Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

news.uga.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 103 posts

Re: Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

#41

Post by ryandrake »

Lammy wrote: post #35
echelon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an unfortunate heuristic. What is your basis for this?

Unwarranted self-importance. Bonus points if it's a photo of them on a stage holding a microphone with that open-palm I-am-giving-a-TED-talk gesture :)

This is probably a pretty decent heuristic actually! My guess, as an armchair psychologist, is that narcissism and a toxic need to generate attention and drama are highly correlated with constantly taking selfies and sharing them. Look for the profile picture and just a quick glance at the feed, and if it's full of selfies, you probably have a pretty good idea of who you're dealing with.

Re: Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

#42

Post by swiley »

rland wrote: post #40

When you interact online, you fundamentally are interacting with only yourself. It is a solipsistic endeavor. You fundamentally choose which comments to respond to; unlike the real world, where a conversation occurs between two people, you can instantly drive into a conversation whenever you see fit, and leave whenever you wish also. Therefore, the choice of which conversation, which comment, is entirely yours. And s…

That's a neat idea but what about people who only see each other in real time chats (voice or text)? You can stop reading but AFK you can also walk away and it's pretty much the same.

Re: Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

#43

Post by ryandrake »

Nextgrid wrote: post #12
TheJoYo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using a chronological order social media for a couple of years now and I wouldn't trade it for a sorting algo. Sure, I miss some things that are likely interesting and sometimes I need to mute some that post too often. I think content tagging is what people were really asking for when they got "optimized for engagement."

Is there a mainstream social media platform that still supports a chronological order? Twitter is the closest one but as far as I know they still periodically reset the feed to the algorithmic one, overriding your previous decision.

Old school forums. I'm a member of quite a few hobby-related forums and they are great.

Basically anything without crowdsourced voting that affects placement of the message. That could be obvious things like reddit posts, and other things like online reviews. Effortless "likes" and "upvotes" produce the worst feeds.

Re: Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

#44

Post by endisneigh »

I've thought about this problem a lot - I want to create a social network that has the following attributes:

- $1 a year to participate

- You must read posts/articles to reply. Imagine the mechanism in which this is determined to be "perfect."

- No pictures

- Karma is gathered by writing posts that are read a lot, as opposed to comments that have a lot of "upvotes."

- Upvotes/downvoting doesn't exist.

From my experience the social media addiction is heightened by 3 attributes:

1. pictures

2. how controversial something is

3. trolling

The issue though is that a social network like I described would be something people wouldn't want to use, so it wouldn't really serve to be a place people could go to that's a healthier community. It's a tough nut to crack.

Re: Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

#46

Post by rland »

swiley wrote: post #42
rland wrote: post #40

When you interact online, you fundamentally are interacting with only yourself. It is a solipsistic endeavor. You fundamentally choose which comments to respond to; unlike the real world, where a conversation occurs between two people, you can instantly drive into a conversation whenever you see fit, and leave whenever you wish also. Therefore, the choice of which conversation, which comment, is entirely yours. And s…

That's a neat idea but what about people who only see each other in real time chats (voice or text)? You can stop reading but AFK you can also walk away and it's pretty much the same.

I think texts/video calls/etc. isn't social media, it's much more like conversation.

That's why people (in general) are not nearly as mean or rude on a voice call or a 1-to-1 text chat. When you hear someone's voice or actually engage with a real time conversation (like a text chat, which you can't as easily just walk away from), they develop an interiority to you that forces you to empathize with them. The physical world is the ultimate version of this: seeing a person's body and face forces you to acknowledge their internal life, because the shared physical experience forces it. That's why it's a much higher barrier to bully or be bullied in the physical world.

There are exceptions to this, obviously. Tight knit forums, irc rooms, small moderated communities have an empathetic cost of interaction. But those are not really "social media", imho.

Re: Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

#47

Post by yesenadam »

jancsika wrote: post #45

Alright, "hackers": How the fuck do I use the adtech delivery system you generously gifted to me in order to read the body of a research article[1] from this public institution of higher learning? [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23727810.2020.18...

Hmm the only way I can see right now is to pay US$45 (plus local tax) for the 13-page PDF. Which sounds insane.

Re: Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

#49

Post by Sodman »

Lammy wrote: post #18
colloq wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's only adolescents. You can see rich Google employees bullying poorer developers on Twitter in the name of social justice. Some of the bullies must be at least 50 years old. Social media and Twitter are bad because you can form virtual tribes and yield to age-old instincts. The more individualistic people are, the less they join those tribes. Individualists tend to be grumpy though, for which they ar…

My personal rule of thumb is that I don’t trust anybody whose Twitter profile picture is a photo of themselves.

This is wild to me, as my rule of thumb is the exact opposite! I assume anybody whose profile picture isn't themselves is either a bot, a troll, or a throwaway account they use for comments they know will be controversial. It's the equivalent of having a username like "@John448172312". (Not that you should really trust either group to argue anything in good faith on Twitter).

Re: Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying

#50

Post by raffraffraff »

Lammy wrote: post #35
echelon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an unfortunate heuristic. What is your basis for this?

Unwarranted self-importance. Bonus points if it's a photo of them on a stage holding a microphone with that open-palm I-am-giving-a-TED-talk gesture :)

I know someone who hates pictures of herself, never took a selfie in her life, but switched to a picture of herself and used her real name simply because it's less likely she'll say something stupid/inflammatory in the middle of an argument. If you're using some random name like chickenslippers1981 and have a pic of a cat, you might feel less like being thoughtful. You can always walk away from chickenslippers1981/cat, but you can't walk away from yourself.
Post reply on HN