Posted on 05/26/2021 6:59:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
In a recent piece at The Bulwark, Sonny Bunch puts into words a sentiment sensed by many for years, namely, that what once made social media so great has now made it unbearable. According to Bunch, social media’s original design as platforms for “debate culture” has descended into a toxic landscape of information silos where arguments are “dismissed in favor of agreement.”
Rather than a boundless world of information and opinions, social media now serves to blind users from reality.
This sorry situation, however, is precisely what Emory University professor Mark Bauerlein predicted in his 2008 book, The Dumbest Generation, How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. How tragically right he was.
Today, social media is used far less for reasoned debate than as the vehicle for outraged mobs to launch vicious fusillades against their perceived enemies. Some targets of this vehemence are large organizations and companies able to withstand such attacks. Often, however, victims of social media lynch mobs are individuals who knowingly or by chance have traversed the social media crosshairs of the Left and expressed views at odds with the prevailing social media orthodoxy.
In spite of the potentially life-changing consequences of becoming the latest “Central Park Karen,” or merely someone wrongly accused of being a “Nazi,” such nuances are lost on these online mobs, as their aim is not to change minds or debunk misinformation, but to destroy their targets personally, emotionally, and financially – all while taking glee in the ruin they cause. This internet misbehavior is fueled by hashtags that facilitate coordination and aided by secret algorithms designed to keep users hooked by feeding them aggregated content catering to their preferred tastes and world views.
Whether tech companies could have (or, should have) seen this coming, they are responsible for building the content silos now tearing our culture apart. This raises an important question: Is social media’s descent a reflection of society’s debasement, or a catalyst accelerating it? Actually, both.
Two of social media biggest failures – tribalism and confirmation bias – existed long before the rise of Facebook and Twitter, as traits of the human condition. Individuals naturally gravitate toward like-minded people and possess an instinctual skepticism of ideas and information different from theirs. Traditional liberal arts education was designed specifically to undermine that innate skepticism, and provide young minds with the intellectual tools to withstand the challenge of competing ideas and to unashamedly defend one’s own views.
The demise of traditional liberal arts education in favor of leftist groupthink, coupled with the ascendancy of social media as a way to block out disfavored ideas, has resulted in barriers to independent thought and reasoned debate that make it now nearly impossible to overcome.
In the pressure cooker of social media, bad ideas and bad behaviors are not checked, but rather rewarded with greater engagement, in a sociopathic feedback system used by its purveyors to create addiction to their services.
To make matters worse, traditional alternatives to social media’s distortive effect on information and reality, including the mainstream media, politicians, and religious leaders, appear to be following in social media’s footsteps, with fear-mongering and hyperbolic rhetoric increasingly used to manipulate followers. We see this dangerous phenomenon everywhere.
For example, notwithstanding the fact that trust in the media has sunk to an all-time low, news outlets constantly peddle fear and even outright lies, because doing so brings social media “clicks” and boosts ad revenue. Substance and truth are nothing more than flotsam, to the point where misinformation spreads six-times faster than the truth on Twitter.
In the midst of all this, politicians, although fully cognizant that radical polarization is ripping our country apart, continue using the very same overheated rhetoric on which social media thrives, because it brings in campaign dollars. Even religious leaders prey on fears of a culture in decline because, sadly, it strengthens their congregants’ faith . . . and increases tithes and offerings.
State legislative attempts to rein in social media, well-intentioned as they are (such as the bill recently signed by Florida Gov. de Santis), are virtually guaranteed to be successfully challenged in federal courts, based mainly on the many First Amendment precedents affirming the primacy of public “speech” over government limitation. That task, however, is made far easier thanks to so-called Section 230 of the 1996 “Communications Decency Act,” which treats social media companies as simple “platforms” rather than what they increasingly have morphed into – publishers with their own goals and agendas.
The long-foreseen dangers of social media are now upon us. Whether we survive what we have sown is an open question.
^
“...platforms for “debate culture” has descended into a toxic landscape of information silos where arguments are “dismissed in favor of agreement...”
So true.
Like any powerful and precise tool, it’s effective and positive in the hands of educated people.
But ... a powerful and precise tool in the hands of uneducated, irresponsible and malicious people is certainly dangerous !!
Now, totally insignificant and uninformed people demand attention, and drive the conversation. All at once, people we don’t know, wouldn’t give the time of day or invite into our home, assault us with their irrelevant statements, baseless and emotional views, crude language .. while they presume the level of of attention we usually reserve for credible and worthy voices.
Going to FB or Twitter is like eating out of a garbage can!!
Congress shirking responsibility, our government is hurting, not helping our country.
“It’s the internet, stupid”
That said, time was (1980s into the 90s) you could find people who were experts in their fields on the internet and interact with them (usenet days to early WWW days).
Searches were largely unfiltered and not scoped to prefer “recent” additions or paid promotions and the search results were biased by HTML savy programmers who knew to get higher match rankings.
Comments could be posted under news articles etc.
Rush Limbaugh used to remark how vast (not large but wide in terms of scope of backgrounds) his audience was. That he could bring up some subject (especially in a field of sciene or employment etc) and a caller would be on the line who could speak well on the subject and clarify some confusion Rush had or explain something to the audience or correct some news report.
Free Republic has that type of user base as well (although it isn’t the same as at some periods, some users have walked away, some have been banned, and some have passed on). FR still in a lot of ways is like Internet 199x.
Myspace was there in the 90s to 2000s only to fall out of favor when 13 year olds were allowed to join (to boost number of users before IPO) and as Fox/NewsCorp purchased ownership. By and large those former users made the leap to Facebook.
The Cancel Culture has been around a long time. They used to hound Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors (about a dozen liberals sending out thousands of emails or tweets to make their cause seem so much larger).
>>Now, totally insignificant and uninformed people demand attention, and drive the conversation. All at once, people we don’t know, wouldn’t give the time of day or invite into our home, assault us with their irrelevant statements, baseless and emotional views, crude language .. while they presume the level of of attention we usually reserve for credible and worthy voices.
THIS is why is rejected broadcast television by 2008. Whether it was news anchors, advertisers, late night tv hosts, commedians, sit coms, drama, etc. All of it was hostile to my religion, my politics, my skin color, my beliefs, my country, my politicians, etc.
The level of discourse in the entire culture has turned to stink, it’s not just on the internet.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
“...The level of discourse in the entire culture has turned to stink, it’s not just on the internet...”
Ain’t it the truth?
What I especially hate about TV programming is where one “journalist” interviews another “journalist”. It’s invariably a couple of idiots patting one another on the back and mouthing what any other ‘journalist’ would say or has said for weeks!!
I mean, seriously? WHAT in the world is that supposed to BE? It reminds me of what dogs do, when meeting other dogs! It’s just that predictable and repulsive.
Joe Bob Briggs pointed that out in the 90s when there were so many talk shows on the air (Regis, Alan Thicke, Arsenio Hall, Sally Jesse Raphael, Oprah, etc.) that they were resorting to have the interviewers interview other interviewers. They’d reached maximum talk it seemed.
Surfing the TV, if I see a person (ANY person) banging on about anything, talking about ANYTHING, holding a mic, talking into the camera....etc. ... I’m OUTTA THERE!
I reached the gag-point with all that stuff I don’t want to hear any one talk about anything, PERIOD
Unfortunately I’ve noticed this creeping in to FR.
Instead of debate, even over trivial subjective matters, several FReepers will devolve into name calling and insults.
Yeah, I know, I’m a moron and idiot for this opinion.
(And I speled maroon incorrectly.)
Save
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.