Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Michael Hardner on March 05, 2021, 10:12:01 am
-
I'm a Facebook addict but acknowledge the catastrophic effects on politics of late.
But McLuhan taught us to set aside morality when looking at "effects". The morality is in us, and the effects of the tool bring those out.
Four questions.
1. What does the medium enhance?
2. What does the medium make obsolete?
3. What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?
4. What does the medium reverse or flip into when pushed to extremes?
I will attempt to start answering:
1. Person-to-person communication, in an intimate way but also instantly, with pictures, movies, and writing and music even... across the world... anywhere... in groups...
2. Telephoning ? Maybe. Emailing ?
3. Shared history and shared interests for groups... there used to be local "clubs" that went away with TV
4. It turns into a propaganda weapon
-
I shouldn't spend my time answering all these questions because I'm at work, but I think there's something interesting to consider for the obsolete question.
Facebook makes thoughtful commentary obsolete. Thoughtful in the sense that the medium encourages rapid snippets of information, rather than deep intensive reading and consideration. There's the other side to this as well, the medium encourages rapid-thoughtless presentation thoughts. Everyone gets the feeling that their knee-jerk reactions should be published for everyone to see. So what's obsolete here? In-depth, thoughtful study of ideas and in-depth thoughtful presentation of ideas: books, academic articles, etc. Everything is fast, easily-digestible, and inflammatory to increase engagement. Engagement boosts exposure through algorithms and we descend into an inflammatory thoughtlessness that creates division.
-
1. I shouldn't spend my time answering all these questions because I'm at work, but I think there's something interesting to consider for the obsolete question.
2. Facebook makes thoughtful commentary obsolete. Thoughtful in the sense that the medium encourages rapid snippets of information, rather than deep intensive reading and consideration.
3. There's the other side to this as well, the medium encourages rapid-thoughtless presentation thoughts. Everyone gets the feeling that their knee-jerk reactions should be published for everyone to see. So what's obsolete here? In-depth, thoughtful study of ideas and in-depth thoughtful presentation of ideas: books, academic articles, etc. Everything is fast, easily-digestible, and inflammatory to increase engagement. Engagement boosts exposure through algorithms and we descend into an inflammatory thoughtlessness that creates division.
1. I work days and will give & take time from my employer as I see fit. I give more than I take.
2. I tend to agree. Now you WILL get long think pieces linked to and subsequent discussion threads. That is unique to Facebook and I would count it as a "gain" or - better - to answer question #3, it recaptures "the coffee house" from 17th 18th century England
3. I think that's more about "politics on Facebook" but ok. And... on second thought more about Twitter.
I can think of a few "prime uses" of Facebook:
1) Online chat with friends about what's new... what's shocking... what's funny. Like grabbing a coffee and not knowing which one of my 2K friends will drop in. (How many friends have you folks got ? :D )
2) Sharing personal moments with close ones, like pictures, little successes, very bad news like RIPs, day to day life, and being able to do it with movies, text, and links to other media too... with people far away in distance or in time, such as high school friends I haven't seen in decades
3) Fighting with people about social issues
That's what I do with it. Most of my family talks about having to "take a break from it" because they have had a fight or somesuch. I haven't experienced that.
-
I don’t do Facebook. I’ve never understood the appeal, other than keeping in touch with relatives who are far away. I can see it for that purpose. But there are other platforms to do so as well.
-
I don’t do Facebook. I’ve never understood the appeal, other than keeping in touch with relatives who are far away. I can see it for that purpose. But there are other platforms to do so as well.
Well I am so glad you posted on here.
-
Well I am so glad you posted on here.
You’re welcome.
Sometimes you Facebook addicts need to hear from people who choose abstinence.
-
Sometimes you Facebook addicts need to hear from people who choose abstinence.
Wow, another treat !
Thank you again !!!
-
I’ve never understood the appeal, other than keeping in touch with relatives who are far away.
Yeah, I signed on when I was pregnant with my oldest and only friended my family abroad. They wanted to see pics and it was easier than emailing everyone.
Even though I don't accept friend requests from randoms or even people I haven't seen in a long time, little by little I ended up with enough people that I don't want to post personal things anymore.
I notice very few people post these days, it's mostly ads and groups. The people who post seem to over-post, not just their own nonsense, but even all the memories of their previous nonsense.
What I really don't get is people who post political stuff and then argue with friends and family. Seriously, join a forum... or twitter.
I do like it for marketplace and for video/calls when needed, but that's about it.
-
How about you, BC, care to try the four questions?
-
How about you, BC, care to try the four questions?
Ugh, now I have to think ::) but ok...
1. What does the medium enhance?
Connection between people, for anything from keeping in touch to selling things to dating.
2. What does the medium make obsolete?
Nothing I can of. Just My Space and Friendster...
3. What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?
This is something I've often thought about. In a way it's brought life back to centuries ago in the way we stay connected. For example, it hasn't been a way of life to know what someone you went to high school with is doing these days, but all of a sudden, you can easily friend them and see who they married, what their kids look like etc.
It can make for interesting dynamics too of a bygone era. Say you break up with someone, all my life we said goodbye and parted ways and I thought of them from time to time thinking what they're up to. Now, if I stay friends with them and their family/friends, I know all of it.
Facebook brought that aspect of life from an era long ago when communities were smaller and there was no escaping your lot unless you deliberately made changes to it (equivalent of unfollowing your ex's mom).
4. What does the medium reverse or flip into when pushed to extremes?
I'm not sure I understand this question, but pushed to extremes as in the bad parts of it... it would be the social experiments like Cambridge Analytica, also Fake News and Invasion of privacy.
-
1. What does the medium enhance?
2. What does the medium make obsolete?
3. What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?
4. What does the medium reverse or flip into when pushed to extremes?
1. For me the real value of FB is in maintaining communication and relationships with people outside my regular local social circles. So for friends and family who have moved to other cities or countries I'm not only able to keep communicating with them, I get to see pictures and sometimes videos of them and their families which is nice. This was not possible before without phone calls, emails, letters, which take more effort and are more formal, whereas facebook is a more passive and casual experience I can simply browse at my leisure.
FB groups can also make organizing communication easier among a bunch of people you know, though other apps like whatsapp has taken a bite out of FB here.
2. Local clubs, phone calls, letters/emails, and of course privacy, which is a big one. Due to Facebook i have also never had a high school reunion since FB was created, because we all converse on FB. It would be to nice to see everyone in person.
3. Maintaining ties with old friends and family in a more globalized world. People move cities more than ever, whereas 50-100 years ago this was less common, so it's easier to maintain ties with family/friends.
4. FB also makes memes and posts that are political in nature that can be written by anyone, rather than journalists or other professionals, so less authoritative people can spread opinions on subjects that contain more falsehoods, including propoganda. Can contribute to unfounded conspiracy theories etc. I think like any social media it can isolate people. Less reason to telephone or meet friends in person if social links can be maintained over internet.
-
So far, I agree with what has been posted and there seems to be some convergence too.
-
My only real fundamental problem with FB is the privacy issues. I'm not comfortable posting personal photos of myself with my real name or other personal details, so I avoid doing these things while using the site.
The problems with fake news etc are universal to social media and the main victims are the stupid or gullible that don't understand the difference between some guy posting nonsense and other info that's backed by more reliable sources. I guess there's pros and cons to democratizing our media. Giving everyone a voice means even the stupid have a voice.
-
My only real fundamental problem with FB is the privacy issues. I'm not comfortable posting personal photos of myself with my real name or other personal details, so I avoid doing these things while using the site.
The problems with fake news etc are universal to social media and the main victims are the stupid or gullible that don't understand the difference between some guy posting nonsense and other info that's backed by more reliable sources. I guess there's pros and cons to democratizing our media. Giving everyone a voice means even the stupid have a voice.
Personally, I feel privacy is overrated. I am more worried that the police are going to misuse my data than marketeers. But ok...
I find "privacy" to be another social wall that people are trying to sell you. My old parents were so afraid of Facebook by reading it on the news. They thought their financial information would be stolen. We got them on and now for the price of getting served Reverse Mortgage ads they can see what their kids' and grandkids' lives are all about every day. Seems like a fair trade.
Remember when we used to fret about TV violence and commercials ? This seems better. I would say that the economic structure isn't set up to replace the revenue from the thousands of small businesses being destroyed by it all, though...
-
Personally, I feel privacy is overrated. I am more worried that the police are going to misuse my data than marketeers. But ok...
I agree about marketers. But we must all realize that any info FB has access to the government probably does also.
Also consider that it's illegal (in theory) for the US to spy on its own citizens, but not illegal for them to spy on Canadian citizens or anyone else outside the US. That means the US can spy on Canadians however they wish, and then give that info to Canadian governments. The US has alerted Canadian authorities many times about criminals and whatever else.
It's a brave new world. Our governments don't even have much choice. If they want to keep pace with the Russians and China they need to be surveilling countries, including their own, for potential threats. So it's up to us to protect ourselves from their prying eyes.
Usually if you're not doing anything wrong bad nothing is going to happen to you. But it's still creepy. Nobody likes the idea of anyone tapping their phones or text messages.
-
I agree about marketers. But we must all realize that any info FB has access to the government probably does also.
My guess, from a thread on MLW where this was discussed, is that the phone companies are converting voice to text and sending it to the five eyes. They are likely archiving all of your data links along with your conversations.
That means the US can spy on Canadians however they wish, and then give that info to Canadian governments. The US has alerted Canadian authorities many times about criminals and whatever else.
That's how they do it.
I don't sweat it. If you ever go to Burning Man you will feel how strange it is to walk around and just say hi to everybody. I have been to a few places where there is an actual community "feeling" and it's just tragic that we lost that.
Hey maybe that IS an answer to #3.
-
If you ever go to Burning Man you will feel how strange it is to walk around and just say hi to everybody. I have been to a few places where there is an actual community "feeling" and it's just tragic that we lost that.
You’ve been in Toronto too long... take a walk in a park anywhere around here and you’ll get a tip of the hat and a hello from everyone on the trail.
I have a friend who gets mad at people who don’t wave while driving on Cortes Island. Yes... that’s a thing there. You pass by someone in your car, you better bloody wave! Haha
-
1. You’ve been in Toronto too long... take a walk in a park anywhere around here and you’ll get a tip of the hat and a hello from everyone on the trail.
2. I have a friend who gets mad at people who don’t wave while driving on Cortes Island. Yes... that’s a thing there. You pass by someone in your car, you better bloody wave! Haha
1. I agree that it's a city (not a Toronto) problem. The alienation and distance is an artifact of an unnatural design for human habitats. I enjoy the trail but ... not the same thing. Also I am from a small town originally and they have the same problems, but amplified in some negative ways (grudges, feuds, and fights; never outgrowing your history etc.) and positive ways (people know you and you have a larger network of people who care about you.
And... this is off topic but... we have come to know our neighbours in a way I have never done since living in that small town, during the pandemic. ???
2. I can't describe it, but the true feeling of social belonging in a large community is still different the_squid. Of course, this is an intangible emotional connection and entirely subjective so I have no way to prove it, anymore than you can disprove it. But the odd feelings of connectedness that I have felt, happened at:
-Burning Man
-Religious events, such as gatherings at the Vatican pre-JPII assassination attempt
-Concerts and theatre gatherings that were moving
-Socialist countries
-
Wow.
This is a massive outage today - down for HOURS ?!?
How is it even possible ?
-
Wow.
This is a massive outage today - down for HOURS ?!?
How is it even possible ?
How will we live?
-
We have this small island.
-
Everyone has a story about how facebook listens to their messages because they discussed something and next thing you know it was advertised on their feed.
Well! Yesterday my stand up desk got stuck. Nothing had changed, the wires were intact, I hadn't moved anything but somehow the up/down button weren't working.
I never discussed it with anyone and never even cussed out loud but lo and behold, all the advertisings on facebook were about desks. Probably a coincidence right?? (laughs nervously)
Stephen King needs to write a facebook-themed novel.
-
You haven't seen Black Mirror?
It's horror, technophobe style.
-
Everyone has a story about how facebook listens to their messages because they discussed something and next thing you know it was advertised on their feed.
Well! Yesterday my stand up desk got stuck. Nothing had changed, the wires were intact, I hadn't moved anything but somehow the up/down button weren't working.
I never discussed it with anyone and never even cussed out loud but lo and behold, all the advertisings on facebook were about desks. Probably a coincidence right?? (laughs nervously)
Stephen King needs to write a facebook-themed novel.
The Matrix has you.
-
Google's matrix must have me...I was reading about recovering from a prostatectomy and now I'm seeing ads for adult diapers.
I've never had a Facebook page or a Twitter account. This forum is pretty much it as far as my social networking goes. The ads pop up here too so the algorithms are everywhere.
CTV News: Ex-Facebook employee bringing sharp criticisms to U.S. Congress.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/ex-facebook-employee-bringing-sharp-criticisms-to-u-s-congress-1.5611300
I suspect any kind of serious pushback or effort to rein in the negative effects of social networking will be met with a counter-push that makes the resistance to COVID measures look like mild irritation. Won't be long before we're seeing ads for assault guns and other liberty- minded merch.
-
CBC.ca: Canadian government's proposed online harms legislation threatens our human rights.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-online-harms-proposed-legislation-threatens-human-rights-1.6198800
No other liberal democracy in the world has been willing to accept these restrictions, writes Ilan Kogan
Is resistance futile?
-
You’ve been in Toronto too long... take a walk in a park anywhere around here and you’ll get a tip of the hat and a hello from everyone on the trail.
I have a friend who gets mad at people who don’t wave while driving on Cortes Island. Yes... that’s a thing there. You pass by someone in your car, you better bloody wave! Haha
My partner says hi to people all the time, and gets insulted if they don't respond. I tend not say hi because I learned young that men can sometimes get weird ideas if a woman is friendly, so now it's habit. Sometimes I'll say hi or smile at an older woman, cause they're safe.
-
You haven't seen Black Mirror?
It's horror, technophobe style.
I can't watch that show, it describes my worst fears.
-
Democratic influencer David Pakman shares the oppressive and arbitrary actions of Facebook.
This is the real censorship: there's no online platform that allows free speech.
https://youtu.be/KPpXCE5Z7_U?si=0yXnvkfBIG0NXixo
-
Democratic influencer David Pakman shares the oppressive and arbitrary actions of Facebook.
This is the real censorship: there's no online platform that allows free speech.
https://youtu.be/KPpXCE5Z7_U?si=0yXnvkfBIG0NXixo
Of course not. We have free speech but no one is obligated to give us a platform to express whatever we want.
-
Of course not. We have free speech but no one is obligated to give us a platform to express whatever we want.
But when public communication relies on a certain type of platform, shouldn't we treat it differently than just a private service being offered ?
Why are communications governed specifically according to media when they are terrestrial but not otherwise ? Why is banking governed differently for that matter ? Isn't it just a service ?
-
Democratic influencer David Pakman shares the oppressive and arbitrary actions of Facebook.
This is the real censorship: there's no online platform that allows free speech.
https://youtu.be/KPpXCE5Z7_U?si=0yXnvkfBIG0NXixo
Watching progressives crying about free speech over the past 8 weeks has been the most satisfying kind of schadenfreude. People have been talking about this for 6+ years and you guys never had a peep to say about it until it impacted ideas that you support.
It belongs in the "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face" Hall of Fame.
Here's some platitudes. I've checked the ones that might be applicable to your situation. Read these over while I play the world's tiniest violin for you.
[ ] "It's not cancel culture, it's accountability culture!"
[X] "Nobody owes you a platform."
[ ] "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"
[X ] "You're free to speak, but you're not entitled to an audience."
[X] "If you don't like the policies of the platform you're on, go make your own platform."
-k
-
Watching progressives crying about free speech over the past 8 weeks has been the most satisfying kind of schadenfreude. People have been talking about this for 6+ years and you guys never had a peep to say about it until it impacted ideas that you support.
It belongs in the "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face" Hall of Fame.
Here's some platitudes. I've checked the ones that might be applicable to your situation. Read these over while I play the world's tiniest violin for you.
[ ] "It's not cancel culture, it's accountability culture!"
[X] "Nobody owes you a platform."
[ ] "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"
[X ] "You're free to speak, but you're not entitled to an audience."
[X] "If you don't like the policies of the platform you're on, go make your own platform."
-k
Well, ok, you're right but I offer my defense as:
1) never being entirely comfortable with private ownership of public forums
2) I was and am in favour of etiquette and politeness moderation, moderation against hate speech and such. I never thought they would remove people for support of mainstream political ideas, or saying something about Israel
3) I have also come to understand the algorithms are having an effect on discourse as well as social blocking Canadian news etc.
-
Well, ok, you're right but I offer my defense as:
1) never being entirely comfortable with private ownership of public forums
So... the government should nationalize public forums if they reach a certain size? Is this forum big enough to get nationalized? If the forum does get nationalized, does Wilber get replaced as moderator by some CRTC bureaucrat who would delete posts or ban users for saying things that the government doesn't agree with?
2) I was and am in favour of etiquette and politeness moderation, moderation against hate speech and such. I never thought they would remove people for support of mainstream political ideas, or saying something about Israel
See, there it is! "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face!"
(https://i.imgur.com/dBHYEDq.gif)
WHO DECIDES what are "mainstream political ideas", Michael? And what makes you feel that mainstream ideas are more deserving of being heard than ideas that aren't mainstream? Approximately 100 years ago, the idea that women should be allowed to vote was not a mainstream political idea. The idea that citizens should be able to choose their government was not a mainstream political idea until comparatively recently.
The President of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, got fired on Saturday. Or she resigned. She was likely told by the board of directors that if she didn't resign immediately they would fire her. Whatever. Whichever the case, she lost the job after her disastrous testimony at a congressional hearing last week, in which she said that a call for genocide against Jews wouldn't necessarily be against UPenn's hate-speech policy and that it would depend on "context". She and the other university presidents who testified spoke about the need to balance fighting hate speech against the constitutionally protected right to free expression. Which is correct, of course. But Magill was president of U-Penn, which is the university that told Lia Thomas's teammates that they would face ruinous consequences if they spoke out against having Lia on their team. So it makes Magill's act of being a free speech defender look like a big fat sham to me, and I think it's funny that she got fired for attempting to stand up for a principle she clearly doesn't even believe in. **** that ****.
And I feel the same way about all of the "progressives" who've transformed into free speech heroes since October 7th. Where the **** have you guys been for the past 7+ years?
-k
-
So... the government should nationalize public forums if they reach a certain size? Is this forum big enough to get nationalized? If the forum does get nationalized, does Wilber get replaced as moderator by some CRTC bureaucrat who would delete posts or ban users for saying things that the government doesn't agree with?
See, there it is! "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face!"
(https://i.imgur.com/dBHYEDq.gif)
WHO DECIDES what are "mainstream political ideas", Michael? And what makes you feel that mainstream ideas are more deserving of being heard than ideas that aren't mainstream? Approximately 100 years ago, the idea that women should be allowed to vote was not a mainstream political idea. The idea that citizens should be able to choose their government was not a mainstream political idea until comparatively recently.
The President of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, got fired on Saturday. Or she resigned. She was likely told by the board of directors that if she didn't resign immediately they would fire her. Whatever. Whichever the case, she lost the job after her disastrous testimony at a congressional hearing last week, in which she said that a call for genocide against Jews wouldn't necessarily be against UPenn's hate-speech policy and that it would depend on "context". She and the other university presidents who testified spoke about the need to balance fighting hate speech against the constitutionally protected right to free expression. Which is correct, of course. But Magill was president of U-Penn, which is the university that told Lia Thomas's teammates that they would face ruinous consequences if they spoke out against having Lia on their team. So it makes Magill's act of being a free speech defender look like a big fat sham to me, and I think it's funny that she got fired for attempting to stand up for a principle she clearly doesn't even believe in. **** that ****.
And I feel the same way about all of the "progressives" who've transformed into free speech heroes since October 7th. Where the **** have you guys been for the past 7+ years?
-k
So, I am glad to be wrong, grow, and learn from my mistakes. Not great when someone rubs that in your face though.
And I didn't advocate for the identification of mainstream ideas, not for nationalization of social media. CBC wasn't ever a private network that was nationalized.
And I gave a short list of things that would have to be moderated, not a "whitelist". Being public, there would have to be a lot of unsavory topics in there and it would have to be conservatives to introduce such a thing.
-
Watching progressives crying about free speech over the past 8 weeks has been the most satisfying kind of schadenfreude. People have been talking about this for 6+ years and you guys never had a peep to say about it until it impacted ideas that you support.
That's because most right wing cancel culture stories were fake, hope that helps.
-
That's because most right wing cancel culture stories were fake, hope that helps.
This is true also but liberals can't pretend that there are some constraining effects of this new morality.
Do you self censor ? I do, but I can also empathize as to why people are emotional on topics also.
I'm not going to bring up the topic of Trans women in sports with a Trans friend, any more than I would bring up racism with a black person. Why would I have anything to offer them, except personal empathy?
-
Watching progressives crying about free speech over the past 8 weeks has been the most satisfying kind of schadenfreude. People have been talking about this for 6+ years and you guys never had a peep to say about it until it impacted ideas that you support.
It is quite astonishing. They didn't give a sh*t until it started to affect them personally. I have no use for people like that.
-
It is quite astonishing. They didn't give a sh*t until it started to affect them personally. I have no use for people like that.
I'll admit that I didn't anticipate commenters being taken down arbitrarily.
But I will also point out, if they were taking down innocuous conservative posts I wouldn't have supported that as a 'consequences of free speech' thing.
You get ONE victory lap.