Don't let social media think for you • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#21

Post by TheHypnotist » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 12:37 PM UTC

goalieca wrote: post #10

spadros wrote: post #3

Yes I quit social media a couple of years ago and agree with pretty much everything the author says. Social media environments encourage incendiary discussion because it fuels upvotes and general attention. Most people won't take the time to consider a more valid grey opinion because they've jumped to a conclusion and are busy attacking someone, or because it won't get as much attention. The first thing that came bac…

I'm on linked-in for obvious reasons but i largely ignore the posts. I don't get how so many people are political on a site largely concerning itself with employment. Other than that, reddit was the last piece of social media that i quit last year. I consider it more of a social media service than an a forum for discussion.

LinkedIn is chock full of people with bullshit professional titles posting nonsense. Half the time I wonder if they're bots.

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#22

Post by tester34 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 12:44 PM UTC

throw737858 wrote: post #20

tester34 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's poor deal, it's not worth. Just because I may learn some small things that probably does not affect me directly and additionally receive some news that make my mood worse due to hearing some yet another negative news about bad stuff / politics / yada yada, what's the point? 80% of the news I read is HN and some programming related websites and whenever I jump into "mainstream" media, then I feel like I'm reading…

Most Americans do not realise how deep in their information rabbit hole they are. Denial is not solution. Outside perspective (indian news) improves your mental health and resistance. It is mainstream, but based perspective.

I'm not American, I think the only "purely American" news that I see is probably something about $BIG politics like election outcome, war, blabla.

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#23

Post by chestervonwinch » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 12:49 PM UTC

goalieca wrote: post #10

spadros wrote: post #3

Yes I quit social media a couple of years ago and agree with pretty much everything the author says. Social media environments encourage incendiary discussion because it fuels upvotes and general attention. Most people won't take the time to consider a more valid grey opinion because they've jumped to a conclusion and are busy attacking someone, or because it won't get as much attention. The first thing that came bac…

I'm on linked-in for obvious reasons but i largely ignore the posts. I don't get how so many people are political on a site largely concerning itself with employment. Other than that, reddit was the last piece of social media that i quit last year. I consider it more of a social media service than an a forum for discussion.

I enjoy LinkedIn for keeping up with old colleagues. But -- and I hate to be too sour on people who are earnestly excited about sharing their career progress -- everyone seems to announce every minor career move on LinkedIn in posts that read like a Grammy acceptance speech.

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#24

Post by douglaswlance » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 12:58 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #11

tester34 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but what's the point of watching news? why bother?

The point is to let you know a bit about the reality you share with others. The stuff on the news is often things that are affecting others directly (do you want to avoid the area of town with unmasked protesters?) and indirectly (Is your neighbor going to increase racism towards Asian Americans in part because of folks linking a virus to a country?). News doesn't always have the most important things to you, but it…

If your goal is to better understand your reality, you would learn more about the world by reading books than by watching the news.

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#25

Post by weezin » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

spadros wrote: post #3

Yes I quit social media a couple of years ago and agree with pretty much everything the author says. Social media environments encourage incendiary discussion because it fuels upvotes and general attention. Most people won't take the time to consider a more valid grey opinion because they've jumped to a conclusion and are busy attacking someone, or because it won't get as much attention. The first thing that came bac…

I recently deleted a lot of social media accounts. My concerns are any accounts I created for important things using social media accounts, and losing track of what behavior is publicly acceptable in the ever changing Overton window. I feel like the benefits to productivity and mental health will exceed those concerns greatly though.

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#26

Post by emc3 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

spadros wrote: post #3

Yes I quit social media a couple of years ago and agree with pretty much everything the author says. Social media environments encourage incendiary discussion because it fuels upvotes and general attention. Most people won't take the time to consider a more valid grey opinion because they've jumped to a conclusion and are busy attacking someone, or because it won't get as much attention. The first thing that came bac…

> more valid grey opinion

What makes the "grey" opinion "more valid"?

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#27

Post by cindarin » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:09 PM UTC

emc3 wrote: post #26

spadros wrote: post #3

Yes I quit social media a couple of years ago and agree with pretty much everything the author says. Social media environments encourage incendiary discussion because it fuels upvotes and general attention. Most people won't take the time to consider a more valid grey opinion because they've jumped to a conclusion and are busy attacking someone, or because it won't get as much attention. The first thing that came bac…

> more valid grey opinion What makes the "grey" opinion "more valid"?

because the person you're replying to agrees with that opinion at the exclusion of all others

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#28

Post by tristor » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

emc3 wrote: post #26

spadros wrote: post #3

Yes I quit social media a couple of years ago and agree with pretty much everything the author says. Social media environments encourage incendiary discussion because it fuels upvotes and general attention. Most people won't take the time to consider a more valid grey opinion because they've jumped to a conclusion and are busy attacking someone, or because it won't get as much attention. The first thing that came bac…

> more valid grey opinion What makes the "grey" opinion "more valid"?

It may not be. In fact, I'd suggest discussing the idea of validity in relation to opinions is probably fraught with peril itself. That said, any opinion which is more close to the unbridled truth is generally more structurally sound (and maybe that's a good hallmark for "validity") than opinions which are more sensationalized.

"Grey opinions" are essentially the opposite of sensationalized. I'm not the original commenter, but if I read them correctly, I believe they mean that the least sensational and most deliberate opinions are more likely to fully account for the truth of the matter (and hence be "more" valid) than those opinions which sensationalize.

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#29

Post by riebschlager » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

emc3 wrote: post #26

spadros wrote: post #3

Yes I quit social media a couple of years ago and agree with pretty much everything the author says. Social media environments encourage incendiary discussion because it fuels upvotes and general attention. Most people won't take the time to consider a more valid grey opinion because they've jumped to a conclusion and are busy attacking someone, or because it won't get as much attention. The first thing that came bac…

> more valid grey opinion What makes the "grey" opinion "more valid"?

I would assume the author of that comment was using "grey" to describe an opinion that is more nuanced and carefully considered. A black/white opinion would be hyperbolic or simply expressed to provoke reaction.

So if that's what a grey opinion is... then yeah. That's more valid. Especially if you value conversations aimed at exploring some reality rather than performative shouting matches.

Re: Don't let social media think for you

#30

Post by tristor » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

cindarin wrote: post #14

I don't understand these posts. Why must the world at large censor themselves so an author can demand everyone see her work as perfection without hearing any other opinion? Why are the various, discordant voices considered "social media thinking for you", but the demand of absolute acquiescence is not?

I don't believe that's an accurate representation of the point the author of the article was trying to make. I believe that their point was that we should not pile on with mobs, believing that popularity or trends of the moment are correct (letting social media think for you) and instead perform our own analysis of available information or better yet avoid contentious situations altogether.

Their point wasn't really about the author or the book, or the situation, it was a meta-analysis of the fact that many of the later participants in the mud-slinging online were reacting to the furor on social media, rather than to the original situation. If you analyze this more expansively, it's just an observation of the well understood sociological trend of reactionaries and counter-reactionaries.