Re:How Trolls Overran the Public Square
by notacoward on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @07:36AM
(#21751853)
> Anyone who doesn't agree with my conclusion obviously shouldn't be listened to because they're part of the problem.
It's actually kind of ironic that the OP indulges in such blatant well-poisoning, when that's exactly the kind of fallacious argument that ruins public discourse.
On the broader issue, while I don't agree with gatekeeping, I do think it's important to educate people about when social media is at its best and when it's at its worst. Among relatively small groups of people who already have a fairly strong connection - e.g. families, clubs, hobbies - but can't readily get together in person, social media can do a lot of good. Corporate accounts, or accounts with a million effectively anonymous followers? Generally garbage. Note that these distinctions are easily made based on structure, not content. Without getting into the issue of who should do what about these less beneficial structures, I think we'd be better off without them.
It's actually kind of ironic that the OP indulges in such blatant well-poisoning, when that's exactly the kind of fallacious argument that ruins public discourse.
On the broader issue, while I don't agree with gatekeeping, I do think it's important to educate people about when social media is at its best and when it's at its worst. Among relatively small groups of people who already have a fairly strong connection - e.g. families, clubs, hobbies - but can't readily get together in person, social media can do a lot of good. Corporate accounts, or accounts with a million effectively anonymous followers? Generally garbage. Note that these distinctions are easily made based on structure, not content. Without getting into the issue of who should do what about these less beneficial structures, I think we'd be better off without them.