
Americans Agree: Social Media Is Divisive (But We Keep Using It) - petethomas
https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-agree-social-media-is-divisive-but-we-keep-using-it-11554456600
======
everdev
Most of my friends (~30s-40s) openly talk about how negative their experience
was with social media (interrupting family time, seeking approval / likes,
losing an hour or more to endless scrolling, having to have an opinion on
everything, stirring conflict between friends and family, etc.) and how
they've deleted their accounts.

It was useful and novel 10+ years ago, but for traditional uses like sharing
photos and messaging, SMS or Google Photos is easy enough these days.

It's been widely discussed that people who consume less news are generally
happier and I'm sure that's the same with social media too.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
I'm trying to stay away from the social networks, but somehow our local
running club decided that Facebook is the best way to communicate with
external world.

~~~
everdev
True, that's one complaint I still hear about quitting is that a lot of events
and groups are still managed on Facebook.

------
chiefalchemist
The current state of social media is a symptom; it's a mirror. To blame the
mirror for who and what is staring into it doesn't help solve the problem(s).
True, social media (as it stands today) is an enabler. It helps the symptoms
(e.g., confirmation bias) exists and persist, but ultimately it's still not
the tools' fault.

In the USA, I'd be more ready to place more blame on the binary political
parties, as well as the mainstream media. The internet will eventually greatly
reduce the power and influence of all three of these. What we're witnessing
now first-hand is these three power-holders collapsing and screaming
"But...But...we're still very relevant. Look! Look!! You need us to protect
you from 'them'" (with 'them' being one of the other power-losing enties). All
three have become terribly efficient at using hype, hyperbole and divisiveness
as means to "proving" they still matter.

For more info on these concepts see "The Influential Mind" by Tali Sharot.

[https://www.amazon.com/Influential-Mind-Reveals-Change-
Other...](https://www.amazon.com/Influential-Mind-Reveals-Change-
Others/dp/1627792651)

While she doesn't do a direct take down of media, social media and politics,
it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines a bit and extrapolate her
science onto the current state of things.

~~~
moorhosj
==The current state of social media is a symptom; it's a mirror. ==

This is true, but its worth acknowledging that these apps are purposefully
built to be addictive [1]. Things like endless scroll, pull to refresh, like
buttons, gamification, and more have been developed to make that mirror more
psychologically compulsive.

[1] [https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/trapped-
the-s...](https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/trapped-the-secret-
ways-social-media-is-built-to-be-addictive-and-what-you-can-do-to-fight-back/)

~~~
chiefalchemist
Addiction is a problem, kinda. But it's not as big a problem as what happens
when those over-connected minds are so happy to pursue confirmation bias, echo
chambers, etc. __That__ is likely what many people are more addicted to. That
is, for example, "I'm so great! Look how correct I am. Again!!!" Who doesn't
love that feedback loop?

And doesn't that described the major of people on social media? They don't
understand cause v correlation. They don't understand subjective v objective.

~~~
moorhosj
I think what you are describing IS the addiction.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Right. But people aren't addicted to the apps per se, they're addicted to
themselves. So taking away the apps might temporarily slow down the disease,
but that's still not a cure.

~~~
moorhosj
Maybe. Fortnite is addictive in it's own, less self-obsessed way. Not sure
which is healthier.

~~~
chiefalchemist
I'd say Fortnite is less unhealthy. My thought being, confirmation bias / echo
chamber is relatively less real than Fortnite, but not realized as such.
That's proving to be very dangerous to all of us.

------
beat
In March, I quit using Facebook cold turkey, for a variety of reasons. During
March, I read six books. I normally read about two books a month.

Was I really reading four books a month worth of Facebook? Quite possibly.

I recommend reading Cal Newport's _Digital Minimalism_ for a solid basis on
how to deal with social media - where it's necessary, where it's okay, and
where it's actively harmful. I also recommend reading Gary Rogowski's
_Handmade: Creative Focus in an Age of Distraction_ , which isn't so much
about getting off social media as what your life can look like when you're not
on it in the first place.

~~~
pjc50
I'm fairly sure I've _written_ a book's worth of HN comments. I've seriously
considered trying to extract the top-rated ones and weave them into a book.

~~~
beat
I've turned Facebook posts and comments into blog entries on Medium. There's
much to be said for the low-key, low pressure feel of such writing. Plus, I'm
really inspired by responding to the thoughts of others (or having my own
perceptions questioned and altered).

That said, it's such an attention suck that it's absolutely not worth it for
me. I'm finding I'm happier when I stay off. And I'm just wrapping up a two-
year project (producing a concept album!), so I've decided to not take on any
of the projects waiting in the wings, and just try living for a bit without
most social media or any big projects, and see what that's like.

------
nemild
I loved Paul Buccheit’s (of YC) quote on social media:

“[Twitter] is like a game where you get 1 point for being fair and thoughtful
and 1000 points for character assassination.”

[https://mobile.twitter.com/paultoo/status/110014488287253299...](https://mobile.twitter.com/paultoo/status/1100144882872532992)

(He said it about Twitter, but I think the spirit was about social media
generally)

Paul also helped brainstorm “Don’t Be Evil” at an early Google.

Personally, I don’t blame the media alone (as some in this thread do). All of
us are a product of the incentives we face, and feed algorithms play a huge
role (including for the journalists at media outlets).

And as always, I will shill my media literacy guide (there’s also a version
for software engineers):

[https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-
media/blob/master/README....](https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-
media/blob/master/README.md)

[https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-
media/blob/master/softwar...](https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-
media/blob/master/software-engineers-media-guide.md)

------
Aloha
I have Facebook and Twitter - I dont really use either, I might spend an hour
a week interacting with facebook, and an hour a quarter with Twitter. Twitter
is full of angry people trying to one up each other, and FB is full of
falsehoods circulated like chain letters. Both have little use for me.

------
Nasrudith
Personally I think social media is being misblamed as an easy scapegoat. It
does have its problems with privacy, mob mentalities, and impulse control but
it didn't start the fire or even accelerate it much - it is a preexisting
condition worsening over time period.

Before the misinformation there were chain letters and plenty of stupid moral
panics. Division has always been with us - it just makes it more obvious.

~~~
apatters
Twitter and Facebook in 2019 are both dumpster fires, but they aren't the
totality of social media. Before (and concurrent to) them we had Friendster,
Myspace, Orkut, and a plethora of hybrid services that have social networking
features.

Facebook and Twitter (1) optimize for mobile, where expressing complex thought
is difficult, (2) perform relentless A/B engagement testing seemingly without
accounting for the fact that people engage with things that make them unhappy,
and (3) have a huge news/media presence. I think all these elements and
probably more contributed to the cancer these services have become.

------
3xblah
Imagine if in 1993 someone proposed that the majority of web usage, i.e. the
hours spent, would occur on one website.

Imagine no need for email; all communications could be published on and
retrieved from a single website.

All eyeballs on the same website, not simply as a starting point or "portal",
but as a destination. Even more, the website produces no content. It is all
contributed by users.

~~~
will_brown
Wasn’t that AOL. Email, instant messenger, profiles, chat rooms all in one
place where everyone spent countless hours?

You could say it was a starting point/portal...but where else was anyone going
back then to spend significant time?

~~~
3xblah
Yes. In retrospect we could argue eventually those people discovered the "open
web" but with Facebook it is deja vu.

------
duxup
Humans are social animals. It's fun to connect with people about positive
things.

There was always some discussion about a "dislike" button on Facebook. That
always confused me. I have NO INTEREST in what people don't like. I want to
hear about what they're doing that is positive.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
The problem is that the kind of game-ified simulacrum of socialization that
social media often is doesn't promote connecting with people at all. Indeed,
it seems to me that very few things in contemporary society do.

~~~
duxup
I guess it depends on what kind of socialization we're talking about.

Just surfing someone else's photos is enough for me as far as what social
media provides. That's not the start and end of all socialization, but it is
nice.

------
ixtli
Its not social media!

Social media has a lot of issues that really need to be discussed in public
but _technology has no morals._ Facebook dot com isn't divisive: its USERS
are. Before social media you didn't have a deep view into their neighbors
thoughts and feelings. Now, we have a slightly deeper one and (shock and
surprise!) we find out that a social taboo on discussing serious issues in
casual company didn't lead to those issues being resolved, we simply ignored
them while people none of us like made all the decisions for us.

~~~
chriswarbo
You're ignoring the fact that "Facebook dot com" isn't _just_ used by those
with a Facebook account; it is also used by Facebook-the-company and its
customers (advertisers, propagandists, etc.) _against_ those with a Facebook
account (in order to extract revenue). This leads to things like "optimising
for engagement", and outrage turns out to be highly engaging and easy to
produce.

~~~
ixtli
I dunno I think my comment was inclusive of the notion that facebook profits
off of (i.e.: its users include) propagandists and other bad actors.

------
tmp09211
Are there any "think before you speak" browser extensions out there? Thinking
of doing a hackathon project that analyzes a comment in a comment box before
you post...

~~~
neom
I need this for emails as well. Clippy: Looks like you're trying to send an
angry email, would you like to save it as a draft and read it when you're
thinking straight?

~~~
tmp09211
Yes, for sure for work...would let you know the tone of your
email...angry/passive aggressive/etc etc

------
papermill
Americans agree politics is divisive. Americans agree news is divisive.
Americans agree sports is divisive. But we all still consume it.

I don't get the point of the article. People are divisive. Water is wet and
anything having to do with people is divisive.

How many of these "social media bad" articles are we really going to get from
the news industry? It's getting to be annoying, boring and exhausting. If
social media is so bad, why is the WSJ and the rest of the media trying to
force their way onto social media platforms? If these journalists are right
and social media is so bad, why are journalists so prominent on twitter and
much of social media?

If you want divisive, go check out the WSJ and NYTimes comment sections. Yet a
lot of people consume products from WSJ and NYTimes.

What's the answer? No media altogether or force people to think alike?

~~~
prolepunk
But in your comment, you just question everything without giving degree to
which things are affected.

I believe these statement give better feeling about the proportionality of
each media source:

Yes journalists are sometimes wrong, but most of the time they do their best
to research a subject.

Don't go to comment section unless you want to loose your faith in humanity,
there are some insights there sometimes but most of the time comment section
is just full of angry people. (The Atlantic removed comment section
altogether).

Social media (Facebook, twitter and the like) thrive on divisiveness,
sensationalism and appealing to gut instinct rather then exploring any kind of
intellectual idea. That is what platforms are made for, with the system of how
things get promoted, shared and rewarded -- counting engagement instead of
value to individuals and society.

Guess where all the advertising dollars go in this case, papers are loosing
money because any kind of attempt to examine ideas is a lot less interesting
for the advertisers because all they want pay money for is engagement.

~~~
beat
I think of how many people read one of Ta-Nehisi Coates' exquisitely
researched, half-hour-long read articles at the Atlantic, vs how many people
click on a video of a cat falling off a dresser or something. Sigh.

