"Local media now saying we may be bracing for a three-way tie between the candidates. We’ll have official comments from presidential secretary Julio Vitobello coming soon."
Coming back to last thread's food conversation - has anyone tried Blue Dragon cooking kits for Thai food??? You can make restaurant quality food - very impressive.
(Not the pre blended sauces - although they are not bad. The kits where you mix the ingredients).
The problem with social media is that it doesn't cost anything to post messages. If each time someone posted a message it cost them £1 or $1 they would only do it occasionally (or most people would). It's regrettable it didn't develop according to that business model, instead of via advertising.
The problem with social media is that it doesn't cost anything to post messages. If each time someone posted a message it cost them £1 or $1 they would only do it occasionally (or most people would). It's regrettable it didn't develop according to that business model, instead of via advertising.
If you got charged a £1 for every post I wouldn't post at all so that would be a significant improvement to the internet.
We will still have the internet to do sensible things like financial transactions, online press, and data searches.
I use Twitter mainly as a source of news. I saw a comment yesterday that said if Elon continues to destroy the brand it might be time to start taking a daily newspaper again...
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Yes this thread might have been better without the final paragraph in my opinion. Nothing at all wrong with being teetotal and lots that's right with it. I gave up booze for good 5 years ago and my life improved massively. Never miss it now. And I'm really not sure the Gen Z's are conformist. In some ways they are far more counter-culture than the boomers who frequent this site.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
Totally agree about WhatsApp. I removed it from my phone but that was partly because people were calling me for work and I dislike that via the app when it's so invasive. And the groups are a bind, for the reasons you cite.
I use Telegram with a handful of people, including my Surrey tory friend. But no groups at all. They seem to be where a lot of the trouble comes.
Oh and never allow these apps access to your contacts, or indeed anything else.
The discussion yesterday on rice was quite enlightening. My conclusion was that I probably need to learn to cook a bit more, put more mental effort in to it - that cannot be a bad idea.
The other thing is that Whatsapp is also toxic. People who you don't really know in groups start sending through dodgy stuff which then implicates you. Also you get dragged in to discussing sensitive things in ways that can easily be misconstrued.
What counts as social media? Does a forum on a obscure politcal betting website count? Even if not, PB would be screwed without Twitter/X even in its debased state.
What counts as social media? Does a forum on a obscure politcal betting website count? Even if not, PB would be screwed without Twitter/X even in its debased state.
For a site or app to qualify as social media it has to be both anti-social and decrease your communication skills.
Mr. Eagles, I can see the argument either way. I wonder if exchanges do that.
Check the terms with your bookie (or exchange). Some say the result is final at the time of the podium ceremony, others wait for the official result (which can sometimes take weeks if there’s an appeal).
Anyway, glad to know that being up until 1am, in the face of a 5:30 alarm clock, was worth it. Nearly as bad as staying up half the night to watch the rugby on Saturday, followed by that crap sprinty thing.
The discussion yesterday on rice was quite enlightening. My conclusion was that I probably need to learn to cook a bit more, put more mental effort in to it - that cannot be a bad idea.
I didn't expect this conversation to last until sunrice but as they say no pain, no grain.
What counts as social media? Does a forum on a obscure politcal betting website count? Even if not, PB would be screwed without Twitter/X even in its debased state.
I’m so old I can remember when a former SNP Leader approvingly quoted PB in the House of Commons.
What counts as social media? Does a forum on a obscure politcal betting website count? Even if not, PB would be screwed without Twitter/X even in its debased state.
I’m so old I can remember when a former SNP Leader approvingly quoted PB in the House of Commons.
Two activists from a Jewish-Arab peace movement were recently detained in Israel for putting up posters with a message that the police deemed to be offensive. The message was: “Jews and Arabs, we will get through this together.” The activists, members of Standing Together, had their posters confiscated, as well as T-shirts printed with peace slogans in Hebrew and Arabic.
It was not an isolated incident. Across Israel, people are being detained, fired from their jobs, and even attacked for expressing sentiments interpreted by some as showing sympathy for Hamas after the group’s murderous attack on 7 October. The definition of pro-Hamas is often widened to include expressions of sympathy for the plight of Palestinian children trapped in Gaza, or calls for peace, especially if expressed in both Arabic and Hebrew.
Last week, after 15 years of service at a Petah Tikva hospital, its director of the cardiac intensive care unit was suspended from his position. Abed Samara’s apparent offence was his profile picture on social media – a dove carrying an olive twig and a green flag emblazoned with the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” He had adopted the picture last year, long before the Hamas attack, but it was nevertheless seen as somehow voicing support for the outrage.
The crackdown is directed primarily by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Since the attack, police have been given wide discretion to determine what applies as support for terrorism. They no longer have to refer back to the state prosecutors.
Interesting how popular the idea has become that it's right to ban things that you happen to dislike.
Probably an effect of using social media - such as this website.
Ban this post.
The problem is, at least in part, due to the rise of feelings as a primary right.
“You hurt my feelings” is taken by some as the equivalent of breaking your nose. Or killing your dog.
“Words are violence!”
“Silence is violence!”
Yet, to many of the same people, actual physical violence is just fine, so long as it’s the right people doing it in persuit of the right causes. “Punch a TERF” is just fine.
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
Don’t be rude about sewers. They are extremely useful, and save lives by the million.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
I try and get friends to migrate to Signal.
I only join small groups, of people I actually know, which are about organising and meeting up for specific purposes. No link spamming, random videos etc….
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
Why not just leave those WhatsApp groups?
We use it at work for my department, and it is a great way to communicate, for example needing to cover a rota absence. We have a social group too for organising leaving events etc. I also have family ones for the extended family, and another for Mrs Foxy's family.
It is just a matter of appropriate use.
I still am on Twitter, but have created via the lists function groups of interest. The general feed is useless now.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
I'm getting a completely new view of WhatsApp on here, it's interesting. For me it's an incredibly useful way of communicating in groups for organising stuff in real life. The video call capacity is great too for communicating with family etc. I've never used it like social media. My general rule with social media anyway is to not communicate or 'friend' people I don't know IRL. The only place I do that is here!
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
I try and get friends to migrate to Signal.
I only join small groups, of people I actually know, which are about organising and meeting up for specific purposes. No link spamming, random videos etc….
Yep, a combination of Signal and iMessage (and email!) work just fine for pretty much everything I need to do.
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
Don’t be rude about sewers. They are extremely useful, and save lives by the million.
I unreservedly and completely admit my error and make a full apology to all sewers, gutters, drainpipes and septic tanks for even putting them in the same universe as Twitter/X (excluding Darth Putin who is brilliant), Truth Social and related apps.
Compared to the latter, the former are paragons of cleanliness, health and hygiene
Ironic that this moan about social media, posted on a form of social media, ends with a sentence citing the part of popular culture most beloved by the worst part of social media - the “red pill” as celebrated by a million Trump-following incels.
Can’t we have a thread about pineapple on pizza rather than this guff?
Interesting how popular the idea has become that it's right to ban things that you happen to dislike.
Probably an effect of using social media - such as this website.
Most if those agreeing a ban would be a good idea appear not to appreciate that social media is very largely what you make if it.
WhatsApp, for example, is entirely innocuous if you turn off notifications. It's then quite useful.
Similarly, even the Musk debased Twitter remains the best single news feed out there (though it's lost a large number of scientists). Just avoid browsing it randomly.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
I'm getting a completely new view of WhatsApp on here, it's interesting. For me it's an incredibly useful way of communicating in groups for organising stuff in real life. The video call capacity is great too for communicating with family etc. I've never used it like social media. My general rule with social media anyway is to not communicate or 'friend' people I don't know IRL. The only place I do that is here!
Yes, Whatsapp is also good for messaging or calling internationally, because it's free. God knows how phone companies still get away with charging 20p or more for an international text. And in some countries, particularly Latin America, it's simply assumed that you will have Whatsapp so people or businesses can call you free: it's even more essential than a phone account.
"But we can do away with narcissists looking likes and pumping out tosh to get them"
Well I, for one, would miss PB
Overall though, I'm not on much. Ditched Facebook in 2012 and had no regrets. Use Twitter only professionally and WhatsApp just for family and actual friends I see.
I do worry about my children when they get to that age, but fortunately they're still too young to know about any of this.
Ironic that this moan about social media, posted on a form of social media, ends with a sentence citing the part of popular culture most beloved by the worst part of social media - the “red pill” as celebrated by a million Trump-following incels.
Can’t we have a thread about pineapple on pizza rather than this guff?
I assume it was intended to spark an interesting debate rather than a session of railing at the moon.
Ironic that this moan about social media, posted on a form of social media, ends with a sentence citing the part of popular culture most beloved by the worst part of social media - the “red pill” as celebrated by a million Trump-following incels.
Can’t we have a thread about pineapple on pizza rather than this guff?
I assume it was intended to spark an interesting debate rather than a session of railing at the moon.
"I don't watch TV. It's a cultural wasteland filled with inappropriate metaphors and an unrealistic portrayal of life created by the liberal media elite."
The joke being that if the character who said that had watched TV…
Talking of which, is the government still planning to go through with the encryption law that will make WhatsApp etc impossible to operate?
Though given the trouble WhatsApp is causing the government right now, they may see that as a relief.
(Can't wait to ditch the primary class parents WA myself. It's useful, but all the dark mutterings you get at the school gate always escalate nastily.)
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
Don’t be rude about sewers. They are extremely useful, and save lives by the million.
I unreservedly and completely admit my error and make a full apology to all sewers, gutters, drainpipes and septic tanks for even putting them in the same universe as Twitter/X (excluding Darth Putin who is brilliant), Truth Social and related apps.
Compared to the latter, the former are paragons of cleanliness, health and hygiene
Compare it to the DfE instead.
Something that may have been useful once, but now only does damage, wastes enormous amounts of time and money, and is dominated by shrill narcissists who think themselves much superior to everyone on account of whom they!re sleeping with but are actually very stupid and not worth bothering with.
Talking of which, is the government still planning to go through with the encryption law that will make WhatsApp etc impossible to operate?
Though given the trouble WhatsApp is causing the government right now, they may see that as a relief.
(Can't wait to ditch the primary class parents WA myself. It's useful, but all the dark mutterings you get at the school gate always escalate nastily.)
Yes. Don’t worry. All political parties apart from the Lib Dem’s are all signed up for the same kind of crap.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
Ironic that this moan about social media, posted on a form of social media, ends with a sentence citing the part of popular culture most beloved by the worst part of social media - the “red pill” as celebrated by a million Trump-following incels.
Can’t we have a thread about pineapple on pizza rather than this guff?
Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.
Ironic that this moan about social media, posted on a form of social media, ends with a sentence citing the part of popular culture most beloved by the worst part of social media - the “red pill” as celebrated by a million Trump-following incels.
Can’t we have a thread about pineapple on pizza rather than this guff?
Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.
Brendan Behan
A horse, brought onto stage during one of Thomas Beecham's operas, drops a big horse apple.
Beecham, nothing fazed, raises an eyebrow and says 'Gentleman, this horse is not an actor - he is a critic.'
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
I try and get friends to migrate to Signal.
I only join small groups, of people I actually know, which are about organising and meeting up for specific purposes. No link spamming, random videos etc….
Yes, I think that's key: when it's time-limited and for an explicit purpose it's fine.
When it's not and unbounded it effectively becomes anti-social.
I've heard my local village one is a shit-show and have never joined it.
Simon Case to step back for a few weeks for undisclosed medical reasons.
Just at the moment the Covid enquiry would have eaten him alive for the many crimes he committed during lockdown.
How suspiciously convenient.
I do hope his departure is permanent. He is neither use nor ornament to national life.
Is that “Going off sick for stress”? As perfected by the police - it seems that removing investigations into corruption etc cause a 100% recovery rate.
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
Don’t be rude about sewers. They are extremely useful, and save lives by the million.
I unreservedly and completely admit my error and make a full apology to all sewers, gutters, drainpipes and septic tanks for even putting them in the same universe as Twitter/X (excluding Darth Putin who is brilliant), Truth Social and related apps.
Compared to the latter, the former are paragons of cleanliness, health and hygiene
Compare it to the DfE instead.
Something that may have been useful once, but now only does damage, wastes enormous amounts of time and money, and is dominated by shrill narcissists who think themselves much superior to everyone on account of whom they!re sleeping with but are actually very stupid and not worth bothering with.
I’m sorry - what organisation are you talking about? Your description covers so many.
An interesting thread. The problem is that social media is far too useful to just drop it. Facebook is great for family keeping up with what we are all doing, and for community and other special interest groups. X is a cesspit but not because of Musk - he has just made us realise that it always was. I don't use TikTok or Instagram, I make money on YouTube.
WhatsApp gets a mention - that isn't social media, its a messaging app. I can't read random crap from people I don't know.
On cooking, it's not the cooking that's the issue it's (at first) the recipe selection, then the ingredient sourcing/prep time (a function of the first) and then the washing up after. Lots of faff.
Hello Fresh/Mindful Chef were onto something here but the expense is too great.
If someone could do a version of that but for the BBC £1 meals in a pan/pot stuff, then that'd have it nailed.
Ironic that this moan about social media, posted on a form of social media, ends with a sentence citing the part of popular culture most beloved by the worst part of social media - the “red pill” as celebrated by a million Trump-following incels.
Can’t we have a thread about pineapple on pizza rather than this guff?
I assume it was intended to spark an interesting debate rather than a session of railing at the moon.
"I don't watch TV. It's a cultural wasteland filled with inappropriate metaphors and an unrealistic portrayal of life created by the liberal media elite."
The joke being that if the character who said that had watched TV…
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
Don’t be rude about sewers. They are extremely useful, and save lives by the million.
I unreservedly and completely admit my error and make a full apology to all sewers, gutters, drainpipes and septic tanks for even putting them in the same universe as Twitter/X (excluding Darth Putin who is brilliant), Truth Social and related apps.
Compared to the latter, the former are paragons of cleanliness, health and hygiene
Compare it to the DfE instead.
Something that may have been useful once, but now only does damage, wastes enormous amounts of time and money, and is dominated by shrill narcissists who think themselves much superior to everyone on account of whom they!re sleeping with but are actually very stupid and not worth bothering with.
I’m sorry - what organisation are you talking about? Your description covers so many.
I have to contact British Gas about a cockup with my bill. Basically, they've lost a hundred quid or so through a simple accounting error.
The politest thing I can say about them is they are not quite as useless as the DfE.
On Topic: Many of the problems with social media could be solved if it had been and now was properly regulated. Restrict the advertising it can host and data companies can share so it's no longer profitable to make the user experience worse when you've 'captured' them by having them put enough of their life on a site it's difficult to leave. Treat much closer to publishers in terms of libel law and Ofcom (allow some leeway to give people freedom to share opinions but take deliberate misinformation that's widely shared down). Then you'd have a social media that looks more like it did 15 years ago when it was a genuinely useful and pleasant experience before the companies tried to monetise it to the nth degree and turned it into a cesspit in order to keep users hooked and reward even the worst behaviour as long as it drives engagement.
The problem with social media is that all the pro-social aspects (keeping in touch with friends and family, knowledge of elsewhere, platforms for start up and independent media and entertainment) do not make the platforms themselves money, whereas the anti-social aspects (conflict, conspiracy, lies) do. Facebook and X/Twitter specifically have algorithms that specifically boost posts that promote conflict because conflict = engagement. You could make Facebook a much better environment just by removing that algorithmic push.
The other issue I notice a lot of people bringing up is their "echo chamber" - which I find a bizarre criticism. You wouldn't be friends with someone you actively dislike in the real world, so why should you be forced to be on an online space? Where this leads to people falling down rabbit holes into conspiracism is, again, less about echo chambers and more about algorithmic pushing. Take Youtube - you can watch some pretty innocuous videos and the suggested tab will offer you some relatively extreme typically right wing stuff. Why? Because Youtube promotes based on average view watch, and certain channels (especially right wing content) have very rigid and effective release schedules alongside an audience that will watch videos all the way through. There were times when this benefited longer videos, because it only cared about time watched and so if a video was 1hr long if someone watched 20 minutes that was considered the same as if someone watched a whole 20 minute video start to finish. Now it's based on percentage of video viewed, which benefits short form content over lengthy and (potentially) more explorative content.
Essentially I would say social media is not in and of itself bad - like the telephone or public post system, it allows people to communicate over great distances and has revolutionised human experience. The negative aspects almost solely crop up as part of the profit motive that drives the companies to push for engagement over anything else.
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
Don’t be rude about sewers. They are extremely useful, and save lives by the million.
I unreservedly and completely admit my error and make a full apology to all sewers, gutters, drainpipes and septic tanks for even putting them in the same universe as Twitter/X (excluding Darth Putin who is brilliant), Truth Social and related apps.
Compared to the latter, the former are paragons of cleanliness, health and hygiene
Compare it to the DfE instead.
Something that may have been useful once, but now only does damage, wastes enormous amounts of time and money, and is dominated by shrill narcissists who think themselves much superior to everyone on account of whom they!re sleeping with but are actually very stupid and not worth bothering with.
Do I gather that the Department for education has upset you in someway?
Good morning everybody; strangely, perhaps this thread has been quite useful! Personally, I find social media, quite useful, if only to warn of traffic hazards. We use FaceTime to communicate with family members. Very useful for those a long distance away.
On topic, social media is like most technology, or alcohol, or whatever - it's neither good nor bad in itself, but you need to use and control it, rather than it controlling you. I try and think about it rationally, and use it for what I like it for (keeping in touch with people I don't see every day, posting holiday pics, getting recommendations) and scroll past or ignore stuff I don't like or need (marketing, clickbait, other garbage).
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
Don’t be rude about sewers. They are extremely useful, and save lives by the million.
I unreservedly and completely admit my error and make a full apology to all sewers, gutters, drainpipes and septic tanks for even putting them in the same universe as Twitter/X (excluding Darth Putin who is brilliant), Truth Social and related apps.
Compared to the latter, the former are paragons of cleanliness, health and hygiene
Compare it to the DfE instead.
Something that may have been useful once, but now only does damage, wastes enormous amounts of time and money, and is dominated by shrill narcissists who think themselves much superior to everyone on account of whom they!re sleeping with but are actually very stupid and not worth bothering with.
Do I gather that the Department for education has upset you in someway?
Good morning everybody; strangely, perhaps this thread has been quite useful! Personally, I find social media, quite useful, if only to warn of traffic hazards. We use FaceTime to communicate with family members. Very useful for those a long distance away.
Their existence is an offence to humanity.
They combine the intelligence of Burgon, the manners of Rees-Mogg, the administrative ability of Jim Hacker, the financial probity of Enron's auditors and the self awareness of Trump in one truly loathsome package.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
I try and get friends to migrate to Signal.
I only join small groups, of people I actually know, which are about organising and meeting up for specific purposes. No link spamming, random videos etc….
Yes, I think that's key: when it's time-limited and for an explicit purpose it's fine.
When it's not and unbounded it effectively becomes anti-social.
I've heard my local village one is a shit-show and have never joined it.
In our small town it’s extremely useful if you’ve lost your cat. Apparently.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I find WhatsApp pretty useful, I'm a member of groups like the one for our street, the one for parents of my childrens' year groups at school, one for local blokes who want to go for a beer, parents and coaches for my son's football team, family groups and ad hoc ones for organising birthday parties etc. It's a pretty useful and effective way of communicating. People don't use them for sharing opinions or anything like that, except perhaps a few small groups among close friends of family or bilateral chats. My only complaint is the volume of traffic sometimes!
Best thing I ever did was deleting WhatsApp, although I can understand it’s different if you’re a parent of kids with various groups. 99% of it is pointless spam, and you can spend your whole life on there if you’re not careful. I also never got on Facebook, and FB buying WhatsApp was the point at which I deleted the latter.
I try and get friends to migrate to Signal.
I only join small groups, of people I actually know, which are about organising and meeting up for specific purposes. No link spamming, random videos etc….
Yes, I think that's key: when it's time-limited and for an explicit purpose it's fine.
When it's not and unbounded it effectively becomes anti-social.
I've heard my local village one is a shit-show and have never joined it.
In our small town it’s extremely useful if you’ve lost your cat. Apparently.
As news comes out about Trump passing classified US secrets to Anthony Pratt, the financial aspect of Trump’s treason is coming to light. Pratt buying $50k worth of Mar-a-Lago tickets for $1 million is one example. Keep in mind, Jack Smith has told the court that he knows what Trump’s motive was and will prove it at trial. Trump’s prison sentence must fit the magnitude of this crime. https://twitter.com/TomJChicago/status/1716137936104599958
Interesting how popular the idea has become that it's right to ban things that you happen to dislike.
Probably an effect of using social media - such as this website.
I don't think this website qualifies.
It's an Internet discussion forum, which was there right from the start.
I don’t see any substantive difference between “social media” as per Twitter/Facebook etc. and the FidoNet boards I used in the late 80s. Except that my phone bill is cheaper these days.
Similarly our town has both a Facebook group and a website forum - there’s no great difference other than the infinite supply of yoga teachers from nearby towns don’t spam the website
I have Facebook - and it keeps me up-to-date with whose birthday I've missed, but nothing else. My wife has whats-app for cheap Intenational phone calls as son and daughter live in Denmark and Australia respectively.
I asked what this Twitter was. and was told that people choose to follow celebrities for their view of the world? Really? People think that an actor - someone whose claim to fame is being able to pretend to be someone else as long as they can have a script to read - is worthy copying. Pity is my initial reaction. Am I missing something?
£35 a week for decent meals for a family doesn't seem unreasonable or undoable.
You would be eating pigswill if that was what you had to feed a family for a week. Well seen you have no clue about having to budget for quality food or do you feed your family shit.
The problem with social media is that all the pro-social aspects (keeping in touch with friends and family, knowledge of elsewhere, platforms for start up and independent media and entertainment) do not make the platforms themselves money, whereas the anti-social aspects (conflict, conspiracy, lies) do. Facebook and X/Twitter specifically have algorithms that specifically boost posts that promote conflict because conflict = engagement. You could make Facebook a much better environment just by removing that algorithmic push.
The other issue I notice a lot of people bringing up is their "echo chamber" - which I find a bizarre criticism. You wouldn't be friends with someone you actively dislike in the real world, so why should you be forced to be on an online space? Where this leads to people falling down rabbit holes into conspiracism is, again, less about echo chambers and more about algorithmic pushing. Take Youtube - you can watch some pretty innocuous videos and the suggested tab will offer you some relatively extreme typically right wing stuff. Why? Because Youtube promotes based on average view watch, and certain channels (especially right wing content) have very rigid and effective release schedules alongside an audience that will watch videos all the way through. There were times when this benefited longer videos, because it only cared about time watched and so if a video was 1hr long if someone watched 20 minutes that was considered the same as if someone watched a whole 20 minute video start to finish. Now it's based on percentage of video viewed, which benefits short form content over lengthy and (potentially) more explorative content.
Essentially I would say social media is not in and of itself bad - like the telephone or public post system, it allows people to communicate over great distances and has revolutionised human experience. The negative aspects almost solely crop up as part of the profit motive that drives the companies to push for engagement over anything else.
This subtle point is really important. I don't think we can or should do much about individual decisions to interact with like-minded people to pass the time as they want, and much of Alanbrooke's post is really complaining about human nature. But aglorithms that actively promote fury and conflict are obviously dangerous. I'm not sure anything can be done about them, though. What would you do if you were PM (which seems to me rather an attractive concept), @148grss?
Interesting how popular the idea has become that it's right to ban things that you happen to dislike.
Probably an effect of using social media - such as this website.
When the change of management at Twitter happened last year, a lot of people were being encouraged to move over to the Mastodon platform. The Mastodon server mods immediately drowned in an avalanche of requests for people to be banned. They explained that they have a “Mute” button which removed people you don’t want to hear from - but that wasn’t what the Twitter refugees wanted, they wanted to be able to have people they disliked kicked off the platform altogether and denied a voice, removed from ‘the conversation’.
Off topic, the Argentinian result is interesting (and cautiously encouraging) - the overwhelming favourite and leader in the polls, an aggressive Bolsonaro/Trump style populist with ultra-right opinions on the role of the state, was routed. There are some suggestions here on why:
That said, the probable winner is a Peronist, which is as I understand it watered-down populism which avoids dealing with serious economic problems. But I don't know enough about it - are there others here who know the Argentinian scene well?
The problem with social media is that all the pro-social aspects (keeping in touch with friends and family, knowledge of elsewhere, platforms for start up and independent media and entertainment) do not make the platforms themselves money, whereas the anti-social aspects (conflict, conspiracy, lies) do. Facebook and X/Twitter specifically have algorithms that specifically boost posts that promote conflict because conflict = engagement. You could make Facebook a much better environment just by removing that algorithmic push.
The other issue I notice a lot of people bringing up is their "echo chamber" - which I find a bizarre criticism. You wouldn't be friends with someone you actively dislike in the real world, so why should you be forced to be on an online space? Where this leads to people falling down rabbit holes into conspiracism is, again, less about echo chambers and more about algorithmic pushing. Take Youtube - you can watch some pretty innocuous videos and the suggested tab will offer you some relatively extreme typically right wing stuff. Why? Because Youtube promotes based on average view watch, and certain channels (especially right wing content) have very rigid and effective release schedules alongside an audience that will watch videos all the way through. There were times when this benefited longer videos, because it only cared about time watched and so if a video was 1hr long if someone watched 20 minutes that was considered the same as if someone watched a whole 20 minute video start to finish. Now it's based on percentage of video viewed, which benefits short form content over lengthy and (potentially) more explorative content.
Essentially I would say social media is not in and of itself bad - like the telephone or public post system, it allows people to communicate over great distances and has revolutionised human experience. The negative aspects almost solely crop up as part of the profit motive that drives the companies to push for engagement over anything else.
This subtle point is really important. I don't think we can or should do much about individual decisions to interact with like-minded people to pass the time as they want, and much of Alanbrooke's post is really complaining about human nature. But aglorithms that actively promote fury and conflict are obviously dangerous. I'm not sure anything can be done about them, though. What would you do if you were PM (which seems to me rather an attractive concept), @148grss?
The problem with social media is:-
1) it's free to use 2) that means you are the product and they need you to stay online as long as possible so they can maximize advertising revenue from the numerous adverts you see. 3) the easiest way to keep you online is to keep you interested. 4) the easiest way of keeping you interested is to feed that you items that may annoy you - and strangely annoying people is a great way of getting them to remain online.
Interesting how popular the idea has become that it's right to ban things that you happen to dislike.
Probably an effect of using social media - such as this website.
Most if those agreeing a ban would be a good idea appear not to appreciate that social media is very largely what you make if it.
WhatsApp, for example, is entirely innocuous if you turn off notifications. It's then quite useful.
Similarly, even the Musk debased Twitter remains the best single news feed out there (though it's lost a large number of scientists). Just avoid browsing it randomly.
It’s not people like us who are the problem
It’s the atomisation and distress it’s causing to our children
The problem with social media is that all the pro-social aspects (keeping in touch with friends and family, knowledge of elsewhere, platforms for start up and independent media and entertainment) do not make the platforms themselves money, whereas the anti-social aspects (conflict, conspiracy, lies) do. Facebook and X/Twitter specifically have algorithms that specifically boost posts that promote conflict because conflict = engagement. You could make Facebook a much better environment just by removing that algorithmic push.
The other issue I notice a lot of people bringing up is their "echo chamber" - which I find a bizarre criticism. You wouldn't be friends with someone you actively dislike in the real world, so why should you be forced to be on an online space? Where this leads to people falling down rabbit holes into conspiracism is, again, less about echo chambers and more about algorithmic pushing. Take Youtube - you can watch some pretty innocuous videos and the suggested tab will offer you some relatively extreme typically right wing stuff. Why? Because Youtube promotes based on average view watch, and certain channels (especially right wing content) have very rigid and effective release schedules alongside an audience that will watch videos all the way through. There were times when this benefited longer videos, because it only cared about time watched and so if a video was 1hr long if someone watched 20 minutes that was considered the same as if someone watched a whole 20 minute video start to finish. Now it's based on percentage of video viewed, which benefits short form content over lengthy and (potentially) more explorative content.
Essentially I would say social media is not in and of itself bad - like the telephone or public post system, it allows people to communicate over great distances and has revolutionised human experience. The negative aspects almost solely crop up as part of the profit motive that drives the companies to push for engagement over anything else.
This subtle point is really important. I don't think we can or should do much about individual decisions to interact with like-minded people to pass the time as they want, and much of Alanbrooke's post is really complaining about human nature. But aglorithms that actively promote fury and conflict are obviously dangerous. I'm not sure anything can be done about them, though. What would you do if you were PM (which seems to me rather an attractive concept), @148grrss?
The problem I think we'll find is, as multinational corps, these platforms will often choose to withdraw from markets rather than follow regulation (as even Musk is threatening now with the EU). As PM I don't think I could do much outside of an education campaign, including social media literacy as part of the national curriculum.
If I were the head of the EU / POTUS I think I might have enough leverage to do stuff. I think we need to have better technology literacy in government rather than the general deference to tech industry out of ignorance and a hope it will bring economic growth. I think we could start by mandating that content moderation has to be done by human labour, not AI, and that labour needs to be unionised - that would be a great start at dealing with harmful material effectively. I think next steps would be to try and regulate away push algorithms - either via warnings similar to those on cigarette packages, or by straight up saying that companies such as Facebook or X will become liable for the impacts of disinformation, extremism and violence that are fostered on their platforms. That is a rather wide net that lots of politicians wouldn't like (I remember once reading Twitter / X refusing to use AI moderating for extreme right wing content because the content of an extreme right winger who may go shoot up a school is not that different from a typical GOP politician posting).
I think in the end, ideally, these platforms will be recognised as the necessary infrastructure they are and will come under some form of public control. If you remove the profit motive and the push towards conflict and rabbit holes so many of the problems just drop away. It wouldn't make social media perfect, but it would have a noticeable impact almost immediately.
WTF is wrong with the BBC? Victoria Pendleton is on promoting TV program and she is captioned as ‘Jockey’. She is famous for cycling. Surely ‘Olympic cyclist and part time jockey’ would be more appropriate? If you can’t get the basics right, how are you going to report on the big stuff correctly?
Interesting how popular the idea has become that it's right to ban things that you happen to dislike.
Probably an effect of using social media - such as this website.
When the change of management at Twitter happened last year, a lot of people were being encouraged to move over to the Mastodon platform. The Mastodon server mods immediately drowned in an avalanche of requests for people to be banned. They explained that they have a “Mute” button which removed people you don’t want to hear from - but that wasn’t what the Twitter refugees wanted, they wanted to be able to have people they disliked kicked off the platform altogether and denied a voice, removed from ‘the conversation’.
And this is the free speech argument. So much of the opinions out there on social media are profoundly ignorant, stupid and simply incorrect. But if they aren't actually illegal who am I to shut them down?
We are not helped that there are clickbait agitators on these platforms who post material they know to be incorrect, misleading or even merely inaccurate. They do so to push the political / moral / social position they are agitating for. How is that any different to being the editorial team at GB News or various newspapers?
On Topic: Many of the problems with social media could be solved if it had been and now was properly regulated. Restrict the advertising it can host and data companies can share so it's no longer profitable to make the user experience worse when you've 'captured' them by having them put enough of their life on a site it's difficult to leave. Treat much closer to publishers in terms of libel law and Ofcom (allow some leeway to give people freedom to share opinions but take deliberate misinformation that's widely shared down). Then you'd have a social media that looks more like it did 15 years ago when it was a genuinely useful and pleasant experience before the companies tried to monetise it to the nth degree and turned it into a cesspit in order to keep users hooked and reward even the worst behaviour as long as it drives engagement.
The main effect of holding sites fully liable for comments is that it would result in no online comments.
Comments
I laughed, I surely did
Is WhatsApp a social network?
"Local media now saying we may be bracing for a three-way tie between the candidates. We’ll have official comments from presidential secretary Julio Vitobello coming soon."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2023-10-22/argentina-presidential-election
If that really is the case, Bullrich is 32 on Betfair.
https://resultados.gob.ar/elecciones/1/0/1/-1/-1#agrupaciones
76% counted
Massa 35.9
Milei 30.5
Bullrich 23.6
Schiaretti 7.3
Bregman 2.6
(Not the pre blended sauces - although they are not bad. The kits where you mix the ingredients).
After nearly three millennia, have we suddenly learned otherwise ?
I use Twitter mainly as a source of news. I saw a comment yesterday that said if Elon continues to destroy the brand it might be time to start taking a daily newspaper again...
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/more-people-are-avoiding-news-trusting-it-less-report-says-2022-06-14/
And this was echoed by the bbc: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65880999
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
The only one I still regularly use is WhatsApp but I'm starting to dislike that too.
Several "groups" have a vibe to them where the posts are all of a type and irritating but the unwritten rule is you go along with it and don't challenge it.
I use Telegram with a handful of people, including my Surrey tory friend. But no groups at all. They seem to be where a lot of the trouble comes.
Oh and never allow these apps access to your contacts, or indeed anything else.
F1: Hamilton disqualified. At the moment, my bet's still showing as green so I'm counting it that way. May update if it changes and I notice.
Almost everything else is toxic.
Anyway, glad to know that being up until 1am, in the face of a 5:30 alarm clock, was worth it. Nearly as bad as staying up half the night to watch the rugby on Saturday, followed by that crap sprinty thing.
Not bad for an obscure blog.
It was not an isolated incident. Across Israel, people are being detained, fired from their jobs, and even attacked for expressing sentiments interpreted by some as showing sympathy for Hamas after the group’s murderous attack on 7 October. The definition of pro-Hamas is often widened to include expressions of sympathy for the plight of Palestinian children trapped in Gaza, or calls for peace, especially if expressed in both Arabic and Hebrew.
Last week, after 15 years of service at a Petah Tikva hospital, its director of the cardiac intensive care unit was suspended from his position. Abed Samara’s apparent offence was his profile picture on social media – a dove carrying an olive twig and a green flag emblazoned with the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” He had adopted the picture last year, long before the Hamas attack, but it was nevertheless seen as somehow voicing support for the outrage.
The crackdown is directed primarily by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Since the attack, police have been given wide discretion to determine what applies as support for terrorism. They no longer have to refer back to the state prosecutors.
Probably an effect of using social media - such as this website.
The problem is, at least in part, due to the rise of feelings as a primary right.
“You hurt my feelings” is taken by some as the equivalent of breaking your nose. Or killing your dog.
Because people kept asking him, ‘WhatsApp, Doc?’
Political economics is so fucked there, that dollarisation is not a completely insane idea.
Sure, it will fuck lots of people. But everyone is getting fucked by inflation and other shit now.
“Silence is violence!”
Yet, to many of the same people, actual physical violence is just fine, so long as it’s the right people doing it in persuit of the right causes. “Punch a TERF” is just fine.
Twitter is, however, the sewer of the Internet and should be uninvented asap.
I only join small groups, of people I actually know, which are about organising and meeting up for specific purposes. No link spamming, random videos etc….
We use it at work for my department, and it is a great way to communicate, for example needing to cover a rota absence. We have a social group too for organising leaving events etc. I also have family ones for the extended family, and another for Mrs Foxy's family.
It is just a matter of appropriate use.
I still am on Twitter, but have created via the lists function groups of interest. The general feed is useless now.
Compared to the latter, the former are paragons of cleanliness, health and hygiene
Can’t we have a thread about pineapple on pizza rather than this guff?
WhatsApp, for example, is entirely innocuous if you turn off notifications. It's then quite useful.
Similarly, even the Musk debased Twitter remains the best single news feed out there (though it's lost a large number of scientists).
Just avoid browsing it randomly.
Sure.
Well I, for one, would miss PB
Overall though, I'm not on much. Ditched Facebook in 2012 and had no regrets. Use Twitter only professionally and WhatsApp just for family and actual friends I see.
I do worry about my children when they get to that age, but fortunately they're still too young to know about any of this.
The joke being that if the character who said that had watched TV…
Though given the trouble WhatsApp is causing the government right now, they may see that as a relief.
(Can't wait to ditch the primary class parents WA myself. It's useful, but all the dark mutterings you get at the school gate always escalate nastily.)
Something that may have been useful once, but now only does damage, wastes enormous amounts of time and money, and is dominated by shrill narcissists who think themselves much superior to everyone on account of whom they!re sleeping with but are actually very stupid and not worth bothering with.
It's an Internet discussion forum, which was there right from the start.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
Just at the moment the Covid enquiry would have eaten him alive for the many crimes he committed during lockdown.
How suspiciously convenient.
I do hope his departure is permanent. He is neither use nor ornament to national life.
Brendan Behan
Beecham, nothing fazed, raises an eyebrow and says 'Gentleman, this horse is not an actor - he is a critic.'
When it's not and unbounded it effectively becomes anti-social.
I've heard my local village one is a shit-show and have never joined it.
WhatsApp gets a mention - that isn't social media, its a messaging app. I can't read random crap from people I don't know.
Hello Fresh/Mindful Chef were onto something here but the expense is too great.
If someone could do a version of that but for the BBC £1 meals in a pan/pot stuff, then that'd have it nailed.
£35 a week for decent meals for a family doesn't seem unreasonable or undoable.
The politest thing I can say about them is they are not quite as useless as the DfE.
The other issue I notice a lot of people bringing up is their "echo chamber" - which I find a bizarre criticism. You wouldn't be friends with someone you actively dislike in the real world, so why should you be forced to be on an online space? Where this leads to people falling down rabbit holes into conspiracism is, again, less about echo chambers and more about algorithmic pushing. Take Youtube - you can watch some pretty innocuous videos and the suggested tab will offer you some relatively extreme typically right wing stuff. Why? Because Youtube promotes based on average view watch, and certain channels (especially right wing content) have very rigid and effective release schedules alongside an audience that will watch videos all the way through. There were times when this benefited longer videos, because it only cared about time watched and so if a video was 1hr long if someone watched 20 minutes that was considered the same as if someone watched a whole 20 minute video start to finish. Now it's based on percentage of video viewed, which benefits short form content over lengthy and (potentially) more explorative content.
Essentially I would say social media is not in and of itself bad - like the telephone or public post system, it allows people to communicate over great distances and has revolutionised human experience. The negative aspects almost solely crop up as part of the profit motive that drives the companies to push for engagement over anything else.
Good morning everybody; strangely, perhaps this thread has been quite useful! Personally, I find social media, quite useful, if only to warn of traffic hazards.
We use FaceTime to communicate with family members. Very useful for those a long distance away.
They combine the intelligence of Burgon, the manners of Rees-Mogg, the administrative ability of Jim Hacker, the financial probity of Enron's auditors and the self awareness of Trump in one truly loathsome package.
I suppose 'yes' would have been shorter.
https://twitter.com/TomJChicago/status/1716137936104599958
Similarly our town has both a Facebook group and a website forum - there’s no great difference other than the infinite supply of yoga teachers from nearby towns don’t spam the website
I asked what this Twitter was. and was told that people choose to follow celebrities for their view of the world? Really? People think that an actor - someone whose claim to fame is being able to pretend to be someone else as long as they can have a script to read - is worthy copying. Pity is my initial reaction. Am I missing something?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-stop-using-hotels-in-election-battlegrounds-for-migrants-kflr0gx7g (£££)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/12/musk-is-wrecking-speech-moderation-twitter-theres-an-alternative/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/23/sergio-massa-wins-first-round-argentina-presidential-election-over-javier-milei
That said, the probable winner is a Peronist, which is as I understand it watered-down populism which avoids dealing with serious economic problems. But I don't know enough about it - are there others here who know the Argentinian scene well?
1) it's free to use
2) that means you are the product and they need you to stay online as long as possible so they can maximize advertising revenue from the numerous adverts you see.
3) the easiest way to keep you online is to keep you interested.
4) the easiest way of keeping you interested is to feed that you items that may annoy you - and strangely annoying people is a great way of getting them to remain online.
It’s the atomisation and distress it’s causing to our children
If I were the head of the EU / POTUS I think I might have enough leverage to do stuff. I think we need to have better technology literacy in government rather than the general deference to tech industry out of ignorance and a hope it will bring economic growth. I think we could start by mandating that content moderation has to be done by human labour, not AI, and that labour needs to be unionised - that would be a great start at dealing with harmful material effectively. I think next steps would be to try and regulate away push algorithms - either via warnings similar to those on cigarette packages, or by straight up saying that companies such as Facebook or X will become liable for the impacts of disinformation, extremism and violence that are fostered on their platforms. That is a rather wide net that lots of politicians wouldn't like (I remember once reading Twitter / X refusing to use AI moderating for extreme right wing content because the content of an extreme right winger who may go shoot up a school is not that different from a typical GOP politician posting).
I think in the end, ideally, these platforms will be recognised as the necessary infrastructure they are and will come under some form of public control. If you remove the profit motive and the push towards conflict and rabbit holes so many of the problems just drop away. It wouldn't make social media perfect, but it would have a noticeable impact almost immediately.
We are not helped that there are clickbait agitators on these platforms who post material they know to be incorrect, misleading or even merely inaccurate. They do so to push the political / moral / social position they are agitating for. How is that any different to being the editorial team at GB News or various newspapers?
You can turn off Microsoft access to your browsing by:-
Define misinformation.