The Merits of Social Media in this Pandemic

[sidetone]

Zuckerberg was a bad person before he started Facebook.

 

[getopt]

Zuckerberg was a bad person before he started Facebook.

A too simple sentence, probably useful when fishing for 'Likes'.

Attributing persons is not so helpful.
Analyzing what a person has done is the better approach.

So if you have a story what Zuckerberg had done before Facebook and you feel that is not good, share the facts. If you (generic you) have done so, it even is not necessary to call someone bad. The idea of that this person might be bad is developing without further pushes in readers minds. And what is important, you avoid being accused for malicious gossip.

 

[balanga]

Try reading an actual history book from time to time.

Ever heard of Giordano Bruno?

Q.E.D.

 

[SirDice]

Ever heard of Giordano Bruno?

After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science,[6] although historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his astronomical views but rather a response to his philosophical and religious views.

Giordano Bruno - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[balanga]

Try reading an actual history book from time to time.

Incidentally History is not static. History is written by victors, and often re-written years later.

Ever heard of the Katyn massacre? History taught us that 20,000 Polish Officers were executed by the Nazis, but in 1990 that History was re-written and the Soviet Communists were blamed for those executions. Before 1990 anyone claiming the Communists were to blame would have been dismissed as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

 

[SirDice]

And there's the Godwin...

 

[getopt]

balanga
Have you seen my question above regarding the word "real"?
It is necessary to understand this.

 

[sidetone]

Attributing persons is not so helpful.
Analyzing what a person has done is the better approach.

So if you have a story what Zuckerberg done before Facebook and you feel that is not good, share the facts. If you (generic you) have done so, it even is not necessary to call someone bad. The idea of that this person might be bad is developing without further pushes in readers minds. And what is important, you avoid being accused for malicious gossip.

That is a simple statement. The way he insults people for trusting his platform in college. How he steals others' work to start Facebook. This tells me a lot.

This type of behavior hasn't changed from him. He switches users' privacy settings to public without informing them. I know they shouldn't have that on there, but still, that's bad. He sells user data in ways worse than other social media companies. I didn't see the utility in Facebook then, never used it, and now I see it for what it is. For someone who pries into people's lives, he has body guards guard his garbage can, like he's hiding something. For some spans, every 3 days something would come up in the news about something ridiculous he does.

It's obvious the type of person he is, and I will attribute the word bad, even rotten, to him. Like I care about attributing this to someone who actually profits from gossip and false advertisements. This person didn't become bad, he was rotten since the beginning.

He insults them for trusting his platform, because in some way he knows he can't be trusted to them with it? Not everyone is a dishonest creep, but it's an intranet, so they didn't assume the person hiding behind it is Zuckerberg like. At least it's him, and not someone worse, but Zuckerberg would sell data to that guy. Foolish for trusting someone they don't know, but perhaps assuming wrongfully the type of person or of false security. We know who he is now, or should, and people still trust him and Facebook.

 

[getopt]

Ever heard of Giordano Bruno?

Have you ever heard about the work of the

Giordano Bruno Foundation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[getopt]

It's obvious the type of person he is, and I will attribute the word bad, even rotten, to him. Like I care about attributing this to someone who actually profits from gossip and false advertisements. This person didn't become bad, he was rotten since the beginning.

See, what I tried to tell above is that probably most people with common sense will come to a similar or even worse conclusion. But it makes a huge psycological difference if you tell someone what conclusion is yours and others should follow. People are proud of their own outcome and that is way more powerful.
Got me? Give your readers a chance.

 

[balanga]

Real knowledge is that which turns out to be true when the facts emerge. Most bubble dwellers do not realise they are being brainwashed.

 

[sidetone]

What real knowledge?

 

[getopt]

Real knowledge is that which turns out to be true when the facts emerge.

Asking myself what kind of knowledge you are talking about?
Scientific knowledge?

Wouldn't it be sufficient to say: "Knowledge is ..." ? Because what was before known facts cannot be called knowledge. What about knowledge as a process? That would include an understanding of a preliminary knowledge which could be replaced by better knowledge later. But that would colide with the term "real knowledge" as such a thing is static by definition and not replacable.

Next problem is calling something true. What is if others say, sorry but this is not true. Can knowledge be disputed? What you think?

 

[obsigna]

People do confuse Believe with Knowledge. This may happen to everybody, however always to the dumbest first. Who wants to believe goes to the church, who wants to know does a research. Research starts with literature and we won’t find this on Twitter, FaceBook, Reddit, Instagram, etc.

Researchers end with writing. Believers start with writing and leave the boring reading part for others. A quick look on this thread tells us who belongs to which group.

 

[getopt]

And there's the Godwin...

Yes and no. For you it is Godwin, because you just talked about it. You've got a hammer and now the problem is a nail.

I admit that first I reacted the same way. But this is not a typical Nazi-nail for a Godwin-hammer. It would be a Godwin if balanga intended typical nazi-talk. I think that was not his intention. He used Katyn massacre (1940) as an example for a changed historian view. That is totally legitimate but it opens a can of worms in the Polish-Russian relations when looking into it. Highly interesting stuff including the crash of the polish aircraft (2010) on the way to Smolensk. It is essential for understanding the present Polish-Russian tensions and therefore excellent material for toxic conspiracy theories of all sorts.

But! What does that mean here in the FreeBSD forums.
The Katyn massacre was named as an example. So far so good.
But beware us from a discussion on that. Even if is really interesting historical stuff it is actual toxic politics with ongoing reframing fights from all sides. If you let that run you might attract DoS attacks.

Now why is such a can of worms phantastic for Social Media? It is guarantied that confronting opinions start an emotional fight where arguments do not matter. It is a hedonistic fight if you will. The fight is the purpose and clicks are generating profits there as having said already.
Any attempts to make our FreeBSD forums a backyard for fighting too must be stopped.

 

[getopt]

A quick look on this thread tells us who belongs to which group.

Yeah we start knowing each other. That's community life. But that should not divide or separate us as this would damage our forums.

 

[Birdy]

The Internet itself is a social medium.
I use it to look up contradictory information and make up my own mind, whatever the subject.
No special need for FB and other "SM".

EDIT - About the OP article: who checks the fact-checkers?

O.T.: W.H.O: Gates Foundation Now Second Largest Funder After U.S. Government <---> W.T.F!

 

[msplsh]

But that should not divide or separate us as this would damage our forums.

Fortunately, the forums have the Ignore feature.

 

[PMc]

For the Internet, in the late 1990's and early 2000's there was a proportion of more smart people on the Internet. Then everyone else got online. They said, the Internet could educate more people, but it seemed to do the opposite too.

No it doesn't educate. Nothing does; you must educate yourself.

The internet in the 90's was incredibly great - because all the non-mainstream people were there, all who would dare to venture into unknown terrain, all the conspiracy "theories", all the cool stuff that usually happens behind the scene, instead of the stupid brainwashed crap from mass-media.
Info that formerly did only circle around via grapevine, where nobody was really certain about it (like that smoking pot will not kill you nor make you a junkie), got accessible, could be reflected and criticised by any participant, and it was up to the reader (and only the reader) to decide on what might be the most plausible viewpoint. This was in total contrast to the common mass-media with their pre-defined learning-targets and their "dont-tell-them-anything-that-could-make-them-think" agenda.

But then the money-makers came, and content didn't count anymore, only clicks did - and all went down the gully.

 

[fernandel]

Ever heard of Giordano Bruno?

Q.E.D.

Did you ever read Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: The Little Prince? What do you think about this book if you did?

 

[sidetone]

No it doesn't educate. Nothing does; you must educate yourself.

The internet in the 90's was incredibly great - because all the non-mainstream people were there, all who would dare to venture into unknown terrain, all the conspiracy "theories", all the cool stuff that usually happens behind the scene, instead of the stupid brainwashed crap from mass-media.
Info that formerly did only circle around via grapevine, where nobody was really certain about it (like that smoking pot will not kill you nor make you a junkie), got accessible, could be reflected and criticised by any participant, and it was up to the reader (and only the reader) to decide on what might be the most plausible viewpoint. This was in total contrast to the common mass-media with their pre-defined learning-targets and their "dont-tell-them-anything-that-could-make-them-think" agenda.

But then the money-makers came, and content didn't count anymore, only clicks did - and all went down the gully.

It depends where you look on the Internet, and what the source content is that of what you read.

There are fact checkers, peer reviewed medical knowledge, good information on other sciences, Britannica online, good information on operating systems, free textbooks, investigative websites and responsible news. A lot of it is free or easily accessible. I learned about where to look and how to sort it. Some conspiracy theories can only go so far, until information can be verified by unrelated independent groups, but this information is not as quick to be noticed by everyone.

"(like that smoking pot will not kill you nor make you a junkie)," this information has been around in encyclopedias from at least the early 90's, that referred to the 70's. Information then, said it wasn't chemically addictive, and compared to alcohol in this sense, but recent information by the scientific community has changed to say it's mildly addictive, that tolerance for it builds. People overreacted to it, because it started finding its way to grade schools. It's actually an overrated plant. Those who decide to use it have a negative impact, they're giving money to cartels, even if it is transported from legal states like Colorado or Vermont, because violent cartels profit by having it transported from there too. Money from pot is destroying Mexico (problems from there have spilled into neighboring countries before) and we complain why there are so many asylum seekers. Some of the same pot smokers complain about immigrants or want to join border patrol groups. Some of the same people who take the side of cartels think, they only harm people who crossed them. When they kill people for simply being a woman working in Juarez, and they traffic people for slavery, or kill news reporters, because facts getting out irk them. They believe the US is in Afghanistan for opium, yet the people they argue in favor of, are the ones transporting opium in from Mexico who collaborate from those from Iran from that in Afghanistan, but they make some excuse to say, someone else takes something and transforms it to something more dangerous within this country. They start getting mad, so I don't argue with them anymore. I could spend half of my day saying dumbass more times than I care to count about them, and my day would be more well spent than them believing that.

"'dont-tell-them-anything-that-could-make-them-think' agenda" has been around since forever, from the beginning of civilization, to feudal systems, to colonial America, to indentured servitude and slavery and other social constructs. Our system is better today, as there are social constructs in our constitutions that offer some protections, if it weren't for so many uneducated people who don't know propaganda benefits those with a selfish motive. Today much of the problem is laziness, they rather have someone tell them something, than read it for themselves, and say, well, this person will always inform me, so they can only go at the pace when someone wants to inform them. But, they are so ready to read texts full of stupidity. They don't read, and they say, you should read more. I read enough to know a lot, even when I'm exhausted from reading, I read way more than they could. Some people think propaganda in comments is more meaningful than websites that have been reliable since forever. We even have a stupid society and stupid feckless leaders too who act like fish, or just do what's convenient or what is economically beneficial for their colleagues.

 

[PMc]

It depends where you look on the Internet, and what the source content is that of what you read.

There are fact checkers, peer reviewed medical knowledge, good information on other sciences, Britannica online, good information on operating systems, free textbooks, investigative websites and responsible news. A lot of it is free or easily accessible.

Yes, I figured that out when I was about 12. There was no Internet yet, but there were libaries. I figured that all the knowledge you might ever need, for whatever task, it is all written down. You can search it, you can read it, whenever You may happen to need it.
So there is no challenge in that, no magic and no nothing.

At that point I quit learning, and started to look out for that which is not written in the libraries.

So, what do you need "fact checkers" for? Why do you need people to tell you what you are allowed to think and what not?

I learned about where to look and how to sort it. Some conspiracy theories can only go so far, until information can be verified by unrelated independent groups, but this information is not as quick to be noticed by everyone.

What do you need "unrelated independent groups" for? You could go and verify the stuff by yourself.
And then it comes out, that these conspiracy "theories" are not banned because they are wrong, they are banned because they are true.

"(like that smoking pot will not kill you nor make you a junkie)," this information has been around in encyclopedias from at least the early 90's, that referred to the 70's.

Yes, that's what I am talking about! I am online since 1988, and I was significantly involved in achieving this one!
Because, up to that time, you could very easily have your home searched when only talking about the matter!

Information then, said it wasn't chemically addictive, and compared to alcohol in this sense, but recent information by the scientific community has changed to say it's mildly addictive, that tolerance for it builds. People overreacted to it, because it started finding its way to grade schools. It's actually an overrated plant. Those who decide to use it have a negative impact

Yes, yes, that may all be more or less correct, and I am not promoting to use the stuff. But that's not the point, the point is this: Harry J. Anslinger. This is a proven conspiracy. This is (or, say, was) official state-doctrine distributing blatant lies, consistently, over decades, spending billions on the support of these lies, and prosecuting and putting into jail everybody who would dare to disagree (like Timothy Leary)!

This is a proven one, nowadays, but it was not in my youth. And that is what there is to know about conspiracy "theories".

Lets get to the next one: I happened to get my prep-for-evac, in writing, six hours before 9/11.
At that time my people did work on lots of interesting stuff, supposedly related to the interbanking software etc.. I didn't track it all, but we had those travel restrictions; people from our team were not allowed to travel in the same airplane together.
It seems we had been important, so important that those up higher would not be able to afford a significant loss of our team's members. And so, it seems, a decision was made beforehand, that my people should somehow be kept safe from the 9/11 happening.

"'dont-tell-them-anything-that-could-make-them-think' agenda" has been around since forever, from the beginning of civilization, to feudal systems, to colonial America, to indentured servitude and slavery and other social constructs.

Exactly. That's why I prefer to do my own investigations, and have my own X-files.

Our system is better today, as there are social constructs in our constitutions that offer some protections, if it weren't for so many uneducated people who don't know propaganda benefits those with a selfish motive. Today much of the problem is laziness, they rather have someone tell them something, than read it for themselves, and say, well, this person will always inform me, so they can only go at the pace when someone wants to inform them. But, they are so ready to read texts full of stupidity.

Yes, and, as I often said, the stupid make money off the even more stupid.
But why should I care? Why do You care?

There are open questions, and I want answers. What other people do is not my concern. If they also want answers, they can join in. If not, then that's not my business.

 

[shkhln]

The way he insults people for trusting his platform in college.

Those are words of wisdom.

 

[PMc]

So, what is wrong with "social media"?

Well, everything is, beginning with the name.
What is socializing? Socializing is sitting together at the campfire n the woods with a good beer. Having a gossip with the caretaker while walking the staircase. Meet with your friends and frankly speak out what is actually on your mind. ...
Monitoring a gadget and talking to a computer is NOT social. It is anti-social.

So, these "social media" should correctly be termed anti-social media.

Recently, a new business did appear: hugging courses, offered by so-called "hugging academies". In these courses one can learn how to hug another person. There is no risk involved; it all happens under the thorough supervision of experienced therapists.

Hello?? Anybody home? I was thinking that every baby, every little new-born already knows how to do that, instinctively, without training, and -most important- without rules.

But indeed, this is similar to "social media". While the idea of socializing, at least to some extent, implies to open up, to be honest, and to talk about your thoughts more or less frankly, the oppsosite holds true for "social media": while these also appear to be intended for casual exchange, there are "moderators" (therapists) who determine what is allowed to think.

The reason for that is also simple to grasp: when talking to a computer, people are conscious that they do NOT talk to a human, and behave accordingly - without compassion.

But then otoh, this is not an all new thing. In socialist cultures there were always certain people designated to make sure that the citizens do only think what is allowed to think and do only talk what is allowed to talk.
That's why I term the new world-wide anti-social online culture as neo-socialist.

 

[sidetone]

At that point I quit learning, and started to look out for that which is not written in the libraries.

So, what do you need "fact checkers" for? Why do you need people to tell you what you are allowed to think and what not?

What do you need "unrelated independent groups" for? You could go and verify the stuff by yourself.
And then it comes out, that these conspiracy "theories" are not banned because they are wrong, they are banned because they are true.

Critical thinking, logic, mathematical thinking can be applied...

If I would fact check how files in FreeBSD work, I would edit a line several ways, and compare the ways that do and don't work. Then say, this one is it, than needing official documentation that doesn't exist or is not documented enough.

Fact checkers --> Snopes, Politifact and investigative journalism

Critical thinking can be used in relation to that. As a theme, they're supposedly there to help sort out facts, as it is realized this is needed, while propaganda also claims the same. As, why do I read into what one says, than something else?

Investigative journalism has found use in social media for truths. What is posted there can be verified a number of times, to root out disinformation, or to verify facts, including news. There are good things in social media, like what's going on by honest or well meaning people, and documentation of events.

Other fact checking, would be seeing things for yourself. Based on the many information sources put together. Verifying what you can yourself.

Exactly. That's why I prefer to do my own investigations, and have my own X-files.
...
Yes, and, as I often said, the stupid make money off the even more stupid.
But why should I care? Why do You care?

There are open questions, and I want answers. What other people do is not my concern. If they also want answers, they can join in. If not, then that's not my business.

For all of us, it's better to understand to not know something, than to make up an answer to be satisfied. What other people do and believe falsities affects everything as a society.

Those are words of wisdom.

I forgot I said that college quote about Zuckerberg putting down other students. But seeing that, reminded me, that few people (even a teacher) in college even promoted bs to be hateful. A siren in my brain goes off saying, get out of here, (not from physical danger) and my rational thought says, yes get out of here, but do so without making a scene. I sit through that shit, because I spot the door and know if I walk out, my path will get blocked, and I'll be made to look like a fool who has to turn around. I can't shove people, even if they deserve it, so I realize I would have to turn around.