Of course, this also means you likely have much less in common with the person next to you.
Who gets to decide what commons we all should share?
Record labels and publishers?
Youtube, facebook and twitter are already exercising undue influence in terms of algo changes to suggested videos or auto-play videos.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/1/16072840/youtube-placing-l...
It's a marketplace of ideas. Let them compete. Google deciding what's good and what's not is not fair to the people who want to decide for themselves.
tldrl; eat your own dogfood before telling others to do so.
Youtube is big media? It's only in recent history that Youtube is exercising power to decide what stays and what doesn't, even if it meets the youtube content policy. This is political opinion enforced by youtube.
Given Google is a public company, taking one side or another in a political discussion may not be in their interest, it would be their right of first amendment to change the sites they own as they wish, but it dilutes the usefulness and trustworthiness of their product in the eyes of the customers, and the stock holders may not like it that way. The employees have fiduciary duty to not impose their political views on their product.
I am asking these companies as a fan of their platform that they keep it neutral.
I am not selling any dogfood. I am asking dogfood companies to sell it to all dog owners, don't discriminate if they have a poodle or a pit bull.
Legit question, because I'm not sure why you bring it up
> Social cohesion is defined as the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper.
Isn't there a Black Mirror episode about this with social capital? [+]
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that. examples maybe?
On one extreme, you have the Dalai Lama, the latest Pope, and Bernie Sanders. The other: the Kardashians, Kanye West, and Martin Shkreli.
NOTE: I'm mostly talking out of my ass here as I've never really thought much about this subject before. I'd gladly welcome new ways of seeing this issue and facts that counter my view.
It seems to me that Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat are causing extreme narcissism to embed itself in younger cohorts, along with workers being more mobile causing family units to fall apart. The shitty parts of human behavior are being exploited by tech companies for obscene profits with no governance of their actions.
Data shows that loneliness kills, but we shun extended family living arrangements in the US (you still live with your parens/grandparents?). Data shows that social media networks trigger the same parts of your brain as cocaine, and are just as addictive.
Just my two cents.
Social media narcissism: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=social+media+narcissism
Health risks with loneliness: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...
There absolutely are negative aspects to these changes, but I think there's also a lot of good aspects to them as well. Instead of viewing these changes as good or bad, I guess I generally see them as "just different". Additionally, I think a lot of the bad sides to these issues seem to be ones that already existed to one degree or another, and hopefully this will increase our ability to fix them.
> The shitty parts of human behavior are being exploited by tech companies for obscene profits with no governance of their actions.
I absolutely agree with this though, and think that we should be doing a much better job here.
"Millennials are moving significantly less than earlier generations of young adults."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/13/americans-ar...
However, alienation is about to get a hell of a lot more crushing.