"Mob Rule" and Reddit

[rockcasbah]

I always take interest in new social trends arising out of the use of the internet.

Before the internet, something like #metoo would not have been possible.

Recently, Reddit has emerged as a way to influence the financial markets.

Something close to "mob rule" through disruption of generally accepted channels has become more commonplace.

Crowds of people influencing society without the use of the legal process and in some cases, in opposition to the law.

Good thing? Bad thing?

 

[Paul_Chance]

I split the differences here.

In general, I think the rise of social media as a method of breaking through the constraints of traditional media platforms (and gatekeepers) is a good thing, especially where it can harness "the wisdom of the commons" in a beneficial way. I am thinking here of the ability to raise vast sums of money for charitable causes very simply or to solve cold cases.

The devil always lies in the details and there are certainly folks out there will exploit it for personal gain or use it for criminal purposes. The ability of social media to manipulate financial markets has been around for a while, as have the prosecution of bad actors. In regards to the GameStop issues, I'd expect a few prosecutions to result from it when it's all said and done.

 

[bellisarius]

I split the differences here.

In general, I think the rise of social media as a method of breaking through the constraints of traditional media platforms (and gatekeepers) is a good thing, especially where it can harness "the wisdom of the commons" in a beneficial way. I am thinking here of the ability to raise vast sums of money for charitable causes very simply or to solve cold cases.

The devil always lies in the details and there are certainly folks out there will exploit it for personal gain or use it for criminal purposes. The ability of social media to manipulate financial markets has been around for a while, as have the prosecution of bad actors. In regards to the GameStop issues, I'd expect a few prosecutions to result from it when it's all said and done.

Well said. Any tool can be misused no matter how beneficial it generally is.

Regarding 'Game Stop', many of the Wall Street Bankers got that one jammed up their ass. (And more than a few figured out what was going on and took the ride to the top.) Those that took it in the shorts cried, "No fair." and went to their buddies in DC to stop the 'little people' from interfering with their business. And their business has always been the manipulation of the markets to their own benefit. Apparently they don't like being hoisted on their own petard.

 

[Rotadom]

Reddit users made an enormous picture (Sonic the Hedgehog) halt distribution and fix the horrible Sonic rendering into a damn fine movie.

 

[Champakian]

Groupthink has been around forever; it created all of the great totalitarian states.

Newspapers and other medium were always efficient spreaders of bad ideas

(even word of mouth in the days of kingdoms/empires).

The internet is only marginally faster, but as pointed out by von Mises
every generation is enthralled by its new technology
and considers itself somehow smarter.

Translation: The internet does not make us a world of Galileos...



... it just makes us dumber at 100x speed.

 

[HisArpy]

I always take interest in new social trends arising out of the use of the internet.

Before the internet, something like #metoo would not have been possible.

Recently, Reddit has emerged as a way to influence the financial markets.

Something close to "mob rule" through disruption of generally accepted channels has become more commonplace.

Crowds of people influencing society without the use of the legal process and in some cases, in opposition to the law.

Good thing? Bad thing?

#Me too has always existed. Stories of mobs with pitchforks and torches are spread all across our history. The phrase "go along to get along" isn't new either. Even the rules we've laid down to have a peaceful society are yet another attempt at consensus for an idea among the many.


Internet social media has done 2 things. 1 is that it has exposed everyone in the world to international events on a level that hasn't ever been seen before. Anyone can hear about the events anywhere almost immediately whether those events are good or bad and it's all on a person-to-person interaction. That brings it home like nothing else can.

2nd is that it has exposed human society for what it is. Weak. Society has become a collection of unsure individuals who are willing to do almost anything to avoid conflict with those who are aggressive. The reasons for this are manyfold. From laws making self defense illegal, to lack of inertia, to laziness, to uncaring anathema, and more, the fact is most people don't want to fight and just want to be left alone.

The crazies who dominate social media to stir up trouble are the ones who have banded together to create the great world-wide mess we're currently finding ourselves in. Until we stand up to them and let them know they aren't in charge, we'll continue to have wackjobs saying stupid things.

Like the one who was on my newsfeed this morning saying that there are girls with penises and boys with vaginas. Or the mom yesterday who was the subject of an article about how virginity doesn't exist.

All social media has done is give these nut cases a place to air their stupidity. In the past, the fact that some of them had charisma meant that weak people would agree with them and others would ignore or go along to avoid conflict.

The end result is always the same though.

 

[Champakian]

The crazies that you have alluded to so well
also have infected the Lit politics board where
nothing is philosophical and everything is personal.

 

[rockcasbah]

Like the one who was on my newsfeed this morning saying that there are girls with penises and boys with vaginas. Or the mom yesterday who was the subject of an article about how virginity doesn't exist.

I've seen those documentaries that say newsfeeds are tailored to the tastes of the individual user.

 

[Champakian]

I've seen those written commentaries that say documentaries are
tailored to the tastes of the individuals consumers of those products.

 

[rockcasbah]

I've seen those written commentaries that say documentaries are
tailored to the tastes of the individuals consumers of those products.

Netflix knows I watch a documentary every second Thursday nite with an old friend?

Those bastards!

 

[HisArpy]

I've seen those documentaries that say newsfeeds are tailored to the tastes of the individual user.

What can I say, I read almost everything and no subject is really taboo to me. The analysis is where it's at, not the headline.

 

[HisArpy]

The crazies that you have alluded to so well
also have infected the Lit politics board where
nothing is philosophical and everything is personal.

They are everywhere and always have been. However, until social media they couldn't band together as easily because of social pressure against crazy ideas.

Prohibition is a good example of how crazy ideas get to be mainstream because of people hopping on the bandwagon. Just because it's loud and vocal doesn't mean it's a good idea or a good thing to pursue.

Currently I'm enjoying watching "woke world" melt down.

 

[Champakian]

Most of them have never seemed to get beyond the grade-school thinking of the pack;

individuals outside of the pack mentality must be identified, isolated and ridiculed.



Then pack members become factory workers or store clerks or something else commensurate
to the skill sets they "developed" as part of the pack.
I see a lot of them here...


~ woof woof ~

 

[rockcasbah]

What can I say, I read almost everything and no subject is really taboo to me. The analysis is where it's at, not the headline.

Penis & Vagina...that's some pretty cutting edge stuff.

Good luck with your readings.

 

[HisArpy]

Penis & Vagina...that's some pretty cutting edge stuff.

Good luck with your readings.

Watched a Uboob video the other day from SkyNews Au. Seems that Au media is now thinking that the "miracle worker" the world-wide media hyped the hell out of last summer, and who became president, is now believed to be the largest dementia ridden imbecile on the planet. At least according to them in the video.

 

[hobbit.]

Netflix knows I watch a documentary every second Thursday nite with an old friend?

Those bastards!

hang about! you actually have a real world friend?

Watched a Uboob video the other day from SkyNews Au. Seems that Au media.

most of this week all internet news in Aus was ruled by uncle rup and his spawn due to Scotty pooping himself. Seems to have back tracked a bit in last couple of days.

 

[HisArpy]

most of this week all internet news in Aus was ruled by uncle rup and his spawn due to Scotty pooping himself. Seems to have back tracked a bit in last couple of days.

This is what happens when you decide that "social media" is owned by "private companies". You get hosed when those "private companies" decide that they don't like you for whatever reason those "private companies" was to pawn off as a "valid" reason.

FWIW, Skynews Au isn't the only one beginning to have buyers remorse over the current US President vis a vis the last US President.

 

[rockcasbah]

hang about! you actually have a real world friend?

He has his own Netflix subscription, so yes?

 

[hobbit.]

He has his own Netflix subscription, so yes?

ok. 'he' isnt invisible is he? does 'he' talk to you? can other people 'hear' 'him' ?

 

[Champakian]

No one had to tell me who not to vote for.




But, the fawning media was a tell...

 

[rockcasbah]

ok. 'he' isnt invisible is he? does 'he' talk to you? can other people 'hear' 'him' ?

I respect that these are the kinds of questions you receive from those around you.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

No one had to tell me who not to vote for.

But, the fawning media was a tell...

You voted for 45 because FoxNews told you to. Hush, AJ.

 

[Emerson40]

This is what happens when you decide that "social media" is owned by "private companies". You get hosed when those "private companies" decide that they don't like you for whatever reason those "private companies" was to pawn off as a "valid" reason.

FWIW, Skynews Au isn't the only one beginning to have buyers remorse over the current US President vis a vis the last US President.

Decide? “Social media companies” are “private companies” (what’s with the quotes, derp), with Terms of Service. When you violate those terms, they can give you the boot.
You are free to go and be part of another “privately owned” “social media company”, perhaps one that shares your views and has TOS you can live with, like many did with the likes of Parler.
Or you can start a “privately owned” “social media” company of your own.

It really is not that difficult to understand. Well, unless you’re derpy the jackleg lawyer, and / or a MAGA fool.

I think it was the timing of the banning of your orange deity that has your (and your fellow red capped mouth breather’s) panties in a bunch, and the fact it was the big players / platforms in the social media landscape doing the banning.
Really, given the events of Jan 6th and the role ol’ DT played in the events of the day, those companies were left with no choice. Any slack they’d provided him before was gone.

Many folks feel he should have been removed from Twitter and other platforms sooner, based on the lies, misinformation, and hate speech (I know, right. The president) he was using the platform to spread.

It is as simple as that, really. Much the same as “Literotica”, which is “privately owned”, and has TOS. Should you violate these, adios muchacho. Sometimes the axe is swift, and sometimes Laurel gives you a warning or five, but ultimately, if you can’t abide by the rules of the place, which is privately owned, you’re gone.

Weird how you and your oft banned pals, like AJ and BotanyBoy, struggle so, with this very basic, simple concept.
Well not too weird really.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Decide? “Social media companies” are “private companies” (what’s with the quotes, derp), with Terms of Service. When you violate those terms, they can give you the boot.
You are free to go and be part of another “privately owned” “social media company”, perhaps one that shares your views and has TOS you can live with, like many did with the likes of Parler.
Or you can start a “privately owned” “social media” company of your own.

It really is not that difficult to understand. Well, unless you’re derpy the jackleg lawyer, and / or a MAGA fool.

I think it was the timing of the banning of your orange deity that has your (and your fellow red capped mouth breather’s) panties in a bunch, and the fact it was the big players / platforms in the social media landscape doing the banning.
Really, given the events of Jan 6th and the role ol’ DT played in the events of the day, those companies were left with no choice. Any slack they’d provided him before was gone.

Many folks feel he should have been removed from Twitter and other platforms sooner, based on the lies, misinformation, and hate speech (I know, right. The president) he was using the platform to spread.

It is as simple as that, really. Much the same as “Literotica”, which is “privately owned”, and has TOS. Should you violate these, adios muchacho. Sometimes the axe is swift, and sometimes Laurel gives you a warning or five, but ultimately, if you can’t abide by the rules of the place, which is privately owned, you’re gone.

Weird how you and your oft banned pals, like AJ and BotanyBoy, struggle so, with this very basic, simple concept.
Well not too weird really.

tl;dr. Lol

 

[hobbit.]

I respect that these are the kinds of questions you receive from those around you.

So you have an invisible friend?