Printable View
While DBR might be social media, I think that the relative intelligence and education of the participants, the tiny size, and the rigorous moderation sets it apart from the somewhat "wild west" feeling of something like Twitter. I have to admit, I am more concerned about the vast, sprawling, relatively unmoderated (and possibly becoming MORE unmoderated) versions of social media.
All true, but DBR still had to shut down the PPB board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ash
I have a twitter account. I rarely tweet and never about politics. One of my tweets was "ratioed" recently. It was a tweet in defense of Coach K. I don't care. I got into one argument with a bunch of millennials on twitter one time where I stuck to my guns about affordable housing. If you take a single family home where 8 people could live and turn it into 8 studio apartments, you are NOT creating new housing, you are just changing who lives there. I got a lot of snarky wankers coming at me but I wouldn't let them off that hook.
To Lord Ash, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by camion
To camion, this is why I got off social media - my mental health required I leave well enough alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
A substantial difference from the major social media sites is that DBR is a well-moderated site that focuses on one major topic, many sidelines of general interest, and little PPB material with explicit rules governing behavior equitably enforced. Another major point of distinction is that the users of the site are very, very good at abiding by the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by bundabergdevil
FYI, this is literally the only site on which I post with any regularity and, even here, I am something less than a post-a-matic.
I appreciate you folks, even when we disagree.
Sure, but that was more because DBR is super closely moderated, and DIDN'T like even the bit of snark and meanness that crept in... snark and meanness that is maybe 1/1000th of what you see on the larger, less moderated platforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostondevil
Honestly, I was sort of just looking more at the fact that the craziest people in our society now find an "infinite" number of people who agree with them, which in turn justifies and empowers them... relatively rational political back and forth, I don't think, will be the end of us.
I hear and agree with all that; I was merely pointing out that by most conventional definitions of social media, Internet forums qualify and DBR is an Internet forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
Social media has a strong implied definition for most people but it’s actual definition casts a wide net.
Do I need to pull out all of my “birds aren’t real” gear again?
And can I just say that breaking up in this day and age must be truly awful. I never thought I’d feel sorry for Kanye but Kim and Pete Davidson making out all over the place has kind of done it. A little.
Another issue is that there is money to be made by some of these people that push the conspiracy theories. Take a look at the number of followers some of these people have. The larger your follower base, the easier it is to monetize. Those lacking the moral backbone to do the right thing, will push and push in order to get more followers and more money. Heck, you almost have to be a social media star to get any traction in elections these days.
There is the anonymity angle - mean people can freely attack anyone.
Then there is the money angle. Just like on tv Infowars admits that it got rich by lying and stirring up anger so does FB, Twitter and other conspiracy drivers.
Then there are the algorithms, which make all the above many multiples worse. The algorithms of Twitter and FB deliberately feed you content that has "highest engagement." What posts get highest engagement? a) controversial, emotionally laden posts or b) posts that complain about how stupid the "other side" is and everyone piles on. My Twitter now includes a mix of non-political topics of special interest (good) and left leaning political tweets (not good). The latter is not because I want them, it is because I clicked on a couple once. So any view I had going into Twitter is now getting echoed over thousands and thousands of times all posted only by people who agree with me. Now if I had clicked on a couple posts that were skeptical of vaccines then all I would get would be vaccine conspiracy posts. FB's algorithm otoh, unlike Twitter, seems to focus also on feeding you emotion arousing, division sowing posts.
There need to be laws against algorithms that drive people down conspiracy rabbit holes and against algorithms that inadvertently or "advertently" promote emotional conflict. This practice has weaponized social media to divide the nation and even may ultimately lead to civil war. What we are doing to ourselves is insane.
Although it is a bit long, I recommend Jonathan Haidt's recent article in the Atlantic, "Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid" Here's the link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-babel/629369/
It starts slow, the first half will be the most familiar to those who have read and thought about how social media has revealed a side of American culture that has always existed, but mostly hid in the shadows and backwaters. Where I found it most interesting was his suggestions for how the problem can be corrected (roughly the last third of the text). These impressed me for their logic and the potential for actually working.
For the history nerds out there (I are one), the article ends with a reference to deTocqueville:
I think online communities like DBR fit deTocqueville's observations.Quote:
When Tocqueville toured the United States in the 1830s, he was impressed by the American habit of forming voluntary associations to fix local problems, rather than waiting for kings or nobles to act, as Europeans would do. That habit is still with us today. In recent years, Americans have started hundreds of groups and organizations dedicated to building trust and friendship across the political divide, including BridgeUSA, Braver Angels (on whose board I serve), and many others listed at BridgeAlliance.us. We cannot expect Congress and the tech companies to save us. We must change ourselves and our communities.
Coincidentally, Democracy in America is my nightstand book, and I was just reading the section on associations last night. Maybe I'll go re-read it in light of this discussion. I am really amazed at the style of writing and breadth of observation, for the time. I've not seen writing from that era or earlier quite like it, but then again I was not a history major.
We should not dislocate our arms patting ourselves on the back about DBR. If we were a near-unique oasis of calm, reasoned discussion we'd still have a PPB.
As with commenters above, I agree not all social media is the same. I'm pretty torn about real names policies, because on the one hand, elimination of anonymity really does take a lot of hot air out of those who want to incite stuff or spread BS without consequence. On the other hand I do know enough history to know that a lot of truths were put to paper anonymously in the early years of this country, so it can do some good by giving space to unpopular truths.
Generally, I've found that moderated forums have fewer problems than other social media. Perhaps they could be made even better with a names policy, but you might lose some candid comments that way too. For instance, it's good to be able to cite a negative product experience without fear the manufacturer will sic their legal team on you. Anyway, I think forums may be the only form of social media I use actively. I don't look at FB, Twitter, IG, TikTok, ... not sure what else there is.
Platforms that are optimized for maximizing engagement: that's bad enough (stealing your time and attention - classic xkcd above), but then you can add the understanding that ginning up outrage and controversy maximizes engagement. Seems like we've hacked human cognition sufficiently to discover society's self-destruct button. Good luck out there everyone.
We’ve all learned some unfortunate things about family members and casual acquaintances due to FB in particular. I finally walked away from FB last year, and there are times I feel out of touch or out of the loop, but overall I stand by the choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by acdevil
Twitter can be toxic in its own way, and at times it spreads BS even faster than FB. It’s esoteric enough, though, that a lot of people don’t really understand how it works, and as a consequence it will never have the reach of FB.
The perverse incentive to chase “likes” or whatever is clearly deleterious to our culture, although I’m not sure it’s any worse than ratings or hits or whatever. Certainly seems more pervasive at times though.
My takeaway has been that the only way to be on social media and preserve one’s mental health is to curate the experience very carefully. Like, VERY carefully.
Or at a very bare minimum quit curating it for the very worst. Unfiltered real time feeds would be better than current algorithm driven feeds. A realtime un-curated feed would at least stream all sides of an issue. And perfectly reasonable posts would have equal footing to the conflict inciting garbage that is now pumped into our feeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matches
IOW you should have to search Youtube for white supremacist propaganda rather than it being automatically spoon fed to you.
You won't get an argument from me. Not all the voluntary associations of the 18th & 19th Century were positive for the Republic even. For example, the militia associations prior to 1860 (mostly in the South) led to the early training and organization of the Confederate army, which I would argue was one of the reasons the South did so well in the early phases of the ACW. The North simply wasn't as well organized. I don't want to go too far off topic here, but if you are like me you see a few parallels in deTocqueville's communities and the modern militia movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by cspan37421
Still, I find DBR quite agreeable, and it's the only forum I currently bother to post on.
I like us too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 15
And I try not to pursue likes too much. Most of my posts here are to amuse myself.
As far as facebook and twitter are concerned I almost never post there. I’m sort of this:
“Nobody likes me, everybody hates me
I think I’ll go eat worms!”
Ok, so let me rephrase my original post.
I have never had a Facebook page, an Instagram, a Twitter, Tik-Tok, or Snapchat.
Yes, I participate in a limited number of online, very focused forums. For the record I consider something like DBR to be lightyears different from the typical social media stuff that I mentioned, above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
I, too, don't have a Facebook page, Instagram account, Tik-Tok account(do you even need one?), Snapchat account (do you even need one?). I do have a Twitter account only to follow Duke Baskeball, Jay Bilas, Greg Paulus, Brian Zoubek at the beginning. I don't follow them much anymore. I don't consider DBR as "social media", and I rely on DBR for breaking news... most recently, Grandison commitment to Duke. Moderated DBR is good. Social media is the pits... Yes, social media, unregulated and unmoderated, is bringing our society down to the lowest common denominator (which is, what?).Quote:
Originally Posted by rsvman
I have seen, not that outsiders believe such an outlandish tale, anonymous posters apologize to each other on DBR, not just for mistakes, which some 'fess up to, but for simple misunderstandings.Quote:
Originally Posted by gep
I also got rid of social media, minus twitter, because I just started to hate so many people. The hate would build and build until I was in just a terrible mood. My life is way better without social media!Quote:
Originally Posted by Matches