Jump to content
kking

RESOLVED: Social Media Provides a Net Harm to Society

1AC

This debate is closed and locked

Winner: Skans...Point awared

Note: Skans awarded the win based on strength of opposition and failure of OP to provide sufficient supporting evidence for resolution, as stated, and sufficient evidence to rebut opposition.

Message added by 1AC

Recommended Posts

Social media does more harm than good. The way social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are designed and used causes more harm to people (especially the young) than good.

 

Exhibit A: social media causes depression, anxiety, and poor self-esteem.

https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/engl_176/2/

Abstract: It is the objective of this article to present evidence from several researches that were done by many scholars in different environment that distinctly demonstrates the negative impact of social media in three main categories. First, social media fosters a false sense of online "connections" and superficial friendships leading to emotional and psychological problems. The Second harm of social media is that it can become easily addictive taking away family and personal time as well as diminish interpersonal skills, leading to antisocial behavior. Lastly, social media has become a tool for criminals, predators and terrorists enabling them to commit illegal acts. And the third analysis will consist of showing the link between the psychological problems caused by social media and criminal activities committed.

(OP's NOTE: there are literally dozens of articles reiterating the causative link between social media use and depression, anxiety, and poor self-esteem.)

 

Exhibit B: the major social media platforms sell their consumers' data and habits as products. 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8909771/en

Abstract (emphasis mine): A method, apparatus, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer system, network, or system, is provided for using location information, 2D and 3D mapping, social media, and user behavior and information to provide alternative a consumer feedback social media analytics platforms for providing analytic measurements data of online consumer feedback for global brand products or services of past, present or future customers, users, and/or target markets, for companies, organizations, government agencies, and the like, by electronically collecting and analyzing, on a networked computer system using a processor, qualitative or quantitative online social media online communications, activity, and online communications and activity relevant to consumer products or services, or promotions thereof, of interest, in order to provide targeted, location based, 2D or 3D mapped, or impressions to generate online location information data or promotions to provide improved or desired customer perception or sentiment regarding a company's products, services or promotions thereof.

(OP's NOTE: it is well-documented that the major social media platforms collect, analyze, and sell private user data. This not only has the effect of invading users' privacy, but also become predictive and manipulative of users' behaviour, effectively without consent, understanding, or good will.)

 

Exhibit B: the incomparable influence that the major social media platforms have allows them to control information, knowledge, and communication of the majority of a given population. This is achieved by censoring unflattering voices, neutralizing controversial opinions, prohibiting information, distorting facts, and manipulating reality in a way that deprives its users of valuable information. 

https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3943

Abstract (in part): In a statistical analysis of 56 million messages (212,583 of which have been deleted out of 1.3 million checked, more than 16 percent) from the domestic Chinese microblog site Sina Weibo, and 11 million Chinese–language messages from Twitter, we uncover a set a politically sensitive terms whose presence in a message leads to anomalously higher rates of deletion. We also note that the rate of message deletion is not uniform throughout the country, with messages originating in the outlying provinces of Tibet and Qinghai exhibiting much higher deletion rates than those from eastern areas like Beijing.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iOHaDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA109&dq=social+media+censorship&ots=G7aCKbZPK5&sig=IYAAZbld_JdcztAwzpyeuNe27M8#v=onepage&q=social media censorship&f=false

Chapter Six: discussion regarding social media company complicity/cooperation with state governments in censoring speech, stifling protest, and controlling access to information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN OPPOSITION TO:

Social Media Provides a Net Harm to Society

 

The Premise is that Social Media Provides a Net Harm to Society.  By saying "net" this implies that the bad of Social Media quantifiably outweighs the good of Social Media.  While the OP provides support for a position that Social Media may harm society, he provides no information at all how social media is good for society.  Without this information, it is impossible to construct an equation which concludes Social Media provides a "Net Harm". 

 

Further, the OP does not even attempt to quantify the harm vs. the good by converting these so-called studies into data.  To determine the "net sum" of something, it must be quantified and reduced to an actual equation from which the conclusion may be extrapolated from the data and equasion as the next logical step. 

 

I therefore conclude that where the OP's premise really goes awry is in his complete lack of any attempt to actually show a methodology for concluding that the Social Media provides a "Net Harm" to society.   Because of this, the OP's premise is nothing more than an opinion piece and not something that can be debated in the context of the premise as stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2020 at 5:14 PM, Skans said:

IN OPPOSITION TO:

Social Media Provides a Net Harm to Society

 

The Premise is that Social Media Provides a Net Harm to Society.  By saying "net" this implies that the bad of Social Media quantifiably outweighs the good of Social Media.  While the OP provides support for a position that Social Media may harm society, he provides no information at all how social media is good for society.  Without this information, it is impossible to construct an equation which concludes Social Media provides a "Net Harm". 

 

REBUTTAL

 

 

Social media causes a net harm because almost every "function" it provides existed in another form before the existence of social media. By this reasoning, introducing the function in simply another media (photo-sharing, instant messaging, networking as examples) with the added consequence of depression amongst users, the commodification of personal info and user data, and manipulation of beliefs, ideology, and behaviour, the net result is that everyone is STILL able to share photos, communicate, and network, but now with the negative consequences attached. 

 

Quote

Further, the OP does not even attempt to quantify the harm vs. the good by converting these so-called studies into data.  To determine the "net sum" of something, it must be quantified and reduced to an actual equation from which the conclusion may be extrapolated from the data and equasion as the next logical step. 

Perhaps it would be necessary for me to reword my OP to read: "Social media harms society." If so, I do not believe that would change the argument. I have cited three major consequences of social media and, regardless of a quantification of those harms, I think the burden is on those who disagree to provide a benefit that exists DESPITE those harms. Either way, I believe this is splitting hairs on the general phrasing of the argument without addressing the argument itself, such as by citing benefits of social media that might outweigh the alleged harms.

 

Quote

I therefore conclude that where the OP's premise really goes awry is in his complete lack of any attempt to actually show a methodology for concluding that the Social Media provides a "Net Harm" to society.   Because of this, the OP's premise is nothing more than an opinion piece and not something that can be debated in the context of the premise as stated.

An example of how social media can have a "net harm" without ever being quantified: it causes its users to be overall more depressed than they otherwise would have been. This means that if it were not used, its users would be overall less depressed. Therefore, that is a self-evident net harm, regardless of the specific quantities on each side.

Edited by 1AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2020 at 5:53 PM, kking said:

Social media causes a net harm because almost every "function" it provides existed in another form before the existence of social media. By this reasoning, introducing the function in simply another media (photo-sharing, instant messaging, networking as examples) with the added consequence of depression amongst users, the commodification of personal info and user data, and manipulation of beliefs, ideology, and behaviour, the net result is that everyone is STILL able to share photos, communicate, and network, but now with the negative consequences attached. 

 

In opposition to:

 

My argument against your initial premise is not that "social media has no or little harm", it is that you fail to quantify and then demonstrate how the good of social media is outweighed by the harm caused by it to support your position.  Again, here you reiterate mere opinions as to reasons why you think social media is harmful.  Your analysis also fails to discuss and somehow quantify the benefits of social media, which clearly abound otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and pervasive through out our modern culture as it is.  Until you do this, you cannot lead your readers to the conclusion that social media provides a net harm to society.

Quote

 

Perhaps it would be necessary for me to reword my OP to read: "Social media harms society." If so, I do not believe that would change the argument. I have cited three major consequences of social media and, regardless of a quantification of those harms, I think the burden is on those who disagree to provide a benefit that exists DESPITE those harms. Either way, I believe this is splitting hairs on the general phrasing of the argument without addressing the argument itself, such as by citing benefits of social media that might outweigh the alleged harms.

If you did reword your premise to read "Social media harms society", and then provide support of such harm, that would take the wind out of my opposition argument.  Then, it would be incumbent upon me to put forth a "yes, but...." rebuttal, attempting to explain that why the good it brings us is worth putting up with the bad.  However, let me point out that in a real debate, you cannot change your premise on the fly.

Quote

 

An example of how social media can have a "net harm" without ever being quantified: it causes its users to be overall more depressed than they otherwise would have been.

No.  This statement is a broad, unsupported presumption.  First, you would have to show that some people do in fact become depressed by participating in Social Media.  Second, you would need to try and quantify what percentage of such people succumb to depression to make this statement pertinent to your claim.  Third, you would need to try and explain what level of social media participation is linked to higher depression rates among users. Obviously not everyone who uses social media experiences depression, and you would need to try and quantify a certain threshold to make this relevant .  Fourth, you would then have to explain actual cause and effect between social media use and depression - i.e. how exactly does this happen in an individual.  If you can do that, then you have a genuine harm that is worthy of discussion.

Quote

This means that if it were not used, its users would be overall less depressed.

Here you are stating a false correlation with no evidence to support your claim.

Quote

Therefore, that is a self-evident net harm, regardless of the specific quantities on each side.

Very few things are "self-evident".  And, in a debate, if you have to use the phrase "self-evident", that should be the final nail in the coffin for your argument.

Edited by 1AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 3:52 PM, Skans said:

My argument against your initial premise is not that "social media has no or little harm", it is that you fail to quantify and then demonstrate how the good of social media is outweighed by the harm caused by it to support your position.  Again, here you reiterate mere opinions as to reasons why you think social media is harmful.

 

Rebuttal:

 

To alleviate the poor wording of my title, let's imagine that the wording instead was, "Resolved: social media harms society." Without any invocation of quantities or degrees, we could have a very fruitful debate on the subject of social media itself. 

 

Quote

  Your analysis also fails to discuss and somehow quantify the benefits of social media, which clearly abound otherwise it wouldn't be so popular and pervasive through out our modern culture as it is.  Until you do this, you cannot lead your readers to the conclusion that social media provides a net harm to society.

I disagree with "benefits abounding" simply because the platforms are popular and pervasive. Fast food is popular and pervasive and that popularity and pervasiveness is indisputably harmful to society. What are these so-called benefits?

 

Quote

If you did reword your premise to read "Social media harms society", and then provide support of such harm, that would take the wind out of my opposition argument.  Then, it would be incumbent upon me to put forth a "yes, but...." rebuttal, attempting to explain that why the good it brings us is worth putting up with the bad.  However, let me point out that in a real debate, you cannot change your premise on the fly.

Fair. Let's hope in the early stages of this room, that the moderator lets it fly in order to facilitate an otherwise productive debate.

 

Quote

No.  This statement is a broad, unsupported presumption.  First, you would have to show that some people do in fact become depressed by participating in Social Media.  Second, you would need to try and quantify what percentage of such people succumb to depression to make this statement pertinent to your claim.  Third, you would need to try and explain what level of social media participation is linked to higher depression rates among users. Obviously not everyone who uses social media experiences depression, and you would need to try and quantify a certain threshold to make this relevant .  Fourth, you would then have to explain actual cause and effect between social media use and depression - i.e. how exactly does this happen in an individual.  If you can do that, then you have a genuine harm that is worthy of discussion.

Alright, I retract that assertion.

 

Quote

Here you are stating a false correlation with no evidence to support your claim.

Very few things are "self-evident".  And, in a debate, if you have to use the phrase "self-evident", that should be the final nail in the coffin for your argument.

Okay, perhaps social media doesn't have an intrinsically depression-inducing quality to it. But it does have an intrinsically addictive quality to it, as outlined by two of the early investors in Facebook here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J54k7WrbfMg/ . This is not accidental either, as the feedback features (shares, likes, etc.) were calculated to provide a dopamine hit which would make users want to come back to seek those hits by using the sites in a repetitive and superficial manner. Appended to this aspect of social media use comes the distortion of self-image and of reality that comes from all users tailoring their profiles and content to show a narrow or downright false view of reality. And because everyone on the platform is tacitly doing this, everyone is, to some degree, dealing with a distorted perspective on reality. These two features just described are what contribute to much of the depression caused by social media. 

 

My second reason has to do with commodification of identities and the selling of personal data. This is not only done without informed consent, but also is done on a mass, indiscriminate scale. It not only renders users more manipulable and prone to psychological abuse, it also destroys the notion of privacy and normalizes the absence of privacy in society at large.

 

My third reason is that, with the conglomeration of a handful of major social media platforms, the control of information has become concentrated in fewer hands and, with the tendency of the platform executives towards censorship, banning, or public shaming of users who express opinions outside of accepted doctrine, the overall scope of knowledge, discussion, and belief amongst the population is not only narrowed but also controlled by a handful of unelected executives who determine the policies and algorithms which govern the use of the platforms. This, I would argue, is also a counterpoint to your suggestion that popularity and pervasiveness must equate to some sort of benefit. Well, that benefit is to the company's, not the people. 

 

Edited by 1AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2020 at 11:09 AM, kking said:

To alleviate the poor wording of my title, let's imagine that the wording instead was, "Resolved: social media harms society." Without any invocation of quantities or degrees, we could have a very fruitful debate on the subject of social media itself. 

 

In opposition to:

 

Well, I don't really dispute that Social Media has some negative aspects to it. 

 

Quote

I disagree with "benefits abounding" simply because the platforms are popular and pervasive.

I could rattle off the benefits of Social Media, but I would be stating the obvious.  Social Media permits people to re-connect with old friends and easily stay in touch with relatives, form social groups with people all over the world who share similar interests, publicly express yourself, share information on how to fix things or make things, and engage in political free speech without having to go through main-stream-media who act as draconian gatekeepers.   This is just what I came up with in a few minutes without much research or thought.

Quote

Fast food is popular and pervasive and that popularity and pervasiveness is indisputably harmful to society. What are these so-called benefits?

Fast food is not indisputably harmful to society.  There are many benefits to fast food. First, a lot of fast food is healthy - see Chipotle.  In fact, fast food is often much cheaper and can be quite nutritious if used correctly, for single people.  If you are single, try making your own Burrito, and tell me how much you needed to spend on ingredients to replicate what you could get at Chipotle for about $8. 

Quote

Okay, perhaps social media doesn't have an intrinsically depression-inducing quality to it. But it does have an intrinsically addictive quality to it,

I question this.  Is it the electronic format of social media that is addictive, or a person's natural desire to communicate with others interested in the same topic?  I think it is the latter and that social media simply serves to facilitate connecting people with similar interests.

Quote

This is not accidental either, as the feedback features (shares, likes, etc.) were calculated to provide a dopamine hit which would make users want to come back to seek those hits by using the sites in a repetitive and superficial manner.

I do not disagree that electronic forms of communication on the internet, i.e. social media, have been manipulated to make their use desirable, or possibly even addictive.  However, we humans are addicted to lots of things:  food, water, intimacy, sex, this does not make any of these things intrinsically harmful to people.  Quite the contrary.

Quote

Appended to this aspect of social media use comes the distortion of self-image and of reality that comes from all users tailoring their profiles and content to show a narrow or downright false view of reality.

How is this harmful.  Stupid perhaps, but harmful?

Quote

And because everyone on the platform is tacitly doing this, everyone is, to some degree, dealing with a distorted perspective on reality. These two features just described are what contribute to much of the depression caused by social media. 

Everyone is doing "this"?  Distorting their self image?  I don't do this.  Do you?  In fact, I don't even post photos of myself on the internet.  

Quote

My second reason has to do with commodification of identities and the selling of personal data. This is not only done without informed consent, but also is done on a mass, indiscriminate scale.

This could be harmful to people; or possibly benign.  If Kfools is making money off of the data he collects on this site, I don't see how that is harming me.  Would you be harmed by this?  It's something we all know and agree to in order to get the benefits of free platforms to share our thoughts with one another. 

Quote

It not only renders users more manipulable and prone to psychological abuse,

Oh, come on - if you are 12 years old perhaps.  But are you being manipulated?  Have you been psychologically abused on the internet?  I haven't. 

Quote

it also destroys the notion of privacy and normalizes the absence of privacy in society at large.

Now, you've got to be kidding. You are worried about the internet destroying privacy, but not about cameras in every cellphone manufactured since the 1990's!  Or about traffic cameras everywhere?  Or about the amount of information the government needs on you just to let you buy a gun or drive a car?  Of all these things, you are worried about privacy concerns over people using social media.  At least people have control over what they divulge about themselves on social media, like you pointed out previously. 

Quote

My third reason is that, with the conglomeration of a handful of major social media platforms, the control of information has become concentrated in fewer hands and, with the tendency of the platform executives towards censorship, banning, or public shaming of users who express opinions outside of accepted doctrine,

This is a problem of social media monopolies, not social media itself.  Easy solution - the government should bring an anti-trust suit against Facebook to bust it up.  Killing social media is not necessary or desirable in order to stave off the harms of monopolies like Facebook and Google.

Quote

 Well, that benefit is to the company's, not the people.

The fact that billions of people love to participate in social media is evidence of a massive benefit.  Each individual would likely voice slightly different benefits they experience through social media, if given a chance.  It would take far to long for me to go through each and every benefit every individual experiences using various social media platforms.  Don't forget, this forum is a form of social media, and we all seem to get benefit from it, without much harm.  Wouldn't you agree?

Edited by 1AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2020 at 2:36 PM, Skans said:

Well, I don't really dispute that Social Media has some negative aspects to it. 

I could rattle off the benefits of Social Media, but I would be stating the obvious.  Social Media permits people to re-connect with old friends and easily stay in touch with relatives, form social groups with people all over the world who share similar interests, publicly express yourself, share information on how to fix things or make things, and engage in political free speech without having to go through main-stream-media who act as draconian gatekeepers.   This is just what I came up with in a few minutes without much research or thought.

 

Rebuttal:

 

 

Many of those benefits were possible before, and in a more effective manner. Maintaining "friendships" from the past, while good on the surface, becomes a negative when the measured effect on millennial and gen-z users is that they become depressed, develop (and maintain) a poor self-image, and maintain only superficial friendships. I will concede that middle-aged and older users likely experience something very different, but I speculate that that's because they, in the pre-social media world, had the opportunity to build strong friendships in the first place, self-esteem, real-world social and practical skills, and a more well-rounded means of living a stable and more-or-less happy life. This concession is only because we're still in the first generation of pervasive social media use. From what the data says now, there's no reason to believe that the people who were "born into" the social media will become less affected by its use.

 

1. reconnect with old friends - in a superficial manner, creating the illusion that there is more substance to the friendship than there actually is. Same thing we sought out before, but lower quality.

2. stay in touch with relatives - which letters, phone calls, and visiting provided in the past. Same thing we sought out before, but lower quality.

3. form groups with people of similar interests - this point I will gladly concede, even if it's given a powerful bullhorn to many profoundly ignorant people; that that influence used to belong exclusively to wealthy elites and is now shared by everyone is benefit, no question. 

4. share information on how to fix things - sure, which in the past would have required you to think about the problem, work out a solution, practice the skill, and then use it. Now, there is a five-minute duct-tape solution to everything. And because it's allowed us have constant access to this information, our mental ability to process, deepen, and apply the skills across multiple areas is severely diminished. This applies to information in general - that it's readily available without any mental work means that our ability to recall, apply, or reshape information is diminishing too.

5. political speech - agree. See point 3.

 

Quote

Fast food is not indisputably harmful to society.  There are many benefits to fast food. First, a lot of fast food is healthy - see Chipotle.  In fact, fast food is often much cheaper and can be quite nutritious if used correctly, for single people.  If you are single, try making your own Burrito, and tell me how much you needed to spend on ingredients to replicate what you could get at Chipotle for about $8. 

Fast food, by and large, is high in fat, high in sugar, high in chemical preservatives, made of highly processed foods...and that it's easily attainable has made it undervalued, meaning people don't respect or appreciate food as they otherwise would have, so they damage their body by relying on this stuff. We're getting off the point a bit, however, because my only reason for bringing it up was to demonstrate that the popularity or pervasiveness of something does not mean it's beneficial or good. The incredible obesity rates and its complications, which was a tandem between pervasive fast food and disappearing physical activity (to which social media is a modern contributor of the latter), are killing people more than any other ostensibly voluntary phenomenon, if I'm not mistaken. 

 

Quote

I question this.  Is it the electronic format of social media that is addictive, or a person's natural desire to communicate with others interested in the same topic?  I think it is the latter and that social media simply serves to facilitate connecting people with similar interests.

It's one being designed to exploit the other, like basically all addictive things. People desire communication, validation, recognition, achievement, and quality relationships. Social media provides the most superficial form of each of those things, and since it is paper thin and doesn't provide meaningful or high-quality payoffs like the real thing does, people are depressed because they aren't getting what they thing they're getting. 

 

The video I linked in my other post is one of the early investors of Facebook describing the addictive features they made so that people felt compelled to use the platform all the time. 

 

Quote

I do not disagree that electronic forms of communication on the internet, i.e. social media, have been manipulated to make their use desirable, or possibly even addictive.  However, we humans are addicted to lots of things:  food, water, intimacy, sex, this does not make any of these things intrinsically harmful to people.  Quite the contrary.

No. The founders/designers intentionally made Facebook addictive. We can have discussions about Twitter and snapchat and other social media platforms, though I'm less understanding of those because I've never used them. 

 

Quote

How is this harmful.  Stupid perhaps, but harmful?

It's stupid when adults do it. It's harmful when children do it, because it turns them into stupid, superficial adults. As I mention above, that middle-aged and older people had the opportunity to learn socialization and self-esteem and discipline before the outbreak of social media is a tremendous advantage. The second half of my generation (Millennials) and all those that follow, will presumably not have that opportunity. 

 

Quote

Everyone is doing "this"?  Distorting their self image?  I don't do this.  Do you?  In fact, I don't even post photos of myself on the internet.  

No, I don't. I left Facebook 8 years ago. And I don't post my picture online. As a matter of fact, it was on this website 10 or 12 years ago that I shared a photo of myself with the public. In this regard, it may have been a blessing that all the old posts were lost several years ago. 

 

But the larger point is one I broach above: that the effects social media has on people who've never grown up without it are much worse than in your or me, who have had the opportunity to live "before the internet," as it were. Late millennials and gen-z were born into it, know nothing else, and have scarcely interacted people without a major electronic element, which is to say a filtered element. 

 

You ask, "everyone is doing this? distorting their self-image?" Perhaps the better phrase is: "having their self-image distorted" by the endless comparisons that can't be avoided when participating in social media. I don't have a link handy, but it has made young people more superficial. Because they've been given the opportunity, they take the opportunity to curate an image by their online profile, and by doing so, implant appearances and photographs as a central pillar of their personalities, whereas your interests, demeanour, career, family, and skills would have provided all of those pillars in the past. Now, it's your online profile - appearance, connections (no matter how superficial), and virtue signals that require basically no commitment, ethos, or real-world activity to be associated with. The modern evolution of slack-tivisim, if you will.

 

Quote

This could be harmful to people; or possibly benign.  If Kfools is making money off of the data he collects on this site, I don't see how that is harming me.  Would you be harmed by this?  It's something we all know and agree to in order to get the benefits of free platforms to share our thoughts with one another. 

Because it not only allows you to be targeted by corporations without your consent, it also feeds data into the larger database - the internet and its algorithms - which many have said constitutes the first AI. This is a genuine rabbit hole that could (but probably shouldn't) derail this conversation: the nature of the internet and social media as a monolithic, self-correcting, self-adjusting, uncontrollable...thing that determines the general behaviours and beliefs of all involved. Surely, a conversation for another time. 

 

Whenever a corporation acquires information from or about me without my informed consent, I believe that is, at the very best, a sinister aspect of a system. But perhaps there's a better way to make the point: would you be opposed to the local police tracking your movements, monitoring all your online activities, questioning all your acquaintances, relatives, friends, and business dealings? Because that is effectively what controlling one's data does. 

 

Quote

Oh, come on - if you are 12 years old perhaps.  But are you being manipulated?  Have you been psychologically abused on the internet?  I haven't. 

Part of what makes it so sinister and harmful is that most people don't recognize when they're being manipulated. Advertisers having been using actual psychological and biological principles to make more effective ads for decades. What are ads designed to do? Manipulate your behaviour. How? By convincing you to buy something you don't need. Why? Because there's money to spent and money, therefore, to be made. 

 

Social media is targeted advertising on steroids, around-the-clock, that you NEVER TURN OFF. [You and I turn them off, but our young cousins or children or grandchildren generally do NOT]. 

 

Except convincing you to buy some crap is relatively harmless, right? What if the goal isn't to change your buying behaviour, but your philosophical beliefs? Or your lifestyle? Or your day-to-day life? Or your religious beliefs?

 

Quote

Now, you've got to be kidding. You are worried about the internet destroying privacy, but not about cameras in every cellphone manufactured since the 1990's!  Or about traffic cameras everywhere?  Or about the amount of information the government needs on you just to let you buy a gun or drive a car?  Of all these things, you are worried about privacy concerns over people using social media.  At least people have control over what they divulge about themselves on social media, like you pointed out previously. 

I think you're incorrect. Firstly, I AM worried about all of those things. But they go hand-in-hand with the explosion of social media into every facet of our lives. Privacy is essentially a dead concept because the generation around mine and later has spent all of their adult lives (and most of their childhoods) without it. Or without valuing it. They are all one big social issue that is getting worse and worse every day. 

 

And your last sentence: "At least people have control over what they divulge..." 

 

This is no longer true. Maybe in 2005 or 2007 when Facebook was up-and-coming and it wasn't on our phones. And maybe when we never linked accounts. You had a separate email, a separate facebook, a separate youtube, a separate university email, a separate phone number, etc. That's no longer the case. Essentially everything is linked. Everything requires two-factor authentication. Not just your email address, but your phone number. Not just your microsoft account, but your email. Everything cross-referenced into one single "ID" for the individual human. This is how basically everything you do online is tracked, databased, and fed into the algorithm without informed consent

 

And I say unapologetically that this is bad. 

 

Quote

This is a problem of social media monopolies, not social media itself.  Easy solution - the government should bring an anti-trust suit against Facebook to bust it up.  Killing social media is not necessary or desirable in order to stave off the harms of monopolies like Facebook and Google.

I'm glad you said that. I agree. It's why I spent several dark weeks in 2019 as a Liz Warren supporter, because at one time I heard her express interest in doing so.

 

Quote

The fact that billions of people love to participate in social media is evidence of a massive benefit.

Do you say the same about VLT addicts? If the benefit is a contrived dopamine rush, it's not really a benefit. 

 

Quote

Each individual would likely voice slightly different benefits they experience through social media, if given a chance.  It would take far to long for me to go through each and every benefit every individual experiences using various social media platforms.  Don't forget, this forum is a form of social media, and we all seem to get benefit from it, without much harm.  Wouldn't you agree?

I disagree that this is a form of social media, at least in the modern sense, as we're allowed anonymous IDs and avatars. But your point is taken. If you want me to rattle off some of the harms that LF causes, I will lol. 

Edited by 1AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...