Class vs class

[Pfhorrest]

you did see the part in the OP about how I'm not judging all of those particulars one at a time, but just throwing a bunch of stuff out there for a rough picture of the kind of axis I'm looking for a name for? I don't see an RV in a driveway and think "this person is a boor", any more than I hear someone likes sports and think "this person is a boor". And honestly I don't really notice clothing or jewelry on people themselves, just walking around, it's more about hearing people talk about how important showing off the right brand of bling is to them. And like owning an RV or liking sports, that's not really a thing that offends me in itself anyway, but was just another brush stroke in the rough painting of a typical boor I was making in that first post.

[sardia]

Based on what you're saying, I'm sympathetic but I don't really approve. Some of your examples are ok, rolling coal at someone but others aren't.

PS rolling coal uses similar modification in order to haul really heavy payloads. It's not entirely a waste. Though it's like Nascar for hauling. The art supercedes the original purpose.

[SuicideJunkie]

it's more about hearing people talk about how important showing off the right brand of bling is to them.

I find that sort of open fakeness/hollowness particularly grating.
Fashion is bleeding people of money while making them wear uncomfortable/impractical things.

[Tyndmyr]

Before making judgements, ask yourself if you are seeing the real person, or the Facebook cartoonish version.

Facebook kind of is exactly the thing he's complaining about, though. All image, no substance. At least for many, who are posting about where they eat, what they bought, etc. A carefully cultivated fake image of life.

The fact that they maintain a cartoonish front tells you they're the kind of person that needs to maintain a cartoonish front.

[sardia]

How's your Facebook feed compare to the cartoonish versions? My Facebook is in hibernation, so it's been a while. My dated example is people who post about their vacations and wisecracks about their great jobs. I felt slightly jealous about his life. I also found out that he quit his job soon after posting. He was hiding his unhappiness about his job. Would that count as a cartoonish front? If so, how meaningful is knowing that about them?

[Tyndmyr]

I use Facebook relatively little these days. However, your example seems to still be fairly relevant. People over-represent the good things to present a good image to everyone.

It's pretty much the same thing that some people do in real life. Brand new clothes and a false smile on their face, even when life is crashing down around them. I think knowing that tells you a bit about what they value, and how they need to be perceived.

Sometimes it's a good deal more facile. Some folks are big on selfies, some are big on documenting the food they eat. I think both are sort of similar, in that they seem to be a form of bragging. I'm not particularly offended by such things on facebook, after all, it's easy enough for me to not use it, or simply avoid those people. On the flip side, I don't have a terribly high opinion of them. The approach of valuing appearances over substance seems a bit hollow.

[Leovan]

The part I hate about Facebook is how my wife reacts to it. She has a friend who's a lawyer making career, a friend in the peace corps saving the world, a friend who's currently traveling the world, and a friend who recently gave birth to twins. My wife thinks she's a failure because she hasn't accomplished all four things at the same time. She's only studying law, interning at a law office helping low-income immigrants, she's lived in Europe & US and traveled Africa, and she has a husband and a cat (unlike 3 of those 4)... But each individually sounds more accomplished than what she's done. And naturally since her only contact is over Facebook, she doesn't know anything else about their lives except the awesome things they portray.

[ucim]

She has a friend who's a lawyer making career, a friend in the peace corps saving the world, a friend who's currently traveling the world, and a friend who recently gave birth to twins. My wife thinks she's a failure...

She needs the equivalent of four people before they, together, measure up to her, alone.

Jose

[Leovan]

She has a friend who's a lawyer making career, a friend in the peace corps saving the world, a friend who's currently traveling the world, and a friend who recently gave birth to twins. My wife thinks she's a failure...

She needs the equivalent of four people before they, together, measure up to her, alone.
Jose

That's what I keep telling her...
The point is these are all possible directions she could have taken in her life, all things she wishes she could do. It's impossible to do all at once because they're sort of exclusive, but when you look at Facebook and the profiles show happy people, maybe you made the wrong choices in life? You only get one chance to accomplish everything you want to try in life. Life is a buffet but you can only try so much... You get amazing people (and I may be biased claiming my wife is amazing) doubting their own life choices based on a one-sided portrayal. I hate that effect.
And that basically seems to be part of what Phorrest dislikes. People who put their lifestyle out there and don't like to be doubted. Have a smaller car, they obnoxiously roll coal to show you their superiority. Don't enjoy sports, they become pushy about their favorite team/sport. Basically make themselves feel better by making others feel worse and hide their own weaknesses. At least on Facebook you simply don't mention your troubles, while in real life they have to trumpet their successes in your face to hide them. Down side is Facebook has a much bigger reach.

[sardia]

Getting hit by peer pressure is really annoying. Luckily you can start disengaging from your "friends" until you have a smaller tighter core group. For example, my cousin loves designer clothes/bags/accessories etc etc, and wanted me to join in the spending. When I did try to spend some, I didn't get any enjoyment out of it, nor any validation from them. It was easier to just disengage from them, and hang out with them less and less. Now it's much more enjoyable to see them once a year, because we spend time catching up instead of the toxic rat race stuff. Distance/time does make the heart fonder, and I think it's much better this way. You only hear their shit once a year, and rarely does it make a impact.

TLDR ditch your crap friends, and make more.

[elasto]

The part I hate about Facebook is how my wife reacts to it. She has a friend who's a lawyer making career, a friend in the peace corps saving the world, a friend who's currently traveling the world, and a friend who recently gave birth to twins. My wife thinks she's a failure because she hasn't accomplished all four things at the same time.

I sat down with my pre-teen and had this conversation with her: The fact that people can use social media to be mean to each other is kinda obvious; The fact that something like Instagram demonstrates a selection-bias - the fact that everyone always presents their best side - is a less obvious psychological danger.

You see all the amazing things other people choose to show you; You don't often see the misery and the angst. That's true of selfies which are typically posed and managed, and it's true of accomplishments. So the lawyer making career, you won't see her regret over spending too little time with her loved ones etc. It's perfectly possible all four of your wife's friends are less happy than she is, but she might never know it.

Instagram is something alien to our generation; There's still a "keeping up with the Joneses" aspect for us - except with the Joneses being 'everyone else in the world' (or, at least, 'everyone we've ever met'). Having grown up with it, though, hopefully my daughter's generation will be able to see through that nonsense and keep things in perspective. She'll see that 'everybody lies' and hopefully the peer-comparison-pressure will be something she can largely shrug off.

(Neither her nor her friends use Facebook though; They see that as an 'old person' thing )

[ucim]

(Neither her nor her friends use Facebook though; They see that as an 'old person' thing )

Yeah, but what they do use... is it owned by Facebook?

Jose

[elasto]

Yeah, but what they do use... is it owned by Facebook?

How does that matter particularly?

Facebook is bad because people pool into echo chambers forwarding clickbait to each other. Twitter is bad for much the same reason, except with more anger and trolling. So far as I can tell, Instagram is much more of a powder-puff lifestyle type app. It's main danger seems to me to be people making themselves feel bad by comparing their lows to everyone else's apparent highs. Avoid that trap, then block the ads, and it seems to me that Instagram is pretty benign all things considered.

[ucim]

How does that matter particularly?

Social media companies make their money by selling your personal information, in one way or another, after making it more valuable by aggregating it. It matters little what face is put on this espionage ring, if Facebook owns it, Facebook gets the data. Ads are the least of it - a red herring even.

Jose

[elasto]

Social media companies make their money by selling your personal information, in one way or another, after making it more valuable by aggregating it. It matters little what face is put on this espionage ring

In which case why ask if Facebook owns it? Why would it be better if Google or Microsoft owned it or if it was independent and selling on data?

Ads are the least of it - a red herring even.

Well, quite. That's why I mentioned them only in passing. I worry much more about my child getting lost in echo chambers than drooling over a new pair of sneakers.

Anyway, your argument seems to be against all social media apps, not Facebook especially. Expecting people not to use social media to keep in contact with friends is simply unrealistic. My daughter's generation anonymize their personal info and many use multiple accounts and that's probably enough of a precaution for now.

You and I disagree about how worrisome it is for firms to have our personal info anyhow. I'd rather teach my kids about how firms try to manipulate your attention than attempt to turn the clock back and ban them from using any of it.

You presumably wouldn't advocate abstinence-only when it comes to sex ed, so why would you when it comes to social media..?

[sardia]

Yeah, but what they do use... is it owned by Facebook?

How does that matter particularly?

Facebook is bad because people pool into echo chambers forwarding clickbait to each other. Twitter is bad for much the same reason, except with more anger and trolling. So far as I can tell, Instagram is much more of a powder-puff lifestyle type app. It's main danger seems to me to be people making themselves feel bad by comparing their lows to everyone else's apparent highs. Avoid that trap, then block the ads, and it seems to me that Instagram is pretty benign all things considered.

All the algorithms are coded the same way. Whether you like a Facebook Trump post or a racist Instagram photo. They'll pair them with other related posts that you'll like. Other extremists posts.

[SuicideJunkie]

Promiscuity is not a good thing in either case.
Friends should be actual friends and you don't need a big corp to share stuff with them.
Where are the chats and IMs?
Also, independence and single-player games are underappreciated.

[Weeks]

You presumably wouldn't advocate abstinence-only when it comes to sex ed, so why would you when it comes to social media..?

That's a hell of a comparison! Maybe contraceptives aren't quite the same as not having a profile on Facebook.

[Chen]

You presumably wouldn't advocate abstinence-only when it comes to sex ed, so why would you when it comes to social media..?

That's a hell of a comparison! Maybe contraceptives aren't quite the same as not having a profile on Facebook.

Well in terms of what you tell your kids to do/not do it seems pretty apt. Telling your kid to not use social media at all but not prepare them for how to protect themselves with regards to it seems pretty similar to telling your kids not to have sex and not telling them how to avoid STDs and getting pregnant. And while the impact of unprotected sex is likely greater than that of unprotected social media use, the latter can still be dangerous. Cases like Amanda Todd or Phoebe Price are examples of that.

[elasto]

All the algorithms are coded the same way. Whether you like a Facebook Trump post or a racist Instagram photo. They'll pair them with other related posts that you'll like. Other extremists posts.

My daughters don't like the posts of strangers.

Promiscuity is not a good thing in either case. Friends should be actual friends and you don't need a big corp to share stuff with them.

Exactly! You get it! Sex is best practised with those you are closest to, and carries the greatest emotional risk when between strangers. Likewise with social media. For example, all their posts are private and they don't accept any followers that they don't know IRL.

Where are the chats and IMs?

Oh, by far most of their time is spent on WhatsApp. Instagram is for sharing selfies and group pics. Youtube is the only other app to really get a look in, and they know the comments there are filled with idiots.

Well in terms of what you tell your kids to do/not do it seems pretty apt. Telling your kid to not use social media at all but not prepare them for how to protect themselves with regards to it seems pretty similar to telling your kids not to have sex and not telling them how to avoid STDs and getting pregnant.

Bingo! Humans are social animals and teenagers the most social animal of all. Demanding abstinence in either sphere is not preparing them for life.

[sardia]

Your adblock won't work forever, and you can't control the ads they do see.

[elasto]

Your adblock won't work forever, and you can't control the ads they do see.

Agreed. Nor can I control all the other myriad ways people will try to manipulate them - from their peers to the media to everyone else.

Rather than try to wrap them in cotton wool, therefore, I don't try to insulate them from the world but instead teach them self-reliance: to find meaning in your own achievements rather than in the praise of friends or strangers - that the only standards you have to live up to are you own; to be wary of your cognitive biases and to spot when others try to use logical fallacies or manipulations against you.

It's not that it's a foolproof strategy, it's that it's the only strategy that has any chance of success...

Telling them not to use social media isn't going to help with any of that...

[ucim]

In which case why ask if Facebook owns it? Why would it be better if Google or Microsoft owned it or if it was independent and selling on data?

Facebook is far more powerful than an independent, and can do more with the data itself. Facebook is somewhat worse (more blatantly dishonest) than Google, and quite a bit worse than Microsoft.

If there are big monsters and little monsters, the ones to preferentially not feed are the big ones.

You presumably wouldn't advocate abstinence-only when it comes to sex ed, so why would you when it comes to social media..?

The risks and their sources are different. I would certainly advocate abstinence-only when it comes to putting (your own) sex acts on you-tube. But I'd also teach them why, what the dangers are, why they are dangers in the first place, and how to mitigate them. That's important because they will make their own decisions anyway.

And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.

For example, all their posts are private and they don't accept any followers that they don't know IRL.

Fine, but Facebook knows and tracks it all, and turns it into a profile they sell to others. When Facebook says something is "private" it doesn't mean Facebook isn't still reading it all. And that's where the danger comes from.

Jose

[SuicideJunkie]

And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.

For that you'd need to make one of your own and lose money on it.
It also wouldn't change the inherent toxicity, since it won't change people's behavior in regards to what they post and thus what people see.

[sardia]

And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.

For that you'd need to make one of your own and lose money on it.
It also wouldn't change the inherent toxicity, since it won't change people's behavior in regards to what they post and thus what people see.

hobby or
User supported forums is your best bet. If they make money from the store instead of ads, they may not sell your data until they go under.

[ucim]

They'd need something to attract the right users in the first place; perhaps a webcomic would do it?

Jose

[Zohar]

They'd need something to attract the right users in the first place; perhaps a webcomic would do it?

Jose

It would help to put a link to the board from the main page, probably.

[ucim]

It would help to put a link to the board from the main page, probably.

What? And let the riff-raff in?

September's coming! Build a wall!

Jose

[EdgarJPublius]

And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.

For that you'd need to make one of your own and lose money on it.
It also wouldn't change the inherent toxicity, since it won't change people's behavior in regards to what they post and thus what people see.

There's always the diaspora project I guess?

[Tyndmyr]

And I'd love to see social media that is not an espionage network in disguise. I don't know how to get there from here though.

For that you'd need to make one of your own and lose money on it.
It also wouldn't change the inherent toxicity, since it won't change people's behavior in regards to what they post and thus what people see.

Pretty much.

People are people, regardless of how you monetize their interactions. Yeah, it might somewhat slow the echo chamber sorting, but people self sort into echo chambers anyways, so...I'm not sure how much could actually be accomplished here.