Topic: Social Media

[Chakan]

I was traveling with a friend this weekend, about a 3 hour drive home and we got to discussing the world and the state of it, and just how it's gotten to this stage.

His one comment that was the biggest threat to humanity these days was the proliferation of social media sites giving everyone a voice.

Social media seems to have been a good idea at the start but has it gotten out of control and now become a vehicle for hate and vengeance? Or is it a balance where the amount of hate is countered by the number of people using it for good?

Where will it lead?

Just an interesting discussion that we had and i'd like to see what people say about it.

[Caligula?]

I'm of the idea that everyone deserves a voice. Even the bad ones. Sure, there are lots of air thieves out there who use social media to fuel their hate-ridden and violent agendas. But that speaks to a larger and more complex issue, which has little to do with social media itself. I suppose also that for every person that spews hate, there are double the number of people who counteract them by using social media for good.

Where will it lead? Who knows, but we'll just have to adapt along with it as well.

[killer-heels]

Isnt this similar to the discussion about freedom of speech? Do we really want freedom of speech or do we want it moderated so we can only hear what they want to hear?

Specifically around social media, I think to open a twitter or facebook account should have to provide verifiable documentation or ID.

[ShakaHislop]

I'm more sympathetic than I used to be to the argument that anonymity should not be allowed on social media. If people want to choose to use those platforms to try and cause division within the bounds of the law, fine, free speech and all that but they should be forced to say it when everyone can see who they really are. If they're not comfortable with that, then they can choose not to use the site or think more about what they post.

[ShakaHislop]

Isnt this similar to the discussion about freedom of speech? Do we really want freedom of speech or do we want it moderated so we can only hear what they want to hear?

Specifically around social media, I think to open a twitter or facebook account should have to provide verifiable documentation or ID.

I agree but I also believe you should have to use that name on the documentation/ID. It's not enough for only Facebook/Twitter employees to know who you really are, it should be everyone you interact with.

[Chakan]

Isnt this similar to the discussion about freedom of speech? Do we really want freedom of speech or do we want it moderated so we can only hear what they want to hear?

Specifically around social media, I think to open a twitter or facebook account should have to provide verifiable documentation or ID.

But before social media, freedom of speech was contained to standing on a soapbox and talking to people, nowadays you can open a twitter account and reach millions of people around the world. Is that a good or bad thing?

[Caligula?]

But before social media, freedom of speech was contained to standing on a soapbox and talking to people, nowadays you can open a twitter account and reach millions of people around the world. Is that a good or bad thing?

You've gone way back there.

What about radio? Before radio, people used to stand in front of a soapbox and talk to people. After that, all you needed was a bit of money and you could broadcast and reach millions of people in their homes without ever showing your face. Was that a good or bad thing?

[killer-heels]

But before social media, freedom of speech was contained to standing on a soapbox and talking to people, nowadays you can open a twitter account and reach millions of people around the world. Is that a good or bad thing?

Its difficult to answer that one with what we deem positive or negative consequences of people being able to reach many other individuals and groups in an instant. Is it positive that some injustices can be addressed straight away?

[Chakan]

You've gone way back there.

What about radio? Before radio, people used to stand in front of a soapbox and talk to people. After that, all you needed was a bit of money and you could broadcast and reach millions of people in their homes without ever showing your face. Was that a good or bad thing?

But that requires money and a setup and someone would really need to want to get their message out. Now it's free and has a much further reach no? So any tom dick or harry who knows how to use a computer can do it.

Its difficult to answer that one with what we deem positive or negative consequences of people being able to reach many other individuals and groups in an instant. Is it positive that some injustices can be addressed straight away?

That's a definitely a positive of social media (and there are a lot of things that it does in a positive way) , but does it balance out the bad?

[killer-heels]

But that requires money and a setup and someone would really need to want to get their message out. Now it's free and has a much further reach no? So any tom dick or harry who knows how to use a computer can do it.

That's a definitely a positive of social media (and there are a lot of things that it does in a positive way) , but does it balance out the bad?

I dont think it balances out the bad. Personally I think its been abused by the left far more so than the right. Having worked on an advertising campaign for a retailer for this Christmas, I can tell you that firms are scared shitless about getting something wrong in the fear that by the time they have noticed (or missed it), some knob has shared and found fault in it.

The Nivea case recently was a classic example of a firm having to pull an ad after loads made a judgement on a 3 second clip.

If social media has done anything then its illustrated to those who for some reason didnt know that there is a world far different to one they inhabit. Having said that, the idea that it is a good thing and that we have to understand the ‘other’ is a bit mad. I dont see why we need to be forced to integrate in all areas.

[ShakaHislop]

But that requires money and a setup and someone would really need to want to get their message out. Now it's free and has a much further reach no? So any tom dick or harry who knows how to use a computer can do it.

That's a definitely a positive of social media (and there are a lot of things that it does in a positive way) , but does it balance out the bad?

No. People could do community organising, "crowdfunding" (albeit on a smaller scale) etc before social media. Before social media, neo-Nazis couldn't spread fake news across the world in hours.

[oldfordie]

Social media is controlled by technology.
It's not all about people passing opinions which prove to be wrong.
It's also about what happens when they search for more information.
the results often confirm their own opinion, Bias confirmation.
Am sure this bias confirmation played a part in Brexit.
There was a thread on the subject last year.
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=329126.0

[Gnurglan]

We are just learning about social media. It may seem like it has been around forever, but it's new. We are bound to see people use it in many different ways, that we haven't thought about in the past.

I think it will soon be like with the earliest days of the Internet. Everyone uses the new tool, but we will learn how to cope better. The recent #metoo campaign is a good example of how powers can switch. We can all remember the campaign to get G&H out.

Soon we will see some kind of normalization. I recently read that younger people are better at knowing what news to believe or not. That's promising. Hopefully that will mean social media is basically a new way of communication, but that's about it.

[GreatEx]

I was thinking about this myself the other day and it's interesting to click on this topic and see my thoughts played out by other posters. In particular, I do agree that perhaps it's time to end anonymity in social media. I can see the benefit to a future where people will need to use biometric data (i.e. fingerprint or retina scan) to log in to social media accounts that include the user's legal name. There are downsides to this, of course, such as people living under oppressive being unable to get their message out; but in such countries, access to social media is - or will inevitably be - locked down anyway, so perhaps we're better focusing on the undoubted damage that anonymous purveyors of hatred and fake news can achieve.

[thejbs]

Quitting facebook and twitter this year was very cathartic for me. I've used the time I saved to do more productive things. WhatsApp keeps me in touch with mates and rawk is my only other online social outlet.

[GreatEx]

I'll never join twitter, never been tempted to be honest. One of the great things about RAWK is that we don't have a rating system for posts or posters - I think that's where things often start to go wrong.

[Flinstone]

The problem with social media beside the speed and reach it proliferates is that these ideas and opinions are formed from places that have completely lost the plot of their place and role in a democratic society.

Facebook does nothing to stop propaganda pieces appearing or as the cliche goes 'Fake News' from multiplying  nor do these sources have any sort of accountability. There needs to be a complete and utter ban on stories peddled without a baseline of facts and logical reasoning to support their argument with jail time for the people behind it. The dumbing down of popular culture has become a problem as well and unfortunately as this century unfurls the most stable country appears to be one where a group of highly qualified technocrats decide what should and what shouldn't be made available to the public and dare I say it, it is working spectacularly well.

Within democratic constraints the people with the strength of willpower to bring these kind of institutions under control invariably lean despotic and tend to use them for their own benefits. It appears that democracy is indeed dying and will not lead us to the promised land.

[Jiminy Cricket]

There are all kinds of reasons why people should be afforded the opportunity to remain anonymous on the Internet, and social media websites in particular. On balance, neither do I think people should be required (by law) to produce an ID to join such sites (though, individual platforms could have such a policy if they so desired - but I, personally, would argue against it). Any site which requires an ID would also have to ensure that the ID data never leaks (we know that websites regularly fail to ensure this).

The problem is that is that it expedient to enforce standards only where there is a legal requirement or where there is a financial benefit. If a huge percentage of your most active (revenue-generating) members are obnoxious and only use your platform because they are allowed to be obnoxious (and the owner is Mark Zuckerberg), guess where the line will fall. As @Gnurglan commented previously, social media is a recent phenomenon - like all new technologies and modes of communication, it takes time to iron out the wrinkles. Either FB and Twitter (and Youtube for that matter) will clean up their acts (enforce some reasonable standards of behaviour), or they will eventually fade away. I don't think the present situation is indefinitely sustainable. When enough people demand something better from their online interactions and leave FB et al, and all that is left is an increasingly dense soup of shit, even the remaining arse holes will grow bored (after all, their sport will have disappeared) and stop participating. I am not suggesting that this is what will happen. Rather, I expect that these platforms will act before reaching crisis point - there will be re-balancing at some time. But, it will the the bottom line which dictates their actions and when they act.

I think there are things which can be done to force their hand through regulation. Obviously, Russian meddling in the US elections, Brexit  and (attempts) elsewhere needs to be regulated somehow. The most effective way will be through tough financial (and/or criminal) consequences for those allowing specific activities to go unchecked. FB and Twitter have abdicated all responsibly to ensure even the most basic standards of decorum which is required in the real world and have allowed their platforms to have become propaganda machines. They know this, but it is more profitable to not only do nothing but, actually, in their interest to encourage it (this will change).

@GreatEx I am active at another forum where there is no rating system. I think an effective rating system may be possible (and some platforms do it better than others), but it is difficult to prevent gaming and unintended consequences. Certainly, simple 'likes' can be problematic.

[beardsley4ever]

For me, the issue with social media isn't its emergence, it's that its emergence has coincided (maybe inevitably) with the loss of trust in traditional media sources.  The fact that so many people seem to trust what they read on Twitter/Facebook more than what they hear from a professional media source is terrifying.  Some of that is warranted (some of the media outlets have become mockeries of themselves), but others are still (IMO) trying to report the truth about what is happening.  All of them are tarred with the same brush, though, which has greatly exacerbated the influence that social media has on everyone's "knowledge".

[killer-heels]

There are all kinds of reasons why people should be afforded the opportunity to remain anonymous on the Internet, and social media websites in particular. On balance, neither do I think people should be required (by law) to produce an ID to join such sites (though, individual platforms could have such a policy if they so desired - but I, personally, would argue against it). Any site which requires an ID would also have to ensure that the ID data never leaks (we know that websites regularly fail to ensure this).

The problem is that is that it expedient to enforce standards only where there is a legal requirement or where there is a financial benefit. If a huge percentage of your most active (revenue-generating) members are obnoxious and only use your platform because they are allowed to be obnoxious (and the owner is Mark Zuckerberg), guess where the line will fall. As @Gnurglan commented previously, social media is a recent phenomenon - like all new technologies and modes of communication, it takes time to iron out the wrinkles. Either FB and Twitter (and Youtube for that matter) will clean up their acts (enforce some reasonable standards of behaviour), or they will eventually fade away. I don't think the present situation is indefinitely sustainable. When enough people demand something better from their online interactions and leave FB et al, and all that is left is an increasingly dense soup of shit, even the remaining arse holes will grow bored (after all, their sport will have disappeared) and stop participating. I am not suggesting that this is what will happen. Rather, I expect that these platforms will act before reaching crisis point - there will be re-balancing at some time. But, it will the the bottom line which dictates their actions and when they act.

I think there are things which can be done to force their hand through regulation. Obviously, Russian meddling in the US elections, Brexit  and (attempts) elsewhere needs to be regulated somehow. The most effective way will be through tough financial (and/or criminal) consequences for those allowing specific activities to go unchecked. FB and Twitter have abdicated all responsibly to ensure even the most basic standards of decorum which is required in the real world and have allowed their platforms to have become propaganda machines. They know this, but it is more profitable to not only do nothing but, actually, in their interest to encourage it (this will change).

@GreatEx I am active at another forum where there is no rating system. I think an effective rating system may be possible (and some platforms do it better than others), but it is difficult to prevent gaming and unintended consequences. Certainly, simple 'likes' can be problematic.

Of course, forcing people to give verifiable id to make their views known is quite a drastic step and you always would have other sites who wouldnt do that and they would benefit from the extra traffic. Its an extreme reaponse to put the responsibility back onto the person to moderate how they behave.

I am not convinced though that tech companies that provide the platform will change easily even through financial penalties. How on earth would such fines be distributed and they would be subject to continuous legal challenges.

I also cannot see anything changing from people demanding more from it, which is effectively self moderating. If anything the problem and volume is getting worse as politics polarises even more and it becomes a cycle.

Ultimately, these firms and the people that work for them basically dont care.

[McrRed]

Social media platform argument gets heated?

It's all gone a bit meta.

[TheShanklyGates]

How has what was shaping up to be an interesting thread about the role of social media in our society turned into a discussion about drone strikes and Hilary Clinton?

You'd struggle to find a better encapsulation of social media mind...

[Pistolero]

Social media good or bad?.....read the second half of this thread and then decide

[killer-heels]

We are just learning about social media. It may seem like it has been around forever, but it's new. We are bound to see people use it in many different ways, that we haven't thought about in the past.

I think it will soon be like with the earliest days of the Internet. Everyone uses the new tool, but we will learn how to cope better. The recent #metoo campaign is a good example of how powers can switch. We can all remember the campaign to get G&H out.

Soon we will see some kind of normalization. I recently read that younger people are better at knowing what news to believe or not. That's promising. Hopefully that will mean social media is basically a new way of communication, but that's about it.

Ultimately the final paragraph is as close to a free society as one could hope for. But then the question would be is that, or a truly free society,  what we want?

[ChaChaMooMoo]

Back on topic fellas.

Im 30. And I'm not on facebook and twitter. Or instagram. Or snapchat. Or other things that I might have missed.

Just things that my fellow 30 year olds find fascination toward. I just find it a waste of time.

There was a time, a couple of years earlier, when I was on facebook scrolling through the feed every morning after I wake up and right before I go to sleep.

The satisfaction that I got when people commented on my photos (or liked them) was too much. At one point, a group of friends would update our profile photos to see who got the most likes and/or comments in 12 hours.

I do some hobby abstract photography that I used to upload as my cover photo. Along with a quote crediting the author. Something to fill up the text field that, in my opinion, goes with the theme of the photo. It got to a point where the couch keyboard warriors would find the uncanny need to be politically correct. Not people whom I didn't know or have met probably once at a party. My very own friends from school, university and neighborhood.

I liked the social media. I didn't like what it bought along. But I cant hold the rose if I don't want the thorns. So deactivated or deleted all of the accounts and apps and today I'm a happy man.

[SP]

The village has its idiot back. Back on topic.

[thejbs]

The village has its idiot back. Back on topic.

Haha! If you'd wanted an example of the kind of cretinous trolls social media has unleashed on the world, there was arguably no better example than that.

[BlackandWhitePaul]

My Da tells me that when he was a young un he had to take photos with his camera then take the roll of film to be developed and printed then go back a week later for the photos throwing 90% of them in the bin because they were rubbish.  For some reason which he can't explain some of them even had one of his own fingers, or thumbs on it   

THEN, he had to stand in the middle of Northumberland Street in the toon and ask random people what they thought of them.

Aye, kids these days don't know they are born     

[FlashingBlade]

Social Media when I was young was passing the Pink Echo around in the pub after the match.

Everyone complains and worries about the times they live in ( This usually begins mid thirties) ....I recall reading an ariticle in a paper about concern how the youth of today have lost their way,their  moral compass and behaviour was scary....the piece in the paper was actually a reproduction from writing in Roman times.

Social media creates friendship , educates , can save lives...it can also make people really unhappy and unsafe....its the world now , As for its potential to influence people with fake news..like thats new? ..it just took one Aussie News paper owner and a
Southern Tory Twat to convince most of this country for 25 years we killed our own fans.

[Jiminy Cricket]

How has what was shaping up to be an interesting thread about the role of social media in our society turned into a discussion about drone strikes and Hilary Clinton?

You'd struggle to find a better encapsulation of social media mind...

Clinton too? I guess I missed that post. But the comments I did catch did exemplify why nearly any discussion space benefits from some form of editorial overview and control. Most of the time moderation is not even needed - but just having it there as a real possibility generally improves quality. Though, it is a pretty common (and annoying) occurrence for people (who totally misunderstand the concept of 'freedom of expression') to scream 'censorship' when they cannot get away with posting whatever they like, wherever they wish. These small irritations are far preferable to the signal to noise ratio of places like Twitter and the comments sections of most media outlets.

My Da tells me that when he was a young un he had to take photos with his camera then take the roll of film to be developed and printed then go back a week later for the photos throwing 90% of them in the bin because they were rubbish.  For some reason which he can't explain some of them even had one of his own fingers, or thumbs on it   

THEN, he had to stand in the middle of Northumberland Street in the toon and ask random people what they thought of them.

Aye, kids these days don't know they are born     

That took me a moment!

[RedSince86]

I dont think it balances out the bad. Personally I think its been abused by the left far more so than the right. Having worked on an advertising campaign for a retailer for this Christmas, I can tell you that firms are scared shitless about getting something wrong in the fear that by the time they have noticed (or missed it), some knob has shared and found fault in it.

The Nivea case recently was a classic example of a firm having to pull an ad after loads made a judgement on a 3 second clip.

If social media has done anything then its illustrated to those who for some reason didnt know that there is a world far different to one they inhabit. Having said that, the idea that it is a good thing and that we have to understand the ‘other’ is a bit mad. I dont see why we need to be forced to integrate in all areas.

I read something yesterday evening in The Guardian about some plonkers boycotting Tesco because their xmas ad had a muslim family in it.

Some of the comments on Twitter were neanderthal.

[BlackandWhitePaul]

Clinton too? I guess I missed that post. But the comments I did catch did exemplify why nearly any discussion space benefits from some form of editorial overview and control. Most of the time moderation is not even needed - but just having it there as a real possibility generally improves quality. Though, it is a pretty common (and annoying) occurrence for people (who totally misunderstand the concept of 'freedom of expression') to scream 'censorship' when they cannot get away with posting whatever they like, wherever they wish. These small irritations are far preferable to the signal to noise ratio of places like Twitter and the comments sections of most media outlets.

That took me a moment!

As long as we got there in the end Jimmy.   

I was typing in jest of course, meaning that he was fishing for likes and compliments on his photographs by actually standing on the street and showing his photographs to real people, random strangers even, anybody who would care to give him 10 seconds of their time.

I think I read somewhere that 1 billion images are submitted to Facebook every day of the week.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

As some have said, relatively very early for the tech, issues to work on. Most things in this world can be weaponised, social media is just another one of them.

[Macphisto80]

It's not social media. It's anti social. I wouldn't delve into it as far as saying it's affecting society at large in such a manner as to incite revolutions for the wrong reason and whatnot, although we do have an idiot US president that got elected where it has had a pretty big influence on that. I'd say if we all stepped back and really looked at it with unbiased eyes, then to certain individuals, their lives would be drastically improved without it. I think its a dangerous thing for anyone suffering from any kind of mental illness, and because it's a relatively new thing in the modern world, I dare say doctors and scientists will find more and more psychological issues associated with its use. It can be a good thing for advertising, though. I'll give it that. It can improve someone's life from a financial point of view, but then again, that all just points towards just how much of a capitalist driven thing it is. There might be a few good people exploiting it, but they'll be vastly outnumbered by c*nts who'll use it for much worse.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Specifically around social media, I think to open a twitter or facebook account should have to provide verifiable documentation or ID.

I don't use twitter, but such restrictions would have me deleting my facebook account immediately.

[thejbs]

Towards the end of my twitter life, earlier this year, I had a discussion with a tech geek and so-called libertarian who argued that the government shouldn't be allowed to prosecute people for having child pornography on their computers as long as the person wasn't involved in the creation of it. Couldn't see the connection between supply and demand. And I'm fairly sure he was serious, and not just trolling.

[Rysoph76]

I believe that one of the worst things that social media (and the internet in general) has done has allowed the more depraved to find other like minds. If you went back to the early 90s, if you were of a particular mind that was attracted to things that most sane people would consider to be abhorrent, it was pretty difficult to find others who shared your views. It may be that, given you were unable to find like minds, that you thought your own desires were socially unacceptable and, as such, would aim to quell them. In this day and age, people are able to link up with like minded people so easily that even the most deranged individuals can find someone who can make them feel that their desires are normal as they find a kindred spirit. It also allows those that are easily susceptible to being manipulated by those that feel they can do so without recourse as they are doing it all online. I use as an example the recent story where the girl talked the lad into killing himself online. He may have done that anyway without the internet but all the evidence points to him being manipulated to do so by her words and encouragement.

My own personal experience of facebook is that it pretty much ruined the first 18 months of my son's life because my ex wife had a friend who had a son the same age. Because my son couldn't walk until 16 months, this entire period was dominated by her exasperation of his perceived failings (in her eyes) as the friend's son walked earlier and did everything sooner. She would have known this without facebook but she would not have been in the position of watching videos everyday of the varying feats that the other kid was doing and it would have been limited to the occasional chat as the friend did not live local. For that reason alone, I hate facebook although I can see it has benefits, particularly for families and friends who live far apart and want to stay in contact more easily.

[Lfsea]

Social media is controlled by technology.
It's not all about people passing opinions which prove to be wrong.
It's also about what happens when they search for more information.
the results often confirm their own opinion, Bias confirmation.
Am sure this bias confirmation played a part in Brexit.
There was a thread on the subject last year.
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=329126.0

Sounds like the lyrics from a Radiohead B-side

[Peabee]

Anonymity is a problem.  It’s a mask that allows people to take on extreme personas with no consequence.  Also, the bots and the trolls spam twitter and Facebook to the point they skew perceptions. 

I think it’s a generational issue too.  It’s a clash of two eras for people, say, 25+, who have known the world pre and post social media.  Teenagers have been raised with social media, so will have an affinity and understanding of social media beyond ours, which will be mostly be only intellectual.  If I was 16 and reading this thread, it’d probably read like our grandparents talking about the ‘modern world’.  We, and our politicians, are out of touch, so we have created and are using something we don’t quite understand.

Thus, I think the problems could be solved by the next generation, or worsened by the older generations.  The Home Secretary’s lack of a basic understanding of cryptography, for example, is a worry for leaving it to the current government. 

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Good discussion on a really complex subject and wide ranging media which is difficult to pin down to one area.

We have the social networks that people often use to provide a narrative of them and theirs. We have new media which is challenging the established media. There is also the opportunity for criminals and shall we say those with more "specialised" tastes to make contact with each other. It also enables us to buy and sell things to each other and that's just a few. Then overarching all of these examples of social media are people whose main aim is just to piss other people off.


Clearly social media can be a force for good and there are lots of examples of that. But one of the issues I see is how people interact with and use social media, especially social networks. People of all ages are addicted to it often to the detriment of their real lives, friends and families and inevitably many people use social media to showcase the best and most desirable part of their lives which leads to others feeling that they are missing out, need to compete or just simply inadequate.

If you then look at the rise of new media, some of it is clearly due to the inadequacies of the established media - I prefer here, the Anfield Wrap and one or 2 other places to get my LFC news because I am sick of the poor quality, often agenda driven, often inaccurate, inadequate and lacking analysis or context output of the established media. As the traditional media desperately tries to reinvent itself and monetise its output there's a turf war going on and publishers will do anything for clicks. However anyone can be a publisher now, and professional publishers are subject to libel and slander laws, so people using new media to publish need to be aware of and take responsibility for what they publish. Establised media don't help themselves when they build an entire piece of content about the social media reaction to another piece of news.

Equally those using social media to spread hate and generally wind people up need to made accountable and held to the same laws that govern what you can and cant say to someone's face.

In summary, social network users - use it less. Established media - rise above it and show your quality otherwise you'll die (Liverpool Echo), and I'm sorry to say that on balance, I would make it compulsory for people to verify identification before using social networks - by all means post anonymously, but prepare to be exposed if you start trolling / issuing threats etc.