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

The case against social media is stronger than you think

arachnemag.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 304 posts

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#231

Post by profsummergig »

stevage wrote: post #39
profsummergig wrote: post #28

I used to be disappointed in myself that I didn't understand Discord well enough to use it. Now I'm glad I never understood it well enough to use it.

Huh. I'm on a few discords. They're very easy and obvious to use, and I really enjoy them. And because they are generally well divided by channel, it's easy to avoid the bits you don't want.

You may remember that one needed to use Discord to use MidJourney initially. I was able to use it for that (although a lot of messages that streamed by were confusing to me).

After that I joined a couple of Discords with tens of thousands of users. Nothing ever seemed to happen on them. I knew I was doing something wrong but I couldn't figure it out.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#232

Post by pembrook »

throw4847285 wrote: post #192
pembrook wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re strengthening OP’s point instead of undermining it. The “some governments banned it for kids” argument is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. The actions of tech-reactionist leftist governments absolutely do not constitute sound science or evidence in this matter. And if you’re claiming the French government only makes government policy based on sound data, I will point you to their currently unraveling…

Your argument contains the fallacy fallacy, a logical fallacy in which one wrongly cites an informal fallacy in order to discredit a valid argument. The actions of several democratic governments is evidence that there is enough popular support for these actions to argue for a broader trend. And before you try for a gotcha, I am well aware that a democratic government can enact regulations without a direct vote provin…

Huh? Claiming something is true because a government supports it, is quite possibly the most cut-and-dry definition of an appeal to authority I've ever seen.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#234

Post by epolanski »

beeflet wrote: post #128
epolanski wrote: post #56

Looking at this very comment section the author may have a point.

The solution to social division is to force everyone to use news.epolanski.com, the site where you can only post things that epolanski agrees with

I was referring to the amount of toxicity in the comments.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#235

Post by Chris2048 »

pembrook wrote: post #232
throw4847285 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument contains the fallacy fallacy, a logical fallacy in which one wrongly cites an informal fallacy in order to discredit a valid argument. The actions of several democratic governments is evidence that there is enough popular support for these actions to argue for a broader trend. And before you try for a gotcha, I am well aware that a democratic government can enact regulations without a direct vote provin…

Huh? Claiming something is true because a government supports it, is quite possibly the most cut-and-dry definition of an appeal to authority I've ever seen.

"several democratic governments"

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#236

Post by Chris2048 »

fercircularbuf wrote: post #215
giardini wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sig says "So you want your friend to be able to anonymously express their racism while being able to hide it from you? I can't imagine advocating for that as a desired goal rather than a negative side effect." Deceit is a characteristic of our humanity. We all deceive others and ourselves. If people are to be allowed to be fully expressive as humans they need to be able to deceive. And so they require anonymity. See…

I don't see the logic in this argument. What's the difference from your argument if I state that murder is a characteristic of our humanity? If people are to be allowed to be fully expressive as humans they need to be able to murder.

> What's the difference from your argument if I state that murder is a characteristic of our humanity?

It's unclear that it's true. I think the implication is deceit is a human characteristic because all humans do it, perhaps even subconsciously; Is the same true of murder?

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#237

Post by narag »

If you're a politician, you need people to vote for you. "Your" people will. Try not to alienate too much others so you can fish moderates and get to 50%.

If you're an "influencer" you need engagement. You can live off a 10% easily. And you need retention. So keep the message heated.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#238

Post by Thorrez »

userbinator wrote: post #164
pitched wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymous users are much less likely to get defensive because they have nothing to defend.

4chan seems to be a counterexample to that.

Are you saying 4chan users are defensive? They seem pretty unapologetically offensive to me.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#239

Post by Chris2048 »

foxglacier wrote: post #85
slg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend. So you want your friend to be able to anonymously express their racism while being able to hide it from you? I can't imagine advocating for that as a desired goal rather than a negative side effect. >Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly agains…

I live in a society as toxic as that. It's New Zealand. One of the minor parties currently in government aims to undo systemic racism. However, the popular opinion is that they are the racists because of that. I don't dare tell people that I voted for them because I'll be judged as a racist by some of my family members and loose friends. If I say it on the local internet groups, others will be hostile to me for it. A…

> aims to undo systemic racism ... they are the racists because of that

this sounds like a suspicious characterisation - how are they trying to undo systemic racism, and what do they identify as "systemic racism"?

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#240

Post by zeta0134 »

amatecha wrote: post #151
beeflet wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A giant step forward into the echo chamber

I interpret this as "I expect my opinions to be heard by people who don't want to hear them". Show me the ill effects of having an opt-in, consent-based social space where it's not infiltrated by unwelcome participants?

Well, imagine for a moment that the unwelcome participants are the ones against murder. Everyone currently in the group thinks murdering people who disagree with you is a fine way to solve problems. Outsiders might share insights and opinions to discourage this way of thinking, so they're not allowed to join.
Post reply on HN