, you post the things that will get attention. If you want to be mean, you post mean things. The only real difference is that the rumors spread faster than the did before social media. And obviously the "evidence" is more damning because you can sit there and post videos.

I'm sure in the example you gave that there was SOMEONE there who wanted to help, people likely just prevented it or they were too scared to actually do anything. Let's be honest, we don't know who does and does not have a weapon anymore. Someone near me stopped to help someone on the side of the road (their car broke down) The driver shot them. He only asked if he needed any help. Today's world is a scary place, you never know what people are going to do.

So yeah, in my opinion, social media is what you make it. If you want it to be evil (for whatever reason) it will be. If you want it to be a competition, it will be. If you want it to be good, it will be. It's just like any part of life. It will be whatever you think it is. Perspective matters, as a collective and as an individual.

I think social media incentivizes certain negative behavior. Human beings are social animals so we do have an innate need for attention. But I think social media is causing the less empathetic of our population to try to garner attention at other people's expense. But I do agree that social media is a tool and tools aren't evil or bad. Social media is kind of like a hammer in the right hands you can do something positive like build or repair things, but in the wrong hands it could be used to cave in someone's skull or damaged property.

 

[okidoke]

Social media just makes the problems of society more prominent.

 

[TheRealCallie]

I think social media incentivizes certain negative behavior. Human beings are social animals so we do have an innate need for attention. But I think social media is causing the less empathetic of our population to try to garner attention at other people's expense. But I do agree that social media is a tool and tools aren't evil or bad. Social media is kind of like a hammer in the right hands you can do something positive like build or repair things, but in the wrong hands it could be used to cave in someone's skull or damaged property.

Precisely. The people who use social media that way would find a way to accomplish it whether we had social media or not. Social media just enables more people to find out about it. But, on a lot of those posts, you usually have at least as many people standing up for the person as there is tearing them down.

 

[February203]

Precisely. The people who use social media that way would find a way to accomplish it whether we had social media or not. Social media just enables more people to find out about it. But, on a lot of those posts, you usually have at least as many people standing up for the person as there is tearing them down.

Why I blame social media is the algorithm, they're able to push an amplify different information. Most of these platforms amplify negativity over positivity because they realize that negativity Will generate more comments and engagement and the more people engage with the content the more profit these companies can get from things like ad revenue.

 

[MrLonely86]

Social media is cancer , so easy " yes " to your question.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Why I blame social media is the algorithm, they're able to push an amplify different information. Most of these platforms amplify negativity over positivity because they realize that negativity Will generate more comments and engagement and the more people engage with the content the more profit these companies can get from things like ad revenue.

Yet they have fact checks and content "police" both in house and third party. Is it perfect? Of course not, but they do more behind the scenes than you think.

 

[February203]

Yet they have fact checks and content "police" both in house and third party. Is it perfect? Of course not, but they do more behind the scenes than you think.

Maybe I'm just being a skeptic but I don't have faith these platforms policing themselves or the third parties being effective. Mostly because they prioritize profit over integrity. These are companies. The only people they have to answer to are their shareholders. The only time the government steps in is when something inconvenient happens and particular political parties want to appease, or energize there voter base.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Maybe I'm just being a skeptic but I don't have faith these platforms policing themselves or the third parties being effective. Mostly because they prioritize profit over integrity. These are companies. The only people they have to answer to are their shareholders. The only time the government steps in is when something inconvenient happens and particular political parties want to appease, or energize there voter base.

I have personal experience with the third party companies. I know those companies take the job seriously, but we can't know exactly what they do with the data provided to them or the posts that are flagged. As for the profit aspect, they don't make money from posts of every day people using their sites (unless they have a "paid" account or something, which only applies to ceratin social media and that's recent, I believe).
They have to answer to more than just shareholders. There have been many lawsuits concerning negative content and more than half the states are suing Meta for being "dangerous" to mental health. So it's not all about political parties at all.

 

[February203]

I have personal experience with the third party companies. I know those companies take the job seriously, but we can't know exactly what they do with the data provided to them or the posts that are flagged. As for the profit aspect, they don't make money from posts of every day people using their sites (unless they have a "paid" account or something, which only applies to ceratin social media and that's recent, I believe).
They have to answer to more than just shareholders. There have been many lawsuits concerning negative content and more than half the states are suing Meta for being "dangerous" to mental health. So it's not all about political parties at all.

I'm probably not as informed as I should be on this topic but, I think it would be a safe bet that whatever settlement amount comes out of a lawsuit from Meta would only be a drop in the bucket. And probably won't be a big enough motivating factor for them to change their practices. The same thing is usually said about big pharma. Lawsuits come up, but the money they generate from their shady unethical practices allows them to shrug off any damage. Or even put a dent in their bottom line so they will very likely keep doing what's most profitable.

 

[TheRealCallie]

I'm probably not as informed as I should be on this topic but, I think it would be a safe bet that whatever settlement amount comes out of a lawsuit from Meta would only be a drop in the bucket. And probably won't be a big enough motivating factor for them to change their practices. The same thing is usually said about big pharma. Lawsuits come up, but the money they generate from their shady unethical practices allows them to shrug off any damage. Or even put a dent in their bottom line so they will very likely keep doing what's most profitable.

Now, I'm by no means a fan of big pharma and I actually very much dislike most FDA drugs. But while both them and Meta are mostly out for profit, at least Big Pharma literally saves lives. They bankrupt some people with the price on those drugs....if the people can get them at all, but again, there is the whole life and death thing, comfortable life, less sucky life, etc going for them. So, while you aren't wrong, big pharma is in an entirely different category.

 

[TropicalStarfish]

Before social media, there was the WWW (World Wide Web); before that there were BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems). Bulletin Board Systems were, kind of before my time; I wasn't raised in a highly technology proficient household, so, I hadn't any contact with BBSs.

The reason, 'Social Media,' came to rise as it did, is because the average person didn't know how to host their own website. MySpace was one of the first major platforms to solve this issue. It essentially allowed a non-technical person to have their own, 'web presence.'

I used MySpace in the beginning. I wasn't popular, of course. And seeing my popularity measured against others I knew, was highly distressing at times.

I switched to Facebork before it was popular. Again, I encountered the same distressing issues. I stopped using Facebork when I read in the news (2011ish?) that they were going to start using facial recognition on all of their collected images (too Orwellian for me).

Facebok has ties to In-Q-Tel (that article is from 2008, mind you).

I believe Grandma should have access to a web presence and the web pressence of others without being data mined, scanned with facial recognition, manipulated by algorithms, fed propaganda, and who knows what else.

So, I think it's far worse than anyone thinks or cares to think about, in many ways. I had my psychologist recomended to me as a friend on facebork too (so it's obvious they knew quite more about me than simply what I had submitted to the site (Probably medical records and insurance information cross analyzed against a database that had my name, etc.. (now that's Orwellian))).

I'm sure this website mines data quite a bit too, though...

So, I try to avoid, 'social media;' superficially, it didn't serve me in any useful way. Even old friends I was able to connect with, we only shared one or two sentences before going back to not knowing eachother anymore. And non-superficially, I'd rather avoid helping out the military industrial complex and the growing surveillance state, if I can.

To be fair, a non-technical person or some one who isn't very well read or studius, wouldn't know these things, or may have trouble digesting them; however, at what point is that acceptable anyway? It's a literate society after all; and a healthy functioning democracy begs of competent, intellectual, well-informed, critical thinkers.

 

[February203]

Now, I'm by no means a fan of big pharma and I actually very much dislike most FDA drugs. But while both them and Meta are mostly out for profit, at least Big Pharma literally saves lives. They bankrupt some people with the price on those drugs....if the people can get them at all, but again, there is the whole life and death thing, comfortable life, less sucky life, etc going for them. So, while you aren't wrong, big pharma is in an entirely different category.

Fair point.

 

[user 190541]

Before social media, there was the WWW (World Wide Web); before that there were BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems). Bulletin Board Systems were, kind of before my time; I wasn't raised in a highly technology proficient household, so, I hadn't any contact with BBSs.

Old internet was awesome, but forums like these are still a part of it in a way. Just the other day I was talking to a girl like 18-19 years old and she wasn't even aware that internet forums were a thing. I had to actually explain to her what they are about.

 

[Bev Thornton]

It's like a certain percentage of the population are living for social media, people are going through life desperately, hoping something interesting or exciting will happen so they can post it. People have become so desperate that we're willing to sacrifice the health and well-being of one another just for attention. It's really depressing .

"Social media" isn't very social, it's simulation of social experience mediated through various devices. The social aspects carried, communication in various forms, text, audio, video, are miniscule when compared to face-to-face communication. More like asocial media.

The software involved is much like that for gambling machines. People get addicted to the hits they get from "likes" and comments and such. So, like just about any addicts, they'll exploit or ignore anything to get that fix.

There always have been people who would sacrifice health and well-being of both themselves and others for some perceived personal gain. Social media may be making more of them, but so might contemporary entertainments, particularly mass media such as television and motion picture.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

It's text, that's the issue, rather than specifically social media. Text is a bad medium for tone because inflection does not carry very well through it unless all parties involved in the text are all equally articulately tempered.

 

[February203]

"Social media" isn't very social, it's simulation of social experience mediated through various devices. The social aspects carried, communication in various forms, text, audio, video, are miniscule when compared to face-to-face communication. More like asocial media.

The software involved is much like that for gambling machines. People get addicted to the hits they get from "likes" and comments and such. So, like just about any addicts, they'll exploit or ignore anything to get that fix.

There always have been people who would sacrifice health and well-being of both themselves and others for some perceived personal gain. Social media may be making more of them, but so might contemporary entertainments, particularly mass media such as television and motion picture.

"A simulation of social experience" I never heard it described like that before, and I agree. It's kind of like junk food. You eat it, hoping it will satisfy your appetite but it's nothing but empty calories. You get your hit of dopamine from the positive or negative attention but really what you need is genuine human connection which social media isn't really giving you.

 

[CenotaphGirl]

It's text, that's the issue, rather than specifically social media. Text is a bad medium for tone because inflection does not carry very well through it unless all parties involved in the text are all equally articulately tempered.

This alwayssss happens to meeeee drives me nuts! And when I explain deeper what I meant people dont believe me or even just put “fair enough” so I know that alls okay and they understand me now, they still believe their original assumption about what I meant lol Or they maybe wish I was trying to have an argument with them and disappointed that I wasn’t.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

This alwayssss happens to meeeee drives me nuts! And when I explain deeper what I meant people dont believe me or just put “fair enough” they still believe their original assumption about what I meant lol

It's a problem that is as old as writing itself.