111–120 of 142 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure which college was involved here, but if I were the person adjudicating this, I imagine the outcome would not have hinged on the comma.
Well, without the comma it can be entirely plausibly framed as a nice statement, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was harming kids on an industrial scale back when it was new, before Instagram et al cannabalized their audience
Was it? In Facebook’s early days you actually followed your friends and only saw their content. There wasn’t even an algorithm until a few years in when they stopped showing the feed chronologically. It wasn’t perfect but it was largely just an extension of your IRL social life.
But early on, it was just a digital phonebook with headshots and exactly equivalent to physical items that schools already distributed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Social media is black mirror, and we're doing it to ourselves. You mean black mirror is a pessimistic exaggeration on the state of society and technology. It’s not the other way around. What you’re observing is not profound, it’s literally how the writers approach their process for the show. In fact, you’re doing this weird thing where you make it seem like black mirror was prophetic and it came before all the obse…
Your defense of social media seems to be that the jobs it has created outweigh the horrible things it has done to many of the young people in society. Some of us apparently apply very different weighting to the two sides and come to a different conclusion on the efficacy of social media.
But to your point about young people in society, this feels like a classic “but oh, isn’t anybody thinking about the children” moment. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
It’s a logical fallacy. If we are simply thinking about whether any of society is harmed we might as well just do nothing at all and cease to exist. Nobody in this thread is willing to engage and sincerely discuss the benefits vs the harms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't work for Snap, but they do use some software I wrote, so I guess that's close enough. I find all of these "social media is bad" articles (for kids or adults) basically boil down to: Let humans communicate freely, some of them will do bad things. This presents a choice: Monitor everyone Orwell-style, or accept that the medium isn't going to be able to solve the problem. Even though we tolerate a lot more monit…
> Let humans communicate freely, some of them will do bad things. That’s just normal phone calls - no one is complaining about those. But social networks have algorithms that promote one kind of content over another. I keep getting recommended YouTube videos of gross and mostly fake pimple removal, on Facebook AI generated fake videos of random crap like Barnacle removal, and google ads for an automated IoT chicken c…
Maybe you're starving the algorithm and it's trying random things? Look up how to reset the YT algo, I'm sure it's possible. Then try subscribing/liking a few things that you actually like.
If you're within a standard deviation or two of the typical HNer, look up "Practical Engineering" and like a few of his videos. That should get you started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We block a number of online properties including Snapchat and YouTube using NextDNS. We have different profiles for different devices to allow, for example, YouTube on the television but not on kids tablets or phones.
that's only good for the devices using your internet though no? not if they have data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's only good for the devices using your internet though no? not if they have data.
why would you give a kid data? (as in cell data, presumably) I guess, to be able to helicopter them from anywhere... Apple devices would still have parental controls in that case, though, I think? Cellphone companies should really step up, here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technological solutions to societal problems just don't work. Some $EVIL technology being fashioned to harm individuals isn't to blame - the companies behind that technology are. You can pile up your geofencing rules, the real solution lies somewhere between you deleting the app and your government introducing better regulation.
By this logic technological “progress” can not cause societal problems? Which of course it can so why can’t a part of the solution be technological?
Back when I was graduating from Uni, one day I just decided that Snap streaks pressure was too much. I had streaks of 700 days+ with a person I barely talked to. But most of my streaks were with my best friends, people I talked to every day. It was like a daily ritual, and I couldn't escape it for a while. I decided to go cold turkey, since it felt like the only option. All my friends moaned and complained for a whil…
I’ve done this for all social media, and more recently deleted all social apps. I’ll go on Facebook sometime through the web browser, mainly for marketplace.
Facebook was the first app I tested disabling notifications on. This had to be about 10 years ago, I noticed they would give me a new notification every 5-10 minutes. I was addicted to checking what the notification as. Usually garbage, and the less I used Facebook the more garbage the notice. Since I’ve stopped using Facebook for anything but marketplace my entire feed is now garbage. The algorithm doesn’t know what to do with me now and its former history.
Having no social apps has been a hard change to get used to. But I feel so much better not feeling like I need to scroll.
I only scroll on hacker news now… which is easy because the top page doesn’t get that many updates in a day, and after several minutes of browsing “new” I’m satiated I’ve seen all I might want to see
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your defense of social media seems to be that the jobs it has created outweigh the horrible things it has done to many of the young people in society. Some of us apparently apply very different weighting to the two sides and come to a different conclusion on the efficacy of social media.
I’m not defending social media. I’m talking about how there’s no nuance in ops perspective, black mirror, or the article. It only highlights the negatives and that’s all there is. Basically nobody is looking at the positives. If you’re going to do a societal harm analysis you should probably consider the benefits too before coming to a conclusion. But to your point about young people in society, this feels like a cla…
Other than people that already agree with you, I'm not sure who you are appealing to by suggesting others are caught up in "think of the children".
I bring children up because studies seem to focus on the negatives of social media on children in particular. Also I raised three children and watched social media play out in their lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about societal level harm. Sure, you do everything right, but most people don't. I also do everything correctly, but one time a drunk driver still almost killed me.
Every authoritarian wants more power to prevent "societal level harm". I seem to be hearing that one a lot lately.
Oh really? I'd love to hear a few examples.