The case against social media is stronger than you think • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by lanfeust6 » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 1:39 PM UTC

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #300

lanfeust6 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a sense yes By definition, yes. > is any newsfeed with a comment-section or a hobbyist forum social media? Some are just larger and more centralized than others. > Can I monetise my contributions here, advertise products, sell my karma-points or create networks of like-minded individuals here? "Show HN" basically is that. And yes you can create connections here. I don't think I need to go on.

No, there is no point in advancing. By refusing to see the difference you are essentially wishing away a very real problem.

I've yet to see a meaningful difference highlighted.

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

#302

Post by Chris2048 » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 10:39 PM UTC

foxglacier wrote: post #299

Chris2048 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which race was favoured? Did labour justify the racial-basis as addressing pre-existing inequality?

Maori and possible Pacific Island. I'm not sure how it was justified but I imagine probably because of worse health outcomes for those groups. Trying to correct an inequality with another inequality is still discrimination. People who want that should be honest and identify themselves as racists, not the ones who want to stop racism.

But I can now see there is more to the issue. Racism is classically believing one (your) race is better than another, and the implication of "race-based" X is the favour one race based one that belief.

Trying to correct historical inequalities isn't an obvious case of "racism".

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

#303

Post by escapedmoose » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 11:38 PM UTC

stack_framer wrote: post #95

I did my own informal research study—I quit social media cold turkey. My findings: I feel much better. I don't need any other data.

Same. 9 months into quitting socials I feel like I got a new brain. I’m appreciating my surroundings and noticing the cadence of the day more than I have in years. I’ve been killing it at work and got a promotion. Just last year I had been thinking to myself that my mind had lost its sharpness since college. Now I feel like it’s noticeably expanding!

I will never ever ever ever go back. The perks of online connection were never worth the sacrifices.

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

#304

Post by foxglacier » Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 3:03 AM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #302

foxglacier wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maori and possible Pacific Island. I'm not sure how it was justified but I imagine probably because of worse health outcomes for those groups. Trying to correct an inequality with another inequality is still discrimination. People who want that should be honest and identify themselves as racists, not the ones who want to stop racism.

But I can now see there is more to the issue. Racism is classically believing one (your) race is better than another, and the implication of "race-based" X is the favour one race based one that belief. Trying to correct historical inequalities isn't an obvious case of "racism".

There are Maori people who want to favor their own race based on the belief that they have more rights than other races due to their ancestry. They call themselves "people of the land" to distinguish themselves from "people of the treaty" - or people whose ancestors signed up for those rights instead of inheriting them. This is a widely popular belief. So even by your definition, that's racist. It doesn't just stop being racist when there are also people of other races believing the same thing.