As someone who doesn’t use social media (a couple very civilized comments sections, this one included, being the closest I get), I get to be on the outside looking in. What’s it look like from the outside? A burning train full of mouth-breathing sycophants that’s going to over-run the track, cause the conductor can’t stop huffing glue lo…
As someone who doesn’t use social media (a couple very civilized comments sections, this one included, being the closest I get), I get to be on the outside looking in. What’s it look like from the outside? A burning train full of mouth-breathing sycophants that’s going to over-run the track, cause the conductor can’t stop huffing glue long enough to pull the brake.
Social media does not facilitate, foster, or encourage anything resembling discourse. What it does is put the user’s face in front of an advertiser. There’s never going to be free speech in such an arrangement, because the user and his or her rights to expression, conscience, and association are simply not important to the company. Frankly, the very users themselves aren’t even important, except as something to sell.
People don’t see it this way, because people don’t like self-examination. How many times have you been sitting at a table, engaged in an actual conversation with other people, and one or more of them simply cannot ignore the stupid meme-slinging that passes for discourse online? You could, if you wanted, sit at the table and exercise your free speech rights amongst other members of your community. But instead, lots of otherwise well-adjusted people would rather take another spin through Dorsey’s Crackhouse.
Imagine a crack dealer who doesn’t accept cash for rock, but instead has the crackhead watch a couple commercials? That’s what Twitter would be, if Twitter was as useful as crack. It’s not. Furthermore, the guy’s not really even selling crack anymore, he’s selling commercial advertising time. Come for the crack, stay for the new Tesla ad.
Content is always going to be secondary in this arrangement. Your right to say what you want is always going to be infringed by Jack Dorsey’s desire to sell Coca Cola, or whatever. You are an afterthought, at best, and a thrall, at worst.
My advice? Quit smoking crack. Be in the moment. Listen to your friends across the table. While they might try to sell you Avon, at least they’re not trying to sell you.
"What it does is put the user’s face in front of an advertiser."
Excellent comment. Social media is an advertising platform. Nothing more than that. Every platform that relies on advertising will be controlled by advertisers. The fact that this important point isn't part of this discussion is telling.
I think it’s pretty disingenuous, frankly. I appreciate that people care about free expression, as it’s fundamental to a good and decent life in an open society. Social media, however, is simply not intended for that.
As someone who doesn’t use social media (a couple very civilized comments sections, this one included, being the closest I get), I get to be on the outside looking in. What’s it look like from the outside? A burning train full of mouth-breathing sycophants that’s going to over-run the track, cause the conductor can’t stop huffing glue long enough to pull the brake.
Social media does not facilitate, foster, or encourage anything resembling discourse. What it does is put the user’s face in front of an advertiser. There’s never going to be free speech in such an arrangement, because the user and his or her rights to expression, conscience, and association are simply not important to the company. Frankly, the very users themselves aren’t even important, except as something to sell.
People don’t see it this way, because people don’t like self-examination. How many times have you been sitting at a table, engaged in an actual conversation with other people, and one or more of them simply cannot ignore the stupid meme-slinging that passes for discourse online? You could, if you wanted, sit at the table and exercise your free speech rights amongst other members of your community. But instead, lots of otherwise well-adjusted people would rather take another spin through Dorsey’s Crackhouse.
Imagine a crack dealer who doesn’t accept cash for rock, but instead has the crackhead watch a couple commercials? That’s what Twitter would be, if Twitter was as useful as crack. It’s not. Furthermore, the guy’s not really even selling crack anymore, he’s selling commercial advertising time. Come for the crack, stay for the new Tesla ad.
Content is always going to be secondary in this arrangement. Your right to say what you want is always going to be infringed by Jack Dorsey’s desire to sell Coca Cola, or whatever. You are an afterthought, at best, and a thrall, at worst.
My advice? Quit smoking crack. Be in the moment. Listen to your friends across the table. While they might try to sell you Avon, at least they’re not trying to sell you.
This is a great post!
"What it does is put the user’s face in front of an advertiser."
Excellent comment. Social media is an advertising platform. Nothing more than that. Every platform that relies on advertising will be controlled by advertisers. The fact that this important point isn't part of this discussion is telling.
I think it’s pretty disingenuous, frankly. I appreciate that people care about free expression, as it’s fundamental to a good and decent life in an open society. Social media, however, is simply not intended for that.
Because I recognize a fellow traveler, I can sit back, agree with EVERYTHING You "say," and appreciate this piece-a wit:
"That’s what Twitter would be, if Twitter was as useful as crack."