The Death of Social Media

[Murrmurr]

Nothing like what you described.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/online-news-act-meta-facebook-1.6885634

It’s to stop these big companies from ripping off legitimate news media companies and posting it as their own content. They have to pay for the content if they want to use it.

That's why we have copyright laws. Maybe just tweak them. It'd be a lot cheaper.

It was good to read more about it (thanks), but I still see downsides. Programs, rules, and laws like that do cost money - people are assigned to finding the offenders, other people are tasked with suppressing them, or a court has to set a series of hearings and then decide how to punish them - and when a free-world gov't is involved, those costs are covered by taxpayers.

But even worse, this kind of thing is sometimes just a starting point.

 

[Roadwarrior]

If we start banning everything we disagree with then we'd have nothing we were allowed to discuss.

I think I should have explained a little more, it wasn't religion's fault, I was just using it as an example. I was so glad they banned politics during 2016 & before, I was really being put off by the rancor that was being expressed. Religion is just another hot potato & open to biased opinions. I group it as things I've reached my limit discussing or arguing about. It had been suggested to ban it & didn't come from me, I repeat my last point, Whom am I to complain?

 

[VaughanJB]

Social Media has been, and is, a social experiment. It'll evolve, or die.

I could write a lot on this topic (I know, shock!) I'm going to keep it short, I promise.

Social Media as a whole has pulled off one of the greatest development and marketing tricks ever. That is, it took things we all do, all the time, and productized it. Before Social Media we kept in touch, shared news, showed pictures, and sent messages. There is virtually nothing new in Social Media. What has changed is the scope, and the medium.

People blissfully forget that all of Social Media is, first and foremost, a business. It exists not to bring people together, to allow groups of like-minded folk to connect, or to help those isolated. It's a business, and it's there to generate money just like any other. It has sucked in millions of people who forgot the value of privacy, of individuality, of the personal touch.

When these platforms were being developed, they first studied the human psyche. They took their ideas and measured them in terms of dopamine hits. For example, when you hear that sound when a new message comes in, or someone likes something, that's all there to give you a hit of the happy stuff. And when you get it, you'll want more. Social Media is designed to create an addictive user. From where features are placed on the screen, to how they spin and whirl, to how inaccessible some features are (try truly deleting your Social Media accounts, it's nowhere near as easy as creating an account). That's deliberate. That's part of the design process.

We also live in times when you can no longer count the number of conspiracies about our governments and national institutions. Yet the amount of overshare on Social Media is mind-boggling. This is especially true of the young, but not limited to them. People allow themselves to be easily track and traced, they let people know where they work, where they went to school, where they went out last night, who they know etc. For many, it's the norm to share.

A lot of unrest and suspicion today is fueled by Social Media. People forget that each platform, from X to Truth Central, to Snapchat, all have an agenda. Ultimately, as with any business, their owner will drive whatever message they want to give. They are TERRIBLE places to get your news. They are poor places to get opinions. Nothing is vetted, automated bots push news stories to the top of search lists by repeating messages across multiple platforms etc. It is well known that this is one of the prime ways Russia interferes in foreign nations. Certain ex-Presidents uses Social Media to push his agenda very effectively.

It's all about engagement: Eyes, clicks, duration. We're all being profiled, compartmentalized, rated, and judged each and every microsecond (and I'm not exaggerating). We have social scores based on our various interactions. Hence we now have "influencers". People whose only skill, for the most part, seems to be that they have mastered the manipulation of others on Social Media.

Sure, you can use a fake name. Sure, you can use a VPN. But the fact is, most people just go ahead and identify themselves left and right. We all have unique IP addresses, and while they can be spoofed, our MAC addresses are not quite as easy (the MAC address is a unique identifier for whatever device is hooking you to the net, they are truly unique.) The owner of this board, if they wanted to, could get your IP address very easily. That address would tell them what ISP you use, and the general area where you live. (VPN's can help with this, but they're not fool proof).

Social Media isn't evil, but it changed the world without a care for the ramification other that generating wealth. And that's a shame, and a missed opportunity.

 

[oldaunt]

I've never been much on sharing myself. Probably why most of the social media crap really doesn't appeal to me. And I don't want to know YOUR personals either, world.

 

[Nathan]

What makes you believe this site is not Social Media?

Discussion forums are social media per se, but generally aren't a platform for data mining and advertising, like Facebook and Twitter( or "X" or...).

 

[wcwbf]

i think "social media" gives people the opportunity to be someone they aren't. and that's not necessarily a bad thing. the person who was afraid to speak up or not allowed to... they can have a voice. to expect nothing but the truth is unrealistic. BUT there's a distinct difference between embellishment and flat out bullshit.

 

[seadoug]

I'm only on Facebook (to see what friends are up to), Youtube (for entertainment), Senior Forums and one other political site. I think sites like Facebook, Twitter and Tik-Tok have done more to divide our country than bring us together. Their algorithms feed their members the stories they want to hear, whether true or false.

I do use Facebook to send PMs. Good thing I do. One of my friends just sent me a PM to let me know his long-time partner passed away from leukemia. If I wasn't on Facebook I would have never known. Yes, there are more ads than posts, but I really only check my messages.

 

[Old Salt]

A huge increase in gov't control is another nail in the coffin of social media.

Didn't Canada just recently pass a law about what kind of content can and can't be allowed on social media? And if so, who'd they appoint to be in charge of making those decisions? Because I'm pretty sure they didn't hold a *special election* to fill that position according the wishes and standards of a majority of The People.

This is all I could find re. the recent law:

The amended Broadcasting Act provides the Commission with clear powers and tools to, among other things, regulate certain online undertakings operating in whole or in part in Canada, regardless of their country of origin, when they are operating as “broadcasting undertakings”. CRTC

A greater battle is being waged at the moment over how much, if anything, sites like YouTube should pay Canadian NEWS Broadcasters for carrying them. YouTube threatens to remove all Canadian News from their site if they have to pay a certain percentage for carrying the broadcasters.

The Canadians like the CBC, CTV, Global are losing viewers left and right on regular cable since more and more folks turn to streaming services to escape all those ridiculous commercials. So I will be very interested to see what will happen. I still have regular cable, thanks to a contract my present landlord has with a Cable Provider that doesn't allow me to cancel basic cable. So I am forced to record all the shows I am interested in and watch them later with commercials being fast forwarded.

Sorry if I didn't stay on subject, since I have no idea if YouTube is considered Social Media!

 

[VaughanJB]

A huge increase in gov't control is another nail in the coffin of social media.

Didn't Canada just recently pass a law about what kind of content can and can't be allowed on social media? And if so, who'd they appoint to be in charge of making those decisions? Because I'm pretty sure they didn't hold a *special election* to fill that position according the wishes and standards of a majority of The People.

And when a gov't decides to take over a business, they have to build an organization around it, and it has to have a computer system and administrators and secretary administrators and tech support people, and taxes pay for all that. So people are literally paying to have themselves scrutinized and censored and admonished and even punished. And meanwhile, this gov't organization shapes social media; what you can say on it, who you should and shouldn't "friend", what you should and shouldn't think and opine about, and, of course, what products you should buy from it.

Legislation around the internet is inevitable. In fact, in my opinion it's been a long time coming. A free-for-all attitude to the net is detrimental. Just look at how it is used to spread malicious rumors and lies, and how some are using it to influence political change (nefarious states). These have undermined not only individuals, but we're at a stage where it's undermining democracies.

For example, there is a lot of talk of "culture" today in regard to immigrants. Too many foreigners getting in, the countries culture changes for the worse. Now let's take that to the internet. The internet pushes its culture - or lack of one - into every place in the world with a connection. Laws get overridden, norms passed by. You can buy all kinds of drugs from social media. You can get anarchist books, pamphlets, and instructions. Pornography that is banned in one country of other is freely available. Without some legislation what are we to do?

An example - tax avoidance. Amazon and Ebay, for a long time, allowed sales tax in the UK (VAT) to be bypassed. It is only after legislation that they began to get in line and comply with the laws in the country from which it was doing sales. Certain items, banned in the UK, were and are freely available. Whether we think an item should be banned or not is beside the point. A specific example of this are personal tasers. These are banned in the UK, yet not hard to find online.

The free-for-all we have on the net has to change, and will change. The concern for me isn't legislation, it's the quality of the legislation. Or to use a well worn phrase, the devil is in the details.

 

[oldaunt]

Ever notice that the ones who cry loudest about 'net regs are the ones getting away with the 'bad' stuff?

 

[VaughanJB]

Ever notice that the ones who cry loudest about 'net regs are the ones getting away with the 'bad' stuff?

If you think of it in wide terms - there is virtually no law or rule that any country can put into place to stop people circumventing it by using the internet. From heinous pornography, to buying weapons, drugs, and sharing plans etc. Is this okay with everyone, or do people think there should be regulations to help control it? Should a business pay it's fair amount of tax, or should they be allowed not to?

My point being, what's allowed in country A is not the same as country B. Is it okay if we simply bypass it? We have a thread on the board right now about a romance scam. The lady involved acted a little, erm, badly... but would it be better if we built a legal framework that would enable money to be reclaimed in such cases, or at least help?

Another example - At the moment, Youtube can't be sued if something nefarious is posted. The channel posting is liable. Is this reasonable? If Ebay allows someone to post counterfeit product, should they be partly liable if you are tricked? What of copyright?

These are deep and complex issues, and above my pay grade. A wanton internet has both a light and dark side. That said, we have to be really really careful and pay attention to what our leaders are doing.

 

[Murrmurr]

.... Just look at how it is used to spread malicious rumors and lies, and how some are using it to influence political change (nefarious states). These have undermined not only individuals, but we're at a stage where it's undermining democracies.

For example, there is a lot of talk of "culture" today in regard to immigrants. Too many foreigners getting in, the countries culture changes for the worse. Now let's take that to the internet. The internet pushes its culture - or lack of one - into every place in the world with a connection. Laws get overridden, norms passed by. You can buy all kinds of drugs from social media. You can get anarchist books, pamphlets, and instructions. Pornography that is banned in one country of other is freely available. Without some legislation what are we to do?

But these same things were going on before the internet. The likes of Hitler came to power, bloody revolutions happened, drugs and weapons smugglers were active, pornography could be had.... All that kind of stuff has been going on for centuries. Before television, even.

 

[VaughanJB]

But these same things were going on before the internet. The likes of Hitler came to power, bloody revolutions happened, drugs and weapons smugglers were active, pornography could be had.... All that kind of stuff has been going on for centuries. Before television, even.

Well, most everything the internet does was being done in some form or other. However, the scale and speed of it is far far greater today. It's comparable in the sense that similar things were going on, but not when you look at how easy it is for just about anyone to do some nefarious things.

 

[Murrmurr]

Well, most everything the internet does was being done in some form or other. However, the scale and speed of it is far far greater today. It's comparable in the sense that similar things were going on, but not when you look at how easy it is for just about anyone to do some nefarious things.

And gov't/political interference, regulation, and oversight has increased at a relative speed. The term social media is hardly applicable when it's no longer regulated by society. It's incorrect (imo) to assume social media can change the minds of people who have already made up their minds, but it's easy to assume that a gov't will utilize public forums as propaganda tools. That's been done to death. Literally, in some cases.

 

[VaughanJB]

And gov't/political interference, regulation, and oversight has increased at a relative speed. The term social media is hardly applicable when it's no longer regulated by society. It's incorrect (imo) to assume social media can change the minds of people who have already made up their minds, but it's easy to assume that a gov't will utilize public forums as propaganda tools. That's been done to death. Literally, in some cases.

Social Media can change minds, I think. It also encourages the creation of echo chambers as we all seek affirmation for whatever our beliefs are. It distorts reality in this way, and makes small things appear to be far larger. Worse, it throws out news stories, pushes particular posts or feeds, and generally can control the entire tone of a discussion - which is why foreign nations have become adept at using the internet to foster division and fear.

The central, issue is that we rely on individuals to determine what is true and what is not, what is fact and what is not, etc. I think it's proven at this point that people like to feel a sense of belonging, to a point of believer and therefore promoting extremism. In today's world I think this is self evident. It's worth keeping in mind that much of the content on these platforms is being controlled to one extent or another by the people running the algorithms. Look at how much people over-share as an instance.

For example, if I came up to a stranger on the street and asked for their name, the area they live, where they work, where they were last night, etc. I'd likely get laughed at. But with a good picture and an image search, I may well be able to find out all of that information and more. And there's nothing nefarious about it, it's simply a incidental by-product of using Social Media.

So I think we disagree on this point. I don't see the greater potential for evil in the government. I see it in extremist groups who use the net to propagate their message. That's where the danger lies. Again, I think this is self-evident today - look at the kind of debates that go on, this mis-information, etc.

Not that granny who is just sharing pictures and keeping up with the family can be construed a danger, but we're not the bad guys and gals.

I just watched a movie called Accused (2023). It's a savage tale, compressed into 90 minutes, of what the net does (obviously to a lesser extent). It might be worth checking out.

 

[Happyflowerlady]

I really like both facebook and Twitter, and I like them for totally different reasons. On Facebook, I connect with my family and friends, so a very small number of people on there.
I choose to “unfollow” most people, so I do not get all of the stuff (recipes, food and animal pictures, jokes, etc) that get posted on my facebook page from anyone that I follow who posts that kind of trivia.
Instead, I keep them as friends, but go through the list and look at people’s pages as I feel like doing so. Some people I check more often than others, and those who just post the bothersome little surveys (what kind of a flower are you ?) I pretty much never look at.

On Twitter (now X), I like to read news because the online broadcasts have information on line about as fast as something happens, and local people to the event also post pictures. So….. say there is a warehouse fire, or a train wreck, Twitter instantly has pictures from people who were on the scene when it happened , as well as online news reporters. .

Are they dying ?
I think that Facebook is not doing as well as it used to do, although there are a lot of people (like me) who enjoy facebook groups about things or places they have an interest in . I love the ancient history groups, Idaho groups, and other things I like learning about.
On the other hand, Twitter seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, and the citizen journalists have really found a welcome niche on Twitter, and are apparently able to earn a good income on that platform.

 

[jimintoronto]

Social Media has been, and is, a social experiment. It'll evolve, or die.

I could write a lot on this topic (I know, shock!) I'm going to keep it short, I promise.

Social Media as a whole has pulled off one of the greatest development and marketing tricks ever. That is, it took things we all do, all the time, and productized it. Before Social Media we kept in touch, shared news, showed pictures, and sent messages. There is virtually nothing new in Social Media. What has changed is the scope, and the medium.

People blissfully forget that all of Social Media is, first and foremost, a business. It exists not to bring people together, to allow groups of like-minded folk to connect, or to help those isolated. It's a business, and it's there to generate money just like any other. It has sucked in millions of people who forgot the value of privacy, of individuality, of the personal touch.

When these platforms were being developed, they first studied the human psyche. They took their ideas and measured them in terms of dopamine hits. For example, when you hear that sound when a new message comes in, or someone likes something, that's all there to give you a hit of the happy stuff. And when you get it, you'll want more. Social Media is designed to create an addictive user. From where features are placed on the screen, to how they spin and whirl, to how inaccessible some features are (try truly deleting your Social Media accounts, it's nowhere near as easy as creating an account). That's deliberate. That's part of the design process.

We also live in times when you can no longer count the number of conspiracies about our governments and national institutions. Yet the amount of overshare on Social Media is mind-boggling. This is especially true of the young, but not limited to them. People allow themselves to be easily track and traced, they let people know where they work, where they went to school, where they went out last night, who they know etc. For many, it's the norm to share.

A lot of unrest and suspicion today is fueled by Social Media. People forget that each platform, from X to Truth Central, to Snapchat, all have an agenda. Ultimately, as with any business, their owner will drive whatever message they want to give. They are TERRIBLE places to get your news. They are poor places to get opinions. Nothing is vetted, automated bots push news stories to the top of search lists by repeating messages across multiple platforms etc. It is well known that this is one of the prime ways Russia interferes in foreign nations. Certain ex-Presidents uses Social Media to push his agenda very effectively.

It's all about engagement: Eyes, clicks, duration. We're all being profiled, compartmentalized, rated, and judged each and every microsecond (and I'm not exaggerating). We have social scores based on our various interactions. Hence we now have "influencers". People whose only skill, for the most part, seems to be that they have mastered the manipulation of others on Social Media.

Sure, you can use a fake name. Sure, you can use a VPN. But the fact is, most people just go ahead and identify themselves left and right. We all have unique IP addresses, and while they can be spoofed, our MAC addresses are not quite as easy (the MAC address is a unique identifier for whatever device is hooking you to the net, they are truly unique.) The owner of this board, if they wanted to, could get your IP address very easily. That address would tell them what ISP you use, and the general area where you live. (VPN's can help with this, but they're not fool proof).

Social Media isn't evil, but it changed the world without a care for the ramification other that generating wealth. And that's a shame, and a missed opportunity.

Guy promises to keep it short. Then writes seven paragraphs. JImB.

 

[VaughanJB]

Guy promises to keep it short. Then writes seven paragraphs. JImB.

I know. It's a problem. I confess. The brain whirls, and all this stuff comes out.

 

[jimintoronto]

I know. It's a problem. I confess. The brain whirls, and all this stuff comes out.

I used to work in the Ambulance service here in Toronto. We were taught to be able to give a "Sixty Second Patient Report " to the triage nurse at the Emerge department . That is what it was...A minute to summarize the patient's condition, vital signs, recent history and meds they were on. Same thing in the military...A SitRep. A situation report should be no more than 5 minutes long. Your knowledge is no doubt prodigious, but for many it is a bit over whelming. JImB.

 

[VaughanJB]

I used to work in the Ambulance service here in Toronto. We were taught to be able to give a "Sixty Second Patient Report " to the triage nurse at the Emerge department . That is what it was...A minute to summarize the patient's condition, vital signs, recent history and meds they were on. Same thing in the military...A SitRep. A situation report should be no more than 5 minutes long. Your knowledge is no doubt prodigious, but for many it is a bit over whelming. JImB.

Many? I've not had complaints. If someone wants to complain, they can message me or contact the site owner, I guess. Personally, if I come across something I don't want to read, for whatever reason, I simply don't read it and skip passed...................

 

[oldaunt]

Many? I've not had complaints. If someone wants to complain, they can message me or contact the site owner, I guess. Personally, if I come across something I don't want to read, for whatever reason, I simply don't read it and skip passed...................

He's just jealous you out-worded him.

 

[VaughanJB]

He's just jealous you out-worded him.

Does this board have an IGNORE feature? They usually do. If someone dislikes my posts that's also an option. I don't intend to torture people.

 

[MarkinPhx]

When Google + closed to non-business users I decided to forgo social media sites thereafter. Google + was never the size or success of Facebook, but I could barely handle that size.

What works for me are sites that have a theme or focus on a subject like Flickr. Flickr was once a free-for-all, screaming place. But, with the advent of the smartphone it has largely become a much more civil and focused site. You have to be interested in the subject of photography to find Flickr attractive, but that keeps most of the nut jobs off the site. One has to be good at photography rather than just running your mouth to gather a following on Flickr.

Frankly, I wonder if the die off in social media is actually a trend or more a rest until 2024 which is an election year here in the U.S. Then the up roar will surely begin once more.

I enjoyed Google Buzz but then it evolved into Google + and I started to lose interest in it. What I liked most about Google Buzz and the early stages of Google + was that I had complete control of my feeds . Once Google discontinued Google Reader I stopped using Plus. I do have a FB account and jump on it about once a week mainly just to get birthday reminders.

 

[Macfan]

As has already been mentioned, but I’ll add my two cents. All of them have pros and cons, over time they don’t glisten and shine like when they were new, kind of like the tools in my Craftsman tool chest. Still, they provided what I needed to lead me here and for that I will always be forever Thankful . Don...

 

[Packerjohn]

A huge increase in gov't control is another nail in the coffin of social media.

Didn't Canada just recently pass a law about what kind of content can and can't be allowed on social media? And if so, who'd they appoint to be in charge of making those decisions? Because I'm pretty sure they didn't hold a *special election* to fill that position according the wishes and standards of a majority of The People.

And when a gov't decides to take over a business, they have to build an organization around it, and it has to have a computer system and administrators and secretary administrators and tech support people, and taxes pay for all that. So people are literally paying to have themselves scrutinized and censored and admonished and even punished. And meanwhile, this gov't organization shapes social media; what you can say on it, who you should and shouldn't "friend", what you should and shouldn't think and opine about, and, of course, what products you should buy from it.

Freedom of Speech is being "hammered" each and every day here in Canada. Either you "toll the politically correct" line or your in trouble. Don't know why? Things have really changed over the last couple of years as the powers that be are working hard to make this a perfect, all inclusive society.

I believe US President George Bush said it best, "Your with us or your against us." I guess he just didn't believe in being neutral? You had to take sides.