Frequenting other forums

[SimonDoom]

Personally (and I know it’s a cliche but…) I think the biggest creator of the current polarisation comes from social media.

The only problem I have with this view is that ultimately I think responsibility must lie with people, rather than platforms and processes. If by "social media" you mean the people who run these platforms and deliberately do things that stir up the pot, I totally agree. It's contemptible. But people are always going to pursue profit. Ultimately, the people themselves have to become more discriminating users and consumers of social media. We can't believe all the nonsense that we see. There have always been snake oil salesmen, but we always have a choice whether or not to buy the snake oil.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

The only problem I have with this view is that ultimately I think responsibility must lie with people, rather than platforms and processes. If by "social media" you mean the people who run these platforms and deliberately do things that stir up the pot, I totally agree. It's contemptible. But people are always going to pursue profit. Ultimately, the people themselves have to become more discriminating users and consumers of social media. We can't believe all the nonsense that we see. There have always been snake oil salesmen, but we always have a choice whether or not to buy the snake oil.

It’s a nice idea, but companies have spent billions so that their consumer programming works, generating clicks, moving people to various websites, etc.

It’s the individuals fault is an excuse to shift blame from the conman to the conned, and we can only better protect people by actively discussing these issues rather than pointing fingers and saying “it’s your fault”.

But more importantly what other forums do you frequent?

 

[yowser]

The only problem I have with this view is that ultimately I think responsibility must lie with people, rather than platforms and processes. If by "social media" you mean the people who run these platforms and deliberately do things that stir up the pot, I totally agree. It's contemptible. But people are always going to pursue profit. Ultimately, the people themselves have to become more discriminating users and consumers of social media. We can't believe all the nonsense that we see. There have always been snake oil salesmen, but we always have a choice whether or not to buy the snake oil.

The platforms do share some responsibility for this, but your reminder of a poster's agency and responsibility is sound.

Sherry Turkle has done some work on this, some of the difficulty comes from the distancing that comes from anonymity (I think the same sort of effect shows up in 'road rage' where as a driver you are separated from other drivers, and often capable of far more hostility and aggression that if drivers were face to face.)

If posters (or commenters on stories) would offer the same words they would as if the communication were face-to-face, I suspect civility would benefit.

 

[alohadave]

It’s a nice idea, but companies have spent billions so that their consumer programming works, generating clicks, moving people to various websites, etc.

It’s the individuals fault is an excuse to shift blame from the conman to the conned, and we can only better protect people by actively discussing these issues rather than pointing fingers and saying “it’s your fault”.

But more importantly what other forums do you frequent?

It's like salt, fat, and sugar in processed foods. Manufacturers know exactly what your body craves and they exploit that when formulating foods.

Many can resist them, but biological programming will win at least part of the time.

Social media works similarly. They knew what rules people up and you might be able to resist much of the time, the pervasiveness of it ensures that you'll likely succumb to it at some point of another.

 

[SimonDoom]

It’s a nice idea, but companies have spent billions so that their consumer programming works, generating clicks, moving people to various websites, etc.

It’s the individuals fault is an excuse to shift blame from the conman to the conned, and we can only better protect people by actively discussing these issues rather than pointing fingers and saying “it’s your fault”.

But more importantly what other forums do you frequent?

You're shifting too quickly, IMO, to trying to figure out whose fault it is. There's a vast difference--although many people today don't understand the difference--between saying "it's your fault" and "it's your responsibility even if it's not your fault." If you walk through a dangerous neighborhood at night and get mugged, it's not your fault. But it's perfectly legitimate for me to advise you that it would be prudent for you not to walk through that neighborhood at night, and you bear responsibility for your own safety even when it's not your fault. I think this is a crucial thing to understand about living as a responsible person.

If people use social media tools to lie to or defraud others, they're at fault. There should be mechanisms to deal with those people. But it's not much help, practically speaking, to point the finger at abstractions like "social media," because social media is not an actor or agent that we can ever expect to do anything. Only individuals can make choices.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

You're shifting too quickly, IMO, to trying to figure out whose fault it is. There's a vast difference--although many people today don't understand the difference--between saying "it's your fault" and "it's your responsibility even if it's not your fault." If you walk through a dangerous neighborhood at night and get mugged, it's not your fault. But it's perfectly legitimate for me to advise you that it would be prudent for you not to walk through that neighborhood at night, and you bear responsibility for your own safety even when it's not your fault. I think this is a crucial thing to understand about living as a responsible person.

If people use social media tools to lie to or defraud others, they're at fault. There should be mechanisms to deal with those people. But it's not much help, practically speaking, to point the finger at abstractions like "social media," because social media is not an actor or agent that we can ever expect to do anything. Only individuals can make choices.

But the problem is when those who operate the tools are in cahoots with those that are doing the defrauding then what you get is a corrupt system, where it’s harder to make choices.

Us talking about these issues and how we can make things better to improve society is like you warning about areas where there’s been a lot of muggings, helping the individuals who hadn’t known something before learn something new.

I don’t want my brain to stop learning until I’m outta this world. Because I definitely don’t want my brain to wake up in a jar in a professor’s lab having a telepathic conversation with Dr Hfuhruhurr.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

The platforms do share some responsibility for this, but your reminder of a poster's agency and responsibility is sound.

Sherry Turkle has done some work on this, some of the difficulty comes from the distancing that comes from anonymity (I think the same sort of effect shows up in 'road rage' where as a driver you are separated from other drivers, and often capable of far more hostility and aggression that if drivers were face to face.)

If posters (or commenters on stories) would offer the same words they would as if the communication were face-to-face, I suspect civility would benefit.

Indeed, I mean look at us here. The conversations we have, even if we disagree most of us wish to keep it civil because we will still crop up with each other in a different post.

I might not agree entirely with @SimonDoom but I understand where he’s coming from and no doubt I will see him in a different post elsewhere.

It’s probably not just anonymity then, it’s probably also the chances of encountering the same person again.