Comment by jaredklewis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaredklewis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The dilemma is that leaving social media is increasingly tantamount to leaving society

Aside from my debilitating addiction to HN, I don't use social media. I have a job, family, large circle of friends, and all the usual attachments to society. I vote and love to debate politics with pretty much anyone interested. How exactly would my attachment to society be improved by more social media? If HN went away tomorrow, would I no longer be a part of society?

I have found fruitful, enjoyable political discussion and social media to be more or less incompatible. Twitter and Facebook work great for the purpose of "rallying the base." Tweeting or sharing the latest polemic showing all your friends how truly liberal or conservative you are doesn't do much to bring in converts. But the political bases in the US are quickly approaching max rallied-ness. From here on out is the actually difficult tasks of changing hearts and minds, and that doesn't happen on social media.

If you care about politics, the further you get from social media the better.

I dunno about this. I consider HN social media (we are socializing via media of sorts), but even on Facebook, when I post something that I believe validates my perspective, my social graph includes intellectually honest people who chime in with thoughtful counters and we're allowed to have thoughtful dialogues, and have benefited from their influence (as well as those types of discussions in meatspace as well). I've also had less enjoyable discussions in both areas. When I see relatives post things that are flagrantly one-sided or even untrue, I try to engage respectfully and try to offer another take. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But I think increasing communication is one of the side effects, and overall, generally a good thing. As I like to repeat often, clarity is more important than agreement, and having more ways to connect with people gives alot more clarity into who they are, as well as valid counters to my own preconceived notions. Sometimes, others viewpoints don't change my mind overnight, but often they either long-term influence more nuance in my own ideas, or even gird my thoughts to a more defensible position.

And like any social network, virtual or physical, we all tend to have those oddballs in our lives that are really into watching random things online and sharing them with others, and that to me just means more spice to life.

Twitter on the other hand ranges from pointless to toxic when it comes to conversations. It's a broadcast network that by nature narrows positions into extremes, in my experience.

Of course, like my real world relationships, I need to do some amount of curation or a break from certain folks or sometimes the entire system, but overall, it's been a net gain for me socially. YMMV :)

I agree that debate cannot occur on social media and it would be better if no one used Facebook; leaving social media certainly sets a good example.

But I'm arguing against the sentiment that whatever goes on on Facebook is merely a symptom of politics that occurs face-to-face. We live in a world in which people can form political opinions and vote in elections without ever leaving their house.

Today, Facebook might not yet be one of "the usual attachments to society." My point is precisely that social media is increasingly seen as one of the "usual attachments," particularly among younger generations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com