The Merits of Social Media in this Pandemic

[Samuel Venable]

Well by evidence I was referring mainly based on things you can gather as true or false as being an eye witness to something rather than believing it just because the news who agrees with your political views said so.

If a news source is genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of their viewers or nation, they will consider what is best for those people and not lie, and if they do lie it is because they serve an agenda not run by morals or what is best for others, but what is in their own best interest alone.

There are people making claims there was a peaceful protest, where I live, and it was not at all peaceful based on what was actually seen by my friend. Does that make me an eye witness? No. Does it mean I should trust my friend over any politician? Probably. Although I can't exactly say that with absolute certainty. Thus going back to the original point I made, if you didn't see it happen, you have no concrete evidence. I'm not talking about what is on tv. I mean like being there.

Joe Biden was accused for being mentally incompetent, because he "endorsed Trump" by accident. It wasn't as bad as they made it look, they had an agenda. Although I do believe he may have dimmensia, that's just from being old and that is unrelated to whether his political views are correct or not. Everyone is likely to get that problem as they get but so old.

I've seen agendas on both ends, although I do try to avoid mentioning the ones I see coming from the left because it's pretty controversial to some people. I don't want to be a hinderance to this discussion.

Coronavirus is killing a lot of people and killing a lot of jobs and destroying a lot of families globally. It truly sucks to have so much division among the human species in times like this, that it had to become a political war that one thing on it's own. My mom can't stand wearing a mask. Sometimes, I can't stand her because of it. She makes it a much bigger deal than it really is, and all because she claims to be claustrophobic, which I don't even know if that is a real excuse.

If you asked for my opinion, generally speaking social media does more damage to people's lives than anything good. Not just in the case of corona. How many people get depressed or even suicidal and believe they aren't important and kill themselves because they don't get as many likes, comments, reactions, or messages as other people get. It's like a popularity contest. Corona is similar in that everyone is posting videos on social media to be the next gone-viral "winner".

 

[a6h]

Samuel Venable . I wasn't critical of your comments. I understand your points.

 

[Samuel Venable]

Samuel Venable . I wasn't critical of your comments. I understand your points.

No, I understand, I just wanted to give extra clarity.

 

[PMc]

If a news source is genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of their viewers or nation, they will consider what is best for those people and not lie, and if they do lie it is because they serve an agenda not run by morals or what is best for others, but what is in their own best interest alone.

Question: why should they?
Why should anybody be concerned about Your wellbeing? For what reason? And what benefit would they have of that?

Now lets get a little bit more tough and more grown-up and get clear on that. Long ago somebody told me, the people a newspaper calls their customers are NOT their readers. And that hits the mark: they have no obligation whatsoever to be honest to their readers, because they do not get paid by their readers, but by their advertisment customers.

IF you want quality input, then go shop for your own damned think-tank. (In fact I did. But I didn't pay for, it was just fun. You don't believe, if you get together some half dozen well educated and widely interested people of different fields, and sit together every friday night evaluating current affairs, how far you get that way already.)

There are people making claims there was a peaceful protest, where I live, and it was not at all peaceful based on what was actually seen by my friend. Does that make me an eye witness? No. Does it mean I should trust my friend over any politician? Probably.

That depends. Maybe both are trustworthy, only the media does understand the term "peaceful" different than Your friend. Thats why you need to invest into background clarification. Of your friend, obviousely: upbringing, preferences, contacts, engagements, ... Then You will know how to evaluate his perceptions.

Joe Biden was accused for being mentally incompetent, because he "endorsed Trump" by accident. It wasn't as bad as they made it look, they had an agenda. Although I do believe he may have dimmensia, that's just from being old and that is unrelated to whether his political views are correct or not. Everyone is likely to get that problem as they get but so old.

I've seen agendas on both ends, although I do try to avoid mentioning the ones I see coming from the left because it's pretty controversial to some people. I don't want to be a hinderance to this discussion.

The president is a puppet used by those in power to entertain the masses. No matter what You elect, those in power don't change. So, is it worth the necessary investments to figure out the truth? Which of Your decisions would depend on it?

Coronavirus is killing a lot of people and killing a lot of jobs and destroying a lot of families globally. It truly sucks to have so much division among the human species in times like this, that it had to become a political war that one thing on it's own. My mom can't stand wearing a mask. Sometimes, I can't stand her because of it. She makes it a much bigger deal than it really is, and all because she claims to be claustrophobic, which I don't even know if that is a real excuse.

Okay. lets get clear on this one. First off, afaik microbiologists seem to agree that those so-called "masks" are not really useful, at least not unless it were special medical equipment (which is neither provided not available/affordable to the masses). They're nevertheless important as a symbol to be shown publicly. And, they have another very concrete and physical effect: you cannot properly breathe.

Now if you go to the S&M people and ask them about breath reduction, that will be entertaining. It will become clear that breath reduction is a very potent means to exert power over somebody: to make clear to them that they depend on your allowance even for the most simple life-sustaining functions. And so we get to the point of it - which is not on the pyhsical, but on the psychological level: those "masks" (or facial abasement diapers, as I tend to call them) are an important step for the government in finally getting rid of natural law, human rights and human dignity.

Then consider the background: so there is a virus that might infect people. That is perfectly normal; it is the purpose of a virus to infect people. (I used to travel tropical backyards; and you won't imagine how many viruses did infect me every day.) A virus is purely ecological; and going into a mass hysteria and trying to fight it, means to try and fight nature. But then, mankind itself is (part of) nature, so the only outcome can be that they start fighting themselves. As is to be seen (q.e.d.)

 

[20-100-2fe]

First the masks, then the drones, next the vaccine. We'll soon regret that good old virus.

 

[Mjölnir]

[...] Don't limit yourself to the news, also study the impact of films, reality shows, talk shows and the rest. [...] Well, that's what the media get paid for: shaping our society. You may not like what they do, but be sure that they do it well in the eyes of their shareholders. Understanding why shareholders pay for these services is another story and we can only partially succeed in this endeavor.

Recommended reading: The Velvet Rope Economy (Nelson D. Schwartz). Some Links & Videos.

 

[a6h]

Thanks mjollnir for book suggestion. We have to find a way to list all books, which are recommended on this Forums over the years, in one place.

[EDIT] I mean, only books. Not blogs, articles, video, podcast, etc.

 

[Samuel Venable]

PMc I wasn't stating my opinion on the masks past the point I don't mind nearly as much as my mother does about wearing them. I do sort of lean to believe what you do in that they don't necessarily help much, if at all, I just wanted to avoid opening that can of worms in case someone felt strongly about it the other way around. My mother complains about the masks and how much she has fiery hatred for our governor Northam over his policies regarding corona and the masks i just find the level of anger and hate to not be helpful and a bit troubling. There is some context I guess i did leave out. I wish the left and right didn't have so much anger and hate towards each other. It makes me sad, personally.

I also am aware no one has any obligation to care about other's best interest if they don't care about those things. Although I have met a lot of people who do genuinely care for the lives of others, and I tend to believe that those in power are not any less human in that they are just as able to be good people as those underneath the government's power. Although, with great power comes great responsibility, the temptation may increase to be selfish to those in power, it's what they do with that human instinct and whether they resist it and choose to be selfless regardless that would determine whether they would be trustworthy. Whether as a politician, news source, or anything else politically.

I can understand the pessimism though.

 

[Mjölnir]

Thanks mjollnir for book suggestion. We have to find a way to list all books, which are recommended on this Forums over the years, in one place. [EDIT] I mean, only books. Not blogs, articles, video, podcast, etc.

I would agree to a forum section Misc.Books for assembling books on BSD, programming, etc., anything related. But not for books on other topics, as general as e.g. the section Music. Rationale:

• there are dozens of websites for this already available
• this can be potentionally divisive (like the book I mentioned can potentionally start a flame war)

EDIT: IMHO it's ok to post a link like I did now & then, when it matches the topic discussed. But I do not agree on a general section on books. Let's remind ourselves on the purpose of this forum. It's about FreeBSD. The topic of this thread is related to computing, so it matches somehow.

 

[Mjölnir]

William Randolph Hearst - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

William Hearst has passed long ago. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article about Rupert Murdoch does not have a section about critics like the above has ...

 

[Jose]

William Hearst has passed long ago.

That was my point. Bias in journalism is nothing new, like Sirdice said.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article about Rupert Murdoch does not have a section about critics like the above has ...

Wikipedia exercises caution in the biographies of living persons. I'm sure they're worried about being sued for libel or slander.

 

[PMc]

I would agree to a forum section Misc.Books for assembling books on BSD, programming, etc., anything related. But not for books on other topics, as general as e.g. the section Music. Rationale:

• there are dozens of websites for this already available
• this can be potentionally divisive (like the book I mentioned can potentionally start a flame war)

I think I see both sides. There is a couple of books that are not technical in nature, but are somehow related to the topic nevertheless. For instance, in some hacker club it was expected that everybody have read John Brunner's Shockwave Rider (indeed I also expect that, if only because it is a perfect example of a science-fiction having become fully reality by now), or in some BSD users group it was highly recommended to read R.A.Heinlein. These things were kind of folklore, and helped shaping a common ground of mindset.
Obviousely there might also be people who might not be into that kind of books, but then they would just ignore it, and good.
But nowadays, strangely, everything can be "potentially divisive". I don't understand that - it appears to me that people no longer value a common mindset, but instead only look for things where they get the chance to be offended. So then, I would say, just give them the opportunity to do what they desire most - give them the chance to be offended! *veg*

 

[Mjölnir]

[...] But nowadays, strangely, everything can be "potentially divisive". I don't understand that - it appears to me that people no longer value a common mindset, but instead only look for things where they get the chance to be offended. [...]

It's not the 1st time that human mankind experiences a culture clash. It's just the amount of wealth & advantage some people can gain from that has reached exorbitant heights, because thanks to IT, the globe is a village nowadays. Keep in mind that the algorithms of commercial social media platforms shall maximize profit, thus they are tuned to favour divisive topics to present to their victims, exploiting human psychological deficiencies/flaws. EDIT We are conditioned & educated to accept that as beeing normal, and behave accordingly. Sadly so, that's the new normal.

 

[PMc]

It's not the 1st time that human mankind experiences a culture clash. It's just the amount of wealth & advantage some people can gain from that has reached exorbitant heights, because thanks to IT, the globe is a village nowadays. Keep in mind that the algorithms of commercial social media platforms shall maximize profit, thus they are tuned to favour divisive topics to present to their victims, exploiting human psychological deficiencies/flaws.

Well, you can hear me state similar critique about these new media, so I basically agree. But then also, nobody is forced to consume these media. It's similar to back in my youth some communist youngsters complaining about the horrible power commercial firms like Coca-Cola would have over people - but then to get to the most simple and practical solution and just not drink the crap, that was beyond their capability of thinking (or, they did want to complain for the sake of complaining, and were not interested in solutions).
In any case, the best approach was to get away from the political agitators, and get among normal people with a sane mind, where a common mindset would be valued and some actual work could be accomplished - and thats what we did.

To give You a example, just look at that Mr. Nelson D. Schwartz. He does not complain about the governmental repressions. He does not complain about the doing away with basic human rights (like gathering, hugging, breathing). He does not complain about the introduction of slavery. He does accept all the repressions as given.
But then he identifies some group to put the blame on: he identifies some "rich" people who assumedly can buy themselves out of the repressions - so it is these people we should hate! Instead of critizising the repressions, he wants to split society and fuel hate into! What good can that do??

Yes there are damn rich people around. Even worse, I was living off no more than water+bread in the late 80s/early 90s, because I didn't have anything and wanted to get the Internet working. And only later, when everthing was done and working, after 2000, those "commercial social media" guys appeared on scene, and they got damned rich from the work that we had done earlier - while I am unemployed and get nothing today.
But, should i be envious about that, or greedy, or hateful? No, that would not change anything except making me myself unhappy.

 

[PMc]

PMc I wasn't stating my opinion on the masks past the point I don't mind nearly as much as my mother does about wearing them. I do sort of lean to believe what you do in that they don't necessarily help much, if at all, I just wanted to avoid opening that can of worms in case someone felt strongly about it the other way around. My mother complains about the masks and how much she has fiery hatred for our governor Northam over his policies regarding corona and the masks i just find the level of anger and hate to not be helpful and a bit troubling. There is some context I guess i did leave out. I wish the left and right didn't have so much anger and hate towards each other. It makes me sad, personally.

I mentioned that already earlier - it seems the younger generation no longer has the ability to have stong values and a clear mindset about anything; it's now all about we must not offend anybody and must be helpful and harmonizing.

I might suppose your mom does get to some important point, but only on an unconscious level - she knows there is something to complain, but she doesn't really know what.

And I come to the impression that social education at highschools sucks nowadays, because this should actually be common knowledge.

Lets recapitulate in short. Alongside with the code of law, and even long before it, was always another law that is called "natural law". And that concerns things which are so elementary that they are considered self-evident and nobody ever bothered to write them down.

Then later there was a problem, because the roman church came along and declared all their religious dogmas also as "natural law" - just as if their God were self-evident and not a matter of faith.
Consequentially, people of today are no longer very happy with natural law, because it can become bloated in such way, and so they nowadays prefer codified law that is written in books.

Nevertheless, the natural law exists, and if you reserach into human rights, you will soon find the notion that these are based onto natural law.
And it is quite easy to explain how natural law works, if you for instance consider the question if people should be allowed to breathe. Nobody ever wrote down a law that would state that people are not allowed to breathe, neither did anybody create a law stating that people are allowed to breathe. (Or, e.g., that they are only allowed to breathe during off-work hours, etc.)
Nobody did make such laws because that would be pointless: it is part of the human nature to breathe, so this is a natural law that cannot be changed or regulated, and therefore does not need to be codified.

There are things one just cannot change, and cannot regulate. On the same line: humans have a natural drive to meet and gather, we are "social animals" (as was stated here before), so this is inherent in human nature and neiter need nor can be regulated. Same line: humans have an impulse to hug and caress each other. This is natural and cannot be regulated.

There is only one cause when these natural things are to be regulated: when somebody has taken ownership and possesses the respective humans, that is, they are slaves.

So that is what worries your mom, it has a name: slavery. Your mom is against slavery! She's an abolitionist! What a shame... *veg*

I also am aware no one has any obligation to care about other's best interest if they don't care about those things. Although I have met a lot of people who do genuinely care for the lives of others, and I tend to believe that those in power are not any less human in that they are just as able to be good people as those underneath the government's power.

Question: why should certain people have power over other people, at all?

Although, with great power comes great responsibility, the temptation may increase to be selfish to those in power, it's what they do with that human instinct and whether they resist it and choose to be selfless regardless that would determine whether they would be trustworthy. Whether as a politician, news source, or anything else politically.

It is very simple: if you have the option to keep your job or loose your job, what do you do? You tend to keep your job and arrange with the demands. Most people will do that, and the others no longer are in the job, i.e. in politics

This has nothing to do with pessimism, it's realism. But the positive point in it all is: nobody needs a government to exert power over people. Just like CocaCola, a government can only exist for as long as people tend to consume government.

 

[Samuel Venable]

I will say you have a lot of interesting points that do make me think. There is a lot of fear of trying not to offend anyone. I'm aware I have it. I'm just not sure what I can do besides fear it or speak my mind and let all hell break loose lol There really does come to a point where everyone is so passionate about how they feel it just gets messy pretty quick.

I feel like there is an in between. Offending too much and not enough. Should we offend a masked murderer and single him out for his deeds by putting him in jail/prison? Well... heck yeah!

There are injustices of many kinds, it's a shame there are only very specific ones that are so dang evil that we all agree is wrong, but then there are other things more contreversial that could potentially be just as bad, or in some cases worse that no one feels opened to discussing. Everyone wants to do life their own way, and we all have different ideas of what that looks like and what is acceptable in times like especially now with COVID.

 

[20-100-2fe]

Recommended reading: The Velvet Rope Economy (Nelson D. Schwartz). Some Links & Videos.

If you scratch past the surface, you'll find the fundamental structure of our society has been remarkably stable over time. There has been a "storm in a glass of water" during the French revolution but, besides some seats have received new occupants at the top, the same have stayed at the bottom since immemorial times - in fact, since we've been making iron weapons and the money to pay those using them to keep the structure of society stable.

During Antiquity, those at the top were called citizens, those at the bottom slaves. Nowadays, those at the bottom are called citizens and those at the top no longer feel the need for a name. This divide remaining so stable over time, beyond Newspeak fashion, means it is necessary - in other words, a constraint. On this forum, we all belong to the slaves group, otherwise we wouldn't be there. And this is good to know because it helps us focusing on our freedom, hence feeling as happy as possible, instead of chasing Chimeras and feeling angry and disappointed most of the time.

 

[20-100-2fe]

I mentioned that already earlier - it seems the younger generation no longer has the ability to have stong values and a clear mindset about anything; it's now all about we must not offend anybody and must be helpful and harmonizing.

It's not that they no longer have this ability, it's that they are constrained by the media (and thus those controlling them) through the same kind of mechanism you describe in you previous post (#142).

Why do the media have this power? Simply because as social animals, we cannot live alone. So during our childhood, if a majority of the other children we meet at school does something, we'll do the same even if we don't really like it. And during childhood, we don't have the capacity to analyze our experiences, nor to decide to go our own way, so we're unaware of being shaped in a particular way. Only if, as adults, we suffer beyond acceptable from our early conditioning will we have the motivation to reflect and act differently.

What you described here relies on the same mechanism:

It is very simple: if you have the option to keep your job or loose your job, what do you do? You tend to keep your job and arrange with the demands. Most people will do that, and the others no longer are in the job, i.e. in politics

If we lose our job, we are set apart and we cannot stand that. People living in environments where nobody works will do exactly the opposite: they'll do all they can so as to never, ever work in order not to be set apart their usual environment.

 

[20-100-2fe]

But nowadays, strangely, everything can be "potentially divisive".

When you understand how the media work and who they serve, you also understand this is easy thought control.
And you understand why people jump on the bandwagon.

So then, I would say, just give them the opportunity to do what they desire most - give them the chance to be offended!

They desire this the most because everybody on Earth wants to be a good person and feeling offended is a way to exhibit one's "good person" values.
This is a natural mechanism and people do with what they have: the artificial "values" served by the media as the "good person" social standard.

 

[PMc]

All right, but something is missing here:

why did we, as youngsters, go against the stream? Why did we question the authorities, start to do things which were not commonsense (or not allowed) like smoking ganja and listening to Fleetwood Mac?
Why did we create a social environment of our own that would adhere to our own values, disregarding the traditional ones - and basically just disregarding the media, or well knowing that it is all bogus and a voice of the establishment?

The common understanding of this is that the youth tends to protest, tends to go against established values - in the process of making up their own values (which C.G.Jung calls "individuation"). Many of them will revert back to the mainstream as soon as they will have a wife and a job and carry some responsibility. But also, if the critique is over-all viable and does adress valid points, it will persist.

So, question: why do the youth, those growing up today, not recognize how grotesque the whole scheme has become, figure out what they really need to be happy, and go for that?

So during our childhood, if a majority of the other children we meet at school does something, we'll do the same even if we don't really like it. And during childhood, we don't have the capacity to analyze our experiences, nor to decide to go our own way, so we're unaware of being shaped in a particular way. Only if, as adults, we suffer beyond acceptable from our early conditioning will we have the motivation to reflect and act differently.

It seems you skip an important step here. In between childhood and adultship is the coming of age, which is a very important thing, because it is when the young person starts to reflect what has been done to them in their childhood, and decide upon what they want to be as an adult.

This is important, because this is the only point ever where progress happens! (There is a saying that new discoveries, new paradigms in science take one generation to become accepted. That is because an established scientist will not change their way of thinking just because it has been found wrong and new unterstanding has become known. Only the next generation, growing up into the field and evaluating what is there, will then choose the best options.)

Why does the youth of today not recognize that the whole social media crap does in no way nurture their real needs?

 

[drhowarddrfine]

why did we, as youngsters, go against the stream? Why did we question the authorities

Because the minds of youth have not grown to maturity yet and have not learned all the ways of the world and common behavior.

After having owned fast food restaurants for over 30 years, where the hiring of youth is prevalent, I would tell anyone who listened that "young people do a lot of growing up between the ages of 18 and 20". Typically they have graduated from high school and are now interacting with more people outside of their young groups. They find there are requirements imposed on them in order to keep a job and the cliques they formed before won't form with the work group they may be with now.

This is true even if they go to college or university where rules, constraints and pressure is everywhere from far more adults and pressure from their peers who are more driven to accomplish the goals they went to college for.

My opinion is that the laws restricting the voting age to 21 was proper--and true for all the laws and regulations applying restrictions to those under 21.

 

[20-100-2fe]

why did we, as youngsters, go against the stream? Why did we question the authorities, start to do things which were not commonsense (or not allowed) like smoking ganja and listening to Fleetwood Mac?
Why did we create a social environment of our own that would adhere to our own values, disregarding the traditional ones - and basically just disregarding the media, or well knowing that it is all bogus and a voice of the establishment?

A "social environment of their own"? Why do they smoke ganja, then? Where did they get this idea? Who produces ganja? Teen agers like them? Who produces music?

In fact, they just take what they're offered by the media, a ready-made revolution. It is even more blatant with "reality shows".

Also note the behaviors you cited are fairly recent, post WW II.
Before that, young people were just reproducing the behaviors of adults, e.g. shouting, drinking and fighting.

So, question: why do the youth, those growing up today, not recognize how grotesque the whole scheme has become, figure out what they really need to be happy, and go for that?

They try their best to be happy with the limited means they have.
They just come to an age where they can start doing things on their own, they haven't had the time to learn by their experiences yet.
Moreover, they are far more manipulated than we were at the same age, it's much more difficult for them than for us.

Why does the youth of today not recognize that the whole social media crap does in no way nurture their real needs?

Some of them do realize what's going on. A minority, of course, but still. For the others, it is too hard, out of their reach.
But don't think it is easier for adults, so many of them prefer putting on a blindfold to make some extra miles in their life.

 

[Mjölnir]

[...] To give You a example, just look at that Mr. Nelson D. Schwartz. He does not complain about the governmental repressions. He does not complain about the doing away with basic human rights (like gathering, hugging, breathing). He does not complain about the introduction of slavery. He does accept all the repressions as given. But then he identifies some group to put the blame on: he identifies some "rich" people who assumedly can buy themselves out of the repressions - so it is these people we should hate! Instead of critizising the repressions, he wants to split society and fuel hate into! What good can that do??

You did not get the point. It is not to blame anyone, but to unveil the methods of spreading envy & fission, by leveling some basic psychological mechanisms we're usually (naturally) constrained to follow. Unless we free ourselves from that by developing awareness & serenity about this. Maybe Yoga should be teached in primary schools...

 

[PMc]

You did not get the point. It is not to blame anyone, but to unveil the methods of spreading envy & fission

Never mind. The point I got is that Mr. Schwartz is the one who is spreading envy and fission. And I know that pattern all too well, have seen it often enough before.

Unless we free ourselves from that by developing awareness & serenity about this. Maybe Yoga should be teached in primary schools...

I doubt Yoga would help anything in that regard. The Yoga we know in the west (and can join courses at the gym at any time) is considered just something like gymnastics. The Yoga taught in the east is usually part of a religious system, and deeply integrated in hindu traditional philosophy - which is not simply "to be teached in primary school". In fact, you could teach them as well conservative christian contemplation, which, when properly applied, provides the exact same benefits.
And in order to get a clue what Yoga could actually be about, I recommend the Eight Lectures on Yoga by Mahatma Guru Sri Paramahansa Shivaji.

 

[20-100-2fe]

"Western Yoga" can help learn self-respect, though, but only to those who are ready to learn it.