Cancer. They are cancer. Pure and simple.
Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
21–30 of 53 posts
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#22“engagement media”
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#23Opinion amplifiers.
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#24[deleted]
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#25Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#26Skinner boxes is my favorite euphemism
Thaaat's not actually a euphemism.
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#27Unimatrix One?
"We are Borg. You will be red pilled. Resistance is futile. Where we go one we go all!"
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#28Toxic waste dumps?
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#29According to the theory of the author, I've found that Twitter can be used like an actual social network and I do use it like this with a group of friends. It is kind of a cluster and anyone can join only by answering our tweets and hanging out.
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#30Is there now a gap for a new social platform that goes back to chronologically ordered content from those you choose to follow/friend rather than algorithmically curated content from other sources designed to lure you in?