No, I don’t. I remember when the internet would (it did!) and Usenet would (it did!) and irc and open source and the web (they did!) but social media was always about entertainment and (one way or another) monetization of those technologies. It’s the cancer of our collective mind and achievements.
Why did you trust what The Atlantic and Foreign Policy had to say at the time? Anyone can tell you anything ; that's no reason to take them so seriously you're disappointed if events years later show their claims to be wrong.
There's some "they" or another that makes all sorts of claims, including obviously stupid or self-serving ones; and with no requirement that different "they" s be consistent about what claims they make.
The rhetorical device "Remember when they told us that ____" is meant to imply that there was some legitimate, trustworthy authority that made a claim about the world that people should have been willing to trust, that turned out not to be true. And what I'm disputing is that the specific authorities - prestige English-language news and opinion organizations like The Atlantic - should ever have been particularly trustworthy, or even authoritative. The Atlantic writing an article in 2010 arguing that social media is bringing democracy to Iran by facilitating the Green Revolution should not even at the time have been considered to be a trustworthy, authoritative voice that people should put much creedence in. Indeed the actual text of that article is someone challenging the claims that (Western) social media were particularly important to what was happening at the time, presumably in response to other, more pro-social-media voices also speaking at the time.
My point is not necessarily to litigate what specific people writing for specific publications about then-current geopolitical events, and how good their analysis was in hindsight; it's to argue that any analysis of this sort is simply not a promise that anyone should feel betrayed about not being consistent with real events years later.
Social media was about staying in touch. Whether that was about your friends and family (Facebook) or your city / neighborhood (Twitter). Algorithmic feeds are what poisoned the well.
At some point societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix. A system that allows people to amass incredible fortunes and use those fortunes to influence other people's beliefs and votes is simply a system that will eventually fall under the control of those ultrawealthy people.
The "proven track record" part of your question is shortsighted. We shouldn't restrict future political thought by past political thoughts. We'd never see any progress that way.
If you're asking which one of the three I think we should focus our attention for change, I think the obvious answer from both a moral and logical standpoint is capitalism. The combination of democracy and free speech means money is political power. Allowing individuals to amass this much political power is both unjust and destabilizing. That goes for companies as well. If companies are going to be amorally motivated purely by money, we need to do a better job of pricing in externalities to put reins on that amorality.
Someone smarter than me can weight on this part, but I don't think it was/is capitalism per se. Moving off the gold standard, and allowing the Dodge Brothers to win the case saying stock holders were more important than paying workers were a 1-2 gut punch to capitalism. I don't believe our forefathers would be very proud of us if they saw this mess.
Dodge v. Ford was both a landmark case and a very narrow excuse that holds no jurisdiction outside of Massachusetts. I hope someone challenges it one day, but it seems like any potential challengers benefit from pretending it's precedent.
It's not an either/or situation... we can improve on the capitalist system we have today (in the US) through government policy (taxes, whatever). I fear we're actually too late, and ceded too ,much influence to the billionaire class, but that's not totally proven out yet.
High captial tax rates, strong labor protections, and banned stock buybacks as a start. So much hubub over "make america great again" but we seem very coy about looking at fiscal policy back in the "great" days.
And I don't even think these are the best ideas. But they have "a proven track record".
Marginal tax rates on income and wealth that make being a billionaire impossible? The US was prosperous with much higher marginal tax rates for instance.
We should treat existing fortunes as bugs and correct them.
Good, let them leave, then. I'm tired of this excuse of "but the parasites are crucial to our way of life". As if the invisible hand won't have dozens of other companies to compete and fill the void should the monopoly man walk away with his money.
They've had decades to move to Dubai or New Zealand or whatever other magical country doesn't tax its residents. I wonder why they choose to stay in one of the richest countries in the world instead?
The Islamic system does not permit uncontrolled capitalism, requires fair financial transactions, is pro rights for both rulers and the population, enforces Zakat (alms tax / a form of wealth tax).
The middle east has the largest concentration of billionaires outside of US/China and huge poverty alongside. It is so grotesque that the rich will often just kill people and casually pay blood money.
Begin a billionaire is not inherently unethical. It's about how the money was acquired and how it is spent. This notion that it is evil is mainly a western one.
If you're being sarcastic, yes lots of westerners are in the region because of lower taxes and other benefits. Otherwise, correlation is not causation, much of the situation there is because of the fallout of western colonization, including Islamic principles being not fully applied there (the west is behind a lot of it), and the usurious financial system.
Neither does democracy nor free speech. It's interesting that you felt the need to quibble over only one of those three definitions.
I used those words in the context of the rise of companies like Meta and people like Zuckerberg. I trusted the people reading what I wrote to know that. A response telling me the US is a republic adds nothing to the conversation but allowing an individual to bask in their own pedantry.
The idea that democracy doesn't exist in the world is not something that I currently agree with. Did you mean to say direct democracy?
Very similar take on free speech vs absolute free speech. Did your definition mean to include exceptions for libel, fraud, child exploitation? Etc.?
You seem to be insinuating something about me by saying "it's interesting you felt..." But you are the one who put the "unrestricted" qualifier next to capitalism and no such extreme anchors on the other two concepts.
It's also interesting that you chose to imply something about my character instead of reflect on your own choice of words and their objective meanings.
Like I said, I don't think quibbling over specific word choices is productive. So what are you hoping to accomplish with your comments here? Because you're coming off like someone trying to score points in a high school debate rather than someone trying to have a conversation. I would consider that interpretation as giving you the benefit of the doubt, because the only alternative is a judgment of your intellect.
To end any possible confusion, "unrestricted capitalism" meant capitalism without enough restrictions. It was used to cover a range of related concepts and ideologies such as laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon, and neoliberalism. It was used to indicate that my problem was not with more basic capitalistic ideals like private property and competitive markets.
Depending on your definition, it may actually exist in many places around the world. As long as criminal CEOs/executives/engineers are not prosecuted under the laws they break everyday, one could argue "unrestricted" is the norm here in France, or in the USA. Two small examples out of a widespread issue:
- fascist-owned CNews keeps spreading illegal (under french law) fake news yet noone is jailed, the fines barely make a dent in the profits, and their nationwide TV channel continues to receive license despite breaking all regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNews#Warnings_and_sanctions
It can and does. The power of social media to spread ideas and accelerate political action is why fascists took it over and co-opted it. That's why we're fed the narrative that social media is evil and needs to be regulated or banned at all costs.
> That's why we're fed the narrative that social media is evil and needs to be regulated or banned at all costs.
Social media prioritizing algorithms that feed off division and anger is evil.
If Facebook & Twitter were still ways to simply keep in touch with friends, family, and interest groups, I don't think anyone would care (other than the ads).
I think Facebook is still that for most people. I think the narrative of widespread social addiction and "mind control" through social media is intentionally overstated to serve a political agenda. These problems to exist, social media can be addictive, misinformation does spread like wildfire, but I fear focusing on "algorithms" as a whole rather than the sources of misinformation or the companies running the big platforms is an attempt to make information and communication (and by extension political organization and action) more difficult in the long run.
Most people's proposed solutions seem counterproductive. Making social media illegal and banning it entirety removes a valuable means of communication and networking for people. Forcing all social media platforms with n> users to be nationalized means all platforms that might be useful for activism will be controlled by the government. Forcing them to only use strictly alphabetic or chronological listings makes access more difficult, but doesn't necessarily remove polarizing or false information. Repealing Section 230 would cripple speech across the internet and make it impossible for platform owners to police minsinformation and hate speech without taking on legal liability for themselves. All of these solutions at least implicitly serve the interests of authoritarians and all of them only seem reasonable because of the current moral panic around social media.
There have been plenty. Surely you aren't arguing that social media has never done so. Arguably social media has been one of the most catalyzing political forces in human history. And bearing in mind that "political action" can be in any direction, I found some examples. I didn't work very hard because this could have literally been a Google search on your part.
No, I don’t. I remember when the internet would (it did!) and Usenet would (it did!) and irc and open source and the web (they did!) but social media was always about entertainment and (one way or another) monetization of those technologies. It’s the cancer of our collective mind and achievements.
Here you go.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/08/the-twitter-devolution/
See also...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/evalu...
And these lies, of course, were spread by the social media platforms themselves and their PR departments.
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media's_role_in_the_Ara...
Why did you trust what The Atlantic and Foreign Policy had to say at the time? Anyone can tell you anything ; that's no reason to take them so seriously you're disappointed if events years later show their claims to be wrong.
It’s just an example that there exists a “they” that were making these claims.
There's some "they" or another that makes all sorts of claims, including obviously stupid or self-serving ones; and with no requirement that different "they" s be consistent about what claims they make.
The rhetorical device "Remember when they told us that ____" is meant to imply that there was some legitimate, trustworthy authority that made a claim about the world that people should have been willing to trust, that turned out not to be true. And what I'm disputing is that the specific authorities - prestige English-language news and opinion organizations like The Atlantic - should ever have been particularly trustworthy, or even authoritative. The Atlantic writing an article in 2010 arguing that social media is bringing democracy to Iran by facilitating the Green Revolution should not even at the time have been considered to be a trustworthy, authoritative voice that people should put much creedence in. Indeed the actual text of that article is someone challenging the claims that (Western) social media were particularly important to what was happening at the time, presumably in response to other, more pro-social-media voices also speaking at the time.
My point is not necessarily to litigate what specific people writing for specific publications about then-current geopolitical events, and how good their analysis was in hindsight; it's to argue that any analysis of this sort is simply not a promise that anyone should feel betrayed about not being consistent with real events years later.
Goalpost moving > No one said this > They said this > Ok but why did you believe them
Yes, this is known as manufacturing consent.
Social media was about staying in touch. Whether that was about your friends and family (Facebook) or your city / neighborhood (Twitter). Algorithmic feeds are what poisoned the well.
You're thinking of social networking. Social media is about consumption.
Isn't that precisely why this is happening? Because it's doing exactly that, and the people in power in these countries don't like it?
At some point societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix. A system that allows people to amass incredible fortunes and use those fortunes to influence other people's beliefs and votes is simply a system that will eventually fall under the control of those ultrawealthy people.
What’s your more effective, less flawed alternative with a proven track record?
The "proven track record" part of your question is shortsighted. We shouldn't restrict future political thought by past political thoughts. We'd never see any progress that way.
If you're asking which one of the three I think we should focus our attention for change, I think the obvious answer from both a moral and logical standpoint is capitalism. The combination of democracy and free speech means money is political power. Allowing individuals to amass this much political power is both unjust and destabilizing. That goes for companies as well. If companies are going to be amorally motivated purely by money, we need to do a better job of pricing in externalities to put reins on that amorality.
Someone smarter than me can weight on this part, but I don't think it was/is capitalism per se. Moving off the gold standard, and allowing the Dodge Brothers to win the case saying stock holders were more important than paying workers were a 1-2 gut punch to capitalism. I don't believe our forefathers would be very proud of us if they saw this mess.
Capitalism is an extension of nature. Nature can be cruel, but it's still nature.
Blaming capitalism for what's happening in America is like blaming an engine for a car not having seatbelts.
No. Anarchism is an extension of nature, and a better analogy would be blaming an engine for only Rolls Royces having seatbelts.
Dodge v. Ford was both a landmark case and a very narrow excuse that holds no jurisdiction outside of Massachusetts. I hope someone challenges it one day, but it seems like any potential challengers benefit from pretending it's precedent.
There were times when NASA went to space, not incredibly wealthy individuals…
NASA went and turned itself into a gigantic inefficient bureaucracy to the point that SpaceX considers NASA experience a negative.
Why are we at all concerned with what SpaceX considers a negative?
Because they've gotten a lot of mass into orbit cheaply.
Every large entity eventually becomes an inefficient bureaucracy.
NASA just sent four people around the Moon.
I think Julius Caesar demands a word if we were only supposed to use systems with proven track records.
https://xkcd.com/2383/
Are you seriously claiming that building an empire didn't have a proven track record by the time of Caesar? Interesting.
No, Caesar suggests that no founding father of a modern country accepted your requirement of a proven track record for republics.
Isn't he the millionaire that destroyed the Roman Republic?
Exactly.
It's not an either/or situation... we can improve on the capitalist system we have today (in the US) through government policy (taxes, whatever). I fear we're actually too late, and ceded too ,much influence to the billionaire class, but that's not totally proven out yet.
High captial tax rates, strong labor protections, and banned stock buybacks as a start. So much hubub over "make america great again" but we seem very coy about looking at fiscal policy back in the "great" days.
And I don't even think these are the best ideas. But they have "a proven track record".
Marginal tax rates on income and wealth that make being a billionaire impossible? The US was prosperous with much higher marginal tax rates for instance.
We should treat existing fortunes as bugs and correct them.
I’m not sure if you are aware but there are ways for the rich and powerful to live, maintain and earn fortunes outside of the US.
Good, let them leave, then. I'm tired of this excuse of "but the parasites are crucial to our way of life". As if the invisible hand won't have dozens of other companies to compete and fill the void should the monopoly man walk away with his money.
They've had decades to move to Dubai or New Zealand or whatever other magical country doesn't tax its residents. I wonder why they choose to stay in one of the richest countries in the world instead?
My point is they can still influence the US even if they / their money isn’t there.
Do you really live in that much of a US-centric bubble where you don’t realise outside influence exists?
>they can still influence the US even if they / their money isn’t there.
Sure, but I wager not being in the US means less money. And thus less influence
> Do you really live in that much of a US-centric bubble where you don’t realise outside influence exists?
Adding any friction to their influence is a good thing, in my eyes.
The Islamic system does not permit uncontrolled capitalism, requires fair financial transactions, is pro rights for both rulers and the population, enforces Zakat (alms tax / a form of wealth tax).
Neither does Christianity, but you really wouldn't really know that by observing the practices of so called Christian Nations™
The middle east has the largest concentration of billionaires outside of US/China and huge poverty alongside. It is so grotesque that the rich will often just kill people and casually pay blood money.
Begin a billionaire is not inherently unethical. It's about how the money was acquired and how it is spent. This notion that it is evil is mainly a western one.
That certainly explains the flood of migrants from the West to the Middle East and North Africa.
If you're being sarcastic, yes lots of westerners are in the region because of lower taxes and other benefits. Otherwise, correlation is not causation, much of the situation there is because of the fallout of western colonization, including Islamic principles being not fully applied there (the west is behind a lot of it), and the usurious financial system.
Unrestricted capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world.
Neither does democracy nor free speech. It's interesting that you felt the need to quibble over only one of those three definitions.
I used those words in the context of the rise of companies like Meta and people like Zuckerberg. I trusted the people reading what I wrote to know that. A response telling me the US is a republic adds nothing to the conversation but allowing an individual to bask in their own pedantry.
Uhh...
The idea that democracy doesn't exist in the world is not something that I currently agree with. Did you mean to say direct democracy?
Very similar take on free speech vs absolute free speech. Did your definition mean to include exceptions for libel, fraud, child exploitation? Etc.?
You seem to be insinuating something about me by saying "it's interesting you felt..." But you are the one who put the "unrestricted" qualifier next to capitalism and no such extreme anchors on the other two concepts.
It's also interesting that you chose to imply something about my character instead of reflect on your own choice of words and their objective meanings.
Like I said, I don't think quibbling over specific word choices is productive. So what are you hoping to accomplish with your comments here? Because you're coming off like someone trying to score points in a high school debate rather than someone trying to have a conversation. I would consider that interpretation as giving you the benefit of the doubt, because the only alternative is a judgment of your intellect.
To end any possible confusion, "unrestricted capitalism" meant capitalism without enough restrictions. It was used to cover a range of related concepts and ideologies such as laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon, and neoliberalism. It was used to indicate that my problem was not with more basic capitalistic ideals like private property and competitive markets.
Depending on your definition, it may actually exist in many places around the world. As long as criminal CEOs/executives/engineers are not prosecuted under the laws they break everyday, one could argue "unrestricted" is the norm here in France, or in the USA. Two small examples out of a widespread issue:
- tobacco company execs lied under oath in the USA and killed millions for profit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Berkshire
- fascist-owned CNews keeps spreading illegal (under french law) fake news yet noone is jailed, the fines barely make a dent in the profits, and their nationwide TV channel continues to receive license despite breaking all regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNews#Warnings_and_sanctions
That's just scratching the surface.
Some words are new and their definitions haven't settled. "Unrestricted" is not one of them.
Who told you that, the entire point was to talk to girls you lacked the courage to strike up a conversation with.
Saying ‘hi, I also like that band you have a shirt of’ was just too hard so we had to create trillion dollar monstrosities.
I thought that was true only for Zuck …
And now they just block you on first approach. Mission accomplished.
Oh well, now we have AI girlfriends as the next trillion dollar industry. We'll get it next time!
“Spread democracy” means “manipulate public opinion to submit to USA”.
That includes censoring content that threatens puppet governments.
It was a good pitch to get funding.
I’ve never heard a single time social media companies say that social media would spread democracy. Sounds like a straw man to me
It was a fairly common narrative during the Arab Spring, when the technology was still relatively novel.
Arab Spring and the Obama campaign. I know, it seems a lifetime ago...
It’s quite the contrast when you look at Twitter then and X now.
It can and does. The power of social media to spread ideas and accelerate political action is why fascists took it over and co-opted it. That's why we're fed the narrative that social media is evil and needs to be regulated or banned at all costs.
> That's why we're fed the narrative that social media is evil and needs to be regulated or banned at all costs.
Social media prioritizing algorithms that feed off division and anger is evil.
If Facebook & Twitter were still ways to simply keep in touch with friends, family, and interest groups, I don't think anyone would care (other than the ads).
I think Facebook is still that for most people. I think the narrative of widespread social addiction and "mind control" through social media is intentionally overstated to serve a political agenda. These problems to exist, social media can be addictive, misinformation does spread like wildfire, but I fear focusing on "algorithms" as a whole rather than the sources of misinformation or the companies running the big platforms is an attempt to make information and communication (and by extension political organization and action) more difficult in the long run.
Most people's proposed solutions seem counterproductive. Making social media illegal and banning it entirety removes a valuable means of communication and networking for people. Forcing all social media platforms with n> users to be nationalized means all platforms that might be useful for activism will be controlled by the government. Forcing them to only use strictly alphabetic or chronological listings makes access more difficult, but doesn't necessarily remove polarizing or false information. Repealing Section 230 would cripple speech across the internet and make it impossible for platform owners to police minsinformation and hate speech without taking on legal liability for themselves. All of these solutions at least implicitly serve the interests of authoritarians and all of them only seem reasonable because of the current moral panic around social media.
‘Moral panic’ shows lacking understanding on the real damage
No it shows people are being tricked into blaming the wrong thing for the damage.
Do you remember cases in which it "accelerated political action" ?
famously the Arab spring
also BLM, israel palestine
and the genocide in myanmar, that was definitely accelerated political action
There have been plenty. Surely you aren't arguing that social media has never done so. Arguably social media has been one of the most catalyzing political forces in human history. And bearing in mind that "political action" can be in any direction, I found some examples. I didn't work very hard because this could have literally been a Google search on your part.
Arab Spring
Nepalese Discord Protests
Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine
2009 Iranian presidential election protests
2011 Egyptian revolution
#BlackLivesMatter
#MeToo
Hong Kong protests
#NoKings protests
Yellow Vest protests (France)
Anti-Israel/Pro-Palestine protests
Anti-vaccine protests during COVID
Rohingya genocide
GamerGate
The case of Iran in 2009 is notoriously false. See for example what ForeignPolicy has to say about it.
More in general, Malcolm Gladwell is not convinced about the power of social media...
https://archive.is/GryvI#selection-323.0-355.16
That's a lazy response. Do better.