tech companies can't make social media trash unless the people who want to be on them want them to be trash, and we have made a few outside of the bit techosphere that are also trash, so
guys, we might be the problem.
@quinn Honestly I think this is unfair. In a sense social media companies are engaged in asymmetric warfare against individual minds. They devote resources to manipulating people into engaging in things they don’t really “want” in much the way a rat in a Skinner box does what the researcher wants it to do.
Ultimately individuals are victims of a vast system of manipulation beyond their control, governments are clueless about it, and bad actors are exploiting it.
@gwcoffey then why is masto a trashfire and bluesky worse than twitter
@gwcoffey it just isn't true, it might be what tech companies want to be true, but they can't get toxicity off their platforms when they want to, they're in a constant fight with their own users. they want to monitize them and keep them on platform, but they want them in a buying mood. and again, it doesn't at all explain why when you take the companies out it's still toxic. i mean, even back in the day of EFnet, that shit was rough. it's us, we're the problem.
@quinn Well that’s fair if you’re taking about toxicity. I thought you were talking about endless scrolling, endless division, and endless general malaise about “the world”.
But yes I agree if you give people anonymity and engagement they will be jerks to each other.
@gwcoffey anonymity has nothing to do with it. my death threats have always come signed.
@quinn Well I’m not particularly qualified to diagnose toxicity because I’ve never seen any of it directed at me (privilege I know). I read years ago that data shows strict real name policies go a long way (but create other problems). But I’ll definitely defer to you on toxicity problems. My personal beef with modern social media is commodification of the human psyche.
@gwcoffey as someone who's been through a few cancelings (and has also studied this stuff for years) i can assure you the worst of it is signed and would be stamped if it could be. when it's a pitchfork mob, they want credit.
I do expect that the pitchfork mob wants credit as a group, but am somewhat surprised that individual members want credit. (I would expect them to wish to hide in the anonymity of the mob; otherwise I wouldn't expect them to form any sort of cohesive mob.) Do you have a clue whether they find retaliation implausible, don't care about it, or something else?
(Please feel more than free to point me at something longer to read on the topic.)
