• 2 Posts
  • 854 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 31st, 2023

help-circle



  • I have seen social media described as “microblogging”, but I don’t think that’s true. Or rather, actual blogs like on WordPress are one thing, but the more “conversation” style is something else entirely. Phrases such as “^This”, “I also choose this guy’s wife”, “and my axe” reveal that the true purpose of social media is emotional venting, rather than conveyance of information. For some people at least - and depending on moderation practices and abilities, and on communities setting up expectations, the level of discourse may be either higher or lower, but even so, foundationally, isn’t that what this place is for?

    After all, Wikipedia articles are one thing, essays and poetry are another, blogs are still another (with the level of effort being put into their crafting), and finally at the lowest end, social media is found where we just blurt out whatever we are thinking about at any given moment.

    Mind you, it can be done well - I have had people convince me of my privilege status & thus shepherd me into wokeness even on Facebook, which is not known for such - but even so, isn’t the true purpose of a thing what it mostly does? Like a vehicle isn’t a coffee holder, despite it being capable of that, as well as many other things.

    Some people’s thoughts are just more worth listening to than others. Hence why microblogging e.g. Twitter/X & Mastodon can aim at a higher end, as too can Reddit & Lemmy/K/Mbin (+ soon: Sublinks), but it seems rarely used for its maximum purpose and far more often for its emotive vomit aka “share every single one of our uncurated thoughts”. Case in point: my message right here, which unlike a “blog post” took me <5 minutes to create.:-P

    Btw, check out https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb for an example of what I would consider a more worthwhile post. Sometimes, imho, it is okay to aim for more quality than quantity of posts, even if that seems antithetical to the goal of “social media” that aims instead to connect people together to just shoot the shit amongst ourselves.







  • It is, but presumably phrasing it as a question increases engagement (or was thought to) hence furthers the OP’s goal, in spite of the factual nature.

    i.e. the same reason that Trump was allowed to walk all over the “moderators” at the recent Presidential advertisement “debate”.

    You know, “journalism” as it seems to always be practiced these days. As in, chase the profits to the exclusion of all other considerations.

    Hrm, I wonder if my time spent on social media has made me more hostile to such predatory practices overall…



  • Preemptive: take what I’m saying with a heavy grain of salt, obviously and as always.

    The true liberals will vote Dem no matter what - Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, hell this group would vote for Pete Davidson at this point!

    The true conservatives… same, mostly. Unless the liberals advanced someone like Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney, who may be able to chip into that? (This is when we finally stop pretending that liberals have any options in this race, midway between neoliberalism and outright fascism.) Bc just like Dem != liberal, but differently, Repub != Trump-er.

    There are probably like 5-100 people in the middle somewhere, but bc they live in swing states somehow determine the course of the entire nation. Would this be a time to be risky and advance AOC - as a young, passionate, genuine person, since the votes of neither liberals nor conservatives are likely to be affected either way? Except the old money probably worries too much that they could not control her, whereas both Trump and Biden have been vetted in this regard.