Conservatives keep saying they need to create an alternative to Facebook, but after many years they still haven't done it, or all the alternative options are really bad and are not very functional. I'm not an expert on this, but this doesn't seem like the type of thing that should be too hard.
were talking about Trump supporters here, the ones that believe in the "Q" and stormed the capital.... the propaganda is working on them
related thread: Facebook exerts pressure to get ex-employee's website taken down to prevent revealing scandal
It's not facebook alone, internet allowed us to create our own little aquariums, our own little worlds, which is obviously an illusion as we live on the same planet, and even sometimes in the same country. GAFA's, internet and entertainment technology giants are well-aware of the way of the brain work, and how to "hack" it, how to exploit it's weakness to turn it into a profit. We could compare it that to a digital drug. De la Boetie expressed that we have a part of responsibility in our exploitation "tyran are big only because we kneel". It doesn't mean that standing up doesn't come with a cost, or it isn't painfull, but not only internet as it exist today, it's managers have created division, but we also have allowed it to do. And to be fair, there are also a lot of people I don't find any interest to even attempt to communicate with them.
Political messages are only effective if they tell people what they know to be true in their lives, or if they tell people what they want to believe. For most people loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class. Complaining about this aspect of human nature does not change it. I see two reasons for the growing polarization of the United States. The first is the growing diversity of our population. Diversity is not our strength; it is a source of social discord. The second is the growing population. More people means that there is less of everything good to go around. Pay checks that buy a little less every year put people in bad moods.
The problem with creating another facebook is that facebook is inherently a social app, not a political one. Facebook would just be another messageboard if it had started off as a political thing.
With nearly everything having a political connection, conservatives would need to create an alternative to everything. Almost like a complete new "internet infrastructure". It would be daunting, and conservatives don't even seem to be very good at even creating one simple major site that has gained traction.
There was very little politicking when I first joined facebook other than an occasional funny meme or support the troops type post. Then it became mostly political ranting and fighting and I deleted my account. More or less what I did with twitter too though I quit it because I do not like their permabanning conservatives thing. I didn't do any politicking myself and only engaged based on interests in hobbies, etc, but I do support free speech and I did see that policy intended to turn the place into an echochamber like reddit became (which I also quit). I guess I am just a big old quitter, but it is the only tool in my toolbox in this context.
Uh, it ain't just me, 60% of the world's population uses it. I can imagine the "conservative" Facebook. It would be full of conspiracy theory, pseudoscience and misinformation.
For the vast majority these algorithms work as intended. I like Marvel movies, travel, sci-fi books and shows etc... I am glad these algorithm recommends articles and videos that I am interested in rather than a totally random subject. Just as someone interested in baseball, gardening, cars will see recommendation tailored to their interest the algorithms serve an important purpose. Just because a small percentage of people descend down their fake news or conspiracy hole doesn't mean everyone should suffer for it.
I disagree. Tribalism is the cause. Social media simply gives people the option to only listen to and talk to others in the tribe. If you have an open mind and do not view the world as us vs them, then social media is just a great medium or tool to share ideas.
I hate to say it but people 12-13 are probably not on Facebook. Facebook is the online community for middle aged people.
You are correct, creating a social media platform is a pretty basic technology and someone with the wealth that Donald Trump has could easily create one. The problem for conservatives is demographics. Successful social media platforms like Tik Tok, Instagram, Tumblr, WeChat etc... requires constant views and use to ensure success. That is their revenue structure. Who are the people that have their phones in their face all day and that are posting and reading social media? Mostly the young. Who are the most die hard Trump supporters? Mostly middle age or older people that rarely use their phone to look a social media? Ask yourself this simple question. How many times a day did you visit Trump's blog? Now ask yourself how many times a day does your daughter or granddaughter visit Instagram? If you visited Trump's blog as often as she did Instagram I am sure Trump would still be blogging. Also consider the electorial maps. Usually the vast majority of the map is red with pockets of blue around city areas. Those people in those red rural areas probably do not have big social networks. The majority of the people they communicate with are in their community and people they see often. These people are probably less likely to visit a social media platform on a regular basis whereas urban and suburbanites are much more likely to do so. Before covid when I was commuting downtown the majority of people on the train would have their face starring at their phone or laptop. It is a different life style. For example, pretty much everyone I know followed Trump on twitter even though the majority did not support or vote for him. The reason why they did it was because they already use twitter and following an additional person is easy. Now how may Trump supporters on twitter only follow him and installed the app just to see his tweets? The problem is you cannot have a successful social media platform with only those people.
“When we live in an information environment that is full of angry, hateful, polarizing content, it erodes our civic trust, it erodes our faith in each other, it erodes our ability to want to care for each other. The version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world,” she told CBS. Facebook “is tearing our societies apart,” whistleblower says in interview | Ars Technica The same must be said of all social media.. And forums.
IDK.....respectful political discourse is healthy and democratic. Now, when text is allowed on say forums that 'views/labels' a party or political group (not activist group) the enemy, that should not be allowed. Citizens with one view should not be seeing other citizens with different views as the enemy, that's an example of being radicalized. I, too, should try harder to exemplify what's in bold re my post here.
But it is a choice. You check it out. If you like what you see you join in. If you don't like it you avoid it. I once had a page on facebook to promote the products I sell with my business. I never once made a social post to anyone ever. When I decided I didn't like the place and closed my account, Facebook didn't allow me to close it. That was 5 years ago and to this day I get emails telling me about new friends and new posts. I can't stop it. In the past I disliked Facebook. Now I view it as an enemy. I think the place is dangerous. I feel sorry for your 60%.
I think most teens do not want to be on Facebook because their parents are and they have so many other alternatives. Facebook has been around for a close to 20 years so probably the people on Facebook have gotten older with it. It is still a place for them to connect with their social network, share updates, photos etc... The problem is many older people that do not use social media assume Facebook IS social media. This was evident when 75 year old democrat Richard Blumenthal made it clear he has no idea what he is talking about when he confronted a Facebook exec. This video went viral and is probably another example of why we need age limits for politicians. Even if he is not suffering the effects of his age he is still totally out of touch with the electorate he represents.
Respectful political discourse is nice, but it's too often not what I see here. Not when we are bombarded with absurdities and rants about "lefties" or "proggies" and a dozen other hateful labels tossed out at half the country or more, and not with these people constantly posting the same kind of fake news that Facebook is (or is supposed to be) targeting. There is no respectful political discourse with someone who has fundamental disagreements about basic, indisputable facts. It is like being an atheist on a religious forum or a sane person on a woowoo forum. In fact, that's kind of what this forum has devolved into as tabloid-level absurdity has crept in here and at least a little bit into the political mainstream. There is no respectul discourse to be had with someone with a fervent belief in crackpot claims because they're not interested in what you or I have to say so much as they are in spreading their gospel of "alternative facts." Then there are others who clearly post this kind of stuff just to troll and get a reaction, likewise not for the purpose of having any serious, respectful discussion. Too many are not looking for any exchange of ideas, but rather to preach a message or be a nuisance instead. There is no respectful political discourse with someone who is not seeking it in the first place, and forums and social media are full of these kinds of people. More to the point of this thread, forums and social media are a new medium for all of this fake news to spread, and their existence has given rise to a fake news industry that was not even possible before. There were garbage print publications in the past, sure, but they didn't have anywhere near the kind of reach and influence that they do now thanks to the web, and especially these social media sites. It's comparable to news stands being full of tabloids and propaganda rags right alongside real newspapers and being regarded by readers as equal if not better sources of information. The same applies to video, whether it's on YouTube, which has been cracking down a little on at least some forms of disinformation, or that unbridled alternative, Bit Chute (which I call poop chute), which has gained popularity precisely because of YouTube censorship and helps kooks and liars continue to spread their crap all over. It's a common theme these days. Any medium of exchange will be used and abused by people with a nefarious agenda, and unfortunately for our society, it has a very degradating, eroding effect on it when there are just heaps and heaps of lies and propaganda targeting our government or anyone else in a position of authority, and when they get millions of people to believe things like vaccine disinformation or the 2020 electoral fraud claims. These lies cause real harm to people and are much more easily spread online than by any other medium. With the instantaneous broadcast of increasing volumes of information in general, we have seen the volume of misinformation and disinformation increase also, and perhaps disproportionately at that. Then there is just the fundamental difference between text-based communication and in-person communication. There is far less civility in text due to the loss of humanity. You're not talking to a person so much as mologuing for public consumption, like I'm doing right now. There is a lack of empathy in this kind of communication, as well as a lack of the usual social constraints on those who abuse it. No one can be smacked in the mouth for talking crap online, hence the prevalence of trolls who are likely downright polite offline, unless maybe they find themselves in a group of like-minded people where mob mentality would permit them to behave in person the way they do online..
