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

Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 199 posts

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#41

Post by bckr »

donatj wrote: post #25
mrkramer wrote: post #22

Wasn't early Facebook all about connecting with friends and family and looking for boyfriend/girlfriend? Today I only hear something like "fake news, hate, racism, violence" etc. I wonder what has changed? I think that it is not Facebook's management fault but the reality kicked in. Medium like Facebook is convenient for all type of content and interaction unlike Instagram for example which is more for showing off wi…

I'm 90% sure it's when they started personalizing the feeds. You only see things the algorithm thinks you're going to like, but it has a very shallow idea of you as a human being limited to your outward expression. Then It pushes you further and further to the extremes of what it thinks you like. People were warning about filter bubbles even before Facebook did it.

> People were warning about filter bubbles even before Facebook did it.

Makes me think of "reality tunnels"[] written of long before Zuck made his website.

[] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Reality_tunnel

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#42

Post by bckr »

pelasaco wrote: post #39
bckr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intention of the creators and, yes, moderation. The exact same HTML/CSS/JS could power a community devoted to fighting a holy war against Lizard people.

but not all moderation are the same too, right? I mean reddit has moderation, but IMO, there, it doesn't work as good as here.

That's why I mention intention of the creators. Reddit is meant to be "the front page of the Internet", which means it needs to be enormous and serve many different communities.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#43

Post by ppf »

krapp wrote: post #24
grawprog wrote: post #16

I think social media needs to be redefined. What the average person thinks social media is is very different than what it actually is. I think a lot of people think big social media platforms are actually communication platforms, they're not. They're designed intentionally to be difficult to communicate on. That the not the purpose of them, it's in the name 'social media' they are the media, you are the social. They…

Social media is as successful as it is precisely because it works so well as a communications paradigm. No popular social media platform is difficult to communicate on, they draw in so many users because they're easy to use. My mother who can barely use Windows knows how to chat with me on Facebook. People use social media to communicate between friends, family, coworkers etc all the time. That's how all of that mone…

>it still works as intended for 99% of people.

I would argue that it feels like it works, for 99% of people. I strongly believe that "social media" is a low-quality and unsatisfactory replacement for meaningful social interaction and bonding.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#44

Post by grawprog »

krapp wrote: post #24
grawprog wrote: post #16

I think social media needs to be redefined. What the average person thinks social media is is very different than what it actually is. I think a lot of people think big social media platforms are actually communication platforms, they're not. They're designed intentionally to be difficult to communicate on. That the not the purpose of them, it's in the name 'social media' they are the media, you are the social. They…

Social media is as successful as it is precisely because it works so well as a communications paradigm. No popular social media platform is difficult to communicate on, they draw in so many users because they're easy to use. My mother who can barely use Windows knows how to chat with me on Facebook. People use social media to communicate between friends, family, coworkers etc all the time. That's how all of that mone…

That's not quite what I meant. Sure you can chat directly fairly easy through Facebook, but communicate is more than just that. Keeping to the Facebook example, much of the 'communication' is done through user or group wall posts.

It is notoriously difficult to browse through, responses are sorted in non-intuitive ways, sometimes responses are hidden for no apparent reason, yet people regularly use it to communicate.

When people post status updates or pictures or whatever, they're trying to communicate, how many times have you gotten status or upload notifications from people you haven't talked to in years, but it never showed you your best friend's new baby pictures or something like that?

Twitter, It's designed around a character limit that strictly discourages longform communication. Yet, you get people trying to write blog posts using it, much to the chagrin of many HN commenters, and generally, the quality of most communication suffers greatly on twitter because of the inherent design.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#45

Post by CodeGlitch »

underseacables wrote: post #2

I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity. We used to spend so much time together, doing things together, I’m talking in the office to the roller rink. Perhaps this just shows how old I am, but I really felt like that was better for humanity. Global communication and interaction is great and all, but I really miss sitting around the backyard with friends talking

> I think the global reduction in in person communication is a grave risk to humanity.

I'm not sure I agree. For the most part of humanity, we have been at war, murdering each other, enslaving each other, and numerous other atrocities... Including nearly a nuclear war.

The reduction in in person communication is due to the increase in global communication... Which I think is a net benefit. Social media is a bump in the road, and my hope is that we'll overcome the likes of Twitter soon.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#47

Post by CodeGlitch »

pelasaco wrote: post #33

But not all social media are the same. HN for example, is the only social media that I consume completely (news feeds + comment section). Everything else I limit as much as I can.. what makes HN so much better than the others? Lack of ads? Moderation?

I don't consider HN to be social media. It's a forum isn't it? Mostly anonymous and no "pushing" of feeds or content.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#48

Post by polalavik »

JoshTko wrote: post #46

There is simply too much noise/signal. We truly need a protected class of speech/news that cannot lie by law. This is similar to standardizing currency in order to facilitate trade without risk, except for information.

But who will be the arbiter of truth?

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#49

Post by stuntkite »

polalavik wrote: post #48
JoshTko wrote: post #46

There is simply too much noise/signal. We truly need a protected class of speech/news that cannot lie by law. This is similar to standardizing currency in order to facilitate trade without risk, except for information.

But who will be the arbiter of truth?

I’m currently not that busy really. Let me know when the arbiter position opens up and I’ll rearrange my schedule.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#50

Post by thethethethe »

JoshTko wrote: post #46

There is simply too much noise/signal. We truly need a protected class of speech/news that cannot lie by law. This is similar to standardizing currency in order to facilitate trade without risk, except for information.

This begs the question that truth can be formalized. Who gets to decide what is truth? That's incredible power and it's unlikely that people will agree on who gets to wield it. If some does have that power, how do we know that they won't control the "truth" to build an autocracy?
Post reply on HN