It took them time…
deleted by creator
Attention Everyone.
Grass is green.
Fork found in kitchen.
Water is wet.
Sky is blue.
Thank you for your time.
Social media has the power to do so much good: connecting people across the globe, enabling the sharing of information across language barriers and in circumvention of government censorship, and more. But because the world is run by greedy power-hungry pigs, we can’t have social media without it being exploited to the furthest extent possible in the name of profit. The mental health of the public is not even a secondary concern - it is completely disregarded in favor of squeezing further growth out of a saturated market for a service that should be both simple and free.
Before all that - and you are right on your take - there is a more basic flaw that affects social media: people do not know how to act properly.
The anonimity emboldens the small minds that use it to mistreat, slander and ridicule others and spread lies and rumours.
Unless we can force people to act with civility - which implies people being fairly conscious of the consequences of their words and actions - social media will remain what it is: a cesspool where the worst of our species destils into a refined poison.
people do not know how to act properly
They do, in communities where rules exist and are enforced. Anonymity may lead some people to feel more emboldened to act out, but when handled properly I believe the vast majority of them will just settle down and either learn how to participate in good faith or find somewhere else to be. The bad behavior patterns we see in some places are, in my opinion, the result of insufficient social norms and enforcement thereof. This is also a situation capitalists will foster, because it drives engagement and inflates content.
Unless we can force people to act with civility - which implies people being fairly conscious of the consequences of their words and actions
So you already understand that this is a problem that only exists in places where bad actors are given license to continue acting out.
If I didn’t understood there is already a problem of bad actors, I wouldn’t have approached your reply. And deny it in any way would be bad faith from me.
What I feel the need to underscore is that individuals make and influence groups and even the most progressively thought out environment is open to being corrupted if any individual present there lacks, in any way, the self awareness that their attitude is damaging.
It’s not the group that needs to regulate the individual; the regulation needs to arise from the individual themselves, in the first place. And most individuals lack that hard individual sense of responsability.
See: Manna by Marshall Brain. In his Australia project they simply install a centrally controlled “cutoff switch” - when people are out of line their conscious brain gets switched over to a virtual reality where they can live out their fantasies while their bodies report to detention until their brain decides it wants to join “the real world” again.
That doesn’t work. The average individual is too hedonistic to refrain from any pleasureable or self reinforcing loop. It’s been a cautionary tale in stories since ancient times.
There’s no shortage of people. If the “real world” people all get along with reasonable consensus on what “individual freedoms” mean, and some (hopefully small) percentage of those people decide they’d rather live in an alternate reality where they trample the rights of others, instead of incarceration / punishment / inadequate efforts at rehabilitation, transferring those people’s consciousness to a virtual reality where they can “be themselves” would seem to me to be a far better use of their individual spirit than trying to break it or simply terminating it. Maybe most of them never rehabilitate - that’s o.k. Of course, this is feeding right into a prequel for Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan.
That is a system predicated on getting rid of the problematic, like the one it exists today, just with an added layer of distancing, to ease the rest of the population’s mind. It does not solve any problem.
The inherent problem with freedom in a society is when one person’s exercise of their freedom takes away from another person’s freedom. Absolute freedom only exists in a society of one person (and, by extension: the more people we have in a resource/space constrained society, the less free we all must be to share the common resources and space.)
If you don’t “get rid” of the problematic - what’s your option? Just shrug and ignore them when they rape, murder, pillage and destroy? If you “rehabilitate” the problematic, how is that respecting their freedom?
Back in “the Australia Project” (Manna story) - the development of the overall project was kind of vague, but implied access to a lot more “space” in which people could choose to live with others in ways that each group chose to be “acceptable society.” If you are more at home in one society than another, you are free to migrate. If a particular society chose to cap its size at 200, or 2000, or however many members, you were free to organize another modeled on it… The key aspect of behavior was: respect. Whatever the size of your social interaction: 2 million down to 2 people - respect the others in that society within the boundaries of local societal norms. The availability of virtual reality expanded the available “living space” many orders of magnitude.
I am going to repeat my point as many times as necessary until it gets through: your example is only a punishment system with an extra layer to be more palatable to the society where it is inserted.
Being free does not imply in any moment an individual can do whatever they may concieve or desire; freedom requires and demands constraint, precisely because the freedom of the other is the boundary of my own. Life in society predicates on this. There is no society of one; the individual often finds a swift end if insisting on it, by its own actions.
A society that simply represses or discards individuals because they engaged in destructive behaviour is not doing anything to in fact solve a problem. A society is as responsible by its individuals as the individuals are by their society. And a society that so simply and easily opts by fractioning itself just to allow more (blatantly artificial) freedom to its elements is not a society. It is something I lack the word to describe but a society it is not.
Sounds like a society that exists only because it tramples the rights of others. Nah, fuck that.
But where’s the motivation? How do you join the $10B club “doing so much good”? That would take soooo much longer than just being evil, evil is easy, evil is profitable, and evil can masquerade as good long enough to cash out to a level where you can hire lawyers good enough to never worry about being prosecuted for being evil.
Where’s the structural societal incentive to “do so much good”, and why would we need it? We are social animals, most of us are hardwired for altruism, we’ll do good without expectation of compensation, so our “great society” has chosen to just use those base human instincts to “do good enough” and meanwhile reward the rare psychopaths with wealth and power - because: it’s a dog eat dog world out there, if our dogs aren’t eating theirs, theirs will eat ours.
Where’s the structural societal incentive to “do so much good”, and why would we need it?
That’s a great question. There are some college courses that can help you answer that. The short answer is “because in terms of the flourishing of an entire species, cooperation trumps competition, but it’s a recent evolution and doesn’t come naturally to everyone”. If we are to flourish and advance instead of strangling ourselves in the crib, we need to stop tolerating the kinds of selfish behaviors that prove detrimental to every society that permits them.
we need to stop tolerating the kinds of selfish behaviors that prove detrimental to every society that permits them.
The “why would we need it” question was intended as rhetorical.
I feel that as society grows orders of magnitude larger, these overall detrimental selfish behaviors keep resurfacing as advantages in special niches where they flourish, with the potential as you say to strangle us in the crib.
There’s also the looming spectre of mandatory birth control, if the magically predicted end of population growth doesn’t happen we’re going to have to do something to lessen our resource demands on the planet, because we’re already significantly degrading it far more than previous generations with 1/4th and less of our current population which simultaneously made much lower per-capita resource demands…
Yet no one wants to leave social media.
I left it last year and feel so much better. No FB no Whatsapp, no Insta, no Tictok, no nothing.
You’re on a sm rn….
This comment is not the slam dunk you think it is… Lemmy isn’t owned by corp interests, it’s not algorithm driven and it isn’t 92% bots from fascists, oligarchs and foreign influence agencies. You can as much control as you want here. You can talk to actual people here.
Everyone has an agenda. Lemmy wasn’t created for shits and giggles. You don’t really know what’s under the hood, what posts and comments are encouraged, which ones have votes that are inflated. It’s an illusion to think otherwise.
I’m sorry to see comments like this mindlessly downvoted. While I don’t agree that Lemmy was built with any ill intentions, this thread results in good discourse.
For example, the platform itself lends itself to be used or abused to promote commercial interests or push one side of a story. The manner in which pro-Russian content has flooded Lemmy shows how the platform itself can be used to manipulate narratives, and there are no doubt many more subtle ways in which the community sentiment is being skewed in ways we might not realize.
I feel like I’m missing something here, but isn’t knowing what’s under the hood exactly the point of projects like Lemmy? The source is available on github, and they explain the algorithms or talk about their political bias pretty openly in most communities.
Were you thinking more from the angle of the way our social biases work as a group, or like the risk of maintainers tampering with the sauce pre-release?
I hope this didn’t come across shitty - genuinely curious.
If open forums on the internet don’t have some filtering / steering they all too easily degenerate into YouTube comment sections, or worse. Lemmy seems to mostly be administered with a light touch, but I believe it - even more than Reddit - is sub-moderator driven in terms of what gets removed, what gets allowed.
You can join the Lemmy / ActivityPub developers’ meetings via video chat anytime you like. I’m not “into” that level of things but I dropped in a few times just to see what’s up - there’s a definite axe or two they’re grinding, not that they’re bad people or out to hurt others at all, but if you don’t detect some agenda basis from that crew, you need to think a layer deeper about what those people have been through and why they’re doing something to make the world a better place in the future.
Is this social?
Does lemmy do the whole algorithm thing? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
Algorithmic social media is pretty much what we’re talking about, I’m sure.
Of course it has an algorithm, but I think you’re referring to an algorithm that includes personalized or demographic parameters.
Regardless of whether the algorithm includes that (or rather, to which degree), let’s not forget that bad actors can use the knowledge of the open source algorithm to identify the optimal way to manipulate the platform to bring their content on top.
Fair. Have you seen an example of this?
In my limited imagination, bots that flood a topic has a tendency to do that. The the “ask reddit” bots I see in “All”.
You are not wrong. It is a social media and TBF the term has been poisoned by many platforms. I think just like drinks there are healthier options. Healthier online community spaces and I’d like to think this place is one of them.
It is an addiction that takes steps of lesser. The place you visit. How long you stay there are steps of management.
Lacks self-awareness, along with everyone upvoting them lol.
Self awareness is very challenging, you will always have blind spots.
Yes, and… it’s a skill that needs to be practiced. We don’t call it out as a skill, we don’t recognize it as a skill, and we don’t tell others that they need to practice it. So we get stupid shit like people saying they don’t do social media, on social media.
The world would be a much better place if we prioritized self-awareness as a universal skill.
What is that?
sm = social media
There are lots of us that wanted to leave and did. There are lots that want to and can’t find the will power to do so. It’s definitely addictive. It was hard for me to quit, I have an addictive personality, but I’ve also given up drinking and smoking entirely without councilors or pharma aids. I think it’s time we regulate it like a dangerous addiction until there’s a change to how the algorithms function, which may be never.
user’s
users’
deleted by creator
I’m shocked! SHOCKED! Well…
No shit!
Why isn’t methodology discussed anymore? How were their conclusions reached? That was always a big part of newspaper reporting back before the internet. Methodology is important. Without it, conclusions are as useless as any other “polling” data. It may be in the linked article but I look to the post only for good, or incomplete, information. I don’t click on the links.
You had me in the first half.
You’re not wrong, but this is a press release from a university about research. They’re not going to dig into methodology when they want to toot their own horn.
Reading the abstract and introduction (full article is pay walled), it was a pilot study using EEG. Normally similar studies have participants self report using a survey. Sample size was 60 people which seems reasonable given they had to hook up each person to an EEG. Demographics are a bit skewed based on gender and age, but as a pilot, that probably isn’t that big of a deal.
I’m not seeing anything egregious, and it was published in a peer reviewed journal. I would treat this as a single data point and wait for other researchers to replicated it and prod at the methodology more.
