https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxAloIRngDo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0iC9xpDSXyI
Do you think that there is an ability that social media has that may enable individuals to escape from having their ideas opposed? Or worse, escape from listening to counterarguments?
Do you think that is causing extremism to become more rampant? Is this causing political correctness to become worse than before?
I think it's another tool to be used in the ideological isolationism people so often engage in in this country. It's possible to filter out news sources that disagree, it's possible to purge yourself of people and influences who disagree, it's not something that started with, or is limited to social media.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
It definitely increases group think. It also lends to groups acting in a manner that will get them the most pats of the back rather than in a manner most attuned toward reaching the group's goal. As Rydia has pointed out in another thread, this has seriously backfired against these groups.
Because of the Internet, {social media being the spearhead} there are thousands of news sources that are available, and while it does increase the number of options and opinions that are available in any given subject, at the same time there are plenty of said news sources that hold similar, if not exactly the same opinions and thoughts that someone might have, which means that there is plenty of conformation bias. The more extreme {and often ignorant} opinions now have a message board to share their points of view with everyone, and social media has made it even easier for them to reinforce and remind these people that they aren't the only folks out there.
It has become a double-edged sword in terms of information. As I said before, there are plenty of news sources, message boards and so on to spread their message to all, but in turn, that allows those to be told what they want to hear and often encourages and reinforces their own status quo. After all, it's easy to side with someone who holds similar beliefs to you in many things, whether it's for good or ill.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
At 4/3/15 08:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I think it's another tool to be used in the ideological isolationism people so often engage in in this country. It's possible to filter out news sources that disagree, it's possible to purge yourself of people and influences who disagree, it's not something that started with, or is limited to social media.
I am not asking whether or not it is a new concept, I am asking if it is WORSENING.
Simple answer?
Yes.
With the fact that we can share so much information and connect to so many, it means that we can have access to new ideas - ones that we might not have potentially thought of, or ones that we thought that we just held.
Problem is, this means that we can also connect to those who might share less than savory views - such as extremists - or those who are a bit socially... er... special. Like, for example, some of the oddballs you'll see on Tumblr.
So, yeah. Simple answer is that we can find views that match our own, when before we might not have been able to.
At 4/3/15 08:19 PM, JJMAJR wrote: Do you think that there is an ability that social media has that may enable individuals to escape from having their ideas opposed? Or worse, escape from listening to counterarguments?
Yes, I think it does get people from escaping counter-arguments. Many people on the internet claim to be authority figures, or even experts, with no actually credibility.
So... What should we do about it that does not involve censorship?
At 4/9/15 08:02 PM, JJMAJR wrote: So... What should we do about it that does not involve censorship?
Without censorship, nothing can be done. The only way to fix a problem caused by solely by freedom is to lessen the freedom.
At 4/9/15 09:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/9/15 08:02 PM, JJMAJR wrote: So... What should we do about it that does not involve censorship?Without censorship, nothing can be done. The only way to fix a problem caused by solely by freedom is to lessen the freedom.
What about making people more capable of handling the freedom instead of lessening it? You know, through education? I swear I spent over 50% of my language arts courses wasted on (trying to and failing at) sympathizing with the emotional state or the events the characters of a story had to go through where it could be spent on finding context in the stories themselves.
Fucking feels being taught through education being seen as a better use of students' time when a "how to not be an extremist" book could have been given out as early as the third grade.
I mean, which is better: teaching empathy (when inevitably it could be turned against us) or teaching how to find context more effectively by ourselves? Sure, we could end up turning ourselves into robots in some form but it is better than having flame wars and ad hominems flying all over the place. We retain our freedom but can wield it more effectively, isn't that what language arts and social sciences are supposed to do for us?
