On balance, has social media been a net positive to the human race.

[srbbones]

Net negative.  Ask any counselor at a University.

 

[Lotusguy]

With Zuckerberg being fined $5 BILLION for the data breach against 2.3 million (or is it billion subscribers?), I believe it definitely needs cleaning up.  

The funny thing is these fines sound huge, but are merely a drop in the bucket for those megacorps like Google, Apple,... they need to be broken up, that is my firm opinion. Way too much power.

 

Now a 100 Billion fine - that would actually hurt.

[Guest Nekhyludov]

8 minutes ago, Lotusguy said:

The funny thing is these fines sound huge, but are merely a drop in the bucket for those megacorps like Google, Apple,... they need to be broken up, that is my firm opinion. Way too much power.

 

Now a 100 Billion fine - that would actually hurt.

Amen.

Facebook just announced revenues of $16.49 BILLION for the second quarter of 2019 alone. It may take them several whole months to pay off that fine, then use it as an excuse to pay zero taxes for the year. 

And if you're thinking of switching to another platform, Facebook probably owns that one, too.

[Buck14]

How about some good old fashioned censorship! (and this from a pretty staunch Libertarian too - it’s gotten that bad!)

How about a 100-day ban on all social media platforms? Just turn it off.

Of course all the pedophiles would be discriminated against because idiot parents would be stopped from posting FB live updates on where their kids are - but we would all have to make sacrifices.

I am on ONE social media platform, LinkedIn, and I can not tell you the last time I logged in.

[skalls]

From my perspective it's been a pervasive cancer that has increased narcissistic tendencies.  We'd be better off without it.

[MIKA27]

I think the majority of social media such as Facebook, Instagram etc is a load of BS. The whole necessity for people seeking "Approval of others" fascinates and disgusts me.

This is the future:

 

[bpm32]

It’s hard to say—we’re still adjusting to all these rapid technology changes with all the unintended consequences. Overall it might end up being a good thing, but we’ll need a 100 years to figure it out. No one knows what the ground rules are supposed to be, whether it’s governments or just families trying to parent their kids. It’s like if booze was invented last year and people haven’t decided if they’re supposed to let their 3 year-olds guzzle it yet.

[Hammer Smokin']

With respect to social media, and the online world as a whole, Black Mirror is a great series if you are interested in expanding your mind and seeing what the not so distant future may hold.

 

[HumidorJuan]

Much like the printing press, radio, and television before it, social media has revolutionized how we communicate and see the world and just like the mentioned predecessors, perhaps moreso than ever, we've been inundated by falsehoods, misinformation and propaganda. Social Media as we know it is less than a decade old and has already influenced elections, it's wild (that sounds left wing, but I am bipartisan). People were convinced of all these types of things with radio too. Think War Of The Worlds.  I am an optimist, and believe that were going through a huge adaptive period to this new way of communicating, and eventually, people will gain a better grasp on how to deal with it. (critical thinking, spotting fake news, questioning things and UNPLUGGING a bit). I myself am completely addicted to my phone, and maybe you are too. I'm constantly on it and get anxious when my phone is away from me. I'm self employed and a lot of my business is generated from social media, and I feel stuck with it to be honest. 

[NSXCIGAR]

I would draw a distinction between the newer forms that came about in the late 2000s and prior forms like chat rooms, forums and message boards. I mean, technically email is social media but I doubt anyone would include that. 

So separating out those early forms and focusing on what we would colloquially call "social media" I would say almost certainly no, it's been a net detriment to society. I've seen many studies indicating people feel less intimately connected than ever before and it seems social media is wreaking havoc on young western girls' lives. Many health professionals are strongly pushing parents to agree to cooperate shield their kids from social media until at least their mid-teens. I have a psychologist friend who is doing just that due to seeing enormous spikes in preteen girls self-harming or suicide since the early 2010s.

[Philc2001]

Positive for sure. I can keep in touch easily with family and friends in distant places, see all my nieces and nephews growing up, learn about the things of interest to my family and friends, discuss cigars and other favorite hobbies - like FOH, get near immediate answers to technical issues... like how to troubleshoot the CEL on my wife's Honda, share my vacation photos with family and friends, etc.

Like most other social things, there are those that abuse it and overdo it, but on the whole it is so much better to have it than not.

[Philc2001]

1 hour ago, Lotusguy said:

The funny thing is these fines sound huge, but are merely a drop in the bucket for those megacorps like Google, Apple,... they need to be broken up, that is my firm opinion. Way too much power.

 

Now a 100 Billion fine - that would actually hurt.

Do you seriously want to take some of the largest and most successful, job producing, high paying, leading technical institutions in the US and break them down? Why, so another super power can walk all over them, assume the lead, and push their ideology globally? Careful what you wish for. 

I'll take a supersized Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook, growing as big as they may on their own ingenuity, over the rising tide of Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and the rest. The platform is not the problem, the people who use and abuse the platform are what you want to protect your family from, and that takes some skill and requires educating people on the importance of ethical and moral behavior. 

My views on this have evolved since I came to realize we're in a global community, competing on a global level for social, economic and ideological superiority. Size and reach are major factors on this global stage. It may not be perfect, and of course there can be some wrinkles, but control the information flow, and you control the people. Why do you think NK blocks out all external sources of news and information?   

 

[Guest Nekhyludov]

30 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

Do you seriously want to take some of the largest and most successful, job producing, high paying, leading technical institutions in the US and break them down? Why, so another super power can walk all over them, assume the lead, and push their ideology globally? Careful what you wish for. 

I'll take a supersized Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook, growing as big as they may on their own ingenuity, over the rising tide of Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and the rest. The platform is not the problem, the people who use and abuse the platform are what you want to protect your family from, and that takes some skill and requires educating people on the importance of ethical and moral behavior. 

My views on this have evolved since I came to realize we're in a global community, competing on a global level for social, economic and ideological superiority. Size and reach are major factors on this global stage. It may not be perfect, and of course there can be some wrinkles, but control the information flow, and you control the people. Why do you think NK blocks out all external sources of news and information?   

 

All of that is fine, as long as you're willing to accept Mark Zuckerberg as an absolute autocrat over an economy the size of Serbia, or Luxembourg, or Panama, too big and complex to be meaningfully governed by any laws, and answerable to literally not a single other human on earth.

That's way more than a wrinkle to me.

And doesn't competition drive innovation? Isn't that what capitalist societies believe?

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, Philc2001 said:

keep in touch easily with family and friends in distant places, see all my nieces and nephews growing up, learn about the things of interest to my family and friends, discuss cigars and other favorite hobbies

That's pretty much the only positive use for it. But as I mentioned, almost all the data coming back indicates people feel less connected over the last decade. It seems simply interacting with people via social media doesn't translate to actual human connectedness. 

Keep in mind, we're old fogeys who think of this as a new-fangled tool. Anyone under 20 never knew life without it. We use it to video chat our relatives. Kids use it to get into all sorts of trouble and cause trouble for each other. 

When I think of facebook I can't think of anything except ridiculous political arguments and ideological meme posting. I really doubt Facebook has been a vehicle for personal growth and improvement for many people. Yes, I know, connections have been made between people and finding long-lost relatives, etc. I know. 

In conclusion, I'm not suggesting we eliminate social media but it's clear that it's not what it appears to be and it may be something that is too powerful to use safely without maturity and education.

[Philc2001]

1 hour ago, HumidorJuan said:

Much like the printing press, radio, and television before it, social media has revolutionized how we communicate and see the world and just like the mentioned predecessors, perhaps moreso than ever, we've been inundated by falsehoods, misinformation and propaganda. 

I, perhaps a minority in this discussion, believe falsehoods, misinformation or disinformation, and propaganda thrive in darkness were select few can control the message. Compare today to the middle and dark ages, when monks, wizards and dubious preachers commanded live audiences, and convinced people to burn witches, where those fun times?!?! Even just 60 years ago, before computers and Internet, when information was limited to books, radio and newspapers, didn't propaganda and disinformation still flourish?

There will always be peddlers of lies and misinformation, no matter the medium, it's a human trait. But the more people participate, engage and interact the more likely that lies and misinformation will be exposed or disproven. 

[NSXCIGAR]

All of these companies will die sooner than later. Facebook is on the decline. Amazon is the only one that still seems on an upward trajectory and they don't even have the world's market share--Alibaba does. But so what? What is Amazon doing wrong? Giving us low prices and fast shipping?

Everyone was saying the same things about IBM and Microsoft not that long ago. 

Believe me, Google could be abandoned more quickly that it seems. There are other browser and search engines that work just as well. 

What does need to happen is that these social media companies need to be treated like private entities and not public forums as it seems clear they are exercising what is essentially editorial control over content which they are not supposed to be engaging in. That's a problem of government currently granting them privileges they clearly shouldn't have.

[Lotusguy]

Do you seriously want to take some of the largest and most successful, job producing, high paying, leading technical institutions in the US and break them down? Why, so another super power can walk all over them, assume the lead, and push their ideology globally? Careful what you wish for. 
I'll take a supersized Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook, growing as big as they may on their own ingenuity, over the rising tide of Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and the rest. The platform is not the problem, the people who use and abuse the platform are what you want to protect your family from, and that takes some skill and requires educating people on the importance of ethical and moral behavior. 
My views on this have evolved since I came to realize we're in a global community, competing on a global level for social, economic and ideological superiority. Size and reach are major factors on this global stage. It may not be perfect, and of course there can be some wrinkles, but control the information flow, and you control the people. Why do you think NK blocks out all external sources of news and information?   
 

These companies are tax avoiding, job destroying, competition annihilating monsters that, left unchecked, will be beyond any control sooner rather than later. Monopolies are not a good thing.

Please read the book “The Four” by Scott Galloway.

[Philc2001]

54 minutes ago, Nekhyludov said:

All of that is fine, as long as you're willing to accept Mark Zuckerberg as an absolute autocrat over an economy the size of Serbia, or Luxembourg, or Panama, too big and complex to be meaningfully governed by any laws, and answerable to literally not a single other human on earth.

That's way more than a wrinkle to me.

And doesn't competition drive innovation? Isn't that what capitalist societies believe?

Zuck is a proprietor. No one forces you to eat or drink in his house. There are a lot of wealthy people, even wealthier than Zuck, with lots of influence. But, FB is free, use it (or not), consume or don't consume the media, these are all individual choices. Use email, or actual phone conversations, or go visit your ma in person. My kids don't use FB, they prefer SnapChat, and text messaging, their choice.

Would you rather have Jack Ma run the top social media platform in the world? If it isn't Zuck, it will be someone else. 

Speaking of capitalism, who gets to decide how big any individual enterprise should be? Consumers, state or federal government? 

IBM dominated computers at one time. Microsoft Windows dominated 95% of personal computers, and Internet Explorer dominated over 90% of the market at one time. Intel X86 architecture had a similar dominate position in the chip market. Aim was the dominant ISP, Yahoo was by far the leading search engine. Nokia and Blackberry were the leaders in mobile phones. All monopolies by any measure. All very powerful and unbeatable at one time. But innovation and competition swung the pendulum and now we have a different crowd in the pool. The next wave of technological innovation may shift the pendulum again, and again, and again. I see no need for government to intervene, innovation and consumers seem to have done a beautiful job so far. 

[El Presidente]

35 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

 

Would you rather have Jack Ma run the top social media platform in the world?

Absolutely

 

35 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

Speaking of capitalism, who gets to decide how big any individual enterprise should be? Consumers, state or federal government? . 

Until 2007/8 it was the consumer. Now it is the Government 

[Fuzz AI]

51 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

Zuck is a proprietor. No one forces you to eat or drink in his house. There are a lot of wealthy people, even wealthier than Zuck, with lots of influence. But, FB is free, use it (or not), consume or don't consume the media, these are all individual choices. Use email, or actual phone conversations, or go visit your ma in person. My kids don't use FB, they prefer SnapChat, and text messaging, their choice.

Would you rather have Jack Ma run the top social media platform in the world? If it isn't Zuck, it will be someone else. 

Speaking of capitalism, who gets to decide how big any individual enterprise should be? Consumers, state or federal government? 

IBM dominated computers at one time. Microsoft Windows dominated 95% of personal computers, and Internet Explorer dominated over 90% of the market at one time. Intel X86 architecture had a similar dominate position in the chip market. Aim was the dominant ISP, Yahoo was by far the leading search engine. Nokia and Blackberry were the leaders in mobile phones. All monopolies by any measure. All very powerful and unbeatable at one time. But innovation and competition swung the pendulum and now we have a different crowd in the pool. The next wave of technological innovation may shift the pendulum again, and again, and again. I see no need for government to intervene, innovation and consumers seem to have done a beautiful job so far. 

Actually, the US Govt did interfere in Microsoft's monopoly. There was no innovation or competition to swing the pendulum, it was direct government interference. Curbing Microsoft's dominance allowed for the rise of companies like Google and Facebook. Heck, Microsoft benefited from IBM's anti-trust case in the early 80s which curbed their dominance.

[IanMcLean68]

I voted yes, but I should really have read to the end of your post before voting.
In light of your clarifying statement, applications that facilitate the participation  in social networking.,
then understanding what you actually mean by that, then I should have voted no.

Without "social media", in in purest form, we wouldn't have this great forum. This forum is an example of what is bloody fantastic about social media.
Strictly speaking, it too relies on a piece of software, the Invision Community forum software by Invision Power Services Inc. in the case of the FOH forum.

So then, the real question is pointing at a particular set of social media applications that define today's trend, that are centrally owned and maintained but used globally. What is really being asked is what do people think of Facebook, Twitter, and its ilk.

I hate them. I never even signed on for a Twitter account, and I only use Facebook for certain private forums I am a member of. Facebook is infected by trolls and shills. Its not a fault of the software as such, but is bad because of what it has become as a result, because it is not properly moderated. Unlike this forum which is closed and private, and considering Facebook's size, I'm not sure it could be. As has already been said, someone let the genie out of the bottle.

[Cigar Surgeon]

8 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Absolutely

 

Until 2007/8 it was the consumer. Now it is the Government 

Disagree. It's megacorps, and always has been. If the past decade has taught me anything it's that most Government officials are in the pockets of these large corporations. The US is supposed to have strong anti-monopoly laws, yet they're never enforced. 

As an old timer who's been around since the days of BBS's and Usenet, I'd have to say yes.

Don't like politics on your social media platform? Don't spout your political opinions.

Don't like people clamoring for validation? Don't seek it.

If I see someone on my friends list who wants to spend all their time arguing or spouting political opinions they get the 30 day hide. 

About 11 years ago I left Facebook after a friend and I had a long conversation about how much time was spent on social media platforms. The end result was the amount people were having conversations with me daily, and the amount of missed invites to parties skyrocketed. I can't tell you how many people would reach out to me

"hey where were you a week ago for X's party? "I was never invited." "You were invited, I sent the invites via Facebook".

[Philc2001]

12 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Actually, the US Govt did interfere in Microsoft's monopoly. There was no innovation or competition to swing the pendulum, it was direct government interference. Curbing Microsoft's dominance allowed for the rise of companies like Google and Facebook. Heck, Microsoft benefited from IBM's anti-trust case in the early 80s which curbed their dominance.

Perhaps what you mean is they tried to break up the Microsoft monopoly? However, on appeal it was overturned and Microsoft did not have to break up into multiple companies.

Quote

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.^[25] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.^[26]

Even if it did succeed, the tidal shift to mobile caught Microsoft flat-footed, and innovation shifted fortunes to a different group of companies based on mobile architecture, Android and iOS. Google Chrome also became the dominant browser despite IE being bundled (even to the this day) in the OS on every Windows PC. As it turned out, the technology shift was the antidote to the monopoly, not the government.

[Wailbait]

I’m going to land on the unpopular “yes.”  Not because I feel really compelled to chat with my aunt in Schenectady but because while it does mean that a lot of fake news is spread, it does democratize the acquiring of news.  Anyone with a smartphone can “make news”.  There are positives and negatives with that of course that I haven’t completely reflected on or unpacked, but that leveling of the playing field does seem to be very “of the moment” and allow for the questioning of some sacred cows.

[Guest Nekhyludov]

Here's a piece that I found particularly persuasive. It's written by a co-founder of Facebook, Chris Hughes, and argues in detail why the company needs to be broken up. @NSXCIGAR @Fuzz @Philc2001

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html