Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you think technology and social media is the evil people suppose it to be?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    completedit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭completedit


    Greyfox wrote: »
    It works though, YouTube is very addictive for this reason as theirs always interesting videos been suggested. Particularly the way twitter/facebook works it creates more stupid and ignorant people that dont realise their feed is showing only one side of an argument but again it's stupid people who are to blame not social media

    But in all walks of life we put out hat one side of the debate and that's our base position. Look at Economics, philosophy, politics etc.

    We see what we want to see; with or without social media. I see myself guilty of it when it comes to the environment. No matter what I read(and believe me I try to get different takes) my base position is always that we've gone too far and that any sort of attempt beyond scaling down economic activity will be in vain(I also believe in the long run, humanity will sort out those problems and circumvent them)


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I have always found it a little too easy to think it takes stupid people to believe stupid things. Direct experience has schooled me on this too often. Quite often the people believing the dumbest things are themselves really very intelligent and-or articulate people.


  • Options
    #34
    Feisar
    Registered Users Posts: 6,608 ✭✭✭Feisar


    Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »
    Too simplistic.

    Social media is not some inanimate object, it's alive and pulls unsuspecting people into it's twisted web...

    Yes but I don’t think there is a hive mind or mastermind behind it all.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Options
    #35
    JasonStatham
    Closed Accounts Posts: 548 ✭✭✭JasonStatham


    completedit wrote: »
    deleted

    Yes, yes, delete social media. I think it's a great thing you have done. Haha


  • Options
    #36
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    I think Rino, as usual, sums it up best:



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Hyperbollix
    Registered Users Posts: 942 ✭✭✭Hyperbollix


    I don't think Trump could be elected and have a good chance of staying elected without social media. There's a reason his twitter feed is something he spends a large percentage of every day attending to.

    Similarly Brexit. Ok, the Brit's might be predisposed to delusions of grandeur but to get enough of them convinced to happily commit economic suicide for no real reason at all takes a river of propaganda and nonsense the likes of which only facebook et al can supply.


  • Options
    #38
    completedit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭completedit


    Hyperbollix wrote: »
    I don't think Trump could be elected and have a good chance of staying elected without social media. There's a reason his twitter feed is something he spends a large percentage of every day attending to.

    Similarly Brexit. Ok, the Brit's might be predisposed to delusions of grandeur but to get enough of them convinced to happily commit economic suicide for no real reason at all takes a river of propaganda and nonsense the likes of which only facebook et al can supply.

    The problem with your rationale is that the people who voted for Brexit aren't committing economic suicide. Their world was destroyed by globalisation. On the aggregate the UK is far better off but not everyone gains. Millions haven't.


  • Options
    #39
    Gretas Gonna Get Ya!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Gretas Gonna Get Ya!


    Hyperbollix wrote: »
    I don't think Trump could be elected and have a good chance of staying elected without social media. There's a reason his twitter feed is something he spends a large percentage of every day attending to.

    Similarly Brexit. Ok, the Brit's might be predisposed to delusions of grandeur but to get enough of them convinced to happily commit economic suicide for no real reason at all takes a river of propaganda and nonsense the likes of which only facebook et al can supply.

    This speaks more to the fact that the liberal elite control mainstream media, so in order to get any sort of alternative view out to the masses... you've gotta be creative.

    It is a rather sad indictment on our society, that the leader of the free world has to make tweets in order to get his voice heard in an unfiltered way. If it was left up to the liberal media, his views would be twisted and contorted to suit their own very obvious political bias!

    Regardless of what your politics are, this is not a good scenario for society... we need a more balanced representation in our media in the west. Otherwise you risk creating a huge disconnect between the average person on the street, and the intellectuals in society.


  • Options
    #40
    Rubberchikken
    Registered Users Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭Rubberchikken


    Technology is wonderful. It's people who are disappointing.


  • Options
    #41
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    The idea that social media is actually social, useful, or leads to the democratisation of knowledge is a very flawed one. It isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    McGinniesta
    Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭McGinniesta


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I have always found it a little too easy to think it takes stupid people to believe stupid things. Direct experience has schooled me on this too often. Quite often the people believing the dumbest things are themselves really very intelligent and-or articulate people.

    Stupid things are not the same as things that you may disagree with.


  • Options
    #43
    Hyperbollix
    Registered Users Posts: 942 ✭✭✭Hyperbollix


    completedit wrote: »
    The problem with your rationale is that the people who voted for Brexit aren't committing economic suicide. Their world was destroyed by globalisation. On the aggregate the UK is far better off but not everyone gains. Millions haven't.
    It's cool to repeat the mantra globalisation is evil. It's also the reason those same Brits can buy an affordable brand new Kia or Hyundai with a long warranty and impeccable reliability vs the clapped out Austin's and Triumph's their parent's and grandparents drove.
    The EU was nothing more than a bogeyman for right leaning vested interests to point to in order to blame any and all ill's in British society, the majority of which have been caused by domestic governments, not least the last 10 years of Tory austerity. A Brexit deal will be bad for Britain for many years. A no deal will be catastrophic.
    Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »
    This speaks more to the fact that the liberal elite control mainstream media, so in order to get any sort of alternative view out to the masses... you've gotta be creative.

    It is a rather sad indictment on our society, that the leader of the free world has to make tweets in order to get his voice heard in an unfiltered way. If it was left up to the liberal media, his views would be twisted and contorted to suit their own very obvious political bias!

    Regardless of what your politics are, this is not a good scenario for society... we need a more balanced representation in our media in the west. Otherwise you risk creating a huge disconnect between the average person on the street, and the intellectuals in society.

    Trump doesn't have to tweet to get his point across. He can do that at any press conference and at any interview. He chooses to use twitter simply because he can lie and propagandize eregiously with no one to rebutt his nonsense with truth and facts. All the famous dictators and despots of history would have been keen Twitter users, I have no doubt.


  • Options
    #44
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54367998

    Imagine posting a b+w styled photo of yourself after having a miscarriage to instagram.
    imagine the narcissism .... sick sick sick person ..


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ^ I am not sure which I am struggling to understand more. What that has to do with this thread. Or what the actual problem is or what she is meant to have done wrong.


  • Options
    #46
    dotsman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,635 ✭✭✭dotsman


    For me, it is quite simple. Tech, on the whole has been for the good. Social Media, on the whole, has been for the worse.

    Two of the biggest components of social media are vanity/fakeness and controversy/outrage. Both bring out the worst in humans.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    ^ I am not sure which I am struggling to understand more. What that has to do with this thread. Or what the actual problem is or what she is meant to have done wrong.

    You don't understand what this has to do with the thread? You don't see it as an example of just how fcuked up social media is?


  • Options
    #47
    completedit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭completedit


    Hyperbollix wrote: »
    It's cool to repeat the mantra globalisation is evil. It's also the reason those same Brits can buy an affordable brand new Kia or Hyundai with a long warranty and impeccable reliability vs the clapped out Austin's and Triumph's their parent's and grandparents drove.
    The EU was nothing more than a bogeyman for right leaning vested interests to point to in order to blame any and all ill's in British society, the majority of which have been caused by domestic governments, not least the last 10 years of Tory austerity. A Brexit deal will be bad for Britain for many years. A no deal will be catastrophic.



    Trump doesn't have to tweet to get his point across. He can do that at any press conference and at any interview. He chooses to use twitter simply because he can lie and propagandize eregiously with no one to rebutt his nonsense with truth and facts. All the famous dictators and despots of history would have been keen Twitter users, I have no doubt.

    To be fair, even noble peace prize winners in international trade and advocates recognize that while countries gain on the aggregate from trade, groups within countries suffer.


  • Options
    #48
    Allinall
    Registered Users Posts: 6,562 ✭✭✭Allinall


    Hector Savage wrote: »
    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54367998

    Imagine posting a b+w styled photo of yourself after having a miscarriage to instagram.
    imagine the narcissism .... sick sick sick person ..

    The BBC are no better.

    They put it in the "Entertainment and Arts" section.


  • Options
    #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dotsman wrote: »
    You don't understand what this has to do with the thread? You don't see it as an example of just how fcuked up social media is?

    I would have thought my saying I did not understand it was clear evidence that I do not understand it. Not sure how to clarify that any further either :/

    I don't (yet) see the problem - nor do I (yet) see it relevant in a thread about social media being "evil".


  • Options
    #50
    dotsman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,635 ✭✭✭dotsman


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I would have thought my saying I did not understand it was clear evidence that I do not understand it. Not sure how to clarify that any further either :/

    I don't (yet) see the problem - nor do I (yet) see it relevant in a thread about social media being "evil".

    They have just suffered a miscarriage. Yet, their main priority was to pose for an intimate photograph for random strangers to "get the likes". What does this do for anyone, other than massage their egos? As supposed "celebrities", what influence do you think this has on the children who follow them? It's the same with people who would rather video a person in distress rather than help or call emergency services. What next? Selfies & tiktoks from a funeral? You don't see how, for many people who use social media, it has completely warped their senses?

    Have you been to a match or concert in the last 10 years? You can immediately tell who is addicted to social media via the fact that they care more about recording it on their phone than actually enjoying the concert/game? They care more about people knowing they are at the concert/game rather than the concert/game itself. They define their life by the "likes" rather than enjoying life itself.


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dotsman wrote: »
    They have just suffered a miscarriage. Yet, their main priority was to pose for an intimate photograph for random strangers to "get the likes".

    The first response I find coming to my mind when I read your text here is that you are judging the actions of another person from a position of relative cogency and privilege - when they are not in that place. They have just suffered a trauma. And as such it seems crass and privileged in the extreme to be judging how they act under that situation. Expecting rationality or perfect etiquette from someone in the place they are in is a bad position to be starting from.

    The second thing that jumps to mind as natural progression from that is to acknowledge that that person has been using social media for a long time. As such it is a place they probably go for support and feedback and community all the time. In fact the message attached to the picture says as much "Thank you to everyone who has been sending us positive energy, thoughts and prayers. We feel all of your love". Who are you/we to judge that? I remember one huge trauma I suffered in my life. You know what I did? I went back to work. People were aghast at this. How could I possibly work at a time like that some asked me. It was what _I_ needed to do. It was my familiar safe space. So I went there first. What is wrong with that?

    The third thing that jumps to my mind is you are projecting the agenda of "get the likes" on it. You have no idea why they post what they post or how they post. Only they know this. And if they felt in a dark time that social media would be a positive force against their pain - then that is a point _for_ social media not against.

    The next thing to jump to my head is in response to your next (rhetorical) question -
    dotsman wrote: »
    What does this do for anyone, other than massage their egos?

    - if you open the link the Hector posted and look under the article the first related article is "Katherine Ryan says miscarriage made her feel 'shameful'"

    Now that truely is something to be horrified at. Genuinely horrified not this snowflake triggered reaction of Hectors. The very idea that having a miscarriage - one of in fact the most natural things in the world as upsetting as they may be - could make someone feel shame is horrible.

    So if some social media celebrity can post their miscarriage experieces to process _their_ grief in _their_ way and help even one other woman to show them this is not something to be ashamed of - well that answers your rhetorical question quite roundly I feel.
    dotsman wrote: »
    It's the same with people who would rather video a person in distress rather than help or call emergency services.

    Woah the horse right there - that is absolutely not the same at all. Someone using social media to process their own grief in their own way is _nothing_ like standing back and watching a crime and/or emergency situation and recording it for kicks. To even compare the two at all is extreme.

    In one case a person is doing _what they want with their own pain_. In the other someone is exploiting the pain of others for their own gain. Nothing. Whatsoever. Alike.
    dotsman wrote: »
    Have you been to a match or concert in the last 10 years?

    Actually I have been addicted to going to live concerts for 25 years so you ask the right question of exactly the right person. And long before mobile phones people were addicted to watching the concert through their cameras. Or the worst kind of person were the people experiencing the concert through their minidisks or other recorders who would punch the people who dared sing along around them to shut them up because their piracy of the show was picking it up too and "spoiling" it for them.

    Or to use a similar example - holidays. It is not mobile phones and social media there. I have seen people on holiday or been on holiday with them who experienced the whole thing through a camera to show people at home later. Where I would walk up to something like the "Western Wall" and lay my hands on it and close my eyes (even as an "atheist") and contemplate the history before me and the ebb and flow of the emtoions of the people around me - others were just jabbering and pointing cameras.

    So you are on completely the wrong road blaming social media for this. That has been a trait of people for a long time. And I agree with you it is a trait I am not proud of in our species.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement