I don’t see any of this toxic stuff. Its all about how you use it.
While I don't doubt that some folk have FB nailed down so that it's more or less muzzled, but that you have to work your way through reams of menus and settings to make it turn off "toxic stuff" and not the other way around, surely tells you everything you need to know about it...
I use FB every day, don't see anything toxic nor anything which offends me. I do see loads of interesting posts and articles and share photos and memories with friends. I also use it to sell bike bits. I really like it.
I`ll just leave this here
This approach also changes society. It’s as powerful as the “let it all come at me” approach to using Facebook.
Sure. But that's an entirely different argument to the OP's.
Facebook was instrumental, albeit indirectly, in facilitating both the rise of Trump and Brexit. Without its ability to personally target propaganda (based on data scraped by a third party app) in a manner which meant that anyone who might object to the content never even saw it, it's almost a certainty that neither would have happened.
But the OP's complaint was "one of my friends shared a video I didn't like" and that's jeff all to to with the platform and everything to do with whose output you choose to read.
You seem quite aware of how to personalise your experience.
Which makes you the minority.
You're suggesting that the majority of Facebook users don't know how to remove people from their friends list or leave groups they don't like? We're doomed as a species if so.
That's the only "personalisation" I've done aside from forcing my news feed into date order and enabling the Dark theme. Have a guess how often I see videos of old men on bikes being pushed into hedgerows.
Stop friending arseholes. Leave groups which contain arseholes and don't benefit from the world-class moderation enjoyed by STW's forums. Satiate your right index finger. This isn't rocket surgery.
Stop friending arseholes. Stop being members of groups which contain arseholes.
This. It's really very simple, just don't have anything to do with arseholes.
(Sorry, minor ninja edit.)
but that you have to work your way through reams of menus and settings to make it turn off “toxic stuff” and not the other way around, surely tells you everything you need to know about it…
Never had to do that. 2 things probably make a difference. I do not allow any tracking cookies ever and I unfriend anyone who does not improve my life.
But the OP’s complaint was “one of my friends shared a video I didn’t like”
It wasn't. It was about FB's (lack of) response to the video.
I'm online in a cosy little echo chamber of like minded individuals. Crazy I know but I used Facebook's friend concept as exactly that and am on friends with people I'm friends (and family, what left I have) with. We all rub along very nicely in my facebook world.
True, I was blindsided by both the brexit vote and the Trump election but other than that it's all roses.
I`ll just leave this here
I've just typed up a long reply to this and then accidentally deleted it all after fat-fingering Notepad so instead I'll just say, correlation does not equal causation. Without seeing the report and analysis behind it that graph is worthless. And what does "social media available on mobile" even mean?
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
It wasn’t. It was about FB’s (lack of) response to the video.
Fair, and I've had some disappointing responses to things I've reported previously also. But it's impossible for me / us to know whether FB's response (ie, one of their front-line minions whose job it is to deal with this stuff) was the correct one in this specific instance.
It's often very, very difficult to know where to draw the line when it comes to censoring online content. Oddly enough, I do have a little experience in this area.
I dunno about the figures up there but there is loads of actual evidence about how harmful 'social media' is in terms of increased bullying, anxiety, depression, body image issues, narcissism, social division. Have a look for yourself.
Never mind stuff like this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/paedophile-vigilante-hunter-police-child-sexual-abuse-simon-bailey-a8908111.html
People smugly saying 'well it's ok for me' is just an expression of privilege.
People smugly saying ‘well it’s ok for me’ is just an expression of privilege.
Or they're just not an insecure, angst ridden teenager struggling to cope with finding their place in world. Figuring out that it doesn't matter two hoots what other people think of you is indeed a great privalege.
People who think Facebook haven’t changed them… well, that’s what we all think. That’s what I thought. There will be no epiphany. You need to have it explained by someone external to your experiences. Every user thinks that they are one of the users who are unaffected. It isn’t true. Start with the doc that Malvern Rider linked to… it’s flawed, but it’s accessible.
Social media as a whole maybe one of the biggest cancers on modern civilised society.
Fingers crossed...
I think Milgram has been called into question
And what does “social media available on mobile” even mean?
Social media predates smart phones. So I presume it is indicating where social media and smart phones came together, which is a key point in history if you’re going to look at the effects of social media as regards young people. I know nothing about that report and graph though. Links would be useful, wouldn’t they…
Social media predates smart phones. So I presume it is indicating where social media and smart phones came together
But none of those things are a single point in time. Which social medium? Which mobile phone?
I’ve just seen the red army (yep, that one) choir sing Tom Jones’ ‘Sex Bomb’ on social media.
Were it not for SM, I may never have seen it, which would have been a travesty.
For a long time, I've fought against removing people who post things I don't agree with on FB - sure, it means I'm building my own cosy social media bubble, but it also means I'm reinforcing theirs and, well.... Brexit and Trump. But I think I'm done with it - I just have a sense of almost constant anger, I find I'm looking for people to post things to argue against, and I'm not by nature zn argumentative person (offline, anyhow).
I think Milgram has been called into question
And the Stanford prison experiment.
Yes people can be dicks and pushing someone over from a car is 100% down to the individual. But to say that social media doesnt change society is highly naive. Look at all the lunatics who follow stuff like QAnon and Flat Earth and the the general polarisation between left and right wing politics. All driven by an idea that can easily be spread and then hardens in echo chambers. We all form opinions and outlooks based on what we can see for ourselves (its raining outside) and what we are told (there is a war in Syria). So if your news feed is someone like Alex Jones then you are going to develop a different world view. It's not just simply showing us a mirror on ourselves, its shaping us as well.
Sure. But that’s an entirely different argument to the OP’s.
Facebook was instrumental, albeit indirectly, in facilitating both the rise of Trump and Brexit. Without its ability to personally target propaganda (based on data scraped by a third party app) in a manner which meant that anyone who might object to the content never even saw it, it’s almost a certainty that neither would have happened.
But the OP’s complaint was “one of my friends shared a video I didn’t like” and that’s jeff all to to with the platform and everything to do with whose output you choose to read.
Starting with the latter ... I expect it will drift to the former...
You don't choose who's output to read ... you only influence it and blocking individuals isn't always possible in reality nor is it IMHO (will discuss last) the best thing for "the country".
My kids primary communicate all sorts via FB. Myself and OH and 5-6 other parents spent an hour in the sportsfield having carried a load of stuff for the summer fete.
After waiting probably an hour(ish) OH texted the head who said "didn't you see the FB post it's cancelled"
Anyway, roll on the day after the referendum when my kids teacher from reception posted about how his mother will be "sent home" (indirectly - not naming his mother but referring to foreigners)
Before everyone pipes in she isn't racist and many of her real life friends are immigrants and foreigners.... she apologised and in "real life" as well as many of her "real life friends" are actually in that category and she is in real life a wonderfully supportive person to everyone. In particular she was instrumental in the employment of several staff members of all minorities through her personal support.
So HOW THE F*** did she even get to that?
Quite simply because she was in an echo chamber for months... that she had drifted into for reasons nothing to do with Brexit or immigration, simply because many people who shared her views on primary education "just happened" to be pro-Brexit.. or did they "just happen" or as I view more likely were targeted and groomed like her.
Another ex-friend is devoutly religious (even more so since retirement) and I am pretty convinced he was dragged into being a Brexiteer through his views on femnale bishops. He's also a diabetic ... go figure?
I've never had or wanted FB and I ditched twitter in Jan. All that BS is still out there but I try not to expose myself to it now. Trying to avoid the silo view. I get that people have different views I always have, but the division that social media now creates seems to be more and more destructive to society (if society still exists, you only ever hear of nations being described as economies these days, we are no longer a people) and the control that bots and algorithms have is skewing views of many people to a dangerous perspective.
I shall continue to avoid it.
Facebook was instrumental, albeit indirectly, in facilitating both the rise of Trump and Brexit. Without its ability to personally target propaganda (based on data scraped by a third party app) in a manner which meant that anyone who might object to the content never even saw it, it’s almost a certainty that neither would have happened.
Big tech using personal data of users to make money has been happening for a long time. Way before the 2016. Be honest, if Hillary would have won the elections and Brexit would have failed, none of you would give two flying shits about it. On the other hand, its good that a significant percentage of the population has finally (although maybe too late) woken up on this topic.
I'm a member of three mountain bike groups on Facebook and an astronomy group, all of which are very well moderated. I've got about 100 or so contacts, mostly ex-students who gained their Phd's in the labs I've worked in, old friends and a few family members. I don't have any of the news feeds turned on.
I don't 'friend' anyone unless they are an actual friend, and if someone is on my list who's views I don't share, I either stop following their posts, or remove them.
My facebook feed is pretty much bikes, telescopes, cats, dogs, birthdays and babies.
I fully appreciate that it can be toxic, but surely that'll only happen if you let it?
C.
The thing that did it for me is when some groups I enjoyed using started getting weird Qanon type ultra right wing conspiracy theory stuff being posted.
I also have lots of 'friends' I know through photographing festivals etc and yes I could be more selective, but in my opinion this kind of stuff is increasing in its frequency and how extreme it is, amongst people who previously appeared to be fairly liberal/sensible. The fact that it's possible not to see this doesn't mean it's not very concerning.
And yes I'm sure both sides on Trump/Brexit used social media research/manipulation but sadly it's much easier to prey on people's most base instincts.
There's a lot of very rich people with vested interests in eroding things like financial regulation and workers rights, environmental protection etc.
Whipping up some nativist anger is an easy way to achieve this apparently.
I don’t ‘friend’ anyone unless they are an actual friend, and if someone is on my list who’s views I don’t share, I either stop following their posts, or remove them.
My facebook feed is pretty much bikes, telescopes, cats, dogs, birthdays and babies.
I fully appreciate that it can be toxic, but surely that’ll only happen if you let it?
Too complicated dood!
Be honest, if Hillary would have won the elections and Brexit would have failed, none of you would give two flying shits about it.
To some extent that might be correct but underlying this is a realisation that whoever won either did so with foreign support and subversive ads/posts...
So perhaps removing names and just calling these "democratic type events"... it seems that whoever wins whatever in future it is down to social media funded misinformation that cannot be countered because it's only seen by those in the bubbles.
Thank God Facebook came along. It used to take me ages to ring round all of my friends and tell them my status.
I accept that some folks might be exposed to 'toxic' content. Can't say I ever have. Just mates having adventures, knocking out babies and messing about on boats and on bikes.
Seems that very few of my friends push toxic ideas, except a few that always post inspirational quotes, but I soon got rid of them. 😉
Most of us can just sit in our comfortable little edited bubble but lots of people don't have that privilege and this stuff affects them in real life: immigrant children in the US for instance, or the disabled people who won't get care here because we spaffed all our money on lorry parks for Brexit.
No, Facebook really isn't toxic. Some people are toxic, you just get to see it on social media and this is a good thing as it means the decent people can see their true personality and avoid them.
Facebook (and social media in general) can be great, there are some really good stories about how good things spread and it urges people to step in and contribute. Sir Tom Moore for example.
it means the decent people can see their true personality
This in itself is a toxic idea.
People in general are highly susceptible to social cues. So, without these cues they are always less charitable and more likely to be negative. This isn't because they are actually bad people, it's because that's human nature.
Instead of writing people off as simply bad, we should try and find a way to encourage positive behaviours such as understanding and generosity. Germany became a better place after the war. How? Did all the Hitler supporters die? No. People just had their collective consciences activated. Consciences they still had even before the war.
A man on his bike was knocked off and killed by drivers racing a couple of years ago on Kirkstall Road in Leeds. He was killed instantly and lay dead at the side of the road, obviously no one even tried to help him instead they were all filming it etc on their phones.
Well, within the next few minutes the footage was all over Facebook for his family to see. It took days and personal appeals to Mark Zuckerberg to get it taken off all platforms which it was eventually. People are such utter ****s these days its shocking.
People in general are highly susceptible to social cues. So, without these cues they are always less charitable and more likely to be negative. This isn’t because they are actually bad people, it’s because that’s human nature.
I don't agree. There's clearly a debate to be had over whether humans are good only because there's social pressure to be so. Humans have clearly evolved to act cooperatively, and that's not inconsistent with self-interest.
Humans have clearly evolved to act cooperatively, and that’s not inconsistent with self-interest.
Yes, but only in small groups. We create in-groups and out-groups in our heads. In evolutionary terms this would be our tribe vs the next tribe, but now our out-groups can contain people from other countries, other religions, other towns etc etc. I think the key issue with social media is that almost everyone falls into an out-group. So this pre-disposes us to be uncharitable in our assessment of what people write. That's what makes it so toxic.
Facebook (and social media in general) can be great, there are some really good stories about how good things spread and it urges people to step in and contribute. Sir Tom Moore for example.
I've often wondered if that's true - that facebook has enabled good things to happen that wouldn't have otherwise. I'm not totally convinced - folk ran cycling clubs, ran successful campaigns, did amazing charitable acts and kept in touch with friends well before facebook. I would definitely say it's lowered the bar for the effort involved in doing any of the above but not convinced it's enabled us to do anything new.
The % of people giving regularly to charity in the UK appears to be on a decreasing trend, whereas cynicism in what charities do is on the up. If facebook is encouraging us to support worthy causes it's doing a shit job.
In evolutionary terms this would be our tribe vs the next tribe,
This has nothing to do with evolution. But let's presuppose you're talking social evolution...It is still a very "judeo-western" view of how complex societies evolve and organise themselves, and has very little to do with actual evidence. You've essentially taken a "modern" western understanding and bias and transposed it onto all historical and pre-historical civilisations without any evidence that that's the case. In short; you cannot know whether tribe A viewed tribe B as "other" or indeed whether the concept of "other" even existed in their heads.
In lots of ways you exhibit the same arrogance (not pejoratively) that FB does. It transposes it's world view on other societies without stopping to look at the damage that causes, or take sufficient care to learn. FB for instance has currently about 100 or so local moderators for Africa...a continent, none of them employed full time by FB at all, they're all 3rd party employees. In Ethiopia, it's standards aren't even published in the 2 local languages and yet expects users to sign up to them.
Yes, but only in small groups. We create in-groups and out-groups in our heads. In evolutionary terms this would be our tribe vs the next tribe, but now our out-groups can contain people from other countries, other religions, other towns etc etc. I think the key issue with social media is that almost everyone falls into an out-group. So this pre-disposes us to be uncharitable in our assessment of what people write. That’s what makes it so toxic.
Those out-groups are not new nor people making money from fear and hatred is new ... but the way social media makes money from encouraging argument, fear and hatred is.
In the same way, it's not new that "the media" may support political agendas.
Now the majority of printed media is a shadow of the digital... they aren't selling readers to advertisers but clicks and interactions. Getting people to argue and publishing topics designed to make people argue is what sells clicks and interactions.
The very algorithms are designed to pick up and promote hatred and intolerance because it generates more clicks and interactions.
folk ran cycling clubs, ran successful campaigns, did amazing charitable acts and kept in touch with friends well before facebook
You really think Tom moore would have got to £32 odd million without it being shared on social media?
That's just one example, there are a fair few good news stories even on our small local village facebook group.
Yup @stevextc - IIRC Jon Ronson worked out that one particular social media storm that lead to someone losing their job and getting harassed on twitter had made in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars through advertising clicks/views etc for companies like Google and FB.
@hooli if overall charitable giving is down then all these good news stories do is distract from that and let us kid ourselves that everything is great. Seems like lots of people on here are still drinking the kool-aid.
You really think Tom moore would have got to £32 odd million without it being shared on social media?
That’s just one example, there are a fair few good news stories even on our small local village facebook group.
There we have it settled. Facebook is good because Tom Moore.
Good things and amazing charities have always happened. People use the tools at hand, which today is Facebook. It doesn't make Facebook great and gloss over the weird and dangerous stuff they do.
There we have it settled. Facebook is good because Tom Moore
Or your option. There we have it settled. Facebook is bad because a chav pushed somebody off a bike.
You really think Tom moore would have got to £32 odd million without it being shared on social media?
Planned spending for the Department of Health and Social Care in England is £140.4 billion in 2019/20. We are still woefully underfunded but Government manipulation of social media over £32M / £140,400M and clapping for the NHS managed to hide that.
Or your option. There we have it settled. Facebook is bad because a chav pushed somebody off a bike.
No it's bad because things like a chav committing a criminal act are gold dust content for facebook.
I appreciate you can create a bubble on facebook but most users don't. Content which is inflammatory or divisive gets more engagement and money for facebook. If we all carefully craft bubbles and look at retrobike groups, airfix model groups and fluffy kitten videos they don't have a business. It is set up to breed the batshit mental.
The second issue is it is now a monopoly. There is no other effective way to advertise pretty much anything anymore. They suck all the ad spending and will continue to do so until it is the only show left. If it wasn't a monopoly perhaps other players would solve some of the issues with the model and make it work better.
