Antisocial media?

[crickleymal]

I use Facebook quite a lot, but mainly to speak to friends. It's great, almost like having a live conversation which would be difficult to do via email for instance. I don't make public posts, I don't get my news from there and most of the groups I belong to are to do with hobbies and interests.
Yes there are dangers out there but if you're aware of what you're doing then it's ok.

 

[Ed]

Social media is not much different to your mobile phone account or loyalty cards for data mining..... At least you know they are doing it

 

[ttxela2]

They just don't direct people towards their interests, the algorithms actively direct people to more extreme content because that gets more clicks.  This has been documented by facebook, but they won't stop it, because it is profitable. Youtube has similar issues.

I don't entirely disagree but even this is just a reflection of peoples interest in extreme content, the algorithms aren't actively out to promote racism and hate etc., if people were more likely to engage with content on flower arranging or morris dancing it would lead them there instead.

On the whole I probably agree that more controls are necessary and no doubt the big social media companies are out to get as much revenue as they can, sadly though I think the controls are needed more because we as a wider society can't be trusted to play nicely without being overseen by some sort of authority, it's more comfortable to blame an evil corporation than to admit that.

 

[Pitlamp]

Social media is not much different to your mobile phone account or loyalty cards for data mining..... At least you know they are doing it

Orwell was right - he was just slightly early with the year.

 

[PeteHall]

On the whole I probably agree that more controls are necessary

Control what, and by who?

Allowing a state (or worse a tech company), to police free speech is not something I'd advocate, EVER.

 

[Pitlamp]

That's actually a very good point Pete.

 

[ttxela2]

On the whole I probably agree that more controls are necessary

Control what, and by who?

Allowing a state (or worse a tech company), to police free speech is not something I'd advocate, EVER.

Well free speech is a bit of a myth anyway isn't it? There is already plenty you can't say legally. What I think most people want is content that breaks these laws more quickly detected and removed, such as promoting hate crimes/terrorism etc.

Simply posting inaccurracies, in most cases probably isn't illegal in terms of free speech so if we don't want states or the tech companies policing it then who 

Youtube actually probably is the most policed platform around mainly due to the potential to lose advertising revenue. Try posting content there that advertisers wouldn't want to be associated with and watch it sink without trace!

 

[PeteHall]

Simply posting inaccurracies, in most cases probably isn't illegal in terms of free speech so if we don't want states or the tech companies policing it then who

If it isn't illegal, then leave it be, or post an accurate alternative and let people make up their own minds. In reality though, you've answered the 'who' below...

Youtube actually probably is the most policed platform around mainly due to the potential to lose advertising revenue. Try posting content there that advertisers wouldn't want to be associated with and watch it sink without trace!

Policed or censored? And not even by a state or tech company, but by advertisers...

 

[ttxela2]

Simply posting inaccurracies, in most cases probably isn't illegal in terms of free speech so if we don't want states or the tech companies policing it then who

If it isn't illegal, then leave it be, or post an accurate alternative and let people make up their own minds. In reality though, you've answered the 'who' below...

Youtube actually probably is the most policed platform around mainly due to the potential to lose advertising revenue. Try posting content there that advertisers wouldn't want to be associated with and watch it sink without trace!

Policed or censored? And not even by a state or tech company, but by advertisers...

Yes, I'd broadly agree with leaving it be unless it's illegal but it seems a lot of people don't.

As far as YT goes the advertisers don't really police or censor proactively, rather they react to public opinion when something causes outrage and withdraw advertising - the Logan Paul suicide forest thing being a relatively recent example, this then results in more policies and restrictions. YT came down quite hard at the start of the pandemic on people posting videos about Covid. For a while even mentioning Covid as an aside in a video could cause a lot of problems for a channel, all aimed, not so much at avoiding the spread of misinformation, rather avoiding an advertiser inadvertently being associated with the spread of misinformation.

Good or bad - don't know, but there was a time when gang disputes were being settled on YT with fimed beat-downs - you won't find that sort of content these days.

 

[AR]

I thought that FB was a data-mining operation that makes vast amounts of money by selling that data to anyone and everyone who can afford to pay for it, masquerading as:

just a medium for communication

.

That's pretty much spot on; they're using the bait of convenience to draw the masses in so they can gather reams of data to create a profile that can be sold to advertisers, political parties, shady "research" organisations, whoever. Look at the Cambridge Analytics scandal, and  FB's response to that - they were pleading ignorance of what was going on but The Register outright accused them of lying about what they knew and more significantly, what they themselves do with data. Facebook did not sue for libel, nor to the best of my knowledge have they to date taken any sort of action against El Reg.

Basically, Facebook has taken over from religion as "the opium of the masses" for a large chunk of the population, feeding them their news, their social lives, things to feel good about, things to get irate about. There is a price for convenience, and where FB are concerned it's one I'm not willing to pay - before anyone starts going on about other tracking, my browser is  set up to block as much of it as I can get away with, and the information you can get from the blocking tools is quite an eye-opener as to how much is going on behind the scenes.

 

[Ian P]

My ?policy? is to allow the likes of Google and FB to ?harvest? my data (with some controls in place). In return I use their services, some of which are fantastic, google maps for instance. Relevant targeted adverts and ?suggestions? are not too much of a hinderance. I guess time will tell whether this policy is flawed.

 

[mikem]

Facebook isn't as popular amongst today's youth, as all their parents are on it, so it's losing traction & will eventually disappear, unless it reinvents itself.

 

[droid]

Kids have been dropping off Facey for years Mike.

I doubt it'll disappear so long as there's advertising revenue for sellers of reading glasses and stair lifts...

 

[mikem]

Yep, but most of the alternatives have been too ephemeral to challenge FB, but something will come along to take its mantle.

 

[SamT]

Non of my teenage kids are in the slightest bit interested in FB.  Its just not a thing for them or their peers.  Mainly Discord with a bit of Insta.