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

161–170 of 199 posts

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

#161

Post by danybittel »

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…

A first step should be renaming "social media" to "personal feed".

I think the very name "social media" is catching people off guard. It implies something social, which for most people is good and aspirational.

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

#162

Post by gentleman11 »

Ko76 wrote: post #77
docdeek wrote: post #67

There's a quote in a Michael Crichton novel (The Lost World) that seems relevant here. As part of a rant connecting the idea of the internet and evolution, a character opines: "This idea that the whole world is wired together is mass death. Every biologist knows that small groups in isolation evolve fastest. You put a thousand birds on an ocean island and they'll evolve very fast. You put ten thousand on a big contin…

I am a big Crichton fan and wish he was around to skewer Fuckerberg & Co. Truth is we haven't got to 5 billion online. Just getting 3 billion online has run into massive issues that has split the net in many ways no one imagined. It doesn't look like we will ever get to 5 billion. So there is some baked in natural resistance. Andrew Odlyzko is looking like he was onto something when he said Metcalfe and Reeds Law of…

Recommend a book by him besides Jurassic park (which I read already)?

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

#163

Post by gentleman11 »

lamontcg wrote: post #157
klipt wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think echo chambers are part of the problem. Previously you'd love in your village and have to get along with other villagers (or move, which took a lot of effort) so people had to learn to compromise more. Now everyone can live in virtual echo chambers where everyone agrees with them and they never need to compromise. So they start viewing anyone who disagrees with them as pure evil.

"Every biologist knows that small groups in isolation evolve fastest."

Can any biologist reading this confirm or deny this statement?

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

#164

Post by ppf »

krapp wrote: post #92
ppf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Social media was never intended to be a replacement for meaningful social interaction or bonding, any more than telephones or letter writing, or the generation of forums and personal websites it more or less replaced.

>"Founded in 2004, Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them."

Facebook's mission statement.

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

#165

Post by avhon1 »

gentleman11 wrote: post #162
Ko76 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a big Crichton fan and wish he was around to skewer Fuckerberg & Co. Truth is we haven't got to 5 billion online. Just getting 3 billion online has run into massive issues that has split the net in many ways no one imagined. It doesn't look like we will ever get to 5 billion. So there is some baked in natural resistance. Andrew Odlyzko is looking like he was onto something when he said Metcalfe and Reeds Law of…

Recommend a book by him besides Jurassic park (which I read already)?

The Andromeda Strain

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

#167

Post by epgui »

freebuju wrote: post #101

Misinformation and scarcity of quality information on social media platforms was bound to happen when these platforms hit critical mass. Moderating SM is damn near impossible to do effectively. It is also easy to game SM. From fake clicks/views (bots) to old accounts used for astroturfing etc, the information market is not at a level playing field. And since they are all run on some form of hyper-intelligent ML algor…

I totally agree that "moderating SM is damn near impossible to do effectively", but at the same time, viral misinformation is often super easy to identify and yet is allowed to spread for weeks or months or years.

We could do a much better job at moderating the obviously wrong stuff. And no, I'm not talking about censoring unpopular or contrary opinions. I'm just talking about extinguishing obvious and clear mis/dis-information.

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

#168

Post by ppf »

So the issue with social media is that it allows mass dissent from the officially-promoted opinions on various subjects? I think social media is a mass contagion that will doom us to ineffectual and isolated failure, but for that first reason, it has been essential.

Or maybe, without social media to promote those very officially-approved opinions, we would have used our vast and deep social IRL network to discuss and reason, and would have come to that conclusion anyway.

I strongly believe that the various world governments' policies of lockdown, social isolation, and mask wearing would not have worked 50 years ago, because we were too connected.

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

#169

Post by epgui »

mikewarot wrote: post #160
softwaredoug wrote: post #18

I’m more interested in what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. There’s always been places you could go and find nonsense. But what’s different about this moment? What’s drawing people to nonsense? IMO social media gets the blame, but it’s just the vehicle for something darker happening. Something more about widespread nativism…

> what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. Our elite seem to have decided that their power and profit are more important that helping civilization last another generation. Blaming the working class for not trusting the "elite" them goes against the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on me. Those same eli…

I roll my eyes at every utterance of this type of "elite" mantra.

It's such a non-specific and over-generalized word, and it's become so loaded with pejoration, that for me it's become a sign of intellectual laziness.

The "elites" are not out to get ya, bud. Start by defining with greater precision who you're talking about, and see whether this idea still feels good.

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

#170

Post by epgui »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #19
softwaredoug wrote: post #18

I’m more interested in what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. There’s always been places you could go and find nonsense. But what’s different about this moment? What’s drawing people to nonsense? IMO social media gets the blame, but it’s just the vehicle for something darker happening. Something more about widespread nativism…

On the other hand… have you considered that your doctor, politicians and scientists may also effected by social media in their professional advice you are supposed to take because they are an authority? We don’t need to get into all the times doctors have been way wrong. Now those people who might know that are within your ear shot, perhaps a little less than the lunatics who just want to talk shit. Maybe you are rig…

It's not an appeal to authority, it's deferral to expertise.

This is a very crucial concept: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...

Post reply on HN