You nailed it again, Anand! Absolutely love your coining of "broligarhs"! How about folks who are not under the broligarchs' spell just abstain from platforms altogether? There is no real "grassroots" community to be found there. As comedian Nathan Macintosh put it, how did the least social people come up with "social" media in the first place? How did we let that happen? No emotionally sane person would want to invite Musk or Zuck to a party UNLESS they wanted to brag about it on "social" media! To hell with them!
I left Facebook 2 years ago, when I realized it was a parasitic infection of our brains. The only social media I now use, guardedly, are Substack and Bluesky. No amount of “fact checking” could ever counteract the perverse incentive system these companies depend on for unlimited “growth “
What kind of mischief might be wrought by people who want to take "free speech" for all its worth!! All kinds of narratives could be told about the incoming president and his health, his lack of wealth, his mental well-being, and his friend Elon's, as well. My point is that the Pandora's box of falsehoods (and many truths) could be unleashed if no one is guarding it. Fact checking doesn't just work for the average reader. It also protects the mighty from being avalanched with unproven stories that could make life terribly difficult without a grain of truth in it.
As has been said, "Be careful what you wish for...."
Cretinarchy! Wrecking what we’ve built from love and earnest enterprise and kind regard for one another. The “bro” takeover sets us so far back and hurts very much.
As an old person, I grew up when there was no internet or computers, no cell phones, only 3 television stations, a social network consisting of friends you made in school or at work, and social media that was the local newspaper. If you wanted to talk to somebody, you called someone you knew, as a live human being, on the telephone, which was a box-like thing you didn't obsessively carry around in your pocket. I got a computer in 2005 because the library where I live is small, and the internet offered unlimited ability to research. Also, I wanted to relocate some old friends, and it was a great typewriter. Didn't make the awful racket that the IBM Selectric did. These things I got by being on the internet, and am still happy with them. However, I have never quite understood the attraction of social media. Yes, you can reconnect with old friends, but otherwise, it seems to me to be a place where you can give and receive anonymous commentary, which I find to be the epitome of cowardice, hear gossip and opinions, constantly be the target of some sales pitch, and finally realize that your every syllable is being recorded.
This piece brings to mind a point Noah Harari makes in his recent book that needs action: While platforms should not be required to prevent content from being posted, they are directly responsible and should be held responsible for any content their algorithms promote in people’s feeds in pursuit of their grail of increasing user engagement.
If platforms shape delivery of user derived content in any way, is that not a violation of 230? Can they be sued at that point - shouldn’t they be sued?
Question: Is there a website for just sharing photos? I got off fb in 2016 and now want to get off insta. I don’t sell stuff just love visuals and sharing with friend and fam. Thank you!
You nailed it again, Anand! Absolutely love your coining of "broligarhs"! How about folks who are not under the broligarchs' spell just abstain from platforms altogether? There is no real "grassroots" community to be found there. As comedian Nathan Macintosh put it, how did the least social people come up with "social" media in the first place? How did we let that happen? No emotionally sane person would want to invite Musk or Zuck to a party UNLESS they wanted to brag about it on "social" media! To hell with them!
I left Facebook 2 years ago, when I realized it was a parasitic infection of our brains. The only social media I now use, guardedly, are Substack and Bluesky. No amount of “fact checking” could ever counteract the perverse incentive system these companies depend on for unlimited “growth “
It suggests Meta is counting on the TikTok ban taking affect and attracting those displaced users onto their platforms.
What kind of mischief might be wrought by people who want to take "free speech" for all its worth!! All kinds of narratives could be told about the incoming president and his health, his lack of wealth, his mental well-being, and his friend Elon's, as well. My point is that the Pandora's box of falsehoods (and many truths) could be unleashed if no one is guarding it. Fact checking doesn't just work for the average reader. It also protects the mighty from being avalanched with unproven stories that could make life terribly difficult without a grain of truth in it.
As has been said, "Be careful what you wish for...."
Cretinarchy! Wrecking what we’ve built from love and earnest enterprise and kind regard for one another. The “bro” takeover sets us so far back and hurts very much.
As an old person, I grew up when there was no internet or computers, no cell phones, only 3 television stations, a social network consisting of friends you made in school or at work, and social media that was the local newspaper. If you wanted to talk to somebody, you called someone you knew, as a live human being, on the telephone, which was a box-like thing you didn't obsessively carry around in your pocket. I got a computer in 2005 because the library where I live is small, and the internet offered unlimited ability to research. Also, I wanted to relocate some old friends, and it was a great typewriter. Didn't make the awful racket that the IBM Selectric did. These things I got by being on the internet, and am still happy with them. However, I have never quite understood the attraction of social media. Yes, you can reconnect with old friends, but otherwise, it seems to me to be a place where you can give and receive anonymous commentary, which I find to be the epitome of cowardice, hear gossip and opinions, constantly be the target of some sales pitch, and finally realize that your every syllable is being recorded.
This piece brings to mind a point Noah Harari makes in his recent book that needs action: While platforms should not be required to prevent content from being posted, they are directly responsible and should be held responsible for any content their algorithms promote in people’s feeds in pursuit of their grail of increasing user engagement.
If platforms shape delivery of user derived content in any way, is that not a violation of 230? Can they be sued at that point - shouldn’t they be sued?
Question: Is there a website for just sharing photos? I got off fb in 2016 and now want to get off insta. I don’t sell stuff just love visuals and sharing with friend and fam. Thank you!