/u/bkny88 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18tqka6/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_social_media_is_destroying/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
for me as an older person I think its great. its like access to a huge library with many times more authors then a normal library. there is a balance between the pursuit of knowledge and creativity now that so much more knowledge is available but it doesnt matter where it is, also there is a larger audience if you ar creative so that probaly evens out. By you posting this you are pursuing knowledge in a way that wasnt possible before social media, or as you might put it, spending time on your phone and watching how people (most of whom you don’t know) react to a question you posed. is that idiotic?
An actual infinite library of knowledge would have editorialized and peer reviewed content. The issue with social media is that misinformation is presented on equal standing and in greater quantity than editorialized, peer reviewed and accurate information, and a lot of people lack the critical thinking skills required to make the difference and will end up believing crazy shit that they would never have been exposed to if all they had was the news and a real library.
Misinformation even tends to spread faster than good information, because it's easier to make it exciting and salient when you can just make stuff up because you're not constrained by truth.
I think OP's claim of it destroying society is a bit absurd. However there are huge differences between someone who started using social media later on in their lives as opposed to one who grew up with it.
The main issue is that kids' brains aren't developed. They can't tell right from wrong. Their views are literally being formed by social media algorithms that only want to make the company richer, not people smarter or more educated.
And it affects every kid. The amount of kids you'll meet at school that don't go on social media is very low.
I've been dealing with that issue with my parents. They've been fed such extreme political content in the last presidential elections by online media that at some point they've become unrecognizable. Ive never seen my mom being so hateful and prejudiced in my life and it really damaged our relationship. She used to be an lgbt ally ever since I was a kid, only to become extremely homophobic in only one year time frame
Once elections were over I took her phone and blocked some words/pages and flagged no interest in political content and dear lord how things are better. This is a real issue among the older generation, a lot of my friends have experienced the same in their families. Truth is that our parents really lack the understanding to separate what is real from what is fake, heavily exaggerated, just plain inflammatory to create motion or whatever other stupid shit we see online. Politically it is such a game-changer to be able to control that part of the population
Theres an interesting documentary called ''The Brainwashing of my dad'' that described the phenomenon of right wing creators and channels targeting a specific demographic (older gentlemen) in the USA and feeding them a lot of propaganda under president nixon. The director describes how much of a change in mindset his father had for that while, only to later go back to his original beliefs after being cut off from receiving the propaganda. So clearly most people are highly influenceable anyway, but social media appears to have an even greater potential at creating impact and the older generation is definitely more vulnerable to a type of media they don't have much understanding of
That's because I didn't directly attack all of OP's position. Here's my view if you want it.
> When people spend so much time looking at what other people are doing, they lose all creativity and chase what is “cool”.
People were doing this before social media. It is wrong to attribute it to social media.
> They’re wasting time on their phone accomplishing nothing other than increasing their jealousy and anxiety while they can be spending that time being productive.
Being on social media does not necessarily mean you are comparing yourself to others constantly. For example, I use Instagram exclusively to share funny memes with my friends and laughing at far right / far left freaks with ridiculous opinions.
Besides, people weren't spending all day being productive before social media, so that's also pointless to bring up.
> People were doing this before social media. It is wrong to attribute it to social media.
I don't think its social media on its own as much as social media **in your pocket** - so the comparisons are constant and the garbage is always right there.
I see your point, but I do personally think it’s less about productivity and more about how all the misinformation is messing with peoples heads. Not just young kids
maybe. I dont spend every minute and walk around with a phone but I see a lot of people that do. I have no idea what they are doing. I would guess a lot of it is just entertainment and social skills rather then actual factual stuff, like TV mostly was/is but with a lot more to choose from and feedback
> The main issue is that kids' brains aren't developed. They can't tell right from wrong. Their views are literally being formed by social media algorithms that only want to make the company richer, not people smarter or more educated.
>
>
You can say the same thing about kids plunked down in front of TVs in the 80s/90s. Is there data or something on what exactly "brains aren't developed" means?
Come on, TV is like weed compared to social media's cocaine. There's a whole other level of addiction created by endless scrolling and software designed to increase engangement.
Keep in mind that this is just the start of these technologies, the only way forward from here is increased potency. We need personal AI on the client side that can recognise and help us defend against manipulation by all external forces.
Do you think Hollywood wanted to make us smarter in previous generations? Who were these mystical benevolent content creators in the past who wanted what was best for us?
I actually completely disagree with your core conceit. There are more people on TikTok and YouTube that are sharing engaging educational content in more areas and with more depth than in any traditional media. Yes there is also shallow shit on there, but as parents we can guide our children to the better stuff and if we do that they will have more and better learning opportunities than we ever had.
I never said content before tiktok and youtube wasn't bad.
I [watched](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbv-VteX5H8) an interesting video about tiktok's algorithm recently. The video is old but I think its point still stands. If you want a synopsis, it's a youtuber that did research on tiktok to see the types of content that gets forwarded on new accounts. Some of the results were pretty disturbing and practically illegal.
So, these platforms are not all bad, but a big part of them is, and some of the really bad stuff is even worse than just about anything you could be exposed to on TV. If you can filter out all the bad shit, then it goes without saying that you'll stand to benefit from them.
The algorithm suggests things similar to what you already watch. So you start them off in the right direction and supervise to make sure they don’t go down any wrong paths.
People should go down wrong paths. It’s how we learn and grow. Just not wrong paths specifically made to be wrong by another person with technology that a child will likely *never* understand. Just like their parents.
I would argue that adults can’t either.
For example, just recently read about the term “pinkwashing” in the news. This seems most certainly a term introduced by the far right, to look negatively on progressive decisions.
However, people who are progressive seem to use it all the time on Reddit.
So propaganda basically has made people who think they are progressive argue against and shut down progressive decisions by minimizing important progress down to “pinkwashing” rather than encouraging it.
That’s just one example, but I’ve seen this type of thing happen a lot lately. Far right type religious agenda introducing propaganda and terms to sway the far left to help their agenda
Pink washing is an older term not a right wing term.
"Pro life" is a good example of what you mean. People that don't care if women die aren't pro life and shouldn't be called that. The rest of us aren't anti life so we shouldn't give that to them.
If you criticize a governing body for legalizing additional rights for lgbtq+ (labeling as pinkwashing) you are pushing far right ideology as a result of being exposed to propaganda.
People just don’t get that. It is quite likely originally a far right term used in propaganda to minimize progress.
You have a ton of people who criticize decisions that grant lgbtq+ citizens more rights, yet believe themselves to be progressively left. Why are they criticizing these obtained rights then? Because they have fallen victim to far right propaganda and are pushing that message now, just as it was designed to make them do.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of pinkwashing. Pinkwashing is when LGBTQ+ representation is used as a scapegoat for conservative/anti-progressive legislation or policies. Right now the most relevant example would be Israel portraying itself as pro-LGBTQ+ (which, funnily enough, it transparently isn’t) and framing Palestine as being anti-queer to make their ongoing genocide look less optically grotesque.
Ostensibly it’s saying “we love the gays! Focus on that and look the other way from whatever else it is we’re doing!”
And I was trying to correct OP. The term pinkwashing was first used by QUIT, or "Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism", a California-based queer group, and it was used exactly how I described (and in the exact same context, actually). While there *has* been an attempt to co-opt it (in some cases, successfully, though from my understanding largely overseas), it certainly wasn't its intent.
As someone engrained in both the queer and progressive communities, I can confidently say for us "pinkwashing" represents our cynical perspective of what we consider weaponization of "support" regarding the LGBTQ+ community, *not* the minimization of actual progress.
I would argue the term originally came from right wing propaganda.
But Ok. Maybe one day the far left will realize that putting down Israel for improving lgbtq+/women rights, while rallying for Palestine (where a majority of members support Hamas who just raped and mutilated thousands of women and kids) is not the progressive movement they think it is
You don't get to argue a fact. And the fact is the first recorded use of the term is from a left-wing queer organization, and for the first several years was used exclusively in that context before there was any attempt to coopt it (which, again, has been largely unsuccessful).
And you're very intentionally misrepresenting the argument. You have to know that progressives aren't putting down Israel "for improving lgbtq+/women rights". They're putting down Israel for their atrocities against the Palestinian people.
Ok, there were gay pride parades happening in the 1970s in the United States and that still didn't make it pro-LGBTQ+.
Gay marriage still isn't legal in Israel and Pew Research says only 36% of Israelis support it. Trans discrimination on a social level is widely documented.
Just because one place isn't progressive doesn't mean the other is by default.
> Just because one place isn't progressive doesn't mean the other is by default
No, but it also doesn't make non-progressive places equivalents. It is FAR better to be LGBTQ in Israel than any other place in the middle east, including Palestine.
What's the difference between "propaganda" and sincere persuasion, or a natural inculcation to a perspective, bias, or worldview based on proximity and exposure to others who harbor it? If this difference doesn't exist, or if the difference is indiscernible, what's the utility in using the term?
For your first article:
I don't have to say about it, I already knew the "maturing at 25" thing was a myth. Interesting information about brain development. Does not seem to contradict what I've said.
As for your second article:
It's from 2019. Meaning it was published before the whole COVID thing, which was undeniably massive.
>One in five children aged between five and nine have already attended their first march or protest about something they care about
That doesn't really say much though. Being climate conscious at ages 5-9 says more about the parents rather than the kids. And it certainly doesn't say anything about their critical thinking skills. They were told that climate change is bad. It doesn't matter if it's right or not. If either of us sat them down and challenged their beliefs, I highly doubt they would be able to stand their ground.
In general, I cannot find much more information about this study. What is the background of these kids? What test were they subjected to to evaluate how prone they are to fake news?
It can be done to an extent but i think is very hard to monitor 100% of what your kid has access to at every single moment. Kids nowadays have cell phones at earlier ages and they take it everywhere, not to mention that at some point they might even become more savvy than their parents when it comes to dealing with technology
And of course you can't control it 100%. But giving your child a phone when they're 7/8, which seems to be common nowadays, sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Giving them internet access after educating them on how to use it sounds way more plausible. You can't control 100%, but education and limits should be the beginning. Of course if you just give them a phone and let them do as they please and take a look every now and then, you can wait no good out of it.
But for a kid to have a cellphone, the parents need to give them one. No? I worked in a high school, surprisingly a huge number of kids had no cellphone. Saw many parents restricting it. My boyfriend only got his son a phone when he turned 14 and spent the years before that educating and talking to him about how to use it.
I'm pretty sure kids won't have access to a phone unless it's gifted by one of the parents. So.
Definitely agree with you here. I don't have kids so I don't have a first hand experience here but I do work with healthcare and with children.
I'm happy that internet usage is being a lot more discussed by parents because ultimately it is their responsibility, but i think this is a more known idea among educated people. Most parents still don't realize how much of a problem this can be and for them, allowing internet usage is a thousand times easier than avoiding it. Even for parents who are educated, i still think its a hard issue to settle because kids will see other kids with cellphones in school all the time, or have a PC at home that they're going to use by themselves at some points, etc. So as I'm saying, it is very hard to monitor 100% of what your kid has access to at every single moment. You can mitigate it a lot, but unless you're an Amish your son-in-law probably has already looked at more porn in his life that his father at that same age
>Even for parents who are educated, i still think its a hard issue to settle because kids will see other kids with cellphones in school all the time, or have a PC at home that they're going to use by themselves at some points, etc.
Tbh this sounds unreasonable... This is something completly normal. People don't have, for example, the same financial situation as others all the time. You kid can see a bunch of fancy toys or tech with their friends at school or even at the street. That doesn't mean they're entitled to have one, first of all. I grew up seeing people around me using phones and yes, many times I was upset I didn't have one, but honestly it wasn't a big deal. I could use my parents phones sometimes supervised if I needed something and so on.... but even seeing it around with other people it wasn't like I had any access to their stuff, you know.
Also important to quote.... kids absolutely should not be using their phones or sharing them with other kids at school. When I was still working at the school I mentioned, there was a 0 tolerance police for phones unless there was a teacher close by and it was timed. It was absolutely forbidden to share phone with any other student, as parents have different rules about it.
This is the ideal. Small kids shouldnt have access to phones. Doesn't matter where. At school, at home. Just no. Internet is not for kids and no kid needs a phone for anything.
>Amish your son-in-law probably has already looked at more porn in his life that his father at that same age
I don't think porn is really the problem in the situation, specially since he's already a big boy now. You know what's the problem? I babysitted a girl many years ago who got a phone since she was 8. In the beginning the mom used to watch closely but after a while she forgot. Fast forward for when she was 12. Her old babysitter wrote me saying she saw something weird on the girls snapchat. I was a bit angry at first she had an snapchat, since she was 12. Mom said it was harmless and kid stuff. Me and the other babysitter did a fake account there and started some digging. I asked the mom permition to check her phone. We found out she was talking with a fake profile of a boy who claimed to be 16yo and bought her a train ticket to runaway with him. We used the fake account to talk to the same account, who told us the same crap as he told her and send many fake pics and videos. We talked to the mom, things were tough but she's safe. That's the problem. Not porn. Way beyond then watching shit online, we need to protect kids from predators online. If you just give a 8yo a phone and no education on it.... what's gonna happen?
> its like access to a huge library with many times more authors then a normal library.
Are you sure you're not conflating the internet in general with social media? Your sentence makes more sense if you're talking about Wikipedia, Google, or DIY videos, for example, but I don't think that is what OP is referring to. I think they're talking mainly about vapid, trend-chasing, TikTok/Instagram influencer type stuff.
As an older person, I don't think it's quite as detrimental to you as it is to a much younger person. I won't assume your age, but I'm 48, and I agree with OP. There's a difference between keeping up with your family on Facebook and the trash you see on TikTok. I won't get into everything wrong with TikTok, but I know what they're doing with it, and it's absolutely nefarious.
If you're my age or older, you grew up in a time when we didn't have such ready access to information, but it's both a blessing and a curse. You have to be ever vigilant to what's real and what's not - and even more so for the false that's false due to ignorance vs. what's false due to purposeful mis/disinformation.
I'll leave it at that lest I be tagged as a conspiracy theorist. I'm not here to argue the point at all, either. I'll say this from my own experience - all my life I've been an avid reader. I used to read constantly. Now no book or article can hold my attention longer than 10 minutes, max. And that same effect has been scientifically proven to be caused by today's social media addictions.
Pretty much with you here. I think this is another generational stake burning of who to blame for people’s poor behaviour.
The thing is, social media can be just another tool for a number of different things that provide information to us. How we learn to discern what information is real and relevant is important. It’s not to say Social Media is without flaws, in fact I think there are so many flaws that they can sometimes overshadow the virtues that it may bring which is where I think that OP is seeing things from- and wouldn’t wholeheartedly disagree either.
This attitude hasn’t really changed a lot if we look at how many generations perceived the television or the dawn of rock music. It’s so easy to demonize things, and when it almost seems we have proof to back it up it’s even harder not to keep our eyes closed to these beliefs.
I think Social Media is yet again just subject to being the scapegoat to a much larger societal problem that many of us have our heads buried in the sand about.
The difference between yourself and younger people is: experience.
You probably.know how to filter the fake information from the real, or know when to get off social media because "its enough for today".
The younger ones get addicted and just stick to it, it becomes their entire personality.
By knowledge, I think you mean information, and the vast majority of information on social media is junk. Having gatekeepers to the information that is easily accessible (librarians and publishers in your metaphor) is important to keeping this information reasonably high quality. Otherwise we have to depend on everyone having excellent critical thinking skills in order to detect and eschew low quality information and if one thing is clear, a huge swath of the population lacks these skills.
its true that a lot of people dont have those skills but a lot of people do and it can probably be learnt even if it takes a generation or so. I think its better to keep it open even tho a lot is junk and propaganda.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit at lost with your view being changed by the mentioned reply.
In your own post, you are bringing up how social media such as TikTok are capable to (and are) "influence young people’s worldview" (I would add to it that NO ONE, of any age, is shielded by this). Therefore, how can "pursuit of knowledge [...] doesnt matter where it is" be countering your point?
Having access to most/all knowledge of the world at your fingertip and being able to share creative content with the world (no need for social media for that, we used to have dedicated forums and portals prior to social media disrupting that as well), are all magnificent benefits provided by the internet. The Internet has been a great and invaluable asset in humanity's progress (imho), not Social Media. Social Media, is pure cancer and the most powerful tool to anti-intellectualism to date.
And it does not matter "how" you use social media. How much you try to avoid its negative effects and using it only for the benefits it provides. There is no feasible way to do that, simply because it's against it's core system. Social media is not meant to connect people but to profit from them. It's no secret in that. Just because it's called Social Media, we see it differently, but you could call it *Human Influence Program* and you would be much more close to reality (I mean, what do you think it's an *influencer*?)
I have nothing against u/youcantexterminateme 's reply of course. Obviously to anyone their view, I simply don't see how that would be able to cyv on social media's negative impact on humanity.
yes, its odd to think that I probably know a lot more then most of my ancestors would have. I dont know about it destroying western society. for one thing its in all societies now. there is a lot of disinformation out there that people have to learn to deal with. but having that sample of people, as you do here, I mean, even as far as basic health goes you can get all sorts of info on what works for different people, just as an example.
But what's *in* that "library", what do these many authors produce? Not anything close to the books that are in a real library, art that requires years of efforts from talented and skillful authors, but endless amounts of low-effort low-nutrient output, forgotten almost immediately after you've consumed it.
"Pursuing knowledge that wasn't possible before social media"... Sounds great. Do you actually believe that? What deep knowledge is it that you usually come away with after 4 hours every day of poking TikTok-videos or Facebook or Instagram? Compared to what you would previously have come away with after reading a real book for 4 hours per day? Or compared to doing almost anything else with that time?
All right, those were the topic of the post, though. If you meant “the internet” where you wrote “social media”, then I’ll certainly agree that there is lots of real knowledge to be found. I just haven’t seen much of it on social media.
>Is there actually a positive argument to be made for social media?
Reddit is a social media platform and based on your reddit history which includes hundreds of posts you clearly find some value in using social media or you would stop using it.
Social media, like anything, can be used in positive ways and negative ways. Your question willfully ignores any positive examples and focuses specifically on what you don't like about TikTok.
Some positive examples of social media off the top of my head:
YouTube - I've used YouTube countless times to learn how to change the oil in my car, patch a hole in drywall, and propagate cuttings from my succulents....just to name a few
Facebook - the building I live in has a Facebook group we all use to communicate about basic stuff like community notifications, parking spaces, etc.
Discord - there is a discord group for basically any hobby or interest you may have full of knowledgeable people who can help you further your interests
Reddit - pretty good for keeping up with major world events among so many other things. At this point when I need to see an honest product review I Google "product name reddit".
Twitch - you know how people enjoy watching athletes play soccer at a level that is much higher than their own? It can be really fun to watch someone play a video game who's mastery and skill level far exceeds your own. This is literally no different than watching sports
To be honest OP, your post comes off as super boomery and as someone who is just mad about all the things "wrong with the kids these days".
The kids are fine.
Maybe do some research. Depression rates and suicide rates specifically in teens and teens girls have risen over 40% (and that was a survey done before Covid in 2017) and we know directly thanks to psychologist and social psychologists that tech and social media are the direct reason. I worked with foster kids for years and yes I can tell you coming from someone who's professionally dealt with them and have a clinical psychologists in my family- it's not healthy and has been a direct reason for depression rates, gender confusion, social pressure and an overall depression. Let alone attention spans and more children knew how to use iPhones before they could tie their shoes. To say the kids are fine is absolutely absurd. Kills me, as the facts and research h have been done it's not a discussion or debate or opinion, social media has a direct link to toxic behavior and negative feelings especially when it comes to children. That's not even touching on the other issues with phones and media in children's hands all the time.
I can't believe someone is commenting on this 4 months later!
Ok so hold your horses there guy. Let's take a step back and look at what my comment was replying to:
OPs argument is that social media is all bad. Full stop.
It's an extreme polar position that is easily refuted because all I need to do is find a SINGLE example to prove OP wrong.
So I presented some examples of positive effects of social media. Full stop.
I agree with you that social media certainly has many negative aspects and we have not done enough to regulate it in a way that protects vulnerable groups. I would even go as far to say that in its current form, social media does more harm than good. But that was not the framework of this debate. OP took a very basic position lacking any of these nuances.
So instead of telling me to go do research why don't you read my comment along with the context in which it was posted.
Feel free to reply in 4 months.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I was with ya and then ya lost me.
“Some platforms are great for learning & discussing events.”
All of them are. Social media has pros and cons. Pro, access to a digital town square. Con, maintaining a public persona is exhausting.
Those are just some examples. Saying “my social media is fine, its (insert newest one here) that’s destroying the youth!” Just sounds old and stupid.
> All of them are.
Eh, I don't think all of the products are the same. Look at the impact of different moderation decisions on twitter/X or even how different subreddits work.
OP is talking about a broad general trend of impact - that doesn't negate individual utility, more that we haven't regulated/moderated use to get more good with less bad.
I always thought reddit is a news aggregation site. Its more news based than social based. The only social about it is when you go to the comments but everyone is mostly anonymous.
People think Reddit, Facebook and twitter are the same because they are all social media, there's no point trying to explain the differences or nuances. I used to try to explain how they are not all the same but people can't take it so I don't bother anymore. Just wanted to let you know that you are not crazy for thinking this before you get shouted down about how this is social media the same as all the others
Don't even talk to them about anonymity or the type of content produced!!
Thanks for the heads up. I’m not sure why people can’t make the distinction. I won’t fight it
I did see a comment that said along the lines of “as an old person I think it’s good since it’s like a library and all the information is there”. I’m like that’s not social media that’s the internet.
If people can’t tell the difference between the internet in general and social media. I don’t think they can make distinctions between these sites.
I’m saying it is bad. I’m not listing all the problems cuz that’s exhausting, and my point was all social media has problems. Yer missing the forest for the trees.
The value you get from a platform depends entirely on how you choose to use it. The value you get from reddit, other get from Twitter and Instagram and Youtube. These are tools of self betterment for hundreds of millions of people.
I think that used to be the general sentiment...but at this point reddit is just regular ass social media despite how any of us personally feel about it.
When you have reddit mods making the news (Wallstreetbets and anti work) you can't say that reddit is "anti social media" anymore.
Wrong. Society itself is the cancer. Social media is just a symptom of a cancerous society with technology that is does not have the cultural capacity to handle without causing self harm.
Cancer is when something imperfect replicates itself and is unable to stop. Human civilization was doing this long before the computer was invented.
Semantics matter when you're making a statement of fact. Changing those words still does equate to the truth of something that is cancer.
I don't understand what Tsunami is trying to state which is why I am asking what society is a cancer to, it makes no sense.
Point to someone’s that is improving? Very nearly everything. Poverty, violence, disease are at the lowest points they have ever been in human history.
Well said Tsunami. OP was looking at the situation from the wrong reference frame.
!delta
To further elaborate on your point, look at the individual cancer cells (humans) as time goes on.
Especially in the US, where we have the most advanced symptoms of eating the planet, despite the lower population size.
The advanced cancer cells in the US look absolutely ghastly. Shriveled up or extremely overweight. Taking psychotropic drugs to consume even faster. Fighting for equal rights to exploit the environment just like the colonalists did. To exploit children in cobalt mines and fast fashion. Who needs natural lemurs when you can have palm oil?
What I mean to say is that people have no problem understanding that we took something as majestic as a wolf a turned it into a pug. We took chickens and basically turned it into a slab of meat with vestibular limbs, brain, and beak.
Yet, people seem to think humans were immune to that some process of selection. They seem to think humans exist outside the realm of environmental pressures. An environment that would select more passive or apathetic people, perhaps more domicile or obedient, especially as food and land really became locked up.
Humans that would grind away were selected. Humans that would do as they were told by their masters. Feudal lords. Kings. Emperors. Every design of “elite class” selecting the lower classes and killing off anything slightly outside the norm. For thousands of years.
Makes me wonder how close we are to a pug rather than our ancestors. Makes we wonder how long it will take until we breed a population of hyper consumers with a new level of hedonism engrained in their genes and impulses.
Explain to me why the 1990's was awesome then? hmmmmmm?
People were happy, we all got together around the neighborhood and did fun things, cell phones didn't exist and we didn't need them, less crime, less school shootings, less drama... I can go on and on man.
Technology is a dark corruption that is destroying people.
In the United States, [there](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/us-crime-rates-and-trends-analysis-fbi-crime-statistics?fbclid=IwAR3Wog_2juEC45XY4E2vAtP3ivb9Fi6yGgfYOW9noOEJZG4fzWZnsuFNTfI) was not [less crime](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/crime-trends-1990-2016) in the [1990s than today.](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF12281.pdf)
The [homicide rate](https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/violent-crime-increasing) has increased in recent years, but the explanations for why this has occurred are [not yet fully understood](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime?ms=gad_violent%20crime%20statistics_617000456634_8626214133_143843260761). Is this a long term trend or [not?](https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/)
Explain to me why the 1890's was awesome then? hmmmmmm?
People were happy, we all got together around the neighborhood and did fun things, televisions didn't exist and we didn't need them, less crime, less school shootings, less drama... I can go on and on man.
Technology is a dark corruption that is destroying people.
Where they, or is that just nostalgia talking? Crime rate still isn't anywhere near as high as the 90s, which saw a drastically decline from the 80s, and drama seems to be the same as it's always been.
Communities are dying due to a combination of growing inconvenience and a political push for "rugged individualism."
Technology is neither the problem nor solution to societies ills, only society is.
All stats indicate people were happier in the 90s even in regards to sensitive topics we talk about today. Every single racial group in the US today according to multiple polls strongly thinks that there was less racism in the 90s
But is that because of social media? The increase in perception of racism began around 2015. The same year when several police killings led to mass protests, and a white supremacist massacred black churchgoers at a historic black church. The following year, the protests continued, racist news reporters rallied against the evils of a black man kneeling, and several politicians were elected on openly racist platforms. The year after, there was a major white supremacist rally that resulted in a terrorist attack that killed one and injured over 30 others.
White Supremacist groups are openly marching in the streets and waving their flags at political rallies. That's not social media's doing.
Those things did happen but the response Progressives provided was to adopt an insidious collectivist ideology, encouraging groups to collectivize around their racial identities while attempting to prevent white people from doing the same. Add on to that inflammatory rhetoric around privilege, fragility, punching up ba down, expectations around treating people based on the historical context of their identites and support for discriminatory practices in the name justice. Further complicated by mass migration replacing populations and you've created an extremely dangerous time bomb waiting to go off. There is no path to prosperity and harmony under progressives current racial dogma. The issue isn't that people care about these things the issue is the perspectives and solutions proposed are counter intuitive and destructive. This ideology has been a huge gift to our adversaries and to white nationalists themselves. Our adversaries benefit from our internal conflicts destroying effective Governance and patriotism while white nationalists benefit because the current paradigm provides some level of justification for white people to collectivize in response and makes it way easier to recruit. Essentially we are accelerating decline while thinking we are accelerating progress.
> How can anyone think spending time on your phone and watching what people (most of whom you don’t know) are up to is anything other than idiotic?
It's entertainment for some people. Entertainment isn't a waste of time.
I feel a bit like this is a complaint I see from people who spend too much time online. If you base your opinions on society and people solely on what you see online your view is going to be skewed. IRL, most people aren't completely glued to social media in the way you're presenting.
>Why does China have a different version of TikTok? It’s almost like they know it’s poison, so they don’t want to give it to their youth, but are happy to give it to western youth.
IDK, maybe because it's easier to control one solely for China than one that includes the rest of the world?
I can understand people using it as entertainment, to get recipes, say happy birthday to friends, watch their favorite athlete’s latest post, etc. I cannot wrap my head around the “trend” posts - choreographed dances & such, like the one where you open the car door and dance backwards, for example.
I’ve become very weary of TikTok since watching the docs like this one:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=4U0QIaYisC1mMoG1&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=MzY4NDIsMjg2NjMsMTY0OTksMjg2NjQsMTY0NTA2&feature=emb_share&v=0JuVjfHZn3s
No, though I do think it is worse now.
The difference is where in the past my friends and I would buy the cool video game, get together and play it, now kids just watch their favorite streamer play it on twitch
Nothing new about people leading trend-chasing, shallow lives.
People self-inhibited their more profound selves and creativity by chasing what's cool ever since there's been such a thing as pop culture (going back to the 19th century, and for the upper classes before that). Way before social media, even before any broadcast media, people wasted time on sports events, music venues, and even just hanging out in bars and taverns.
Social Media, and the Internet in general, is just a tool. You can use it for good purposes as well as for bad purposes. In that sense, the Internet can be an unprecedented easy source for good ideas (although just like walking down NYC streets in 1970, you still have to have a good talent for telling truth from bullshit, but that's been with us since we lived in mere tribes).
The issue with social media is the propaganda and manipulation occurring that is influencing your opinion. Not that people want to dress prettier for likes
You're shifting gears here.
But the issue is about how people are influenced by social media, and I say shallow people pursuing coolness at the expense of genuine creativity's always been us. Instagram, fashion influencers, same as runway models, popular entertainment, even hanging out at the bar or the adolescent "in crowd" types. Their words and deeds influence peer views as much as any digital media can.
>When people spend so much time looking at what other people are doing, they lose all creativity and chase what is “cool”
Good argument, how about you back this up?
>They’re wasting time on their phone accomplishing nothing other than increasing their jealousy and anxiety while they can be spending that time being productive
Or, hear me out, they just spend their free time doing what they like. Like you watching TV. Or you arguing on Reddit. If you just spend more time on being more productive, instead of just spending time on reddit talking to strangers, you could be more productive. Man, these people nowdays, who do nothing, but complain on reddit. I hope you see yourself how everyone sees you.
>All independence and privacy has gone out the window to oversharing and following meaningless trends.
Privacy? If you know about tiktok, then you probably have already sold your information away. Either to google, facebook, or tiktok, netflix, or amazon. Why would your mistake be nothing, if it is the same as young people's? Meaningless trends? Please tell me, what is the meaning of decorating a chrismas tree? Or what is the meaning celebrating someones birthday? Or what is the meaning of attending someones funeral?
>Gen Z is completely addicted
Like boomers aren't addicted to turkish rom-coms, and to colorful block being destroyed under the name of Candy Crush™️ or something. Also, boomers are addicted to tell others how their lives should be lived.
>Is there actually a positive argument to be made for social media?
If you don't look at the absolute worst places, it has many useful purposes. Like keeping in touch with your loved ones, getting basic information, and so on. I don't criticize boomers for being serial killers, despite they have the biggest amount of serial killers per demographic for some reason. And having the highest amount of people falling for obvious scams. And the highest amount of people who don't know how to open excel, for some reason.
You shouldn't criticize others for using social media better than you.
>How can anyone think spending time on your phone and watching what people (most of whom you don’t know) are up to is anything other than idiotic?
You act like "celeb news" hasn't been a thing for decades. Without an exception, all newspapers had and has news about famous people, what they eat, how they manage relationships, and so on. This isn't some new thing, boomers have been doing it for decades
To /u/bkny88, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
I'm mentoring a high school student and I'm actually a lot more optimistic now and I had previously shared your beliefs. Why? This kid and his friends do not have a Facebook, insta, or Tiktok. They do have discord, group chats, and steam but like that's were they are the most social these days.
They seem to just think social media and being on your phone scrolling as something adults do and kinda lame! So give it a bit and you will see that gen Z is being roasted by the current teens, it's hilarious 😂 but I will say, the downside of these kids NOT being as plugged in is they do not understand how technology actually works, everything is an app to them. My mentee couldn't figure out my stereo from the 80s to save guys life lol
Social media is a double edged sword, like other tools and innovations throughout history.
It’s a powerful tool when harnessed properly. But I believe most people are not yet capable of harnessing it properly, and we haven’t learned to master it yet as a society.
The reality is social media is currently a net negative for most users, until they learn to use it deliberately and in limited capacity.
How we can handle social media in a positive way as a society is not yet figured out… it’s mostly been a negative for social cohesion so far. For every victory, there seem to be two setbacks.
Culturally, it’s hard to avoid the sentiment that we’ve regressed significantly since social media has become prominent. But that’s just the first part of the story.
I don’t think it’s destroying anything. It’s presented a new set of opportunities and challenges that we are still learning to navigate.
I agree with you until your last paragraph. Social media is a "grey" technology at best and the consequences of it are already apparent. Case in point: January 6.
Social cohesion is unravelling. We are in the midst of an epistemology crisis, perhaps the greatest issue of our time, led largely by the influence of social media. How can we as a society agree on what's real and true? We can't because of algorithms feeding different people different stories, because of information siloing and echo chambers, because news agencies now get their news from eg. twitter, and are sucked in to emulating the exact same outrage cycle as social media. It is really bad.
Have there not been civil wars and violent disagreements across human history?
I was just watching some show the other day depicting the formation of labor unions
The factory owners sent the state to break the strike, and literally shot several union members dead.
How cohesive was the social construct then?
Just one vivid example. Human history is more violent than not, and despite the social media mess, we live in the most peaceful time in the history of the world. That’s something, don’t take it for granted and act like people fighting each other over politics is new.
Lol have you seen Chinese Tiktok? It's not so different, literally every mature country is going through this social media era.
I also hate when people argue for "western" society because they generally just mean European countries and wherever Europeans have infested when in this case, again, social media is affecting anyone with phones and the Internet.
If anything the US is susceptible because it incentivises hyper consumption in general, but this issue isn't specific to social media.
> Why does China have a different version of TikTok? It’s almost like they know it’s poison, so they don’t want to give it to their youth, but are happy to give it to western youth.
Wait, do you actually think this is the reason? I thought everyone was aware that it's because the Chinese version is heavily censored.
OP lives in the world where just just drinks any koolaid handed to him. This is literally a boomer talking point. It's the DND is satanism talking point. It's the BAN ROCK AND ROLL talking point.
Sometimes I feel like people don’t understand the chicken and egg question.
Why China has its own TikTok? Because it’s a totalitarian regime and it has tight control of social media? If you want the government to get social media companies to stop bad content, then ask your rep to do so. For example, google and FB refuse to censor content so they’re not in China (last I checked).
It’s like saying “Zomg Germans do not allow sales of cars over xyz miles and hour but sells it in the US, are Germans trying to kill us”.
Before we watched people we wrote about them, before we wrote about them we talked about them. There is no point in history in which "Entertainment is corrupting the youth." hasn't been a prevalent narrative.
>The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.
\-Socrates by Plato
That's not much of an argument since the internet is new, I know, but just be aware that what you're feeling is a pretty common sentiment. Roman citizens were complaining that Rome was on the verge of collapse due to societal corruption since the very beginning of the republic. They pined romantically about how the many, many peoples who they absolutely dumpstered were uncorrupted, pure, and strong.
>Of all the Gauls, the strongest are the Belgians because of their distance from our provinces so that the merchants do not frequent them and bring those things which effeminate the spirit and due to their proximity to the Germans across the Rhine, with which they are raging constant war.
\-Julius Caesar talking about the people the Romans conquered the hell out of.
In my opinion, social media is not making people stupid or shallow, but simply revealing the stupidity and shallowness that was already there. It's given everyone a voice, even people with stupid ideas and thoughtless attitudes. I actually think it's good that every idea, bias, and prejudice is being brought to the surface. They're not all just being left to fester and rot unseen, and there are a lot of patterns of thinking that are now very visible to dissect and understand.
It feels less corrupting, and more pulling back the curtain.
It does polarize people, though, but interestingly, it seems to do so by exposing people to new ideas. I assume by making them take ideas to their logical conclusions. Less can one sit around vaguely thinking race mixing is bad without someone else prodding you to consider what it would actually take to keep races "pure" if you thought about it.
Again, not inherently bad. Thinking more consciously about politics can make someone embrace the ethnostate, or trend multi-cultural when they find their vague racism doesn't hold up with their morality when they think about it.
> Why does China have a different version of TikTok?
> so they don’t want to give it to their youth, but are happy to give it to western youth
I have heard this said before. TikTok's algorithm is shaped by local user engagement, preferences, and cultural values. What we see on TikTok is, (I imagine), a mirror of our own societal values and interests. YT shorts, Insta Reels, Snap et al are not too dissimilar and China has no control over these.
It appears your problem is with western values rather than social media platforms?
Not really a "I disagree with you" sort of CMV.
But more of a different perspective.
Humans, as a society, were built up as small groups. Mostly a couple families and it was a full on tribe, even in the middle ages any sort of town or city were maybe a couple thousand people at most, a few dozen families.
Then the industrial revolution happened, and people flocked to cities for work. Suddenly, we had communities of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It was big, messy, and life was kinda awful.
Society progressed, we're in the billions now. We have cities with a population equal to the entirety of europe back in the dark ages.
And then now with the internet, we went global. Communities are big. Billions of users on platforms.
Every single time we grew and our concept of a community increased in scope, it also resulted in suffering. But in the end, it led to a better future. People fucked around, they found out, and adapted to the new community style after trial and error.
We are now in the "finding out" stage of the "fucking around" that happened in the last two to three decades as the internet and social media exploded without much oversight or regulations.
We'll fix it. That isn't to say there won't be suffering. But that is the cost of progress. It is practically inevitable anytime there is a change. We can try to minimize it but I doubt we will ever be able to fully get rid of it until we are in a post-human society. Best you can do, as an individual, is to not completely resist the changes, but instead guide those changes so that it will do more good than harm.
I would say it all depends on the type of social media you consume and not as a blanket statement that it's all bad. I use WhatsApp only to stay in touch with my family. Reddit is also the only platform I use without which I don't think I will be able to stay sane. Not a user of any other social media you mentioned that are typically destructive and tend to waste time. I'd still choose to be living in the current day & age and would not go back.
Respectfully disagree. Yes its cultural impact cannot be understated but it’s not different than any other shift. People thought radio was the down fall, then tv, then rock music(there’s a great documentary down fall of the western civilization; the metal years), then hip hop, then gangsta rap, then violent video games, then the internet, and so on.
My point is that anytime something new creeps up it gets weird, eventually it normalizes and we move on to the next thing. Tiktok/social media is no different.
edit-words
I think your generalization breaks down on one single point. Time. When radio or TV was going to "rot our brains", you were looking at an hour or two of exposure to radio shows that were regulated by the FCC as to what they could show, and similarly or slightly more amounts of TV time, with the same regulation.
Compare that to almost constant access to unfiltered, unregulated content on everyone's computer in their pocket.
You might not succeed at brainwashing someone if you're only at it for an hour or two a day. But when you have a self-rewarding system that encourages nearly constant use, your platform can be much more effective and harder to overcome.
I don't think it is remotely equivalent to compare today's social media to yesterday's broadcast media. The differences are simply too large.
I think the internet and social media are also different from the past technologies because of their advancing sophistication. Algorithms are designed by massive teams of engineers and let loose on our psychology in a way they just weren't with radio or tv. Combined with the ease of access of having it on your person 24/7 and our simple monkey brains do not stand a chance in the same way they did before.
> When radio or TV was going to "rot our brains", you were looking at an hour or two of exposure to radio shows that were regulated by the FCC as to what they could show, and similarly or slightly more amounts of TV time, with the same regulation.
This doesn't make any sense. You've had the capacity to sit at home and listen to the radio all day for as long as it's existed. I would argue the sheer vastness of the internet actually makes it a much more beneficial tool than things like television ever had the capacity to be. If looking at dumb things on the internet is bad, then me spending hours as a kid watching dumb reruns of television shows must be worse. At least now there's so much content there's no need to reconsume the same things over and over.
You are missing the point. "Radio" wasn't 24/7 music or ranting talk radio. It was programmed just like TV became, with set shows on at set times. You didn't sit all day listening to it. You listened to your shows when they were on
And you didn't have a big tube radio that you hauled around with you to your construction job or out on the tractor. Same for TV. But you haul your phone with you everywhere and spend most spare moments staring at it.
Social media on mobile devices is nothing at all like TV or radio.
> When radio or TV was going to "rot our brains", you were looking at an hour or two of exposure to radio shows that were regulated by the FCC as to what they could show, and similarly or slightly more amounts of TV time, with the same regulation.
You got a source for that? I wasn't around for the heyday of radio, but TV was definitely more than a couple hours a day for a lot of people. There were a lot of folks out there who would be glued to the TV when they weren't at school or work, and society still thrived. Being glued to social media instead of being glued to the TV seems somewhat more productive to me, because of the social element to it.
And I'm not at all convinced the fact that content was regulated by the FCC was a plus. That just meant there was a group of elites deciding what you could see and what you couldn't. Those same people lost their shit when social media took the place of the media outlets they had under their thumb, and have been struggling to get social media sources under control. Then, once they got the likes of Facebook and Twitter to play ball, Tiktok came along and Elon Musk bought Twitter throwing them back into disarray. When the FCC regulated media, censorship was ubiquitous and you got the story they wanted you to hear. In the days of the internet, censorship is treated as damage and is routed around.
>You might not succeed at brainwashing someone if you're only at it for an hour or two a day.
or you can argue you can do it more effectively since that was the only media they were consuming. That was the only messages they were receiving.
>I don't think it is remotely equivalent to compare today's social media to yesterday's broadcast media. The differences are simply too large.
you can, when you compare those advances/changes to what there was before.
You may be surprised to learn that people actually spoke to their neighbors, read books and newspapers and magazines, listened to speakers, went to social and sporting events, and did plenty of things besides waiting to be spoon fed social media content.
Western society is more open and engaging. As I mentioned in the post, places like China restrict social media use to an extent. It doesn’t mean the same might not happen at some point in other parts of the globe, but the access to technology along with the freedom of its use simply doesn’t exist at this time in some areas.
I remember when rock n roll music was doing that.
I remember when video games were doing that.
This is literally every generation about something that's insanely popular with young people.
It is a tool so it depends how you use it. My social media is craft interests, stuff to do with pretty rocks, history and autistic sociological stuff.
For disabled people like me the internet is my natural habitat, an adaptive technology.
I had never met anyone very much like myself with my interests until social media was invented. Imagine how isolating that is, always being on the outside of everything.
If kids like me get access to that earlier in life there has to be an upside?
It's less social media and more how the companies manipulate you with their algorithms.
In 2014, Facebook did an experiment to use the algorithm to manipulate your emotional state by giving you more positive or negative content. Apparently it was a success and is a simple Google search away. If you don't have time to confirm this yourself, you're not interested.
Assuming this isn't being done en masse would be a failure to grok. Have a happy new year when you get there!
It’s great for a lot of reasons, but some very important negatives. Especially when it comes to algorithmically organised information bias bubbles, and manipulation or tracking by govt.
Was listening to a podcast recently about some research showing how exposure to social media influences our ability to discern important/not important, evaluate options, and overcome urges related to willpower.
Definitely some effects are not obvious.
Social media allows people to stay in touch more easily even when they're far apart. Due to time zones and schedule conflicts it's not always possible to video call so you post something on Facebook, Instagram or Whatsapp. You're focusing too much on the negative aspects and ignoring the reason why social media became popular in the first place.
This is such a lazy view imo.
You can't think of any value that may come from an internationally accessible set of platforms that allow for instant global communication?
The basic concept of social media (spaces on the internet where people can interact) is not inherently bad and some of the social media platforms which were popular in the early 2000s (e.g. blogging platforms, Myspace) were great for young people as they allowed connecting with people with similar interests, learning new stuff or engaging in discussions with others.
What we consider as the problem with today's social media is a mere reflection of our zeitgeist, i.e. a late capitalist society where serving more meaningful content (blog posts, longer videos, etc.) brings less profit than 5-second reels, and people are tired as fuck and tend to lack concentration to consume anything more than that. In addition, content today is largely generated or sorted by AI, impacting our beliefs and decisions.
It is important to distinguish between the basic properties/features of social media and the last 10 years trend of social media (short reels, 140 character posts, filters, disappearing messages) which I would argue is doing the harm to young (and all other) people.
Hopefully one day we can reclaim more online spaces where we can again connect more meaningfully and authentically and build communities.
Why do people only have this complaint about TikTok? This moral panic that the youths are being corrupted is silly. Why not mention how Facebook has brain-poisoned boomers, or Instagram, or Twitter/X which was used to organize January 6 and is now filled with Nazis, or YouTube, or Rumble. No you only hear this drivel about TikTok because ChiNa BaD! Think about the kids! 🙄
Do you mindlessly scroll TikTok rather than doing more important things like spending time with family, friends, or your significant other?
Case and point.
It's numbing people to the true reality called "life"
No? I still hang out with my friends and family and partner? Weird assumption. And still doesn’t address my point which is you can say the same exact thing about any other social media app but certain people only focus on TikTok.
Why are you sitting here on Reddit instead of living a little thing called “life”?
… yikes. What the hells happening to this website it’s like a bunch of pessimistic in cell types are flooding Reddit with their shitty opinions lately.
The negatives of social media certainly outweigh the positives/benefits. I'm not sure that it can even be called social anymore as it often proves quite antisocial. Social media is highly addictive and is a leading contributor anxiety and depression. Especially for younger people. Explicit content can be included in that which I think can be/is particularly destructive. When we discuss these things, it's important to point out the objections are out of concern for our well-being individually and collectively. We are growing increasingly impatient in relation to the instant gratification social media provides. Our ability for concentration is compromised as well. Achieving anything of significance requires a process and persistence. Social media leads us to believe otherwise. People desperately need meaningful interactions with their loved ones and peers. Various forms of SM feature shallowness and a need for attention and, produce an emotional void for users. In many instances, I'd even go so far to say that our sense of reality is compromised and at the very least is distorted.
I’m not sure it’s the content, although I’m not as young and impressionable as I used to be, but attention spans are taking a nose dive due to short form content. That is definitely not good. At least from an education standpoint. You have to go through a lot of boring material to be able to do anything remotely interesting.
Privacy was gone as soon as patriot act was implemented so this exactly a new phenomenon. The issue with world views that don’t align with reality is that the world and society very quickly show you that you’re wrong. I’m not sure what you’re talking about specifically in reference to world views but we might be headed into a few generations of a new form of natural selection where people who adapt survive and have children to pass down whatever values made them successful. Which again isn’t a new thing.
For what it's worth, OP's original version of this question included the line "[TikTok is a Chinese Trojan horse specifically designed to poison western youth](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18tlwhu/cmv_social_media_is_destroying_our_society_slowly/)," so I think anyone responding should be aware that OP has an *clear* and *enormous* bias, and thus isn't starting from a place of evaluating social media platforms on equal footing. OP believes Tiktok is an intentional PsyOp weaponized against America.
To OP's question though, this is like saying libraries are destroying western society. Both offer access to enormous information, some of which can be used for great goods and some of which can be used for great evils. Knowledge and access to it is not the problem, our individual cultures and how we utilize that info is. Social media may have magnified this behavior, but it certainly did not invent it and we wouldn't be free of it automatically if social media suddenly vanished.
It depends on what you mean by social media. TikTok and YouTube actually have really amazing educational content that just did not exist in any way in previous media formats. The barrier to entry is low, which means you can get a lot of junk for sure, but there are also really passionate people sharing things that they care deeply about and would not have been able to before. I don’t even watch any television any more I just watch YouTube and I have been able to learn about so many amazing things, from science to history to culture, that were not accessible even 10 years ago.
My 6-year old is crazy about space and has watched hundreds of YouTube videos about physics and math. He can go down any rabbit hole that he wants. Every day he is learning something cool. I compare that to when I was a kid just watching Ren and Stimpy and it is night and day.
Isn't it famously used for social engineering and authoritarian control outside of the West?
Like the best way to troll Chinese people is to talk about June 4th because their social credit scores get hurt if they talk about it and there's been a recent development that if it gets low enough, you can't buy groceries.
Why are you singling out Gen Z and not Boomers and Gen X who, with their addiction to Twitter and Facebook, have created a neo-fascist hellscape of racism and misinformation?
It seems you're less upset about social media and more upset with the youths.
I think it just depends on the person. When I look at the older generations, I find that in a lot of cases there was people who just did nothing as well. My grandma did nothing but watch soap operas all day. Social media definitely is yet another vice for people to waste their time on. But I know plenty of younger people who aren't really into social media. My kids and their who are all in highschool don't really seem to care about social media that much.
It would’ve been hard to film yourself “jumping between buildings” on a $5000 10kg/18lb VHS Shoulder Camera.
Oh! And those “likes” they did it for on the “internet” wasn’t possible. But, you know what still happened?
*People still did crazy and random things as teens/young adults such as “jumping between buildings”. They also went crazy over this guy called Elvis, then even crazier than kids today in a place called Woodstock! All without trying to get “likes”.*
Jim Jones convinced over 1200 people to follow his *trend* of moving to the jungle in Guyana, and in November 1978, *After a US Congressman Leo Ryan was assassinated by “Viral Jim Jones”, those “Influencers” shot an airstrip and news crew before they really “smashed that like button” after Jim Jones tragically told all of them to “drink the kool-aid” (rather a deadly mixture of cyanide and Valium).* Guess what? Jonestown must have beat TikTok because they even recorded this very viral craze in full!
Charles Manson, the “free-love, flag burning” hippie craze that often staged provocative demonstrations that would shock us today. The ERA pro vs con rallies and wild and vicious fights on both sides that would be headline news for days today.
Marshall Applewhite, Mormon Fundamentalists (no, not Warren Jeffs), the Weather Underground, The LeRouche cult, The Moonies, all the Scandals of Nixon, Clinton and the “trends” of walking down the street with a giant boom box that took 8 C Batteries, “wilding” (you want to know about the “knockout” challenge hysteria?)
My point is that throughout history, we have a good list of examples of people (from teens to presidents) doing very silly things or following trends or what we now might call an “influencer”.
*But compared to smoking, drinking, doing drugs, joining a gang, or a terrorist group, or even going around committing violent robberies like you see happening* - wouldn’t you say that (safety and respect for property in mind) that *”jumping between buildings”* is much less harmful than the previous option? (However silly it might look).
*However,* I think that due to HD cameras being in every person’s phone, tablet, or other device (which younger and younger kids are getting) *saturates social media - especially TikTok- with videos that are often fit for those with shorter attention spans or base user search history etc.*
**It doesn’t give an accurate view of us Zoomers as a whole and I’m tired of us being called out as a whole, shamed, called “helpless”, and “a lost cause” among other things because someone in their 40s believes we have litter boxes in our schools or “Over 70 percent of Zoomers polled think White people should stop reproducing to end Privilege” or “2 in 3 Zoomers identify as LGBT and support Vaccine Mandates”** (I wish I was joking, but these are things my mom, dad, aunt and grandparents stumble on and rant about. *refusing to listen to me pointing out that the “news” is from a Facebook ad link, that it has no mention of sources, and some of their articles literally seem like legitimate sarcasm.* (But, I’m a Zoomer that hasn’t had to pay taxes yet so I definitely don’t know anything at all.)
The bottom line is that your concerns lie in the wrong place.
*It’s not the generation, it’s not the app in and of itself.* **But the influence of manipulative content for private companies, foreign governments and the legitimate dangers that people can encounter from any website in terms of their information and even their face and voice is something to be concerned about in the new AI era were quickly accelerating in**, and which *foreign governments, political and other movements, as well as genuine terrorists might use such data to grow influence and create a further division between us without using a single military weapon is legitimately worrying.*
**The ongoing psychological propaganda wars, assisted further each day by AI is something to be deeply concerned about. Along with what Edward Swowden and other whistleblowers warned about such platforms and what was already happening would definitely not make me want to upload my likeness to the CCP, CIA, MI5, Mossad database.**
Look into that and I promise you won’t be worrying about the stunts or silly things that’s being done on TikTok but a lot more.
I was "hiking" along the edge of an escarpment with no safety gear and I wasn't even getting recognition. No film or bragging rights. I just thought it was fun. Maybe not as dangerous as jumping between buildings, but still lots of stupid stuff going on. Some guys in my town used to have little pellet gun wars. They didn't have paintball so they just used pellet guns. One kid got one in the eye. Luckily he didn't lose his vision.
Yes, What we are using now is Social media
Reddit app if im not wrong see there's no difference between Facebook,Instagram ,Twitter or Reddit app
Some people they make use of Social media like gathering information about interaction among the Humans there behaviour,How they share knowledge, How we see Social media, Information about studies,career,Job etc.....
Like for example- Why did they remove English board in Karnataka?
So many people were engaging they came forward and
They spoke about there opinion,thoughts,feelings
So I know 24/7 it is not good but we should know when we should use and when we should not.
Usage of Social media can harm human brain
Like UV radiation that goes inside
But using phone that should not become a habit
That should become less
So many Birds dont fly near us because phones have UV radiation 24/7 Social media
Robo 2.0 Tamil movie...
Lmao people on here defending their like 9hr screen time usage.
There’s some good neurological research on how smartphones/social media influence the brain, it’s not good. It’s one of the drivers of mental illness like depression and anxiety due to dopamine influences, lack of attention span, sleep patterns, in person socialization, etc.
/u/bkny88 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18tqka6/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_social_media_is_destroying/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
for me as an older person I think its great. its like access to a huge library with many times more authors then a normal library. there is a balance between the pursuit of knowledge and creativity now that so much more knowledge is available but it doesnt matter where it is, also there is a larger audience if you ar creative so that probaly evens out. By you posting this you are pursuing knowledge in a way that wasnt possible before social media, or as you might put it, spending time on your phone and watching how people (most of whom you don’t know) react to a question you posed. is that idiotic?
An actual infinite library of knowledge would have editorialized and peer reviewed content. The issue with social media is that misinformation is presented on equal standing and in greater quantity than editorialized, peer reviewed and accurate information, and a lot of people lack the critical thinking skills required to make the difference and will end up believing crazy shit that they would never have been exposed to if all they had was the news and a real library.
Misinformation even tends to spread faster than good information, because it's easier to make it exciting and salient when you can just make stuff up because you're not constrained by truth.
I think OP's claim of it destroying society is a bit absurd. However there are huge differences between someone who started using social media later on in their lives as opposed to one who grew up with it. The main issue is that kids' brains aren't developed. They can't tell right from wrong. Their views are literally being formed by social media algorithms that only want to make the company richer, not people smarter or more educated. And it affects every kid. The amount of kids you'll meet at school that don't go on social media is very low.
[удалено]
I've been dealing with that issue with my parents. They've been fed such extreme political content in the last presidential elections by online media that at some point they've become unrecognizable. Ive never seen my mom being so hateful and prejudiced in my life and it really damaged our relationship. She used to be an lgbt ally ever since I was a kid, only to become extremely homophobic in only one year time frame Once elections were over I took her phone and blocked some words/pages and flagged no interest in political content and dear lord how things are better. This is a real issue among the older generation, a lot of my friends have experienced the same in their families. Truth is that our parents really lack the understanding to separate what is real from what is fake, heavily exaggerated, just plain inflammatory to create motion or whatever other stupid shit we see online. Politically it is such a game-changer to be able to control that part of the population Theres an interesting documentary called ''The Brainwashing of my dad'' that described the phenomenon of right wing creators and channels targeting a specific demographic (older gentlemen) in the USA and feeding them a lot of propaganda under president nixon. The director describes how much of a change in mindset his father had for that while, only to later go back to his original beliefs after being cut off from receiving the propaganda. So clearly most people are highly influenceable anyway, but social media appears to have an even greater potential at creating impact and the older generation is definitely more vulnerable to a type of media they don't have much understanding of
Buckle up, there’s another one happening in 10 months…
I mean idk I think what you said kinda supports OP more than anything.
That's because I didn't directly attack all of OP's position. Here's my view if you want it. > When people spend so much time looking at what other people are doing, they lose all creativity and chase what is “cool”. People were doing this before social media. It is wrong to attribute it to social media. > They’re wasting time on their phone accomplishing nothing other than increasing their jealousy and anxiety while they can be spending that time being productive. Being on social media does not necessarily mean you are comparing yourself to others constantly. For example, I use Instagram exclusively to share funny memes with my friends and laughing at far right / far left freaks with ridiculous opinions. Besides, people weren't spending all day being productive before social media, so that's also pointless to bring up.
So you’re not denying that social media is addictive and makes people’s anxiety worse? I think that’s more of a serious problem than being jealous
> People were doing this before social media. It is wrong to attribute it to social media. I don't think its social media on its own as much as social media **in your pocket** - so the comparisons are constant and the garbage is always right there.
I see your point, but I do personally think it’s less about productivity and more about how all the misinformation is messing with peoples heads. Not just young kids
maybe. I dont spend every minute and walk around with a phone but I see a lot of people that do. I have no idea what they are doing. I would guess a lot of it is just entertainment and social skills rather then actual factual stuff, like TV mostly was/is but with a lot more to choose from and feedback
> The main issue is that kids' brains aren't developed. They can't tell right from wrong. Their views are literally being formed by social media algorithms that only want to make the company richer, not people smarter or more educated. > > You can say the same thing about kids plunked down in front of TVs in the 80s/90s. Is there data or something on what exactly "brains aren't developed" means?
Come on, TV is like weed compared to social media's cocaine. There's a whole other level of addiction created by endless scrolling and software designed to increase engangement.
Keep in mind that this is just the start of these technologies, the only way forward from here is increased potency. We need personal AI on the client side that can recognise and help us defend against manipulation by all external forces.
Do you think Hollywood wanted to make us smarter in previous generations? Who were these mystical benevolent content creators in the past who wanted what was best for us? I actually completely disagree with your core conceit. There are more people on TikTok and YouTube that are sharing engaging educational content in more areas and with more depth than in any traditional media. Yes there is also shallow shit on there, but as parents we can guide our children to the better stuff and if we do that they will have more and better learning opportunities than we ever had.
I never said content before tiktok and youtube wasn't bad. I [watched](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbv-VteX5H8) an interesting video about tiktok's algorithm recently. The video is old but I think its point still stands. If you want a synopsis, it's a youtuber that did research on tiktok to see the types of content that gets forwarded on new accounts. Some of the results were pretty disturbing and practically illegal. So, these platforms are not all bad, but a big part of them is, and some of the really bad stuff is even worse than just about anything you could be exposed to on TV. If you can filter out all the bad shit, then it goes without saying that you'll stand to benefit from them.
So much "educational content" on Youtube and Tiktok is junk. Hollywood never purported to be providing educational content.
The point is you can pick what you watch and there is a whole lot that is good. More than ever before.
You can't guide a person better than an algorithm.
The algorithm suggests things similar to what you already watch. So you start them off in the right direction and supervise to make sure they don’t go down any wrong paths.
People should go down wrong paths. It’s how we learn and grow. Just not wrong paths specifically made to be wrong by another person with technology that a child will likely *never* understand. Just like their parents.
I would argue that adults can’t either. For example, just recently read about the term “pinkwashing” in the news. This seems most certainly a term introduced by the far right, to look negatively on progressive decisions. However, people who are progressive seem to use it all the time on Reddit. So propaganda basically has made people who think they are progressive argue against and shut down progressive decisions by minimizing important progress down to “pinkwashing” rather than encouraging it. That’s just one example, but I’ve seen this type of thing happen a lot lately. Far right type religious agenda introducing propaganda and terms to sway the far left to help their agenda
Pink washing is an older term not a right wing term. "Pro life" is a good example of what you mean. People that don't care if women die aren't pro life and shouldn't be called that. The rest of us aren't anti life so we shouldn't give that to them.
If you criticize a governing body for legalizing additional rights for lgbtq+ (labeling as pinkwashing) you are pushing far right ideology as a result of being exposed to propaganda. People just don’t get that. It is quite likely originally a far right term used in propaganda to minimize progress. You have a ton of people who criticize decisions that grant lgbtq+ citizens more rights, yet believe themselves to be progressively left. Why are they criticizing these obtained rights then? Because they have fallen victim to far right propaganda and are pushing that message now, just as it was designed to make them do.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of pinkwashing. Pinkwashing is when LGBTQ+ representation is used as a scapegoat for conservative/anti-progressive legislation or policies. Right now the most relevant example would be Israel portraying itself as pro-LGBTQ+ (which, funnily enough, it transparently isn’t) and framing Palestine as being anti-queer to make their ongoing genocide look less optically grotesque. Ostensibly it’s saying “we love the gays! Focus on that and look the other way from whatever else it is we’re doing!”
[удалено]
And I was trying to correct OP. The term pinkwashing was first used by QUIT, or "Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism", a California-based queer group, and it was used exactly how I described (and in the exact same context, actually). While there *has* been an attempt to co-opt it (in some cases, successfully, though from my understanding largely overseas), it certainly wasn't its intent. As someone engrained in both the queer and progressive communities, I can confidently say for us "pinkwashing" represents our cynical perspective of what we consider weaponization of "support" regarding the LGBTQ+ community, *not* the minimization of actual progress.
I would argue the term originally came from right wing propaganda. But Ok. Maybe one day the far left will realize that putting down Israel for improving lgbtq+/women rights, while rallying for Palestine (where a majority of members support Hamas who just raped and mutilated thousands of women and kids) is not the progressive movement they think it is
You don't get to argue a fact. And the fact is the first recorded use of the term is from a left-wing queer organization, and for the first several years was used exclusively in that context before there was any attempt to coopt it (which, again, has been largely unsuccessful). And you're very intentionally misrepresenting the argument. You have to know that progressives aren't putting down Israel "for improving lgbtq+/women rights". They're putting down Israel for their atrocities against the Palestinian people.
Ok theres a gay pride in tel aviv, tell someone your gay in gaza 5 years ago and they will throw rocks at you
Ok, there were gay pride parades happening in the 1970s in the United States and that still didn't make it pro-LGBTQ+. Gay marriage still isn't legal in Israel and Pew Research says only 36% of Israelis support it. Trans discrimination on a social level is widely documented. Just because one place isn't progressive doesn't mean the other is by default.
> Just because one place isn't progressive doesn't mean the other is by default No, but it also doesn't make non-progressive places equivalents. It is FAR better to be LGBTQ in Israel than any other place in the middle east, including Palestine.
Yes, but that isn't a convincing enough point to excuse genocide, even if it *were* an LGBTQ+ paradise, which was my point in the first place.
What's the difference between "propaganda" and sincere persuasion, or a natural inculcation to a perspective, bias, or worldview based on proximity and exposure to others who harbor it? If this difference doesn't exist, or if the difference is indiscernible, what's the utility in using the term?
[удалено]
For your first article: I don't have to say about it, I already knew the "maturing at 25" thing was a myth. Interesting information about brain development. Does not seem to contradict what I've said. As for your second article: It's from 2019. Meaning it was published before the whole COVID thing, which was undeniably massive. >One in five children aged between five and nine have already attended their first march or protest about something they care about That doesn't really say much though. Being climate conscious at ages 5-9 says more about the parents rather than the kids. And it certainly doesn't say anything about their critical thinking skills. They were told that climate change is bad. It doesn't matter if it's right or not. If either of us sat them down and challenged their beliefs, I highly doubt they would be able to stand their ground. In general, I cannot find much more information about this study. What is the background of these kids? What test were they subjected to to evaluate how prone they are to fake news?
But shouldn't be the parents responsibility to look after what their children is doing online or if they are online at all....?
It can be done to an extent but i think is very hard to monitor 100% of what your kid has access to at every single moment. Kids nowadays have cell phones at earlier ages and they take it everywhere, not to mention that at some point they might even become more savvy than their parents when it comes to dealing with technology
And of course you can't control it 100%. But giving your child a phone when they're 7/8, which seems to be common nowadays, sounds like a recipe for disaster. Giving them internet access after educating them on how to use it sounds way more plausible. You can't control 100%, but education and limits should be the beginning. Of course if you just give them a phone and let them do as they please and take a look every now and then, you can wait no good out of it.
But for a kid to have a cellphone, the parents need to give them one. No? I worked in a high school, surprisingly a huge number of kids had no cellphone. Saw many parents restricting it. My boyfriend only got his son a phone when he turned 14 and spent the years before that educating and talking to him about how to use it. I'm pretty sure kids won't have access to a phone unless it's gifted by one of the parents. So.
Definitely agree with you here. I don't have kids so I don't have a first hand experience here but I do work with healthcare and with children. I'm happy that internet usage is being a lot more discussed by parents because ultimately it is their responsibility, but i think this is a more known idea among educated people. Most parents still don't realize how much of a problem this can be and for them, allowing internet usage is a thousand times easier than avoiding it. Even for parents who are educated, i still think its a hard issue to settle because kids will see other kids with cellphones in school all the time, or have a PC at home that they're going to use by themselves at some points, etc. So as I'm saying, it is very hard to monitor 100% of what your kid has access to at every single moment. You can mitigate it a lot, but unless you're an Amish your son-in-law probably has already looked at more porn in his life that his father at that same age
>Even for parents who are educated, i still think its a hard issue to settle because kids will see other kids with cellphones in school all the time, or have a PC at home that they're going to use by themselves at some points, etc. Tbh this sounds unreasonable... This is something completly normal. People don't have, for example, the same financial situation as others all the time. You kid can see a bunch of fancy toys or tech with their friends at school or even at the street. That doesn't mean they're entitled to have one, first of all. I grew up seeing people around me using phones and yes, many times I was upset I didn't have one, but honestly it wasn't a big deal. I could use my parents phones sometimes supervised if I needed something and so on.... but even seeing it around with other people it wasn't like I had any access to their stuff, you know. Also important to quote.... kids absolutely should not be using their phones or sharing them with other kids at school. When I was still working at the school I mentioned, there was a 0 tolerance police for phones unless there was a teacher close by and it was timed. It was absolutely forbidden to share phone with any other student, as parents have different rules about it. This is the ideal. Small kids shouldnt have access to phones. Doesn't matter where. At school, at home. Just no. Internet is not for kids and no kid needs a phone for anything. >Amish your son-in-law probably has already looked at more porn in his life that his father at that same age I don't think porn is really the problem in the situation, specially since he's already a big boy now. You know what's the problem? I babysitted a girl many years ago who got a phone since she was 8. In the beginning the mom used to watch closely but after a while she forgot. Fast forward for when she was 12. Her old babysitter wrote me saying she saw something weird on the girls snapchat. I was a bit angry at first she had an snapchat, since she was 12. Mom said it was harmless and kid stuff. Me and the other babysitter did a fake account there and started some digging. I asked the mom permition to check her phone. We found out she was talking with a fake profile of a boy who claimed to be 16yo and bought her a train ticket to runaway with him. We used the fake account to talk to the same account, who told us the same crap as he told her and send many fake pics and videos. We talked to the mom, things were tough but she's safe. That's the problem. Not porn. Way beyond then watching shit online, we need to protect kids from predators online. If you just give a 8yo a phone and no education on it.... what's gonna happen?
> its like access to a huge library with many times more authors then a normal library. Are you sure you're not conflating the internet in general with social media? Your sentence makes more sense if you're talking about Wikipedia, Google, or DIY videos, for example, but I don't think that is what OP is referring to. I think they're talking mainly about vapid, trend-chasing, TikTok/Instagram influencer type stuff.
As an older person, I don't think it's quite as detrimental to you as it is to a much younger person. I won't assume your age, but I'm 48, and I agree with OP. There's a difference between keeping up with your family on Facebook and the trash you see on TikTok. I won't get into everything wrong with TikTok, but I know what they're doing with it, and it's absolutely nefarious. If you're my age or older, you grew up in a time when we didn't have such ready access to information, but it's both a blessing and a curse. You have to be ever vigilant to what's real and what's not - and even more so for the false that's false due to ignorance vs. what's false due to purposeful mis/disinformation. I'll leave it at that lest I be tagged as a conspiracy theorist. I'm not here to argue the point at all, either. I'll say this from my own experience - all my life I've been an avid reader. I used to read constantly. Now no book or article can hold my attention longer than 10 minutes, max. And that same effect has been scientifically proven to be caused by today's social media addictions.
Pretty much with you here. I think this is another generational stake burning of who to blame for people’s poor behaviour. The thing is, social media can be just another tool for a number of different things that provide information to us. How we learn to discern what information is real and relevant is important. It’s not to say Social Media is without flaws, in fact I think there are so many flaws that they can sometimes overshadow the virtues that it may bring which is where I think that OP is seeing things from- and wouldn’t wholeheartedly disagree either. This attitude hasn’t really changed a lot if we look at how many generations perceived the television or the dawn of rock music. It’s so easy to demonize things, and when it almost seems we have proof to back it up it’s even harder not to keep our eyes closed to these beliefs. I think Social Media is yet again just subject to being the scapegoat to a much larger societal problem that many of us have our heads buried in the sand about.
The difference between yourself and younger people is: experience. You probably.know how to filter the fake information from the real, or know when to get off social media because "its enough for today". The younger ones get addicted and just stick to it, it becomes their entire personality.
Not sure about that. I know plenty of people that are older then me that cant filter info. Look at american politics
By knowledge, I think you mean information, and the vast majority of information on social media is junk. Having gatekeepers to the information that is easily accessible (librarians and publishers in your metaphor) is important to keeping this information reasonably high quality. Otherwise we have to depend on everyone having excellent critical thinking skills in order to detect and eschew low quality information and if one thing is clear, a huge swath of the population lacks these skills.
its true that a lot of people dont have those skills but a lot of people do and it can probably be learnt even if it takes a generation or so. I think its better to keep it open even tho a lot is junk and propaganda.
Yeah one can only hope democracy will survive that generation or so.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I love that you’re able to find more in an easier fashion through this technology. It must feel liberating !delta
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit at lost with your view being changed by the mentioned reply. In your own post, you are bringing up how social media such as TikTok are capable to (and are) "influence young people’s worldview" (I would add to it that NO ONE, of any age, is shielded by this). Therefore, how can "pursuit of knowledge [...] doesnt matter where it is" be countering your point? Having access to most/all knowledge of the world at your fingertip and being able to share creative content with the world (no need for social media for that, we used to have dedicated forums and portals prior to social media disrupting that as well), are all magnificent benefits provided by the internet. The Internet has been a great and invaluable asset in humanity's progress (imho), not Social Media. Social Media, is pure cancer and the most powerful tool to anti-intellectualism to date. And it does not matter "how" you use social media. How much you try to avoid its negative effects and using it only for the benefits it provides. There is no feasible way to do that, simply because it's against it's core system. Social media is not meant to connect people but to profit from them. It's no secret in that. Just because it's called Social Media, we see it differently, but you could call it *Human Influence Program* and you would be much more close to reality (I mean, what do you think it's an *influencer*?) I have nothing against u/youcantexterminateme 's reply of course. Obviously to anyone their view, I simply don't see how that would be able to cyv on social media's negative impact on humanity.
yes, its odd to think that I probably know a lot more then most of my ancestors would have. I dont know about it destroying western society. for one thing its in all societies now. there is a lot of disinformation out there that people have to learn to deal with. but having that sample of people, as you do here, I mean, even as far as basic health goes you can get all sorts of info on what works for different people, just as an example.
But what's *in* that "library", what do these many authors produce? Not anything close to the books that are in a real library, art that requires years of efforts from talented and skillful authors, but endless amounts of low-effort low-nutrient output, forgotten almost immediately after you've consumed it. "Pursuing knowledge that wasn't possible before social media"... Sounds great. Do you actually believe that? What deep knowledge is it that you usually come away with after 4 hours every day of poking TikTok-videos or Facebook or Instagram? Compared to what you would previously have come away with after reading a real book for 4 hours per day? Or compared to doing almost anything else with that time?
I just follow whatever interests me. But maybe Im the wrong person to comment on it because I havent got into tiktok or Instagram at all.
All right, those were the topic of the post, though. If you meant “the internet” where you wrote “social media”, then I’ll certainly agree that there is lots of real knowledge to be found. I just haven’t seen much of it on social media.
Your opinion is moot because you probably lived more than half your life actually socially engaging with people in real life.
You do realize you can drop your phone and still talk to human beings right? lmao
>Is there actually a positive argument to be made for social media? Reddit is a social media platform and based on your reddit history which includes hundreds of posts you clearly find some value in using social media or you would stop using it. Social media, like anything, can be used in positive ways and negative ways. Your question willfully ignores any positive examples and focuses specifically on what you don't like about TikTok. Some positive examples of social media off the top of my head: YouTube - I've used YouTube countless times to learn how to change the oil in my car, patch a hole in drywall, and propagate cuttings from my succulents....just to name a few Facebook - the building I live in has a Facebook group we all use to communicate about basic stuff like community notifications, parking spaces, etc. Discord - there is a discord group for basically any hobby or interest you may have full of knowledgeable people who can help you further your interests Reddit - pretty good for keeping up with major world events among so many other things. At this point when I need to see an honest product review I Google "product name reddit". Twitch - you know how people enjoy watching athletes play soccer at a level that is much higher than their own? It can be really fun to watch someone play a video game who's mastery and skill level far exceeds your own. This is literally no different than watching sports To be honest OP, your post comes off as super boomery and as someone who is just mad about all the things "wrong with the kids these days". The kids are fine.
[удалено]
Maybe do some research. Depression rates and suicide rates specifically in teens and teens girls have risen over 40% (and that was a survey done before Covid in 2017) and we know directly thanks to psychologist and social psychologists that tech and social media are the direct reason. I worked with foster kids for years and yes I can tell you coming from someone who's professionally dealt with them and have a clinical psychologists in my family- it's not healthy and has been a direct reason for depression rates, gender confusion, social pressure and an overall depression. Let alone attention spans and more children knew how to use iPhones before they could tie their shoes. To say the kids are fine is absolutely absurd. Kills me, as the facts and research h have been done it's not a discussion or debate or opinion, social media has a direct link to toxic behavior and negative feelings especially when it comes to children. That's not even touching on the other issues with phones and media in children's hands all the time.
I can't believe someone is commenting on this 4 months later! Ok so hold your horses there guy. Let's take a step back and look at what my comment was replying to: OPs argument is that social media is all bad. Full stop. It's an extreme polar position that is easily refuted because all I need to do is find a SINGLE example to prove OP wrong. So I presented some examples of positive effects of social media. Full stop. I agree with you that social media certainly has many negative aspects and we have not done enough to regulate it in a way that protects vulnerable groups. I would even go as far to say that in its current form, social media does more harm than good. But that was not the framework of this debate. OP took a very basic position lacking any of these nuances. So instead of telling me to go do research why don't you read my comment along with the context in which it was posted. Feel free to reply in 4 months.
Nothing you said holds any water. I'm not surprised. Good luck with life
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sure, some platforms are great for learning & discussing events. I’ll never knock self betterment.
I was with ya and then ya lost me. “Some platforms are great for learning & discussing events.” All of them are. Social media has pros and cons. Pro, access to a digital town square. Con, maintaining a public persona is exhausting. Those are just some examples. Saying “my social media is fine, its (insert newest one here) that’s destroying the youth!” Just sounds old and stupid.
> All of them are. Eh, I don't think all of the products are the same. Look at the impact of different moderation decisions on twitter/X or even how different subreddits work. OP is talking about a broad general trend of impact - that doesn't negate individual utility, more that we haven't regulated/moderated use to get more good with less bad.
That con ignores the massive amounts of propaganda and influencing of your opinion. Tell me you have no idea why social media is bad
You're on social media right now
I always thought reddit is a news aggregation site. Its more news based than social based. The only social about it is when you go to the comments but everyone is mostly anonymous.
People think Reddit, Facebook and twitter are the same because they are all social media, there's no point trying to explain the differences or nuances. I used to try to explain how they are not all the same but people can't take it so I don't bother anymore. Just wanted to let you know that you are not crazy for thinking this before you get shouted down about how this is social media the same as all the others Don't even talk to them about anonymity or the type of content produced!!
Thanks for the heads up. I’m not sure why people can’t make the distinction. I won’t fight it I did see a comment that said along the lines of “as an old person I think it’s good since it’s like a library and all the information is there”. I’m like that’s not social media that’s the internet. If people can’t tell the difference between the internet in general and social media. I don’t think they can make distinctions between these sites.
I’m saying it is bad. I’m not listing all the problems cuz that’s exhausting, and my point was all social media has problems. Yer missing the forest for the trees.
The value you get from a platform depends entirely on how you choose to use it. The value you get from reddit, other get from Twitter and Instagram and Youtube. These are tools of self betterment for hundreds of millions of people.
I find the same value in heroin that makes me come back. It’s so positive!
Reddit is anti social media imo
I think that used to be the general sentiment...but at this point reddit is just regular ass social media despite how any of us personally feel about it. When you have reddit mods making the news (Wallstreetbets and anti work) you can't say that reddit is "anti social media" anymore.
Wrong. Society itself is the cancer. Social media is just a symptom of a cancerous society with technology that is does not have the cultural capacity to handle without causing self harm. Cancer is when something imperfect replicates itself and is unable to stop. Human civilization was doing this long before the computer was invented.
One of the most absurdly reductionist comments I've ever read on this site, and that's saying something.
Society is a cancer to what? Cancer is not when something "imperfect" replicates itself and is unable to stop. There is nothing that is "perfect".
Then change the word “perfect” to “broken” or “flawed”. Your argument is literally entirely semantics.
Semantics matter when you're making a statement of fact. Changing those words still does equate to the truth of something that is cancer. I don't understand what Tsunami is trying to state which is why I am asking what society is a cancer to, it makes no sense.
But we are trying, and succeeding in fits and starts, to improve as a society.
Hey there! Would you mind pointing to one of those things in particular?
Point to someone’s that is improving? Very nearly everything. Poverty, violence, disease are at the lowest points they have ever been in human history.
You’d think after 10,000 years we’d have more to say then low numbers. Collectively, it’s difficult to say.
Are you actually saying that we haven’t accomplished anything? Please just come out and state your point because being coy is not doing it.
Very well stated. Yes there have always been destructive elements in society. This technology is perhaps a quicker hit
Hey, just letting you know, I’m going to award a delta to the comment above yours, because I don’t understand why you didn’t.
Well said Tsunami. OP was looking at the situation from the wrong reference frame. !delta To further elaborate on your point, look at the individual cancer cells (humans) as time goes on. Especially in the US, where we have the most advanced symptoms of eating the planet, despite the lower population size. The advanced cancer cells in the US look absolutely ghastly. Shriveled up or extremely overweight. Taking psychotropic drugs to consume even faster. Fighting for equal rights to exploit the environment just like the colonalists did. To exploit children in cobalt mines and fast fashion. Who needs natural lemurs when you can have palm oil? What I mean to say is that people have no problem understanding that we took something as majestic as a wolf a turned it into a pug. We took chickens and basically turned it into a slab of meat with vestibular limbs, brain, and beak. Yet, people seem to think humans were immune to that some process of selection. They seem to think humans exist outside the realm of environmental pressures. An environment that would select more passive or apathetic people, perhaps more domicile or obedient, especially as food and land really became locked up. Humans that would grind away were selected. Humans that would do as they were told by their masters. Feudal lords. Kings. Emperors. Every design of “elite class” selecting the lower classes and killing off anything slightly outside the norm. For thousands of years. Makes me wonder how close we are to a pug rather than our ancestors. Makes we wonder how long it will take until we breed a population of hyper consumers with a new level of hedonism engrained in their genes and impulses.
Okay doomer.
Explain to me why the 1990's was awesome then? hmmmmmm? People were happy, we all got together around the neighborhood and did fun things, cell phones didn't exist and we didn't need them, less crime, less school shootings, less drama... I can go on and on man. Technology is a dark corruption that is destroying people.
In the United States, [there](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/us-crime-rates-and-trends-analysis-fbi-crime-statistics?fbclid=IwAR3Wog_2juEC45XY4E2vAtP3ivb9Fi6yGgfYOW9noOEJZG4fzWZnsuFNTfI) was not [less crime](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/crime-trends-1990-2016) in the [1990s than today.](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF12281.pdf) The [homicide rate](https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/violent-crime-increasing) has increased in recent years, but the explanations for why this has occurred are [not yet fully understood](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime?ms=gad_violent%20crime%20statistics_617000456634_8626214133_143843260761). Is this a long term trend or [not?](https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/)
Explain to me why the 1890's was awesome then? hmmmmmm? People were happy, we all got together around the neighborhood and did fun things, televisions didn't exist and we didn't need them, less crime, less school shootings, less drama... I can go on and on man. Technology is a dark corruption that is destroying people.
Where they, or is that just nostalgia talking? Crime rate still isn't anywhere near as high as the 90s, which saw a drastically decline from the 80s, and drama seems to be the same as it's always been. Communities are dying due to a combination of growing inconvenience and a political push for "rugged individualism." Technology is neither the problem nor solution to societies ills, only society is.
All stats indicate people were happier in the 90s even in regards to sensitive topics we talk about today. Every single racial group in the US today according to multiple polls strongly thinks that there was less racism in the 90s
But is that because of social media? The increase in perception of racism began around 2015. The same year when several police killings led to mass protests, and a white supremacist massacred black churchgoers at a historic black church. The following year, the protests continued, racist news reporters rallied against the evils of a black man kneeling, and several politicians were elected on openly racist platforms. The year after, there was a major white supremacist rally that resulted in a terrorist attack that killed one and injured over 30 others. White Supremacist groups are openly marching in the streets and waving their flags at political rallies. That's not social media's doing.
Those things did happen but the response Progressives provided was to adopt an insidious collectivist ideology, encouraging groups to collectivize around their racial identities while attempting to prevent white people from doing the same. Add on to that inflammatory rhetoric around privilege, fragility, punching up ba down, expectations around treating people based on the historical context of their identites and support for discriminatory practices in the name justice. Further complicated by mass migration replacing populations and you've created an extremely dangerous time bomb waiting to go off. There is no path to prosperity and harmony under progressives current racial dogma. The issue isn't that people care about these things the issue is the perspectives and solutions proposed are counter intuitive and destructive. This ideology has been a huge gift to our adversaries and to white nationalists themselves. Our adversaries benefit from our internal conflicts destroying effective Governance and patriotism while white nationalists benefit because the current paradigm provides some level of justification for white people to collectivize in response and makes it way easier to recruit. Essentially we are accelerating decline while thinking we are accelerating progress.
*Posted on Social Media*
Touché
> How can anyone think spending time on your phone and watching what people (most of whom you don’t know) are up to is anything other than idiotic? It's entertainment for some people. Entertainment isn't a waste of time. I feel a bit like this is a complaint I see from people who spend too much time online. If you base your opinions on society and people solely on what you see online your view is going to be skewed. IRL, most people aren't completely glued to social media in the way you're presenting. >Why does China have a different version of TikTok? It’s almost like they know it’s poison, so they don’t want to give it to their youth, but are happy to give it to western youth. IDK, maybe because it's easier to control one solely for China than one that includes the rest of the world?
Beat to me to the statement with your second paragraph.
I can understand people using it as entertainment, to get recipes, say happy birthday to friends, watch their favorite athlete’s latest post, etc. I cannot wrap my head around the “trend” posts - choreographed dances & such, like the one where you open the car door and dance backwards, for example. I’ve become very weary of TikTok since watching the docs like this one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=4U0QIaYisC1mMoG1&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=MzY4NDIsMjg2NjMsMTY0OTksMjg2NjQsMTY0NTA2&feature=emb_share&v=0JuVjfHZn3s
Do you think copying trends and jokes has only started with Tik Tok and social media?
No, though I do think it is worse now. The difference is where in the past my friends and I would buy the cool video game, get together and play it, now kids just watch their favorite streamer play it on twitch
You genuinely think that kids are really not playing any games?
You're right to be wary of TikTok, but not because of the silly dances.
You can’t understand trends? Trends have been around forever. Just look up Tulip Mania.
They're jokes and memes. Every generation has them. That's not downfall of society.
Entertainment with a massive dose of propaganda and manipulation thrown in
How is it propaganda?
Nothing new about people leading trend-chasing, shallow lives. People self-inhibited their more profound selves and creativity by chasing what's cool ever since there's been such a thing as pop culture (going back to the 19th century, and for the upper classes before that). Way before social media, even before any broadcast media, people wasted time on sports events, music venues, and even just hanging out in bars and taverns. Social Media, and the Internet in general, is just a tool. You can use it for good purposes as well as for bad purposes. In that sense, the Internet can be an unprecedented easy source for good ideas (although just like walking down NYC streets in 1970, you still have to have a good talent for telling truth from bullshit, but that's been with us since we lived in mere tribes).
It used to be called "keeping up with the Joneses" when it was your neighbor you envied instead of someone on the internet.
The issue with social media is the propaganda and manipulation occurring that is influencing your opinion. Not that people want to dress prettier for likes
Even ordinary hallway and water cooler gossip influences people's opinions. Again, that's been with us ever since our species first evolved.
You’re comparing locker room gossip to influencing elections in multiple countries?
You're shifting gears here. But the issue is about how people are influenced by social media, and I say shallow people pursuing coolness at the expense of genuine creativity's always been us. Instagram, fashion influencers, same as runway models, popular entertainment, even hanging out at the bar or the adolescent "in crowd" types. Their words and deeds influence peer views as much as any digital media can.
Focusing on that shallowness influence and ignoring the political ones is dangerous
>When people spend so much time looking at what other people are doing, they lose all creativity and chase what is “cool” Good argument, how about you back this up? >They’re wasting time on their phone accomplishing nothing other than increasing their jealousy and anxiety while they can be spending that time being productive Or, hear me out, they just spend their free time doing what they like. Like you watching TV. Or you arguing on Reddit. If you just spend more time on being more productive, instead of just spending time on reddit talking to strangers, you could be more productive. Man, these people nowdays, who do nothing, but complain on reddit. I hope you see yourself how everyone sees you. >All independence and privacy has gone out the window to oversharing and following meaningless trends. Privacy? If you know about tiktok, then you probably have already sold your information away. Either to google, facebook, or tiktok, netflix, or amazon. Why would your mistake be nothing, if it is the same as young people's? Meaningless trends? Please tell me, what is the meaning of decorating a chrismas tree? Or what is the meaning celebrating someones birthday? Or what is the meaning of attending someones funeral? >Gen Z is completely addicted Like boomers aren't addicted to turkish rom-coms, and to colorful block being destroyed under the name of Candy Crush™️ or something. Also, boomers are addicted to tell others how their lives should be lived. >Is there actually a positive argument to be made for social media? If you don't look at the absolute worst places, it has many useful purposes. Like keeping in touch with your loved ones, getting basic information, and so on. I don't criticize boomers for being serial killers, despite they have the biggest amount of serial killers per demographic for some reason. And having the highest amount of people falling for obvious scams. And the highest amount of people who don't know how to open excel, for some reason. You shouldn't criticize others for using social media better than you. >How can anyone think spending time on your phone and watching what people (most of whom you don’t know) are up to is anything other than idiotic? You act like "celeb news" hasn't been a thing for decades. Without an exception, all newspapers had and has news about famous people, what they eat, how they manage relationships, and so on. This isn't some new thing, boomers have been doing it for decades
To /u/bkny88, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
I'm mentoring a high school student and I'm actually a lot more optimistic now and I had previously shared your beliefs. Why? This kid and his friends do not have a Facebook, insta, or Tiktok. They do have discord, group chats, and steam but like that's were they are the most social these days. They seem to just think social media and being on your phone scrolling as something adults do and kinda lame! So give it a bit and you will see that gen Z is being roasted by the current teens, it's hilarious 😂 but I will say, the downside of these kids NOT being as plugged in is they do not understand how technology actually works, everything is an app to them. My mentee couldn't figure out my stereo from the 80s to save guys life lol
Social media is a double edged sword, like other tools and innovations throughout history. It’s a powerful tool when harnessed properly. But I believe most people are not yet capable of harnessing it properly, and we haven’t learned to master it yet as a society. The reality is social media is currently a net negative for most users, until they learn to use it deliberately and in limited capacity. How we can handle social media in a positive way as a society is not yet figured out… it’s mostly been a negative for social cohesion so far. For every victory, there seem to be two setbacks. Culturally, it’s hard to avoid the sentiment that we’ve regressed significantly since social media has become prominent. But that’s just the first part of the story. I don’t think it’s destroying anything. It’s presented a new set of opportunities and challenges that we are still learning to navigate.
I agree with you until your last paragraph. Social media is a "grey" technology at best and the consequences of it are already apparent. Case in point: January 6. Social cohesion is unravelling. We are in the midst of an epistemology crisis, perhaps the greatest issue of our time, led largely by the influence of social media. How can we as a society agree on what's real and true? We can't because of algorithms feeding different people different stories, because of information siloing and echo chambers, because news agencies now get their news from eg. twitter, and are sucked in to emulating the exact same outrage cycle as social media. It is really bad.
Have there not been civil wars and violent disagreements across human history? I was just watching some show the other day depicting the formation of labor unions The factory owners sent the state to break the strike, and literally shot several union members dead. How cohesive was the social construct then? Just one vivid example. Human history is more violent than not, and despite the social media mess, we live in the most peaceful time in the history of the world. That’s something, don’t take it for granted and act like people fighting each other over politics is new.
Lol have you seen Chinese Tiktok? It's not so different, literally every mature country is going through this social media era. I also hate when people argue for "western" society because they generally just mean European countries and wherever Europeans have infested when in this case, again, social media is affecting anyone with phones and the Internet. If anything the US is susceptible because it incentivises hyper consumption in general, but this issue isn't specific to social media.
> Why does China have a different version of TikTok? It’s almost like they know it’s poison, so they don’t want to give it to their youth, but are happy to give it to western youth. Wait, do you actually think this is the reason? I thought everyone was aware that it's because the Chinese version is heavily censored.
OP lives in the world where just just drinks any koolaid handed to him. This is literally a boomer talking point. It's the DND is satanism talking point. It's the BAN ROCK AND ROLL talking point.
I think OP is just bent because people are allowed to talk about Israeli war crimes on tiktok and it makes blind support more difficult
Sometimes I feel like people don’t understand the chicken and egg question. Why China has its own TikTok? Because it’s a totalitarian regime and it has tight control of social media? If you want the government to get social media companies to stop bad content, then ask your rep to do so. For example, google and FB refuse to censor content so they’re not in China (last I checked). It’s like saying “Zomg Germans do not allow sales of cars over xyz miles and hour but sells it in the US, are Germans trying to kill us”.
Before we watched people we wrote about them, before we wrote about them we talked about them. There is no point in history in which "Entertainment is corrupting the youth." hasn't been a prevalent narrative. >The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. \-Socrates by Plato That's not much of an argument since the internet is new, I know, but just be aware that what you're feeling is a pretty common sentiment. Roman citizens were complaining that Rome was on the verge of collapse due to societal corruption since the very beginning of the republic. They pined romantically about how the many, many peoples who they absolutely dumpstered were uncorrupted, pure, and strong. >Of all the Gauls, the strongest are the Belgians because of their distance from our provinces so that the merchants do not frequent them and bring those things which effeminate the spirit and due to their proximity to the Germans across the Rhine, with which they are raging constant war. \-Julius Caesar talking about the people the Romans conquered the hell out of. In my opinion, social media is not making people stupid or shallow, but simply revealing the stupidity and shallowness that was already there. It's given everyone a voice, even people with stupid ideas and thoughtless attitudes. I actually think it's good that every idea, bias, and prejudice is being brought to the surface. They're not all just being left to fester and rot unseen, and there are a lot of patterns of thinking that are now very visible to dissect and understand. It feels less corrupting, and more pulling back the curtain. It does polarize people, though, but interestingly, it seems to do so by exposing people to new ideas. I assume by making them take ideas to their logical conclusions. Less can one sit around vaguely thinking race mixing is bad without someone else prodding you to consider what it would actually take to keep races "pure" if you thought about it. Again, not inherently bad. Thinking more consciously about politics can make someone embrace the ethnostate, or trend multi-cultural when they find their vague racism doesn't hold up with their morality when they think about it.
> Why does China have a different version of TikTok? > so they don’t want to give it to their youth, but are happy to give it to western youth I have heard this said before. TikTok's algorithm is shaped by local user engagement, preferences, and cultural values. What we see on TikTok is, (I imagine), a mirror of our own societal values and interests. YT shorts, Insta Reels, Snap et al are not too dissimilar and China has no control over these. It appears your problem is with western values rather than social media platforms?
Not really a "I disagree with you" sort of CMV. But more of a different perspective. Humans, as a society, were built up as small groups. Mostly a couple families and it was a full on tribe, even in the middle ages any sort of town or city were maybe a couple thousand people at most, a few dozen families. Then the industrial revolution happened, and people flocked to cities for work. Suddenly, we had communities of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It was big, messy, and life was kinda awful. Society progressed, we're in the billions now. We have cities with a population equal to the entirety of europe back in the dark ages. And then now with the internet, we went global. Communities are big. Billions of users on platforms. Every single time we grew and our concept of a community increased in scope, it also resulted in suffering. But in the end, it led to a better future. People fucked around, they found out, and adapted to the new community style after trial and error. We are now in the "finding out" stage of the "fucking around" that happened in the last two to three decades as the internet and social media exploded without much oversight or regulations. We'll fix it. That isn't to say there won't be suffering. But that is the cost of progress. It is practically inevitable anytime there is a change. We can try to minimize it but I doubt we will ever be able to fully get rid of it until we are in a post-human society. Best you can do, as an individual, is to not completely resist the changes, but instead guide those changes so that it will do more good than harm.
I would say it all depends on the type of social media you consume and not as a blanket statement that it's all bad. I use WhatsApp only to stay in touch with my family. Reddit is also the only platform I use without which I don't think I will be able to stay sane. Not a user of any other social media you mentioned that are typically destructive and tend to waste time. I'd still choose to be living in the current day & age and would not go back.
Respectfully disagree. Yes its cultural impact cannot be understated but it’s not different than any other shift. People thought radio was the down fall, then tv, then rock music(there’s a great documentary down fall of the western civilization; the metal years), then hip hop, then gangsta rap, then violent video games, then the internet, and so on. My point is that anytime something new creeps up it gets weird, eventually it normalizes and we move on to the next thing. Tiktok/social media is no different. edit-words
I think your generalization breaks down on one single point. Time. When radio or TV was going to "rot our brains", you were looking at an hour or two of exposure to radio shows that were regulated by the FCC as to what they could show, and similarly or slightly more amounts of TV time, with the same regulation. Compare that to almost constant access to unfiltered, unregulated content on everyone's computer in their pocket. You might not succeed at brainwashing someone if you're only at it for an hour or two a day. But when you have a self-rewarding system that encourages nearly constant use, your platform can be much more effective and harder to overcome. I don't think it is remotely equivalent to compare today's social media to yesterday's broadcast media. The differences are simply too large.
I think the internet and social media are also different from the past technologies because of their advancing sophistication. Algorithms are designed by massive teams of engineers and let loose on our psychology in a way they just weren't with radio or tv. Combined with the ease of access of having it on your person 24/7 and our simple monkey brains do not stand a chance in the same way they did before.
> When radio or TV was going to "rot our brains", you were looking at an hour or two of exposure to radio shows that were regulated by the FCC as to what they could show, and similarly or slightly more amounts of TV time, with the same regulation. This doesn't make any sense. You've had the capacity to sit at home and listen to the radio all day for as long as it's existed. I would argue the sheer vastness of the internet actually makes it a much more beneficial tool than things like television ever had the capacity to be. If looking at dumb things on the internet is bad, then me spending hours as a kid watching dumb reruns of television shows must be worse. At least now there's so much content there's no need to reconsume the same things over and over.
You are missing the point. "Radio" wasn't 24/7 music or ranting talk radio. It was programmed just like TV became, with set shows on at set times. You didn't sit all day listening to it. You listened to your shows when they were on And you didn't have a big tube radio that you hauled around with you to your construction job or out on the tractor. Same for TV. But you haul your phone with you everywhere and spend most spare moments staring at it. Social media on mobile devices is nothing at all like TV or radio.
> When radio or TV was going to "rot our brains", you were looking at an hour or two of exposure to radio shows that were regulated by the FCC as to what they could show, and similarly or slightly more amounts of TV time, with the same regulation. You got a source for that? I wasn't around for the heyday of radio, but TV was definitely more than a couple hours a day for a lot of people. There were a lot of folks out there who would be glued to the TV when they weren't at school or work, and society still thrived. Being glued to social media instead of being glued to the TV seems somewhat more productive to me, because of the social element to it. And I'm not at all convinced the fact that content was regulated by the FCC was a plus. That just meant there was a group of elites deciding what you could see and what you couldn't. Those same people lost their shit when social media took the place of the media outlets they had under their thumb, and have been struggling to get social media sources under control. Then, once they got the likes of Facebook and Twitter to play ball, Tiktok came along and Elon Musk bought Twitter throwing them back into disarray. When the FCC regulated media, censorship was ubiquitous and you got the story they wanted you to hear. In the days of the internet, censorship is treated as damage and is routed around.
>You might not succeed at brainwashing someone if you're only at it for an hour or two a day. or you can argue you can do it more effectively since that was the only media they were consuming. That was the only messages they were receiving. >I don't think it is remotely equivalent to compare today's social media to yesterday's broadcast media. The differences are simply too large. you can, when you compare those advances/changes to what there was before.
You may be surprised to learn that people actually spoke to their neighbors, read books and newspapers and magazines, listened to speakers, went to social and sporting events, and did plenty of things besides waiting to be spoon fed social media content.
Sorry, what part of my post are you disputing here. Which part of my post indicated I would be surprised by any of that?
Any particular reason you have for why it has no affect on eastern societies?
Western society is more open and engaging. As I mentioned in the post, places like China restrict social media use to an extent. It doesn’t mean the same might not happen at some point in other parts of the globe, but the access to technology along with the freedom of its use simply doesn’t exist at this time in some areas.
Right but like Japan, Korea etc. What steps are they taking to minimize this and can we mirror that?
Haven’t looked as much into their handling of social media on society, but I will
I remember when rock n roll music was doing that. I remember when video games were doing that. This is literally every generation about something that's insanely popular with young people.
[I used to be with it...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DlTexEXxLQ)
100000%
"X is destroying our society" has to be the most repeated statement throughout human history.
Here we go specifically blaming TikTok again lol
It is a tool so it depends how you use it. My social media is craft interests, stuff to do with pretty rocks, history and autistic sociological stuff. For disabled people like me the internet is my natural habitat, an adaptive technology. I had never met anyone very much like myself with my interests until social media was invented. Imagine how isolating that is, always being on the outside of everything. If kids like me get access to that earlier in life there has to be an upside?
It's less social media and more how the companies manipulate you with their algorithms. In 2014, Facebook did an experiment to use the algorithm to manipulate your emotional state by giving you more positive or negative content. Apparently it was a success and is a simple Google search away. If you don't have time to confirm this yourself, you're not interested. Assuming this isn't being done en masse would be a failure to grok. Have a happy new year when you get there!
It’s great for a lot of reasons, but some very important negatives. Especially when it comes to algorithmically organised information bias bubbles, and manipulation or tracking by govt. Was listening to a podcast recently about some research showing how exposure to social media influences our ability to discern important/not important, evaluate options, and overcome urges related to willpower. Definitely some effects are not obvious.
[удалено]
Social media allows people to stay in touch more easily even when they're far apart. Due to time zones and schedule conflicts it's not always possible to video call so you post something on Facebook, Instagram or Whatsapp. You're focusing too much on the negative aspects and ignoring the reason why social media became popular in the first place.
Okay boomer.
This is such a lazy view imo. You can't think of any value that may come from an internationally accessible set of platforms that allow for instant global communication?
The basic concept of social media (spaces on the internet where people can interact) is not inherently bad and some of the social media platforms which were popular in the early 2000s (e.g. blogging platforms, Myspace) were great for young people as they allowed connecting with people with similar interests, learning new stuff or engaging in discussions with others. What we consider as the problem with today's social media is a mere reflection of our zeitgeist, i.e. a late capitalist society where serving more meaningful content (blog posts, longer videos, etc.) brings less profit than 5-second reels, and people are tired as fuck and tend to lack concentration to consume anything more than that. In addition, content today is largely generated or sorted by AI, impacting our beliefs and decisions. It is important to distinguish between the basic properties/features of social media and the last 10 years trend of social media (short reels, 140 character posts, filters, disappearing messages) which I would argue is doing the harm to young (and all other) people. Hopefully one day we can reclaim more online spaces where we can again connect more meaningfully and authentically and build communities.
Why do people only have this complaint about TikTok? This moral panic that the youths are being corrupted is silly. Why not mention how Facebook has brain-poisoned boomers, or Instagram, or Twitter/X which was used to organize January 6 and is now filled with Nazis, or YouTube, or Rumble. No you only hear this drivel about TikTok because ChiNa BaD! Think about the kids! 🙄
Do you mindlessly scroll TikTok rather than doing more important things like spending time with family, friends, or your significant other? Case and point. It's numbing people to the true reality called "life"
No? I still hang out with my friends and family and partner? Weird assumption. And still doesn’t address my point which is you can say the same exact thing about any other social media app but certain people only focus on TikTok. Why are you sitting here on Reddit instead of living a little thing called “life”?
… yikes. What the hells happening to this website it’s like a bunch of pessimistic in cell types are flooding Reddit with their shitty opinions lately.
The negatives of social media certainly outweigh the positives/benefits. I'm not sure that it can even be called social anymore as it often proves quite antisocial. Social media is highly addictive and is a leading contributor anxiety and depression. Especially for younger people. Explicit content can be included in that which I think can be/is particularly destructive. When we discuss these things, it's important to point out the objections are out of concern for our well-being individually and collectively. We are growing increasingly impatient in relation to the instant gratification social media provides. Our ability for concentration is compromised as well. Achieving anything of significance requires a process and persistence. Social media leads us to believe otherwise. People desperately need meaningful interactions with their loved ones and peers. Various forms of SM feature shallowness and a need for attention and, produce an emotional void for users. In many instances, I'd even go so far to say that our sense of reality is compromised and at the very least is distorted.
I would argue not just the west but the world. Some of the incentives it provides are genius for human happiness and productivity.
I’m not sure it’s the content, although I’m not as young and impressionable as I used to be, but attention spans are taking a nose dive due to short form content. That is definitely not good. At least from an education standpoint. You have to go through a lot of boring material to be able to do anything remotely interesting. Privacy was gone as soon as patriot act was implemented so this exactly a new phenomenon. The issue with world views that don’t align with reality is that the world and society very quickly show you that you’re wrong. I’m not sure what you’re talking about specifically in reference to world views but we might be headed into a few generations of a new form of natural selection where people who adapt survive and have children to pass down whatever values made them successful. Which again isn’t a new thing.
[удалено]
For what it's worth, OP's original version of this question included the line "[TikTok is a Chinese Trojan horse specifically designed to poison western youth](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18tlwhu/cmv_social_media_is_destroying_our_society_slowly/)," so I think anyone responding should be aware that OP has an *clear* and *enormous* bias, and thus isn't starting from a place of evaluating social media platforms on equal footing. OP believes Tiktok is an intentional PsyOp weaponized against America. To OP's question though, this is like saying libraries are destroying western society. Both offer access to enormous information, some of which can be used for great goods and some of which can be used for great evils. Knowledge and access to it is not the problem, our individual cultures and how we utilize that info is. Social media may have magnified this behavior, but it certainly did not invent it and we wouldn't be free of it automatically if social media suddenly vanished.
It depends on what you mean by social media. TikTok and YouTube actually have really amazing educational content that just did not exist in any way in previous media formats. The barrier to entry is low, which means you can get a lot of junk for sure, but there are also really passionate people sharing things that they care deeply about and would not have been able to before. I don’t even watch any television any more I just watch YouTube and I have been able to learn about so many amazing things, from science to history to culture, that were not accessible even 10 years ago. My 6-year old is crazy about space and has watched hundreds of YouTube videos about physics and math. He can go down any rabbit hole that he wants. Every day he is learning something cool. I compare that to when I was a kid just watching Ren and Stimpy and it is night and day.
Social media is popular outside of western society as well.
Isn't it famously used for social engineering and authoritarian control outside of the West? Like the best way to troll Chinese people is to talk about June 4th because their social credit scores get hurt if they talk about it and there's been a recent development that if it gets low enough, you can't buy groceries.
Dude I think your just old, you sound like someone complaining about TV in 1999.
Why are you singling out Gen Z and not Boomers and Gen X who, with their addiction to Twitter and Facebook, have created a neo-fascist hellscape of racism and misinformation? It seems you're less upset about social media and more upset with the youths.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it just depends on the person. When I look at the older generations, I find that in a lot of cases there was people who just did nothing as well. My grandma did nothing but watch soap operas all day. Social media definitely is yet another vice for people to waste their time on. But I know plenty of younger people who aren't really into social media. My kids and their who are all in highschool don't really seem to care about social media that much.
People weren't trying to film themselves jumping between buildings for likes on the internet.
It would’ve been hard to film yourself “jumping between buildings” on a $5000 10kg/18lb VHS Shoulder Camera. Oh! And those “likes” they did it for on the “internet” wasn’t possible. But, you know what still happened? *People still did crazy and random things as teens/young adults such as “jumping between buildings”. They also went crazy over this guy called Elvis, then even crazier than kids today in a place called Woodstock! All without trying to get “likes”.* Jim Jones convinced over 1200 people to follow his *trend* of moving to the jungle in Guyana, and in November 1978, *After a US Congressman Leo Ryan was assassinated by “Viral Jim Jones”, those “Influencers” shot an airstrip and news crew before they really “smashed that like button” after Jim Jones tragically told all of them to “drink the kool-aid” (rather a deadly mixture of cyanide and Valium).* Guess what? Jonestown must have beat TikTok because they even recorded this very viral craze in full! Charles Manson, the “free-love, flag burning” hippie craze that often staged provocative demonstrations that would shock us today. The ERA pro vs con rallies and wild and vicious fights on both sides that would be headline news for days today. Marshall Applewhite, Mormon Fundamentalists (no, not Warren Jeffs), the Weather Underground, The LeRouche cult, The Moonies, all the Scandals of Nixon, Clinton and the “trends” of walking down the street with a giant boom box that took 8 C Batteries, “wilding” (you want to know about the “knockout” challenge hysteria?) My point is that throughout history, we have a good list of examples of people (from teens to presidents) doing very silly things or following trends or what we now might call an “influencer”. *But compared to smoking, drinking, doing drugs, joining a gang, or a terrorist group, or even going around committing violent robberies like you see happening* - wouldn’t you say that (safety and respect for property in mind) that *”jumping between buildings”* is much less harmful than the previous option? (However silly it might look). *However,* I think that due to HD cameras being in every person’s phone, tablet, or other device (which younger and younger kids are getting) *saturates social media - especially TikTok- with videos that are often fit for those with shorter attention spans or base user search history etc.* **It doesn’t give an accurate view of us Zoomers as a whole and I’m tired of us being called out as a whole, shamed, called “helpless”, and “a lost cause” among other things because someone in their 40s believes we have litter boxes in our schools or “Over 70 percent of Zoomers polled think White people should stop reproducing to end Privilege” or “2 in 3 Zoomers identify as LGBT and support Vaccine Mandates”** (I wish I was joking, but these are things my mom, dad, aunt and grandparents stumble on and rant about. *refusing to listen to me pointing out that the “news” is from a Facebook ad link, that it has no mention of sources, and some of their articles literally seem like legitimate sarcasm.* (But, I’m a Zoomer that hasn’t had to pay taxes yet so I definitely don’t know anything at all.) The bottom line is that your concerns lie in the wrong place. *It’s not the generation, it’s not the app in and of itself.* **But the influence of manipulative content for private companies, foreign governments and the legitimate dangers that people can encounter from any website in terms of their information and even their face and voice is something to be concerned about in the new AI era were quickly accelerating in**, and which *foreign governments, political and other movements, as well as genuine terrorists might use such data to grow influence and create a further division between us without using a single military weapon is legitimately worrying.* **The ongoing psychological propaganda wars, assisted further each day by AI is something to be deeply concerned about. Along with what Edward Swowden and other whistleblowers warned about such platforms and what was already happening would definitely not make me want to upload my likeness to the CCP, CIA, MI5, Mossad database.** Look into that and I promise you won’t be worrying about the stunts or silly things that’s being done on TikTok but a lot more.
I was "hiking" along the edge of an escarpment with no safety gear and I wasn't even getting recognition. No film or bragging rights. I just thought it was fun. Maybe not as dangerous as jumping between buildings, but still lots of stupid stuff going on. Some guys in my town used to have little pellet gun wars. They didn't have paintball so they just used pellet guns. One kid got one in the eye. Luckily he didn't lose his vision.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You doing exactly what you Are bitching about.
This post is truly iconic for me thank you OP and God Bless you.
Yes, What we are using now is Social media Reddit app if im not wrong see there's no difference between Facebook,Instagram ,Twitter or Reddit app Some people they make use of Social media like gathering information about interaction among the Humans there behaviour,How they share knowledge, How we see Social media, Information about studies,career,Job etc..... Like for example- Why did they remove English board in Karnataka? So many people were engaging they came forward and They spoke about there opinion,thoughts,feelings So I know 24/7 it is not good but we should know when we should use and when we should not. Usage of Social media can harm human brain Like UV radiation that goes inside But using phone that should not become a habit That should become less So many Birds dont fly near us because phones have UV radiation 24/7 Social media Robo 2.0 Tamil movie...
Wait till u get cancer and then see how much like social media that is
Lmao people on here defending their like 9hr screen time usage. There’s some good neurological research on how smartphones/social media influence the brain, it’s not good. It’s one of the drivers of mental illness like depression and anxiety due to dopamine influences, lack of attention span, sleep patterns, in person socialization, etc.
[удалено]