Do you like social media?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Don Draper
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 25006
Location: RIP DLO

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:58 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
As a society, we are still learning how to use social media. I predict that, over the course of time, unmoderated social media will decline and various forms of moderated social media will rise. Scammers, fake news generators, and troublemakers in general will continue to rise and will make unmoderated social media even more unpalatable. People will become willing to pay a small fee to get away from all of that.


I'm worried about the ones who don't care about the unmoderated social media, or worse, seek it out. Because if there's a large enough of a base of these people, then bad actors can continue to sway public opinion and even elections with propaganda.

I was thinking over the weekend about the similarities to evolution by natural selection. The current model (Gould & Eldriege) is punctuated equilibrium, which says that when the environment remains stable, there is little selective pressure and therefore a lot of stasis. But when environmental conditions change, this creates selective pressure that species must respond to...and those that can't go extinct (and about 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct). It is these times of changing environmental conditions that drive species changes, along with mass extinctions.

If you apply this idea to societies, some of the same patterns emerge. While it's possible for actual environmental changes to have a devastating effect on our species*, the more immediate and drastic effect will be due to social changes. We were in a state of equilibrium for a long time, where trusted entitles (the media) vetted and moderated the content that reached us**. The ubiquity of social media changes all that -- now anyone (those who know what they're doing and those who don't; good actors and bad) can be their own publisher, and can have tremendous reach & impact.

This sociological change is creating tremendous pressure to evolve. Either we develop the critical thinking chops to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to information, or we fall victim to it....likely with devastating consequences somewhere down the road***. And like with herd immunity, a very high percentage of people need to be "vaccinated" to stop the "disease" from being able to proliferate. Or to put it another way, just a small percentage of people being unable to adapt to the influx of fake news/propaganda can have a very bad effect on all of us.

Species that can't adapt when environmental conditions change join the scrap heap of extinction. I'm not entirely sanguine about our prospects.

------

* The immediate thing that comes to mind here is global climate change, but even this might not be enough -- i.e., it might have a devastating effect on individuals -- i.e., if we no longer have the resources to feed 50% of the population due to a combination of population growth and increasingly scarce resources, a lot of people will be in deep doo doo and it will have a huge financial impact -- but the species itself probably will be okay.

** Sure there have always been the "National Inquirer" types of media, but there are relatively few people out there who take them seriously. Traditionally they have been more noise than signal.

*** And I'd submit that we already are starting to feel these consequences. An obvious devastating end game would be someone unqualified to lead us setting off a nuclear war.


Good points, but the historian in me is not all that convinced that social media is going to lead to a cataclysm based on the idea that unmoderated content infects minds and inevitably creates societal decline.

If you look at the colonial period there was a wide swath of pamphlets published by all sorts of groups and people with a number of agendas, and many of them had considerable followings. And, as it happens, many of these pamphlets contained information that was downright ludicrous. And yet society kept chugging along, despite these pockets of misinformation existing. (In other words, this goes back far further than the National Inquirer.)

People forget that humans have always had a kind of "social media," it's just been offline. I admit that modern social media can reach a wider audience, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's having a deeper impact.

But at the same time, the existence of a mechanism like the internet, as well as a relatively globalized culture, makes it far easier to present a "normalized" version of reality to the general public than it ever has been before. The key is education -- specifically that which encourages critical thinking. We can't expect to control all of the information out there, but we can do our part in teaching people to think about the world in a way that encourages going beyond the various social media echo chambers.
_________________
Lonzo Ball Projected 2017-18 Stats: 16pts/8asts/5rebs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:20 am    Post subject:

^ Totally agree with you. What's at stake in various forms is the concept of free speech.

If you believe in that concept, then, you have to believe in the idea that the wonders that are produced as a result of it come at the expense of the garbage that it allows for as well. There's always a price, even for something good.

All moderation would do, is flip the script and require that we all follow one kind of thinking that aligns with whoever is charged with the moderation. If the current administration was responsible for that, would that be a good thing? I don't think so. Unless we're talking about the unicorn that is a wholly objective moderator that somehow by some miracle knows what is objectively good or moral.

We will evolve. We always have.

I think the worst thing we can do is empower someone with the ability to tell you what you can and cannot say because that sounds a lot more like North Korea than the United States of America.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19226

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:55 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
What are we coming to? So much has to be regulated to keep us from destroying ourselves. Education is a must.

Ahhh the good ol day when phones had party lines. You know wat I'm talkin bout AH


Party lines still exist, actually. There are some companies that operate them.

Anyway, this thread is focused on the political implications of social media. As I indicated previously, I think that is greatly overblown. I think that the impact of social media on politics has already crested and is in decline. There are already moderated environments starting to pop up (I am a member of one of them on Facebook for Texas lawyers, and another on Facebook for older people who grew up in the same suburb of Dallas). Mostly, the point of moderation is to get rid of the spammers, the scammers, and the other online predators and troublemakers. Any partisan political stuff gets booted, too, but that almost never comes up. There are always a few people who just don't understand that the world is not a soapbox, and they get kicked out.

I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 9852

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:29 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19226

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:40 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.


Thatís where I think a lot of you are wrong or at least overly alarmist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 9852

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:45 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.


Thatís where I think a lot of you are wrong or at least overly alarmist.


Disagree. It's a pattern of behavior I see in many contexts. On the scientific end, it's pretty astounding how far people can go to insulate their pet beliefs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:54 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.


Thatís where I think a lot of you are wrong or at least overly alarmist.


Disagree. It's a pattern of behavior I see in many contexts. On the scientific end, it's pretty astounding how far people can go to insulate their pet beliefs.


And would the moderator not essentially be a person subject to insultating their pet beliefs and/or being influenced by outside factors?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41762
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:09 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.


Thatís where I think a lot of you are wrong or at least overly alarmist.


Disagree. It's a pattern of behavior I see in many contexts. On the scientific end, it's pretty astounding how far people can go to insulate their pet beliefs.


And would the moderator not essentially be a person subject to insultating their pet beliefs and/or being influenced by outside factors?

I'd say mods are regulated by TOS. (page 1 of the PT) They're enforcing rules in place.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 6858

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:22 am    Post subject:

Here's an example for you guys to think... this social media ok or not ok?

Like Kanter is gonna 2B intimidated by LeBron, guy who stood up 2 Tayyip Erdogan. Imagine him being scared of a n*****who breathes the same air as him - Peter Vescey tweet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41762
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:31 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Here's an example for you guys to think... this social media ok or not ok?

Like Kanter is gonna 2B intimidated by LeBron, guy who stood up 2 Tayyip Erdogan. Imagine him being scared of a n*****who breathes the same air as him - Peter Vescey tweet


Vescey should be admonished.

Sportswriter Peter Vecsey Uses Censored Racial Slur in a Notorious B.I.G.-Quoting Tweet About LeBron James

LINK

Quote:
Peter Vecsey ✔@PeterVecsey1
Like Kanter is gonna 2B intimidated by LeBron, guy who stood up 2 Tayyip Erdogan. Imagine him being scared of a n*****who breathes the same air as him
5:15 PM - Nov 13, 2017


Quote:
El Flaco ✔@bomani_jones
what an uncomfortable way to find out peter vecsey can quote biggie.

WUT https://twitter.com/PeterVecsey1/status/930242659922391040 Ö
5:24 PM - Nov 13, 2017

_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 6858

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:24 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
governator wrote:
Here's an example for you guys to think... this social media ok or not ok?

Like Kanter is gonna 2B intimidated by LeBron, guy who stood up 2 Tayyip Erdogan. Imagine him being scared of a n*****who breathes the same air as him - Peter Vescey tweet


Vescey should be admonished.

Sportswriter Peter Vecsey Uses Censored Racial Slur in a Notorious B.I.G.-Quoting Tweet About LeBron James

LINK

Quote:
Peter Vecsey ✔@PeterVecsey1
Like Kanter is gonna 2B intimidated by LeBron, guy who stood up 2 Tayyip Erdogan. Imagine him being scared of a n*****who breathes the same air as him
5:15 PM - Nov 13, 2017


Quote:
El Flaco ✔@bomani_jones
what an uncomfortable way to find out peter vecsey can quote biggie.

WUT https://twitter.com/PeterVecsey1/status/930242659922391040 Ö
5:24 PM - Nov 13, 2017


Yeah, feel similar to 'Chink in the armor' describing J.Lin. Unless this is the kinda language/word that Peter Vescey use on a daily basis, gonna be hard to defend this (I'm sure people can come up with justifications)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:36 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.


Thatís where I think a lot of you are wrong or at least overly alarmist.


Disagree. It's a pattern of behavior I see in many contexts. On the scientific end, it's pretty astounding how far people can go to insulate their pet beliefs.


And would the moderator not essentially be a person subject to insultating their pet beliefs and/or being influenced by outside factors?

I'd say mods are regulated by TOS. (page 1 of the PT) They're enforcing rules in place.


We're not talking about this site's moderators. But rather, moderators in general. And we're not talking about message boards either, per se.

But rather, moderators of speech. As in what is "good" vs "bad". Which opinions are "valid" or not. This is what they do in North Korea, not here in the US of A.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:47 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Here's an example for you guys to think... this social media ok or not ok?

Like Kanter is gonna 2B intimidated by LeBron, guy who stood up 2 Tayyip Erdogan. Imagine him being scared of a n*****who breathes the same air as him - Peter Vescey tweet


Well, define "ok".

If by ok you mean I like it, then no. If you mean it should be a crime, then no.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 13728

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
jodeke wrote:
governator wrote:
Here's an example for you guys to think... this social media ok or not ok?

Like Kanter is gonna 2B intimidated by LeBron, guy who stood up 2 Tayyip Erdogan. Imagine him being scared of a n*****who breathes the same air as him - Peter Vescey tweet


Vescey should be admonished.

Sportswriter Peter Vecsey Uses Censored Racial Slur in a Notorious B.I.G.-Quoting Tweet About LeBron James

LINK

Quote:
Peter Vecsey ✔@PeterVecsey1
Like Kanter is gonna 2B intimidated by LeBron, guy who stood up 2 Tayyip Erdogan. Imagine him being scared of a n*****who breathes the same air as him
5:15 PM - Nov 13, 2017


Quote:
El Flaco ✔@bomani_jones
what an uncomfortable way to find out peter vecsey can quote biggie.

WUT https://twitter.com/PeterVecsey1/status/930242659922391040 Ö
5:24 PM - Nov 13, 2017


Yeah, feel similar to 'Chink in the armor' describing J.Lin. Unless this is the kinda language/word that Peter Vescey use on a daily basis, gonna be hard to defend this (I'm sure people can come up with justifications)

Vescey using that word is never OK. To make it worse, attributing that word to Kanter towards James added a healthy dose of racism that wasn't within the original context of Biggie's lyric.

Would Vescey have used that lyric if Kanter had an altercation with Kevin Love instead of Lebron?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41762
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:31 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.


Thatís where I think a lot of you are wrong or at least overly alarmist.


Disagree. It's a pattern of behavior I see in many contexts. On the scientific end, it's pretty astounding how far people can go to insulate their pet beliefs.


And would the moderator not essentially be a person subject to insultating their pet beliefs and/or being influenced by outside factors?

I'd say mods are regulated by TOS. (page 1 of the PT) They're enforcing rules in place.


We're not talking about this site's moderators. But rather, moderators in general. And we're not talking about message boards either, per se.

But rather, moderators of speech. As in what is "good" vs "bad". Which opinions are "valid" or not. This is what they do in North Korea, not here in the US of A.


OK. I'll take that we as you. I don't see anyone else going there. With that said, IA about NK. In America we're regulated by the constitution. 1st amendment. Good or bad is a matter of opinion.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19226

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:45 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
And would the moderator not essentially be a person subject to insultating their pet beliefs and/or being influenced by outside factors?


Well, we have an element of that even with the moderation on this board. Do we conclude that moderation is therefore a futility?

Anyway, in the future social media world that I foresee, the marketplace will deal with these sorts of problems. If the moderation pushes a particular social agenda, it will limit the size of the community. Market forces will reward more limited moderation as long as security is maintained.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19226

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:52 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
OK. I'll take that we as you. I don't see anyone else going there. With that said, IA about NK. In America we're regulated by the constitution. 1st amendment. Good or bad is a matter of opinion.


Well, the moderation policy of this board is a good example to work with. Is it content neutral? Ask that question to the various fans of other teams who have came here to tell us what they think about Kobe. Ask that to the people who wanted to make racial or sexual slurs. Just because moderation requires judgment does not mean that it is a futility. The question is not whether we, as users, agree with every decision by the moderators. The question is whether the resulting environment is one that makes you want to participate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41762
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:11 pm    Post subject:

Deleted wrong thread. Thanks nurse Aeneas
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.


Last edited by jodeke on Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:34 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19226

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:18 pm    Post subject:

^^^^

Someone ask the nurse to help Jodeke with his postings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41762
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:22 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
jodeke wrote:
OK. I'll take that we as you. I don't see anyone else going there. With that said, IA about NK. In America we're regulated by the constitution. 1st amendment. Good or bad is a matter of opinion.


Well, the moderation policy of this board is a good example to work with. Is it content neutral? Ask that question to the various fans of other teams who have came here to tell us what they think about Kobe. Ask that to the people who wanted to make racial or sexual slurs. Just because moderation requires judgment does not mean that it is a futility. The question is not whether we, as users, agree with every decision by the moderators. The question is whether the resulting environment is one that makes you want to participate.

If you disagree with the decisions made by mods you can use the PM option. I've disagreed with some decisions made concerning some of my posts. I went to PM to discuss my disagreement. Some discussions ended with my point being valid, other times they were not. At any rate you have the option to air your grievance.

You have the option to make racial slurs but it's against the TOS. The forum has regulations. If you don't want to abide by them maybe you should take your posts elsewhere. Don't take you literally. You also have to get around the filter.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 9852

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:26 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
OK. I'll take that we as you. I don't see anyone else going there. With that said, IA about NK. In America we're regulated by the constitution. 1st amendment. Good or bad is a matter of opinion.


First amendment doesn't apply here. We're under no obligation to provide you a platform to say anything, and we're not (nor are we in a position to) deny your right of free speech in general.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 9852

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:31 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.


Thatís where I think a lot of you are wrong or at least overly alarmist.


Disagree. It's a pattern of behavior I see in many contexts. On the scientific end, it's pretty astounding how far people can go to insulate their pet beliefs.


And would the moderator not essentially be a person subject to insultating their pet beliefs and/or being influenced by outside factors?


Of course. That's what makes them echo chambers. Just to give one example on the science side, go over the the Food Babe message boards, where her acolytes congregate. If you don't know, her pontifications are way over on the wackadoodle side, and often in contradiction to basic physics and science. People expressing contrary opinions -- including simply pointing out objective evidence or basic flaws in her reasoning -- have their posts removed and accounts deleted by the moderators. That's one example of the extreme, but the extreme is pretty prevalent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 9852

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:37 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
I'd say mods are regulated by TOS. (page 1 of the PT) They're enforcing rules in place.


If we're specifically talking about this site, the mods are given broad discretion -- which is why we have language in the TOS about having the right to ban you for any reason or no reason at all. That said, we have guidelines, and expect the mods to administer them in a manner consistent with the spirit of the site. We also have a discussion forum specific to moderation so we can weigh in on any issues that come up.

I know I'm proud of the fact that we often weigh-in in favor of people whose opinions we disagree with the most. In the political thread, for example, I really want to bend over backward to allow conservative viewpoints to be heard -- specifically because I want to avoid having an echo chamber.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
axs
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 818
Location: SF Valley, CA.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:12 pm    Post subject:

I like social media. Girls post half naked pictures.
_________________
"I'm Magic before retirement, illest in the game."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:39 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I think the future of social media is going to see a lot more of that kind of environment. I think a lot of people just want to get away from the MAGAs and the Snowflakes.


The flip side is that they also want to get into echo chambers.


Thatís where I think a lot of you are wrong or at least overly alarmist.


Disagree. It's a pattern of behavior I see in many contexts. On the scientific end, it's pretty astounding how far people can go to insulate their pet beliefs.


And would the moderator not essentially be a person subject to insultating their pet beliefs and/or being influenced by outside factors?


Of course. That's what makes them echo chambers. Just to give one example on the science side, go over the the Food Babe message boards, where her acolytes congregate. If you don't know, her pontifications are way over on the wackadoodle side, and often in contradiction to basic physics and science. People expressing contrary opinions -- including simply pointing out objective evidence or basic flaws in her reasoning -- have their posts removed and accounts deleted by the moderators. That's one example of the extreme, but the extreme is pretty prevalent.


Right but is social media really a cause of this? Fan clubs and such have existed for years. All the internet does is make those clubs more accessible.

Anyway, I must have misinterpreted your one post earlier. I thought you were favoring general moderation. I'm fine with it at the local or individual level, but not on a broader level. If that makes sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB