Can't wait to see how this shakes out.
I think it's more social media than smart phones per se?
Reading and re-reading the article, it feels a bit light on explanation; maybe the trial was too. Instagram, TikTok and Facebook clearly are designed to keep you scrolling; but while the article states she developed body dysmorphia and depression, it doesn't say it's because of those elements. And it feels it would be tough to prove, too - while it may well be an input to those outcomes, demonstrating independent causation (ie unrelated to any pre-existing mental health indicators) rather than correlation is challenging.
This is in stark contrast to the alcoholism thread, too, where it's clear that addiction starts with an addictive personality, and the main thing that can pull someone out of addiction that may ruin their health is themself.
My own opinion for now is limitations can perhaps be placed on social media companies, and better regulation to remove some of the "one more click" elements of the platforms. And existing child protection laws and regulations, and laws around illegal content, must be fully enforced (which they're not currently). But the research on social media's impact is mixed - the social aspects of connection, feeling seen, forming opinions based on exposure to like or unlike ideas are positive; in spite of the negative aspects of bullying, unrealistic aspiration and the reliance on the buzz of likes etc.
In a sane world, you'd think that the social media platforms an websites would be the ones liable for what gets distributed via their systems, and would be liable for addiction and naughty content.
But we don't live in a sane world and haven't since 2016.
The amount of money that big social media is spending to bribe governments is insane. They are successfully redirecting that liability for naughty content at least to the sellers of PCs and Smartphones (and Linux). So one can only assume they would have been on the hook for some seriously enormous fines/costs in future. So now it will be MS, Apple, Google and the likes of Canonical that will have to cough up, so Zuck and Musk don't become skint.
Social media... Spreading division, within interference, radicalisation, conspiracy theories, 'wellness' BS scams and undermining of democracy itself.
I wish it could be regulated to near extinction personally.
Social media was fine but then their algorithms just started suggesting pages and people that you have no idea who they are. Think we need better for society than endless scrolling.
We've ended up in a downward spiral whereby folk we actually know and are connected to are posting less, so we get served more "nonsense". One possible way out of this is to post more content yourself and hope your friends engage with it and do the same. I'd almost stopped posting on Facebook but I'm making more of an effort again, hoping to kickstart something.
Social media was fine but then their algorithms just started suggesting pages and people that you have no idea who they are.
This. If we could get them back to only showing what we follow (and lets be realistic, a few ads) in a chronological order then this would help (yes, I know you can on some apps but it's very much not the default). And when we've got to the end it tells us and so we stop.
The problem is that's not how social media firms make money...
hoping to kickstart something
> belly laugh <
Wading through the algorithm delivered slop isn't going to be made easier by more genuine content from your "real" contacts, if that did happen they'd just (opaquely) tweek the algorithm to restore the balance that works for them not you.
The brain is still developing until the early 20s. Any business that uses that level of tech, R+D and development time to keep you engaged (i.e. form habits) has a responsibility for the outcome, partic in young people. It's not like these apps give you moderated, balanced content based on your clicks, it's more like a rabbit hole, or an event horizon for some.
In my opinion, it was this moment that marked the point that we lost control
Whoops, sorry I mean
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-17048650?utm_source=perplexity
As it says here, the options were "now or later" and that's how it's been ever since
Read this last year. It's a fantastic book that covers in depth exactly what the social media companies do to get people hooked. It's utterly terrifying. I deleted my Facebook account after reading it. I stopped looking at Twitter/X. I've never had Tik Tok. I still have Instagram but I rarely use it.
One possible way out of this is to post more content yourself and hope your friends engage with it and do the same.
I assume that’s very tongue in cheek
Social media... Spreading division, within interference, radicalisation, conspiracy theories, 'wellness' BS scams and undermining of democracy itself.
I think social media went down the wrong monetisation path.
Making it free to use means that the user becomes the product which incentivises the companies to try and maximise engagement and time spent on the platform.
If they’d gone down the other road and made them a subscription service they’d have been incentivised to make the best possible product so the user would keep paying their monthly subs. It wouldn’t matter if you spent 5min or 5hrs on there, they’d still be making money.
That ship has obviously sailed now and it’s going to be one of those things that future generations look back on in horror and wonder how we could be so stupid.
Really not that much has changed since 1992.
Really not that much has changed since we were burning books.
The public loves a good menace ahead of accepting responsibility for anything. Violent video games, Dungeons & Dragons, television, rock & roll... plus ca change.
I think social media went down the wrong monetisation path.
The problem there is, this only works if a) you have a product worth buying and b) you don't have much in the way of free competition. And remember your history, the Web was always free, charging for services is a relatively new concept.
When it was the new kid on the block, there was nothing else like it and Muskrat hadn't got hold of it, would you have paid for Twitter? I used it a lot in the early days, I read every single message in my carefully curated feed and had an interactive widget on my phone's home screen. I might have paid $1 for an app (I think I did, even) but I'm not so sure as I'd have signed up for a recurring subscription. And of course as soon as you introduce money that can potentially drive away users and that's a death blow for social media.
Compare with television. TV historically has always been free (mandatory licence fee aside). Streaming services like Netflix charge, successfully, because they offer premium programming where the free alternative consists of the BBC channels, ITV, C4, C5... and a massive pile of intellectually devoid shit like The Ironing Channel most of which looks like it was filmed on a potato when viewed on a 4k TV. The "free" option is there but you might as well still just have the classic terrestrial choices from 25 years ago.
Sounds a lot like dead internet theory which I think has some truth to it.
While I have the apps for most of the social media platforms, I rarely engage with them, Fb mostly, because I have quite a few actual, real world friends on there, but I doubt if I actually spend more than an hour every two/three days, sometimes a week can go by without me checking it out. Xitter I only use to troll asshole politicians. This place, on the other hand, I can spend a significant amount of time on! And it’s all YOUR fault! 🤭
Agree with the ‘false equivalence’ - whatever we may think of the forum here, it’s clearly not designed to nurture an addictive engagement with it. Whatever the shortcomings of Singletrack, it’s clearly run by people with a passion for dicking about on bikes, not the malevolent edgelords that currently run companies like Meta, X and TikTok
I've just bought a Brick to cut down on my time. 3 days in it seems to be working, but we'll see if I stick with it long term.
Brick — Take Back Control of Your Screen Time – Brick LLC
Really not that much has changed since 1992.
The basic information hasn't changed, human nature hasn't changed. But the rate of change in the media format and its reach has changed exponentially, then add in the algorithmic targeting vs the passive or natural pathway we used to take through info and and it's a critical, fundamental change in how we see or find information (and how we react to it, and how that feeds the algorithm).
Really not that much has changed since 1992.
The basic information hasn't changed, human nature hasn't changed
I can't work out where I sit. Because this is absolutely correct. And legacy media (newspapers, TV news, the BBC) have zero objectivity on the subject because they believe that social media is stealing attention/ time and ultimately adspend that "should" be theirs - the whole "OMG, people get their news from social media, that's so messed up!!", and "you can only trust proper news outlets for the news" narrative.
But at the same time, while social media (the idea of connecting online to people who like similar things, have experienced similar things or have interesting things to say) is inherently not a bad thing, the current social network model has made likes and mentions and replies the endorphin, so that users are like rats hitting the button for more of that sweet sweet buzz.
while social media (the idea of connecting online to people who like similar things, have experienced similar things or have interesting things to say) is inherently not a bad thing, the current social network model has made likes and mentions and replies the endorphin, so that users are like rats hitting the button for more of that sweet sweet buzz.
Worse than that - it's better to exploit confrontation because anger produces stronger emotions and more engagement than happiness. So the idea of the algorithm is to steer you towards conflict. There can never be a positive outcome in an app that moves towards polarisation or entropy more than it moves towards harmonisation or understanding - especially when so much political campaigning happens on these apps.
Those of us with controlled feeds and an ability to not engage aren't seeing the real damage that happens. Those who think it's good to troll or think they're fighting for a cause on an app are simply tools of the algorithms, playing the app owner's game. The only way to kick back is to not engage and let the app go the way of X - when the only ones left are the core angry men it becomes an echo chamber for them, but they won't change anyway. It's a positive step for them not to be heard and for the app to lose value.
I can't work out where I sit. Because this is absolutely correct. And legacy media (newspapers, TV news, the BBC) have zero objectivity on the subject because they believe that social media is stealing attention/ time and ultimately adspend that "should" be theirs - the whole "OMG, people get their news from social media, that's so messed up!!", and "you can only trust proper news outlets for the news" narrative.
But at the same time, while social media (the idea of connecting online to people who like similar things, have experienced similar things or have interesting things to say) is inherently not a bad thing, the current social network model has made likes and mentions and replies the endorphin, so that users are like rats hitting the button for more of that sweet sweet buzz.
The difference is immediacy.
In my parents' era, you waited for breaking news on The News at 10 (bong!) or tomorrow's newspaper. Today, 5 minutes ago is global news.
Couple that with social media giving everybody a voice with the same urgency. This is both the greatest thing the world has ever seen and the most terrible. Think about that. Everyone has a voice. It should be a quantum leap forward in our evolution as knowledge can be transferred and disseminated at the speed of thought, but the fundamental problem here is that there is far too many c*nts and they're outpacing us.
there is far too many c*nts and they're outpacing us.
Everyone having a voice should be a good thing. It's exposed human nature (that's not a revelation) and the truth is it's like populist politics, it's not about the number of cnts but collective psychology, we all have a tendency towards bias, self-interest, dopamine and so on and SM algorithms play all of us to some extent. We're all flawed and the algorithms plus those with something to gain distort those flaws so we end up with the worst of our nature creating the best profits for them. The only way to beat them is to not play the game at all.
If social media was just IT and communication it'd be great. LLMs are great. What fks it up is a small group of people twisting it for their own gains. Social media needs to be run more like cryptocurrency, though I know zero about decentralised systems it seems obvious that SM is like the UK railways and water, they shouldn't be for private gain to the extent that they currently are, there's too much to lose.
Edit, I think some of them are decentralised, bluesky etc, but Meta etc have the headstart in numbers and w/o numbers and engagement SM doesn't work as well. Perhaps Meta and other private/traded stocks apps should be forced into paid access (creates a fund to manage a taskforce or ombudsman) while decentralised systems can remain free to use.
Those of us with controlled feeds and an ability to not engage aren't seeing the real damage that happens.
This is a really good shout.
I'm of the mind that it's almost certainly by design. There was a study recently which I don't remember details of well enough to immediately lay my hands on. The researchers created a bunch of virgin social media accounts and poked them in different ways to see what would happen to their feeds. The results were wholly predictable, depressing and scary.
TL;DR: If you think we're being manipulated by mainstream media then I have some very bad news for you.
I think some of them are decentralised
This is Mastodon's USP.
It's also the reason why Mastodon is probably going to lose this format war to Bluesky, it's an intimidating concept for 'normal' users.
^ seems so. I went on to mastadon a while back and was asked to select a server or something like that and thought 'well this sucks already...'.
I'm of the mind that it's almost certainly by design.
I saw it on IG and Youtube is even worse, any interest you have is steered towards the more extreme and base level. Bruce Lee fan? Here's some street brawling. Like bikes? Here's some women in bike lycra soft prn accounts. You need to put some effort into having a clean sane feed but no effort into hitting the bottom of a barrel and the bottom of the barrel online contains a lot more than the top. I realise it's a volume thing and the rest is 'what others watched'. But the way the base stuff gets promoted is about the app owners understanding human nature and playing it for profit at our expense.
I'm sure I've mentioned it before but Arthur C Clarke wrote 'I Remember Babylon'* in 1960 and now we have TikTok. It's a short story, well worth reading to see how he predicted most of this. Interestingly given this thread and the story's topic it was first published in Playboy, back when even the 'base' stuff in some people's minds had some smart content too.