One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
Aren't you worried when a company dump toxic shit in our rivers?
Aren't you worried when tobacco companies helps people to have lung cancer?
Well for the same reasons, I'm worried about what Twitter, Facebook & cie are doing day after day to our mental health. We have more evidence about that every year and it ain't pretty.
In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist George C. Williams in the development of evolutionary medicine that most chronic medical conditions are the consequence of evolutionary mismatches between a stateless environment of nomadic hunter-gatherer life in bands and contemporary human life in sedentary technologically modern state societies (e.g. WEIRD societies),<span class="mw-reflink-text">[67]</span> psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[68]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[69]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[70]</span> In 1948, 50 percent of U.S. households owned at least one automobile.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[71]</span> In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and internet access the following year.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[72]</span> In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[73]</span> In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having broadband internet at home.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[74]</span> In January 2013, a majority…
There is a disconnect between being concerned with a given party's wealth, how they use that wealth and the benefits of using social media.
It's fine to address concerns about twitter/social-media as they are, but trying to justify the same points with "but what about using that money to...." is a fallacy.
Elon could have literally set fire to the 44 billion used to buy twitter for no reason at all, and all your other points about twitter are exactly the same. Or alternatively Elon could have been gifted twitter for free, and all your concerns with the platform concerns are also exactly the same.
I think a clearer connection is drawing how software designed to get you to doom scroll is essentially worth 44 billion. Elon's purchase might just be a reminder that no matter what he does to twitter, it's still not worth most people's time.
Finally bringing up world hunger to justify another point tends to result in the "whataboutism fallacy". However in this case you produced enough compelling arguments to stand up your primary statement, so you don't really even need to bring up world hunger.
I think "just give up" might not be the best term. Maybe "retire", or "contemplate its place in our lives"?
One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
I do however find interesting to note that sometimes a business model is incredibly good because it exploits some flaw in the human mind, and that it happens to affect your physical or mental health. Tobacco, Alcohol, Twitter, Facebook, ... all are really lucrative businesses which who not would not be as lucrative if they had to respect the "first, do not harm" principle.
But is it knowingly harmful? It could be argued anything could be harmful in large quantities. Even something as basic as water could get you killed in large enough quantities.
Ultimately its a business, and like any for-profit business its goal is to seek profits and evade getting sued.
There is also the idea that leveraging "a flaw in the human mind" is some kind of unique angle social media company's use. Except they just build their entire business model around it, and harness technology to make it as effective as possible. It also isn't unique to almost any business.
The run of the mill advertisements are usually designed to provoke an emotional response, as its been shown to be the most effective way for a person to remember it. It isn't the season yet (almost) but why is Santa red? Specifically coca-cola red. Because ads. This isn't even new its 100 years old and still very effective. All to sell you a sugar drink that isn't good for you.
Heck the "end world hunger" site posted earlier uses similar techniques to attract your empathy to get you to donate. I don't think any of this is directly evil or harmful, but they could be when used in excess like anything else.
The idea the world is out to get you is extreme, at the same time the world is not "harmless". Twitter is not completely evil, its also not completely innocent. I don't like the idea of "giving up", I like the idea of taking this knowledge in stride, accepting it and moving on. Possibly even taking a pause to analyze where things as rationally as possible.
Social media isn't always that good for you, but it can be a nice little thing every now and then. Or not, and you get to use something else. To each their own.
One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
The run of the mill advertisements are usually designed to provoke an emotional response
I get your point but I draw a line with products who by design hurt their users
Is it knowingly harmful?
Oh yes, it absolutely is! I have looked in depth more at Facebook because Twitter is a small thing compared to Facebook, and here are some research finding about Facebook
"For some users quitting social networking sites is comparable to quitting smoking or giving up alcohol"
"Drugs like alcohol and tobacco could not keep up with social networking sites regarding their level of addictiveness"
"In 2014, Facebook went down for about 30 minutes, prompting several users to call emergency services"
"Adolescents reporting higher ADHD symptoms positively predicted Facebook addiction, persistent negative attitudes about the past and that the future"
"People who are feeling suicidal use the internet to search for suicide methods. Websites provide graphic details and information on how to take your own life. This cannot be right."
"Facebook has been criticized for making people envious and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers."
"As many as one out of three people actually feel worse and less satisfied with their lives after visiting the site."
"Vacation photos and social interaction are the biggest sources of envy. Visitors who contributed the least tended to feel the worst."
"The more people used Facebook, the worse they felt afterwards"
"20 percent of divorce petitions included references to Facebook"
"High levels of Facebook use could result in Facebook-related conflict and breakup/divorce"*
I could go on but that should be enough, here are the references
In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist George C. Williams in the development of evolutionary medicine that most chronic medical conditions are the consequence of evolutionary mismatches between a stateless environment of nomadic hunter-gatherer life in bands and contemporary human life in sedentary technologically modern state societies (e.g. WEIRD societies),<span class="mw-reflink-text">[67]</span> psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[68]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[69]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[70]</span> In 1948, 50 percent of U.S. households owned at least one automobile.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[71]</span> In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and internet access the following year.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[72]</span> In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[73]</span> In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having broadband internet at home.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[74]</span> In January 2013, a majority…
This is a classic example of False equivalence. "Facebook is bad, therefore twitter is also bad".
I've honestly not seen anyone addicted to twitter. In fact, I've personally made many friends and learnt a lot through twitter. I've recieved opportunities as well.
"Facebook has been criticized for making people envious and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers."
This is bound to happen in each and every social platform. But I think in twitter's case, this is different. Most people I see aren't posting happy things only like on facebook/instagram. There's so much good content, news, memes etc.
Would you agree to me if i said "reddit is bad because i don't like one particular subreddit"
It's not about the platform, it's the content you're consuming. And not only consuming, content that you're interacting with.
And the "Money could have gone somewhere else" ah yes, the classic "this could have solved so many problems". The world works because buy stuff. if it's not directly affecting you, or well, anyone else outside twitter HQ, I don't see why anyone has any problem with it.
If you don't like twitter, just don't use it. Don't go around announcing your departure and then trying to convince others to do the same.
And where's the critisicm for twitter? I've been an active user since years and literally never had any problem.
On the contrary, yes, I left facebook and instagram because of all the reasons you mentioned, they are completely valid. Just don't apply to twitter.
One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
To be honest, I never bothered to look up for sources on the toxicity of Twitter because it has been very obvious in my own life until I finallly was able to quit the platform, six months ago or so.
And the "Money could have gone somewhere else" ah yes, the classic "this could have solved so many problems
Counter argument: the argument for free market capitalism is that it allocates resources in a manner that is close to optimal. And often this is true. Think WalMart or Amazon.
But here it clearly isn't. In fact it's hard for me to imagine a worse allocation of limited resources than $42 billions for Twitter. Maybe digging holes then filling them again?
It's not about the platform, it's the content you're consuming.
Your argument is too generous with the platforms, it can be used to excuse everything.
My counter argument is Kranzberg's First Law which states: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”
One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
I’ll never understand why people are always worried what others do with their money. 🤦♂️
That's an easy question, thanks for asking.
Aren't you worried when a company dump toxic shit in our rivers?
Aren't you worried when tobacco companies helps people to have lung cancer?
Well for the same reasons, I'm worried about what Twitter, Facebook & cie are doing day after day to our mental health. We have more evidence about that every year and it ain't pretty.
For Facebook, see for example:
In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist George C. Williams in the development of evolutionary medicine that most chronic medical conditions are the consequence of evolutionary mismatches between a stateless environment of nomadic hunter-gatherer life in bands and contemporary human life in sedentary technologically modern state societies (e.g. WEIRD societies),<span class="mw-reflink-text">[67]</span> psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[68]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[69]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[70]</span> In 1948, 50 percent of U.S. households owned at least one automobile.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[71]</span> In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and internet access the following year.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[72]</span> In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[73]</span> In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having broadband internet at home.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[74]</span> In January 2013, a majority…
There is a disconnect between being concerned with a given party's wealth, how they use that wealth and the benefits of using social media.
It's fine to address concerns about twitter/social-media as they are, but trying to justify the same points with "but what about using that money to...." is a fallacy.
Elon could have literally set fire to the 44 billion used to buy twitter for no reason at all, and all your other points about twitter are exactly the same. Or alternatively Elon could have been gifted twitter for free, and all your concerns with the platform concerns are also exactly the same.
I think a clearer connection is drawing how software designed to get you to doom scroll is essentially worth 44 billion. Elon's purchase might just be a reminder that no matter what he does to twitter, it's still not worth most people's time.
Finally bringing up world hunger to justify another point tends to result in the "whataboutism fallacy". However in this case you produced enough compelling arguments to stand up your primary statement, so you don't really even need to bring up world hunger.
I think "just give up" might not be the best term. Maybe "retire", or "contemplate its place in our lives"?
I don't disagree with you.
I do however find interesting to note that sometimes a business model is incredibly good because it exploits some flaw in the human mind, and that it happens to affect your physical or mental health. Tobacco, Alcohol, Twitter, Facebook, ... all are really lucrative businesses which who not would not be as lucrative if they had to respect the "first, do not harm" principle.
But is it knowingly harmful? It could be argued anything could be harmful in large quantities. Even something as basic as water could get you killed in large enough quantities.
Ultimately its a business, and like any for-profit business its goal is to seek profits and evade getting sued.
There is also the idea that leveraging "a flaw in the human mind" is some kind of unique angle social media company's use. Except they just build their entire business model around it, and harness technology to make it as effective as possible. It also isn't unique to almost any business.
The run of the mill advertisements are usually designed to provoke an emotional response, as its been shown to be the most effective way for a person to remember it. It isn't the season yet (almost) but why is Santa red? Specifically coca-cola red. Because ads. This isn't even new its 100 years old and still very effective. All to sell you a sugar drink that isn't good for you.
Heck the "end world hunger" site posted earlier uses similar techniques to attract your empathy to get you to donate. I don't think any of this is directly evil or harmful, but they could be when used in excess like anything else.
The idea the world is out to get you is extreme, at the same time the world is not "harmless". Twitter is not completely evil, its also not completely innocent. I don't like the idea of "giving up", I like the idea of taking this knowledge in stride, accepting it and moving on. Possibly even taking a pause to analyze where things as rationally as possible.
Social media isn't always that good for you, but it can be a nice little thing every now and then. Or not, and you get to use something else. To each their own.
I get your point but I draw a line with products who by design hurt their users
Oh yes, it absolutely is! I have looked in depth more at Facebook because Twitter is a small thing compared to Facebook, and here are some research finding about Facebook
"For some users quitting social networking sites is comparable to quitting smoking or giving up alcohol"
"Drugs like alcohol and tobacco could not keep up with social networking sites regarding their level of addictiveness"
"In 2014, Facebook went down for about 30 minutes, prompting several users to call emergency services"
"Adolescents reporting higher ADHD symptoms positively predicted Facebook addiction, persistent negative attitudes about the past and that the future"
"People who are feeling suicidal use the internet to search for suicide methods. Websites provide graphic details and information on how to take your own life. This cannot be right."
"Facebook has been criticized for making people envious and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers."
"As many as one out of three people actually feel worse and less satisfied with their lives after visiting the site."
"Vacation photos and social interaction are the biggest sources of envy. Visitors who contributed the least tended to feel the worst."
"The more people used Facebook, the worse they felt afterwards"
"20 percent of divorce petitions included references to Facebook"
"High levels of Facebook use could result in Facebook-related conflict and breakup/divorce"*
I could go on but that should be enough, here are the references
In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist George C. Williams in the development of evolutionary medicine that most chronic medical conditions are the consequence of evolutionary mismatches between a stateless environment of nomadic hunter-gatherer life in bands and contemporary human life in sedentary technologically modern state societies (e.g. WEIRD societies),<span class="mw-reflink-text">[67]</span> psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[68]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[69]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[70]</span> In 1948, 50 percent of U.S. households owned at least one automobile.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[71]</span> In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and internet access the following year.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[72]</span> In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[73]</span> In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having broadband internet at home.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[74]</span> In January 2013, a majority…
This is a classic example of False equivalence. "Facebook is bad, therefore twitter is also bad".
I've honestly not seen anyone addicted to twitter. In fact, I've personally made many friends and learnt a lot through twitter. I've recieved opportunities as well.
"Facebook has been criticized for making people envious and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers."
This is bound to happen in each and every social platform. But I think in twitter's case, this is different. Most people I see aren't posting happy things only like on facebook/instagram. There's so much good content, news, memes etc.
Would you agree to me if i said "reddit is bad because i don't like one particular subreddit"
It's not about the platform, it's the content you're consuming. And not only consuming, content that you're interacting with.
And the "Money could have gone somewhere else" ah yes, the classic "this could have solved so many problems". The world works because buy stuff. if it's not directly affecting you, or well, anyone else outside twitter HQ, I don't see why anyone has any problem with it.
If you don't like twitter, just don't use it. Don't go around announcing your departure and then trying to convince others to do the same.
And where's the critisicm for twitter? I've been an active user since years and literally never had any problem.
On the contrary, yes, I left facebook and instagram because of all the reasons you mentioned, they are completely valid. Just don't apply to twitter.
I'm glad Twitter works for you.
To be honest, I never bothered to look up for sources on the toxicity of Twitter because it has been very obvious in my own life until I finallly was able to quit the platform, six months ago or so.
Counter argument: the argument for free market capitalism is that it allocates resources in a manner that is close to optimal. And often this is true. Think WalMart or Amazon.
But here it clearly isn't. In fact it's hard for me to imagine a worse allocation of limited resources than $42 billions for Twitter. Maybe digging holes then filling them again?
Your argument is too generous with the platforms, it can be used to excuse everything.
My counter argument is Kranzberg's First Law which states: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”
Interesting how you left TikTok out! 😊
That's because I'm old, I don't understand TikTok!