OK, given you're correct then how do people's lives compare now with those in the past in the pre-social media days? We shouldn't forget that for all of history until the recent advent of social media individuals had to 'connect' in different ways and that they were somehow successful in doing so—or civilization/society wouldn't exist.
In the past, novelty wasn't much of an option as people had very limited choices when connecting with others. Perhaps the question we need to ask is was this more limited (and much slower) choice better for people's well-being and mental health. I don't reckon we've a satisfactory answer to that question as yet.
I suspect that the geographical limits of pre-internet "social platforms" was what filtered out the toxicity we observe now.
If your social club was a dance hall or book club or garden society or union pub, your interactions were limited to people within an hour of travel time or so. That's such a TINY sample of people that fringe beliefs and behaviors were always recognized as marginalia and tended to stay there.
This was a double edge sword.... queer kids in small towns were trapped in the closet, but no one thought contrails were dispersing mind altering drugs.
Social reach may be a cursed problem. It's not obvious how to create a platform that will be safe for, e.g. trans people in socially conservative towns, but prevent it from also sheltering nazi sympathizers. Relying on self policing by the platforms has resulted in problems and dangers we still haven't addressed.
"...geographical limits... was what filtered out the toxicity we observe now"
I don't doubt that that was true. I could amplify my reasons for why I reckon it's so but here that wouldn't contribute much more than I've already said.
I was brought up in a reasonably but not strictly socially conservative town of some 12,000 or so with seemingly few social problems that was about 70 miles from a large urban center of some millions.
Certainly, back then, there were no drug issues other than perhaps alcohol and that wasn't obvious to me. In hindsight, it was a halcyon time and place in which to grow up and I'm so glad that that was my childhood and teenage experience.
No doubt, there were those whose experience wasn't typical but they were never prominent in that they were the subject of common discussion. (Incidentally, I'd never heard the term 'nazi sympathizer' until years after I'd left the town.)
From my experience, the never-ending and increasing loads of information, much of which isn't positive, that people are now exposed to is most of the problem
- and it doesn't matter much from where it comes or what it's about.
My early years have taught me that there's a type of threshold effect at work here. People can cope tollerably well with a certain level of negative information after which their defenses break down (as I see it, humans have only limited capacity to process 'bad' information before they begin to suffer emotionally).
I've little practical idea how we go about resolving this problem in our 'over-connected' societies. Speaking for myself, I've almost completely given up watching TV or listening to radio news and I'd not be seen dead anywhere near social media.
These avoidance habits work for me and stop me from becoming despondent. Unfortunately, I've observed that for many the worse the news is the more addictive their attention becomes.
"for many the worse the news is the more addictive their attention becomes. "
That is both terrible, and so accurate that ad driven media builds the business model around it. I wonder what the underlying mechanism is... maybe some sort of hedonic reversal happens, like people who enjoy cold showers/polar swimming?
Even before social media, people have been constantly adopting novel communication channels since the advent of electricity: telegraph, telephone, facsimile, email, Usenet, web forums, instant messaging, etc. There will eventually be some new disruptive innovation in communication that partially supplants what we now consider to be "social media" but no one knows for sure what that will be. It might have to be built on some future hardware form factor like AR glasses or a direct brain-computer interface or something.
"There will eventually be some new disruptive innovation in communication that partially supplants what we now consider to be "social media"
First, my apology for the mis-post which was meant for discussDev.
I don't doubt that social media as we know it will be replaced. Whether it evolves or is replaced quickly by disruptive innovation remains to be seen. I don't think the media has been around long enough to make that call yet.
Alternatively, technology hasn't evolved sufficiently from its beginnings to provide a truly different type of service (as say the distinction between the telegraph and the telephone or radio and TV). Each of these was a disruptive innovation to its predecessor.
That said, social media will be faced with major technological changes at some point. The real question is whether it will be forced to change before then by social/political pressure because of its current perceived negative impact on society.
One thing's for certain, the periodicity between each disruptive innovation is continuing to shorten as it's always done since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
"I think there are quite a few different options in the real world too."
I reckon so too. I also believe we now have sufficient evidence as to the causes of the problems and that we've ways to start fixing them.
However, we seem to be behaving as if we need to grind the information to a 100% certainty before we act. We don't need this high level of granularity to do so, so I suspect consensus (politics) and inertia are the key delaying factors. Unfortunately, history has shown they're tenaciously difficult to alter.
I think there are quite a few different options in the real world too. Through your kids school, through the local bar, etc... each physical location has different social rules that allow people to connect in different ways. In much the same way you can get bored of hanging out one place and go somewhere else. I do think so many people on their phones have been detrimental to some real life interaction. (Edited to not sound like I disagree with parent so much)
Comments
OK, given you're correct then how do people's lives compare now with those in the past in the pre-social media days? We shouldn't forget that for all of history until the recent advent of social media individuals had to 'connect' in different ways and that they were somehow successful in doing so—or civilization/society wouldn't exist.
In the past, novelty wasn't much of an option as people had very limited choices when connecting with others. Perhaps the question we need to ask is was this more limited (and much slower) choice better for people's well-being and mental health. I don't reckon we've a satisfactory answer to that question as yet.
I suspect that the geographical limits of pre-internet "social platforms" was what filtered out the toxicity we observe now.
If your social club was a dance hall or book club or garden society or union pub, your interactions were limited to people within an hour of travel time or so. That's such a TINY sample of people that fringe beliefs and behaviors were always recognized as marginalia and tended to stay there.
This was a double edge sword.... queer kids in small towns were trapped in the closet, but no one thought contrails were dispersing mind altering drugs.
Social reach may be a cursed problem. It's not obvious how to create a platform that will be safe for, e.g. trans people in socially conservative towns, but prevent it from also sheltering nazi sympathizers. Relying on self policing by the platforms has resulted in problems and dangers we still haven't addressed.
"...geographical limits... was what filtered out the toxicity we observe now"
I don't doubt that that was true. I could amplify my reasons for why I reckon it's so but here that wouldn't contribute much more than I've already said.
I was brought up in a reasonably but not strictly socially conservative town of some 12,000 or so with seemingly few social problems that was about 70 miles from a large urban center of some millions.
Certainly, back then, there were no drug issues other than perhaps alcohol and that wasn't obvious to me. In hindsight, it was a halcyon time and place in which to grow up and I'm so glad that that was my childhood and teenage experience.
No doubt, there were those whose experience wasn't typical but they were never prominent in that they were the subject of common discussion. (Incidentally, I'd never heard the term 'nazi sympathizer' until years after I'd left the town.)
From my experience, the never-ending and increasing loads of information, much of which isn't positive, that people are now exposed to is most of the problem - and it doesn't matter much from where it comes or what it's about.
My early years have taught me that there's a type of threshold effect at work here. People can cope tollerably well with a certain level of negative information after which their defenses break down (as I see it, humans have only limited capacity to process 'bad' information before they begin to suffer emotionally).
I've little practical idea how we go about resolving this problem in our 'over-connected' societies. Speaking for myself, I've almost completely given up watching TV or listening to radio news and I'd not be seen dead anywhere near social media.
These avoidance habits work for me and stop me from becoming despondent. Unfortunately, I've observed that for many the worse the news is the more addictive their attention becomes.
That is both terrible, and so accurate that ad driven media builds the business model around it. I wonder what the underlying mechanism is... maybe some sort of hedonic reversal happens, like people who enjoy cold showers/polar swimming?
Even before social media, people have been constantly adopting novel communication channels since the advent of electricity: telegraph, telephone, facsimile, email, Usenet, web forums, instant messaging, etc. There will eventually be some new disruptive innovation in communication that partially supplants what we now consider to be "social media" but no one knows for sure what that will be. It might have to be built on some future hardware form factor like AR glasses or a direct brain-computer interface or something.
"There will eventually be some new disruptive innovation in communication that partially supplants what we now consider to be "social media"
First, my apology for the mis-post which was meant for discussDev.
I don't doubt that social media as we know it will be replaced. Whether it evolves or is replaced quickly by disruptive innovation remains to be seen. I don't think the media has been around long enough to make that call yet.
Alternatively, technology hasn't evolved sufficiently from its beginnings to provide a truly different type of service (as say the distinction between the telegraph and the telephone or radio and TV). Each of these was a disruptive innovation to its predecessor.
That said, social media will be faced with major technological changes at some point. The real question is whether it will be forced to change before then by social/political pressure because of its current perceived negative impact on society.
One thing's for certain, the periodicity between each disruptive innovation is continuing to shorten as it's always done since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
"I think there are quite a few different options in the real world too."
I reckon so too. I also believe we now have sufficient evidence as to the causes of the problems and that we've ways to start fixing them.
However, we seem to be behaving as if we need to grind the information to a 100% certainty before we act. We don't need this high level of granularity to do so, so I suspect consensus (politics) and inertia are the key delaying factors. Unfortunately, history has shown they're tenaciously difficult to alter.
I think there are quite a few different options in the real world too. Through your kids school, through the local bar, etc... each physical location has different social rules that allow people to connect in different ways. In much the same way you can get bored of hanging out one place and go somewhere else. I do think so many people on their phones have been detrimental to some real life interaction. (Edited to not sound like I disagree with parent so much)
See my accidental reply to nradov (I should really stop using multiple computers at once). :-)