Why we're so polarized (No memes)

Oddity said:

It's obvious that the 'whistleblower' was there to call for more government regulation of social media - as if the government and social media companies aren't already in bed together.


Waybread likes government regulation, too. Just think, when it happens (possibly by new SM regs, possibly because they'll take away internet from us dissidents) then good people will never hear a word against fascism.


Won't that be glorious!

Click to expand...

uranianplutonian said:

Oh, (big) companies even go as far as to do research using MRIs to predict consumer habits. They'll take MRIs of people's brains to see how they react to certain stimuli - like colour, specific words, specific consonants and vowels, smells, sounds, etc. Then, they use this data in their marketing strategies.
They research how our values and beliefs affect our consuming habits, how our emotions and feelings affect our consuming habits. Demographics, culture, etc etc.

I feel like I was one of the only people in business school who felt very disillusioned after graduating. Quite literally, most big brands, companies etc., see people as sheep. I remember in one of my classes, business ethics, a professor quoting something along the lines of how consumers don't know what they want and how there's comfort in being told what they want (as opposed to making their own decisions). Of course, my prof was using this as an example of an unethical approach to business and didn't actually agree with it.

COVID happened about 6 months after I graduated, and lowkey, I felt satisfied to see karma catching up to big brands, universities, oil companies . The amount of revenue they lost, revenue earned at the expense of millions of people, was justice. Not that I'm saying COVID was/is a 'good' thing of course - 'good' and 'bad' has come of it.
(Yes I know big banks and Amazon and Uber and others profited off of COVID .)

I feel like the best thing anyone can do for themselves is to limit how much they use social media as well as how much they watch the news. Also, to try not to get emotionally involved in politics etc. It's like pouring your emotions into a black hole.

Click to expand...

uranianplutonian said:

Corporations loosing revenue isn't something to be happy for.

Thank you for expressing your opinion.

When businesses loose revenue, the ones who suffer are the employees that get laid off, the small investors who loose their life savings and the consumer who gets less available products at a higher price. Not to mention the small ventures, small business owners, start-ups which get ruined.

This is all true, and why I mentioned, 'not that I'm saying COVID was/is a 'good' thing of course - 'good' and 'bad' has come of it.'

The CEO, board of directors, and big stock holders still profit by selling assets or stock to investment funds to short the market, or just purchase stock selloff at lower prices and hold it waiting for the dead cat bounce effect.

Well. The dead cat doesn't bounce back to the height it fell from. The CEO, board of directors and big stock holders still take a hit, no matter how diversified their portfolios.

'The bigger they are, the harder they fall.'

Those at the bottom of the pyramid feel the impact of the fall, but not as hard as those at the top.

This is my perspective.

Anyway, I don't want to get off topic from the original post (effects of social media on society, ads, etc.) by debating whose opinion and/or perspective is superior.

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

Waybread algorithms just show you related searches for your usual content. If you listen to right-wing channels on youtube, they just show you similar channels. They even sometimes show you political channels of other nature. I get a lot of leftist content in my feed.

What the whistleblower said, is actually untrue in practice, and anyone can verify that on youtube.

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

Quite the contrary, the effects of the economic crash have a harsher impact on the lower tier of society. Rising prices and inflation hit poor people much harder than they do to someone who is rich.

The corporation is a separate entity from its owners, and even though the corporations made no profit for some time, the CEO and upper tier still got their paycheck. To them the effects of the economic crisis were minuscule. The people who lost the most were the small time investors, who saw no dividend payment for over a year, or saw their investments devalued and were forced to sell their stock for 1/3 of the buying price (which was bought by hedgefunds).

Also, small to medium businesses went bankrupt, causing unemployment, and honest business-owners were ruined, and saw years of hard-work go to waste. Corporations are social benefactors, which provide a livelyhood for millions of people.

I'm truly horrified someone who graduated from business would have such a narrow-minded view of the economy, to dare claim to feel joy this occured in the first place.

Click to expand...

waybread said:

Dirius, you've got a false argument going. There are multiple ways for corporations to make profits. It's not like the only conceivable way they could make profits would be via their scramble to the bottom.

With your argument, economists would all be supporting slave labor.

Social media companies have multiple ways to make profits.

Some companies establish a reputation for ethical conduct, and use their image as a marketing tool.

Click to expand...

uranianplutonian said:

Thank you for your input.

We are different people, from different backgrounds, with different beliefs and values, and therefore we have different perspectives.

Feeling horrified by my perspective and feelings sounds exhausting. I can only imagine how you must feel navigating the world we live in today.

Out of respect for the person who made the original post, I am not going to engage in this topic any further... Plus, I wouldn't want to unintentionally raise your blood pressure more than I already seemingly have!

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

The quote I took from her didn't refer to social media companies, but corporations in general. You are using a strawman as usual.

Corporations make profit in two ways: by selling products or services in exchange for money or advertising revenues, and by investments in either other companies, bonds, loans, etc., both of which were affected by the crisis.

No, economists wouldn't support slave labour - another typical leftist fallacy. If we took your idea to the extreme, and 90% of workers were slaves, there wouldn't be anyone to purchase products.

You ask why the world is polarised? you keep either lying and miss-representing what most of us have to say in these posts.

Click to expand...

waybread said:

Dirius, you're being silly again. That you try to do so as Mr. Economics Major accusing me of lying when I tell you the truth only exacerbates your problem.

Slave labor-- or truly oppressive working conditions certainly exist in parts of the world that currently manufacture cheap goods for wealthier countries' consumption. Look up working conditions in Bangla Desh factories involved in the garment industry, for one example. Or girls working in the Malaysian electronics industry for another.

Obviously it makes no sense to imagine everyone as a slave unable to purchase anything. Reductio ad absurdum. This isn't how the global economic system operates. Poor people produce goods for rich people. Got it?

Click to expand...

waybread said:

Dirius, you seem to have no awareness of the actual structural, social, and economic changes going on in the poorest developing countries seeking industrialization as a means of economic growth.

But notice how you will go off on any tangent imaginable to avoid the thread topic.

Please get back on track with the thread topic.

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

excuse me, what? I just showed you the actual statistical evidence that disproves your point - it shows that people in bangladesh are getting wealthier. I can also give you stats on wage growth and economic growth if you want. Numbers don't lie, but leftists are terrified of numbers, because it exposes their lies and ignorance of the economy.

You engaged on this topic, you promoted the discussion on economics, don't try to shut down the conversation just because I countered your incorrect argument.

Click to expand...

waybread said:

So blackbery, what are your primary information sources? Re: this thread topic, what do you think of the role of social media algorithms in the extreme polarization of American politics?

Please re-read the OP. Otherwise your posts merely serve as cases-in-point.

Click to expand...

waybread said:

Dirius, you seem to have no awareness of the actual structural, social, and economic changes going on in the poorest developing countries seeking industrialization as a means of economic growth.

But notice how you will go off on any tangent imaginable to avoid the thread topic.

Please get back on track with the thread topic.

Click to expand...

waybread said:

Oddity, at the risk of sounding like Spock, it simply isn't rational for a US taxpayer like myself to favor government regulation for its own sake. All those federal bureaucrats' salaries are on the taxpayers' dime. I don't want my own speech to be censored, obviously.

We've gone over this a million times before, but just to refresh our memories, please list some of the kinds of speech and forms of expression that are not protected under the law.

In the interests of removing censorship, apparently you're fine with social media incitement to riot, encouragement for adolescent girls to become bulimic, and information on how to bomb people to tiny itsy bits. You're fine with speech that recruits terrorists. I believe you draw the line at child p*rnography and the trafficking of sex slaves, but in media with no limits, such communications do flourish.

I dunno, Oddity. Convince me that you're not willfully naïve, with your vision of a censor-free media Wild West.

Click to expand...

blackbery said:

They also want to jab the children.......for their own safety of course!

For a virus with a 99.9% recovery rate. Covid deaths under 19 account for less than 0.5%.

This posting would be banned on FB, Instagram, YT. The 'fact checkers' would claim that it's medical disinformation.

The only ones putting out the lies, propaganda & misinformation are these social platforms.

Click to expand...

Oddity said:

Actually, I'd be okay with government censorship - with a proviso. Social media platforms lose their status as common carriers, and are therefore ineligible for the protections that Section 230 provides.


As common carriers, they are not allowed to ban or censor (though they do it anyway, that should be enough ammo to revoke their status), but they are immune to lawsuits for things said on their platforms - just like the telephone company is immune to lawsuits for what people say in telephone conversations.


So yes - revoke that status and let the lawsuits fly. If people really support them as platforms, they'll continue to exist. If not, they won't. And we might see some actual common carriers out of the mess.

Click to expand...