“I don’t think a live message board is going to destroy society” could’ve been something someone said about Facebook or Twitter.
The danger there wasn’t in the tech, it was in the societal impact and consolidation of information control. Both, imo, are danger areas for AI as well.
Social media companies are often scapegoats when things go wrong in the world. From teen mental illness (Jon Haidt) to Trump getting elected (Cambridge Analytica). And now apparently genocide in Myanmar. It's all just nonsense.
This is, usually, not true. But I can understand why you’d feel that way… I can understand why you feel like you’ve stepped on some kind of religious tenet.
In reality, it’s just a bunch of people independently replying to you. They’re not offended, it just feels intense to you because of how many people are replying. The same thing happens, for example, on Stack Overflow if you say something technically wrong, and ten people independently correct you. It feels like some kind of attack, even when it is not.
people have been genociding their neighbours since before we were people. if it wasn't Facebook, they would have used something else. do you also support to banning e2e and having big brother reading everybody's communications? because if you don't, then anybody can organise a genocide without the authorities being able to stop them.
See https://faq.whatsapp.com/1053543185312573 for example.
Social media 'amplifies' trends, or even "makes" trend.
"The algorithm" is optimized for 'engagement'. The questions are a) can you detect via metadata something is happening and 'cool down' the amplification b) can you de-amplify anger? c) what is the responsibility of "the algorithm" makers ?
My mistake, I thought this was a genuine argument - it turned out I stepped into the middle of a religious war. I'm sorry for questioning the creed!
Judging by this thread, nowadays it would not be as much of a wild notion.
I use this observation to draw similarities to how we are currently viewing issues around the dangers of AI.
No argument is being made about social media itself.
That’s all you.
yes you have convinced me, based on this thread, society has indeed been destroyed by social media. thank you.
But social media did radically change society and not strictly for the better, imo.
With hindsight, someone saying “social media will destroy society” seems more justified than it did 20ish years ago.
I’m using hyperbole to elicit and emotional reaction which, hopefully, will give readers pause to reflect on what I wrote.
Not everything is strictly literal.
No, the emotional reaction it elicits is "oh here we go again." It's worse than useless, it completely undermines your point. Social media has a lot of negatives, and some positives. The negatives are mostly a result of chasing profit, and locked-in platforms as opposed to federation between equals. E.g. nobody's crying out that email is about to destroy the very fabric of reality.
You seem to be the only one really hung up on the made up quote I used to illustrate my point.
Maybe it undermines my point to you, but that’s okay.