71–76 of 76 posts
Facebook helps me stay in touch with people I might not otherwise stay in touch with. It brings value into my life.
Would you not be able to stay in touch with them without Facebook? I deleted Facebook a number of years ago and still seem to be in touch with family and friends. Personally I think facebook, instagram, and WhatsApp should be broken apart.
Acquiantances I haven't seen for 5 years because they live in a distant place? No I wouldn't bother. But I like visiting Facebook once a week and check up on what everyone's been up to. The less often I visit the better stuff I get shown.
Facebook helps me stay in touch with people I might not otherwise stay in touch with. It brings value into my life.
Facebook is designed to make you think that when it may not be true, you have to be skeptical of your own mind, and skeptical of your own skepticism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is being targeted by cancel culture because of their refusal to entirely ban republicans off their platform.
I will assume good faith, and point out that cancel culture's main weapon is Facebook. That's where they gather all their outrage and yield it against their perceived enemies.
Facebook is the main weapon, but because of my point. Though, Twitter used to be the main weapon until they banned conservatives.
I ask if you've seen social dilemma because it's not about facebook vs twitter. It's all of the above and especially why tiktok is a national security threat. Also why there's bipartisan support in banning tiktok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is being targeted by cancel culture because of their refusal to entirely ban republicans off their platform.
There is no such thing as cancel culture, just like there is no such thing as the Q behind Qanon. The reason why is because these concepts are memes held in the collective consciousness of humans (and now AI because we trained them on our crap). No one person or organization exists to "cancel" things. It's a thing that happens, like nuns all meowing together at the same time. It's a phenomenon of nature, or mind, but…
While cancel culture is a derogatory term and nobody flies that flag. The terminology still touches on a real thing. As for Q. Q is horoscopes. They have larger numbers of predictions, most of which are wrong.
>No one person or organization exists to "cancel" things. It's a thing that happens, like nuns all meowing together at the same time. It's a phenomenon of nature, or mind, but not at an individual organization or at a personal belief level.
JKRowling and the book burning would tend to disagree with this.
>In other words, people may be "for" "cancel culture", but the growth and life of the phenomenon itself is empty of meaning in the individualist sense.
I don't understand this. How can people be for it and not for it?
>Also, because things like Facebook enable these memes to form, your statement could easily be rewritten: >Facebook is being targeted by mass thinking on their platform because of their refusal to entirely ban republicans off their platform.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree that is my position. Though we could fork into a side discussion into the reality that social media represents society and that thinking is what is happening. The only way forward is more thinking and longer discussions. The absolute antithesis of the situation is censorship.
>Now we see the truth of the matter, which is that Republicans support the Tragedy of the Commons for their own gain.
I'm not American. I'm an objective observer. The problem isn't tragedy of the commons at all. We need more thinking and more discussion.
I've recently been thinking about the parallels between social media and the Tower of Babel. Maybe ancient societies were onto something when they warned us of the dangers of everyone communicating with one another. Perhaps there's something more robust about a dispersed humanity where a message can't be distributed to everyone.
That's an interesting thought. Instant communication seems to pair badly with our inherent bias towards novelty and bigotry. In the past, we had gatekeepers (i.e media) that were educated enough to edit and contextualize communication to control that bias. Increasing the ability for everyone to communicate with one another has really unleased the worst of humanity.
Point being that I think you're right that the media played an important role in contextualizing mass communication and controlling bias. Not only does social media disintermediate mass communications, the intermediaries themselves are now ignoring roles they historically performed.