This may not be terribly popular, and its admittedly just conjecture, but I'm of the opinion that its less about the quantity of social media, and more how one interacts with it and even more so consumes it.
Some platforms are clearly more toxic than others, though I'm increasingly of the opinion that they are all pretty toxic, just different flavors of "world outlooks" to choose from.
I feel that those that actively participate (commenting, posting, responding, reacting) are more affected and more caught in the feedback loop. Those that more or less passively read these platforms, rarely interact, and largely work to keep "perspective" seem to have less of a tough time on it and allow it to impact their outlooks and moods less.
Those that tend to interact more seem to get caught in a sort of feedback loop. measured/Nuanced/Moderate or considerate takes are generally frowned upon on most of the major platforms these days. Outrage and simplistic viewpoints reign supreme, and most will bury the rest, forcing even those with moderate stances to either "consider a side" when continuing or just outright not partake. And all of these seem to be, relatively speaking, vocal minorities.
There are plenty of people that consume stuff and just dont have anything useful to say, or just dont have the energy to say it and defend it etc. Of course this seems to depend on the platform as well, for example I would never post this take on reddit....
With that said, I go agree generally, that these are toxic and create unbalanced viewpoints and world views. As Dave Chappelle said, "twitter isnt real", and to an effect that true. Twitter, reddit, youtube, facebook, dont necessarily pan out to the larger population's opinion as a whole, at least where its measured (such as in politics and polling)
I concur with your view. After taking a long break from social media, it becomes obvious what the issues are. Look at these and suggested posts for people wealthier, fitter, and presumably happier than myself. For some people, incessant exposure to that content is toxic. It makes me feel behind in life, and I feel better without constantly viewing it. When you doomscroll, it absolutely produces a positive feedback cycle and gets worse. And this cycle applies not to just the aforementioned Instafit-type content, it applies to politics, it applies everywhere. I had to stop reading /r/FatFIRE, but /r/financialindependence is fine.
I don't question that social media isn't great, although 1990s me knows I don't need addictive algorithms to fritter away all my time online, so I tend to find those arguments a bit overblown.
But I guess I'm just missing the gene that makes me compare myself to what I see online. Don't get me wrong, I've had my share of envy and jealousy throughout the course of my life. But I don't find that looking at my friends' vacations makes me less happy with my life, I enjoy living vicariously when they go on vacation, and sharing my own when I do the same. I don't compare myself to models. I don't need a picture of some greek god to tell me I'd like to lose those 20lbs again. I've often joked that I'll probably be anxious about ending up broke and destitute right up until the day I retire. (I'm doing well in my career and financial life, it will just always be a worry of mine). But I actively avoid the kind of content where the only goal is to bragpost, and I find it quite easy, because that kind of personality doesn't appeal to me.
Is it because I follow my friends on Facebook and Instagram, rather than "influencers"? I don't really care about Lambo some middle eastern prince just bought this week, or what purses some model owns. Maybe this is why I prefer Facebook to Twitter. I don't like the default-broadcast model of Twitter, I think that's what makes it toxic. On the other hand, the default-private model of Facebook that lets me just enjoy my friends' content also creates stronger echo chambers, I suppose.
> This may not be terribly popular, and its admittedly just conjecture, but I'm of the opinion that its less about the quantity of social media, and more how one interacts with it and even more so consumes it.
I feel the same way.
Facebook is a great way to keep up with what friends are doing. When I adopted a kitten, it was the perfect place to show pictures to all my friends.
The problem is, "keeping up with your friends" turns into living vicariously through them. This type of social media is just a highlight reel of your friends, and some people have a hard time internalizing that.
Personally, I'm in a great position in my life, so I don't really live through other people's posts.
I don't use Instagram at all. On Twitter, I follow a bunch of people in the InfoSec world and a couple politicians, and I don't read replies to the political posts, half of which are probably bots anyways[0].
I keep my Facebook friends list relatively slim. I deleted and blocked my racist uncle. Everyone one of my friends, I can tell you exactly how I know them. I don't accept random requests. I don't follow political pages. I'm in a few groups, but they're well-moderated.
[0] I wish I could use a regex as a block list. "[A-Za-z]{4,}[0-9]{4,}" would probably block 90% of bots.
> I feel that those that actively participate (commenting, posting, responding, reacting) are more affected and more caught in the feedback loop. Those that more or less passively read these platforms, rarely interact, and largely work to keep "perspective" seem to have less of a tough time on it and allow it to impact their outlooks and moods less.
I agree, and I also think it matters what you read. If you're constantly reading political punditry, vapid clickbait stuff that constantly reminds you that there's somebody richer and more beautiful than you, etc., consumption alone is detrimental.
> This may not be terribly popular, and its admittedly just conjecture, but I'm of the opinion that its less about the quantity of social media, and more how one interacts with it and even more so consumes it.
Yes. I am passionate about a sport. I manly follow that sports' athletes on Instagram. I take a look daily while on the toilet or idle and get tired of it after some minutes. The same goes for Reddit, I just follow a couple of niche subs and enjoy using both platforms. No politics and no "serious" topics.
Well, I think one of the real dangers of social media, and its algorithms, is a similar danger to society that gambling represents.
Gambling payouts are precisely timed to dopamine chemistry in the typical human brain. They have tuned it to that level of fundamental biochemical reaction. That's something that is refined/tuned over decades of focused development.
Let's look at sugar sugar everywhere. Foodstuff companies are doing the SAME THING. Decades of refining the precise amount of sugar (which is absolutely addictive) they can slide into foods to expand people's excessive consumption. Decades of precise biochemical studies, A/B studies, etc.
Marketing has for decades tried to refine certain social psychology with varying degrees of effectiveness to prompt irrational consumption of whatever they are pushing. They've been effective, but I'm can't say that the marketing industry has ever found a "silver bullet" of biochemistry.
But I do think that social media has formulated a social psychology addiction silver bullet. And I think this one may be more pernicious than sugar or gambling or opium. This one can be used for propaganda, not just reliable production of subservient consumer/addicts.
I’ve found the exact opposite in the groups I’m a part of. Social media can imbue you with a lot of simple opinions and constant feedback around them. People who are actually arguing are at least actively engaging with an idea (sometimes)
I think the whole underlying theme is virtual is shallow. At least more so than reality. You don't think or feel the same behind a keyboard. Gravity imposes a tax on your brain activity, requires a bit more dirty work, keeps things balanced. You're less jumpy, less entitled about simple principles to get scandalized. I also think the web caught some kind of fever. It feels quite puritanistic around data and science hashtags.
Some platforms are clearly more toxic than others, though I'm increasingly of the opinion that they are all pretty toxic, just different flavors of "world outlooks" to choose from.
I feel that those that actively participate (commenting, posting, responding, reacting) are more affected and more caught in the feedback loop. Those that more or less passively read these platforms, rarely interact, and largely work to keep "perspective" seem to have less of a tough time on it and allow it to impact their outlooks and moods less.
Those that tend to interact more seem to get caught in a sort of feedback loop. measured/Nuanced/Moderate or considerate takes are generally frowned upon on most of the major platforms these days. Outrage and simplistic viewpoints reign supreme, and most will bury the rest, forcing even those with moderate stances to either "consider a side" when continuing or just outright not partake. And all of these seem to be, relatively speaking, vocal minorities.
There are plenty of people that consume stuff and just dont have anything useful to say, or just dont have the energy to say it and defend it etc. Of course this seems to depend on the platform as well, for example I would never post this take on reddit....
With that said, I go agree generally, that these are toxic and create unbalanced viewpoints and world views. As Dave Chappelle said, "twitter isnt real", and to an effect that true. Twitter, reddit, youtube, facebook, dont necessarily pan out to the larger population's opinion as a whole, at least where its measured (such as in politics and polling)