Second thoughts, focusing more on the gap between social media and blogging-- it's slower.
The behaviors that work in person mostly work on TwiX, other than it being harder to gaslight about "I never said that."
In blogging?
Folks form a full thought, have to build it, and you can actually look at the mostly-finished product-- which makes it a lot easier to <I>see</I> the social manipulation tricks that are there to make you mad, or 'put you in your place,' but they don't work so well because you have to respond in a longer format.
I think the connection between social media and negative health outcomes does exist-- but social media addiction is a symptom, not a cause.
The problem is folks being locked in with a small, feral group that can and does absolutely destroy them for violating this week's norms.
When I was a teen, I was able to be involved with real adults as well as my classmates-- one of those "weird" and "antisocial" kids who was willing to talk to folks who had something to say, and otherwise shut up because it wasn't worth the abuse-- and the yahoo star trek boards were a godsend.
No, social media is very much the cause. Most people are STUPID. They will fall for the most incredibly stupid things (see: Con Men). Look at how many people can NOT be away from their cell phone for even a minute - in case they have to respond to a post or a message. Look at Short Attention Spam Theater.
Remember that Zuckenberg spent tens of millions of dollars on research that was (illegally) performed on ALL Facebook members to affect them mentally.
...none of that has anything to do with what I said.
That said, Short Attention Span Theater (1989-1994, clips from comedy routines on HBO and Cinamax) is a good example of missing out on the cause of an effect, and it's one we all here are familiar with-- the mainstream sources of content failed to actually pay off if you invested time and effort into them. Eventually, people learned that they should NOT invest time and effort unless there is a higher level of evidence for payout than "this content exists."
Same way that the big publishers are selling fewer and fewer books, while Indy publishing explodes.
Same way that bloggers destroyed newspapers that were only running AP and Reuters.
Similarly, a lot of social interaction has had the payoff stripped out-- usually with the same techniques used since *Rules for Radicals*, where people hack the face to face interaction in order to get to their desired end.
The weakness of that technique is that it only works for those who choose to participate.
Folks choose to opt-out, and go elsewhere-- and are thus not counted by anyone looking at the previous "only game in town."
"I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the rise in social media corresponds with a rise in “negative mental health outcomes”
One of several factors contributing to it. The break down of the family with far more kids raised in single parent homes. Degredation of parental rights. The shift in education over the past several decades to emphasizing emotionalism over rationalism.
Russian guy weaponized Social Media and got dozens of kids to commit suicide. Claimed that nothing he did was illegal. I do believe however that the Russian Authorities may have felt differently about that.
Thank you for blogging. You are worth reading. Ditto your pack of minions from the Rac Press when they opine. It's nice to have things on the interwebs worth taking time over.
If Chaucer taught us anything it's that not everyone is on the same journey even if they're going the same way or to the same destination, nor can they easily understand others. The Miller's Tale comes to mind.
Basically social media takes blogging and shorts out the natural feedback loop, making it impossible for anyone to "slow their roll." It's rats in a maze with cocaine-laced cheese at every checkpoint.
Which, as any engineer can tell you, is a bad thing. You want a negative feedback loop that tells you to stop before you oscillate out of control. Positive feedback loops cause the oscillations.
Blogging is slower, as said in another comment, it requires more thought. Besides, footnotes! (also, check your email, images incoming).
Second thoughts, focusing more on the gap between social media and blogging-- it's slower.
The behaviors that work in person mostly work on TwiX, other than it being harder to gaslight about "I never said that."
In blogging?
Folks form a full thought, have to build it, and you can actually look at the mostly-finished product-- which makes it a lot easier to <I>see</I> the social manipulation tricks that are there to make you mad, or 'put you in your place,' but they don't work so well because you have to respond in a longer format.
I think the connection between social media and negative health outcomes does exist-- but social media addiction is a symptom, not a cause.
The problem is folks being locked in with a small, feral group that can and does absolutely destroy them for violating this week's norms.
When I was a teen, I was able to be involved with real adults as well as my classmates-- one of those "weird" and "antisocial" kids who was willing to talk to folks who had something to say, and otherwise shut up because it wasn't worth the abuse-- and the yahoo star trek boards were a godsend.
Much closer to blogging than TwiX, though.
No, social media is very much the cause. Most people are STUPID. They will fall for the most incredibly stupid things (see: Con Men). Look at how many people can NOT be away from their cell phone for even a minute - in case they have to respond to a post or a message. Look at Short Attention Spam Theater.
Remember that Zuckenberg spent tens of millions of dollars on research that was (illegally) performed on ALL Facebook members to affect them mentally.
...none of that has anything to do with what I said.
That said, Short Attention Span Theater (1989-1994, clips from comedy routines on HBO and Cinamax) is a good example of missing out on the cause of an effect, and it's one we all here are familiar with-- the mainstream sources of content failed to actually pay off if you invested time and effort into them. Eventually, people learned that they should NOT invest time and effort unless there is a higher level of evidence for payout than "this content exists."
Same way that the big publishers are selling fewer and fewer books, while Indy publishing explodes.
Same way that bloggers destroyed newspapers that were only running AP and Reuters.
Similarly, a lot of social interaction has had the payoff stripped out-- usually with the same techniques used since *Rules for Radicals*, where people hack the face to face interaction in order to get to their desired end.
The weakness of that technique is that it only works for those who choose to participate.
Folks choose to opt-out, and go elsewhere-- and are thus not counted by anyone looking at the previous "only game in town."
"I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the rise in social media corresponds with a rise in “negative mental health outcomes”
One of several factors contributing to it. The break down of the family with far more kids raised in single parent homes. Degredation of parental rights. The shift in education over the past several decades to emphasizing emotionalism over rationalism.
Do you remember the whole 'Blue Whale' thing?
Russian guy weaponized Social Media and got dozens of kids to commit suicide. Claimed that nothing he did was illegal. I do believe however that the Russian Authorities may have felt differently about that.
Thank you for blogging. You are worth reading. Ditto your pack of minions from the Rac Press when they opine. It's nice to have things on the interwebs worth taking time over.
If Chaucer taught us anything it's that not everyone is on the same journey even if they're going the same way or to the same destination, nor can they easily understand others. The Miller's Tale comes to mind.
Basically social media takes blogging and shorts out the natural feedback loop, making it impossible for anyone to "slow their roll." It's rats in a maze with cocaine-laced cheese at every checkpoint.
It's a positive feedback loop!
Which, as any engineer can tell you, is a bad thing. You want a negative feedback loop that tells you to stop before you oscillate out of control. Positive feedback loops cause the oscillations.
Miss seeing you there, though.