Was that guy sure? Of an initial email content? Even though yeah ...it's just hard to believe how many boys are dumb this way when young.
PS I hate Facebook. But it's a way to check on people you've no other way to check on;and they have groups that might come handy.
It's completely failing platform for writing and discussing, imo. Wrong format, completely. And very annoying software. also I think they sold everybody and everything they could. Maybe that's not unique to them, I don;t know. I don't use too much social media since forums have died.
And I see it as general problem of Internet...you exist as long as you're online. With exceptions of course. After all, I did found some of my most important relationships online. Maybe I'd never meet them otherwise -but I'm a bit of a fatalist here....maybe I would. Who knows.
Chen- You’re right in that there are definitely good relationships that can come out of meeting someone in the internet now. Although I’m not sure about back then. And it actually wasn’t just the one guy. A few other guy friends got the same email. And I agree, their user interface could be better. And definitely their grounding principles.
Hi Thalia, I enjoyed this thoughtful post. Never an avid consumer of Facebook myself, I finally deleted my account about 4 years ago in response to an *actual* stalker. I've never looked back. Even though social media gives us a sense of staying connected with distant family and friends, the reality is that this connection is superficial at best and becomes an excuse for not making the time for more meaningful and intentional interactions--like a phone call or even...gasp!...writing a letter.
Amy, you’re absolutely right about the phone call and letters. When someone calls me now, it’s like a present. Since it’s so rare. Letters are the same. But you’re right on Facebook’s problem. They’re very much rampant now with stalkers. Even here we’d have to be careful!
It's interesting that you landed on this subject today, Thalia. I just suspended my FB account yesterday, as I got sick of being confronted with how easily led the vast majority are. Whatever the "current worthy thing is", which of course changes week to week. And people don't seem to see the manipulation happening to them in real time. All of a sudden, several of my acquaintances (and of course some actual real-life friends as I had a mixture on there) had accepted an offer (where from) to change their profile picture to a certain flag....to show their solidarity etc. I am sure you know what I am alluding to, but it's all very divisive so I will leave it there! In any case, it all goes to reinforce the point you make here, which seems to be a fear of being the outlier, or desire to be reinforced. All of which show a certain neurosis which to me is a deliberate tactic of the website. As one independent news analyst put it recently in an acronym POSIWID. The Point Of a System Is What It Does. Disregard what it SAYS it does.....like "connecting people". That's the cover story.
Jim, the flux in social media is definitely an issue. And I wonder if perhaps mankind has always been prone to such flux, regardless of the topic at hand. It used to be mass media, magazines, and newspapers. And now, social media seems to just amplify that effect exponentially. My main objection to Facebook is its lack of ownership in leading a new global category. They had a chance to create something beautiful. And yet all they did was letting the motions and algorithm own the category, and by doing so: own the people within its system. And that’s something I don’t think I can easily overlook. Being the first to something should mean taking responsibility of being custodians of the millions in their charge. And instead they simply became custodians of millions of dollars.
Yes, agreed. I am not sure what that beautiful thing would have looked like though, Thalia. I always puzzled on that quote from Marshall McLuhan about the medium itself being the message. But since the www exploded into our lives, I think (maybe) I have a better grasp of what he meant. Perhaps most users wouldn't be very engaged - or ensnared - in a system which simply provided the best possible access to meaningful discourse for the most people. There is no dopamine hit involved in that model. And as soon as it becomes a commercial enterprise where the "user" doesn't pay for the service, inevitably that chance is gone. Because the user is the product of course. Exactly at what point the business model pivoted in that way would be interesting to know. Or maybe that was always the way it was meant to go.
Good points here, Jim. I’d say it’s still early days in forming the near functional ‘social media,’ whatever that might mean. 25 years sounds like a long time in our finite life, but near infancy in the lifetime of the way we communicate with each other. I’d say it’s every bit worthwhile to persist in shaping it into a decent and mature shape. Even if it might mean it won’t happen in our lifetime.
Was that guy sure? Of an initial email content? Even though yeah ...it's just hard to believe how many boys are dumb this way when young.
PS I hate Facebook. But it's a way to check on people you've no other way to check on;and they have groups that might come handy.
It's completely failing platform for writing and discussing, imo. Wrong format, completely. And very annoying software. also I think they sold everybody and everything they could. Maybe that's not unique to them, I don;t know. I don't use too much social media since forums have died.
And I see it as general problem of Internet...you exist as long as you're online. With exceptions of course. After all, I did found some of my most important relationships online. Maybe I'd never meet them otherwise -but I'm a bit of a fatalist here....maybe I would. Who knows.
Thank you for the post, Thalia
Chen- You’re right in that there are definitely good relationships that can come out of meeting someone in the internet now. Although I’m not sure about back then. And it actually wasn’t just the one guy. A few other guy friends got the same email. And I agree, their user interface could be better. And definitely their grounding principles.
even before back then. I'm pretty ancient. So it seems))
Nothing wrong with that. 🙌🏼
Hi Thalia, I enjoyed this thoughtful post. Never an avid consumer of Facebook myself, I finally deleted my account about 4 years ago in response to an *actual* stalker. I've never looked back. Even though social media gives us a sense of staying connected with distant family and friends, the reality is that this connection is superficial at best and becomes an excuse for not making the time for more meaningful and intentional interactions--like a phone call or even...gasp!...writing a letter.
Amy, you’re absolutely right about the phone call and letters. When someone calls me now, it’s like a present. Since it’s so rare. Letters are the same. But you’re right on Facebook’s problem. They’re very much rampant now with stalkers. Even here we’d have to be careful!
It's interesting that you landed on this subject today, Thalia. I just suspended my FB account yesterday, as I got sick of being confronted with how easily led the vast majority are. Whatever the "current worthy thing is", which of course changes week to week. And people don't seem to see the manipulation happening to them in real time. All of a sudden, several of my acquaintances (and of course some actual real-life friends as I had a mixture on there) had accepted an offer (where from) to change their profile picture to a certain flag....to show their solidarity etc. I am sure you know what I am alluding to, but it's all very divisive so I will leave it there! In any case, it all goes to reinforce the point you make here, which seems to be a fear of being the outlier, or desire to be reinforced. All of which show a certain neurosis which to me is a deliberate tactic of the website. As one independent news analyst put it recently in an acronym POSIWID. The Point Of a System Is What It Does. Disregard what it SAYS it does.....like "connecting people". That's the cover story.
Jim, the flux in social media is definitely an issue. And I wonder if perhaps mankind has always been prone to such flux, regardless of the topic at hand. It used to be mass media, magazines, and newspapers. And now, social media seems to just amplify that effect exponentially. My main objection to Facebook is its lack of ownership in leading a new global category. They had a chance to create something beautiful. And yet all they did was letting the motions and algorithm own the category, and by doing so: own the people within its system. And that’s something I don’t think I can easily overlook. Being the first to something should mean taking responsibility of being custodians of the millions in their charge. And instead they simply became custodians of millions of dollars.
Yes, agreed. I am not sure what that beautiful thing would have looked like though, Thalia. I always puzzled on that quote from Marshall McLuhan about the medium itself being the message. But since the www exploded into our lives, I think (maybe) I have a better grasp of what he meant. Perhaps most users wouldn't be very engaged - or ensnared - in a system which simply provided the best possible access to meaningful discourse for the most people. There is no dopamine hit involved in that model. And as soon as it becomes a commercial enterprise where the "user" doesn't pay for the service, inevitably that chance is gone. Because the user is the product of course. Exactly at what point the business model pivoted in that way would be interesting to know. Or maybe that was always the way it was meant to go.
Good points here, Jim. I’d say it’s still early days in forming the near functional ‘social media,’ whatever that might mean. 25 years sounds like a long time in our finite life, but near infancy in the lifetime of the way we communicate with each other. I’d say it’s every bit worthwhile to persist in shaping it into a decent and mature shape. Even if it might mean it won’t happen in our lifetime.