Great piece Mr. Bruni. As a big fan of Jonathan Haidt's work (Happiness Hypothesis should be required reading) this piece strikes the chord. Especially frustrating is how we live in these 'echo chambers' not only for politics, but also petty things like sports, music and pop culture. Its become frequent and burdensome for trivial issues like: Are the New England Patriots a dynasty? Or: Is U2's music on the decline? to become a shouting match with people who disagree.
1
Good! I don't do Facebook or twitter or text or instagram. I do Ø social media. I don't listen to radio or watch TV – don't own one. I haven't watched a film of any kind on any medium since October 2004.
“Humans see what they want to see.” ~ RICK RIORDAN (b. 1964) American author
Pop what you will on any corner my screen, anywhere on my screen – The New York Times is now in the practice of presenting these very annoyingly distracting mini film ads along articles which I automatically stop the moment they appear, ditto the ad strips above all headlines which I instantly scroll away – they are wasted on me.
I am impervious – I have desensitized myself, inoculated myself – to all advertisement in print or computer screen. I literally don't see them and, when I do, if I do, my reaction to whatever is viscerally negative. I've so 'conditioned' myself and guarded my perception.
I don't follow fashion or trends.
I am insulated! I am free. I am I.
"I’ve chosen to be this way because that’s how I feel comfortable with myself. That’s how I am.”
~ Mary Beard
(b. 1955)
The professor of classics at the University of Cambridge, a fellow of Newnham College, and Royal Academy of Arts professor of ancient literature.
“Humans see what they want to see.” ~ RICK RIORDAN (b. 1964) American author
Pop what you will on any corner my screen, anywhere on my screen – The New York Times is now in the practice of presenting these very annoyingly distracting mini film ads along articles which I automatically stop the moment they appear, ditto the ad strips above all headlines which I instantly scroll away – they are wasted on me.
I am impervious – I have desensitized myself, inoculated myself – to all advertisement in print or computer screen. I literally don't see them and, when I do, if I do, my reaction to whatever is viscerally negative. I've so 'conditioned' myself and guarded my perception.
I don't follow fashion or trends.
I am insulated! I am free. I am I.
"I’ve chosen to be this way because that’s how I feel comfortable with myself. That’s how I am.”
~ Mary Beard
(b. 1955)
The professor of classics at the University of Cambridge, a fellow of Newnham College, and Royal Academy of Arts professor of ancient literature.
28
Facebook is an addiction; and a waste of time. I have not been on for a year and a half and I am happy/happier. I see people routinely wasting 30 minutes to an hour daily on this nonsense. Time to grow up and make something with your lives; why not plant a garden, put a brick wall around your yard, talk to your neighbors? The ability of the digital world to waste time is endless.
I rarely agree with Mr. Bruni however this time I am in complete accord. It's time for many of us to speak up against Facebook. Understandably it has many attractions; but so does cocaine.
I rarely agree with Mr. Bruni however this time I am in complete accord. It's time for many of us to speak up against Facebook. Understandably it has many attractions; but so does cocaine.
33
As always, these social pressures can be resisted (or ignored, when that's the same thing) by independent minds and whole souls. They said the same thing about television when it became pervasive, though in the other direction -- we would all become sheeplike adherents to a mass consumerist idelology buying the nationally advertised whatever as though sleepwalking. But if you were there then (I was) you knew that didn't apply to YOU -- it was quite easy to keep your mind and heart to yourself if you wanted to, and millions could and did. TV was full of itself and advertised its pervasiveness as it advertised products. So does the internet, and the pundits believe it.
14
I think any articles written about Facebook are a lame attempt to give it credence.
Who cares about fabcebook? I certainly don't know anyone who does - it's a dinosaur trying to keep it's stock afloat. These articles are written to make it seem relevant - it not.
Who cares about fabcebook? I certainly don't know anyone who does - it's a dinosaur trying to keep it's stock afloat. These articles are written to make it seem relevant - it not.
22
Try shopping in person - at a store. You can have a pleasant conversation with a salesperson as well.
30
Nailed it man. I am not on Facebook and I use my "phone" to make calls. Sometimes getting "old" is not such a bad thing.
64
I don’t own a smart phone and I will soon be compelled to get them for my wife and I. Everything will need apps. I do have a facebook account. It contains my name, the month and day of my birth and no photo. I have it because my sons and granddaughter have facebook accounts.
I never post anything but things like birthday or aniversary best wishes. Very boring reading; but my son’s facebook page looks like an advertisement for various restaurants, beers, sports teams there are so many free ads you’d think his page was sponsored.
I do see posting from facebook “friends” some replaying various TV clips and political comments. If they involve children, animals or are funny I may watch but you would have to be stupid or mad to be influenced by what facebook tells your about the wider world. For news I rely on NPR, PBS, MSNBC and the internet, starting with NY Times. com and a dozen reliable internet sites including Guardian, Vox and TPM. Facebook is an advertising moneymaking platform and should be not taken as seriously as the billboard in your local supermarket. A good place to find a dog walker.
I never post anything but things like birthday or aniversary best wishes. Very boring reading; but my son’s facebook page looks like an advertisement for various restaurants, beers, sports teams there are so many free ads you’d think his page was sponsored.
I do see posting from facebook “friends” some replaying various TV clips and political comments. If they involve children, animals or are funny I may watch but you would have to be stupid or mad to be influenced by what facebook tells your about the wider world. For news I rely on NPR, PBS, MSNBC and the internet, starting with NY Times. com and a dozen reliable internet sites including Guardian, Vox and TPM. Facebook is an advertising moneymaking platform and should be not taken as seriously as the billboard in your local supermarket. A good place to find a dog walker.
34
It's more than little ironic reading this in the NYT which consistently presents a very narrow worldview in its news coverage and analysis, as well as its opinion pieces. NYT's whole digital strategy seems to be seeking out like-minded people who want confirmation of their bias.
46
Yeah, good lord. it could be all that, or maybe just a way to keep in touch with family or friends that you'd never see but once a year. I think it's the latter. Talk about over excited.
33
Like everything else in the world, the Internet has been overrun by businesses (and I include most large mainstream charities in the category) trying to monetize your personal likes and likes and dislikes to get your money. Corporations are leveraging advanced algorithms to mine data on all of us customers and build predictive models that will target and segment customers into certain relevant profiles. It will then proceed to hound those desired profile types unmercifully wherever you go across the Web. It knows who you are, where you live, approximately how wealthy you are. They are mining your social media posts - they know what restaurants you eat at, where you went on vacation. Just be aware that everything you post and tweet is being carefully scrutinized and more and more intelligence is being added to your file.
42
Well known effect about the internet generally, well established before FB.
I have a FB account, forced to do so because some sites and blogs require third party validation of who I am. I have no information about me on it.
Today's NYT has a story about Snapchat. Being a certified Old Guy, I thought I'd learn about the newest marvel in communications. What I learned was, here's another time waster. The author talked about her 7,000 text messages a month, that's 3 per every waking minute. Is she nuts?
Yes. And that doesn't even cover her Snapchat time, her FB time, and the time she no doubt spends complaining that she has no time in her life.
Do you own your devices or do they own you?
I have a FB account, forced to do so because some sites and blogs require third party validation of who I am. I have no information about me on it.
Today's NYT has a story about Snapchat. Being a certified Old Guy, I thought I'd learn about the newest marvel in communications. What I learned was, here's another time waster. The author talked about her 7,000 text messages a month, that's 3 per every waking minute. Is she nuts?
Yes. And that doesn't even cover her Snapchat time, her FB time, and the time she no doubt spends complaining that she has no time in her life.
Do you own your devices or do they own you?
159
After I read a NYTimes op-ed I click on Reader's Picks Comments. These are usually very smart, liberal opinions with expanded facts and sometimes more accurate or acute information than the column itself.
Hoever I always try to scroll down or look at options in the ALL category to get a sense of those comments that differ so much from the ones that the majority of NYTimes readers "pick".
After this op-ed (and thanks you Mr. Bruni for bringing this topic up again) I want to seek out a bar or coffee shop that doesn't feel 'comfortable' - not my kind of place.
As for Facebook, I am one of the guilty - I only use it to advertise my events, inviting people to things I support. I took my birthday off. Too much pressure to 'like' all those Happy Birthday Comments by friends who I don't know.
Hoever I always try to scroll down or look at options in the ALL category to get a sense of those comments that differ so much from the ones that the majority of NYTimes readers "pick".
After this op-ed (and thanks you Mr. Bruni for bringing this topic up again) I want to seek out a bar or coffee shop that doesn't feel 'comfortable' - not my kind of place.
As for Facebook, I am one of the guilty - I only use it to advertise my events, inviting people to things I support. I took my birthday off. Too much pressure to 'like' all those Happy Birthday Comments by friends who I don't know.
28
There is nothing in the world that is a bigger waste of time than Facebook. It's almost spectacular in it's uselessness. You are captive to the whims of every friend you have, many from people you don't even know. There is no way to turn it off. There is no way to get away from it. Anything you might want to read s lost in the melee of what Facebook considers important.
At least Twitter is limited to 140 characters. Comments (other than Donald Trump) are often pithy and thought provoking. No one prattles on about their morning coffee on Twitter. But you might get a link to a great coffee shop instead.
At least Twitter is limited to 140 characters. Comments (other than Donald Trump) are often pithy and thought provoking. No one prattles on about their morning coffee on Twitter. But you might get a link to a great coffee shop instead.
7
mr. david day was my jr year history teacher (may he rest in peace). he was an old marine with a oft-broken nose and the terror of all students I was told. but what I found was an absolutely wonderful teacher who'll I never forget. and in 1973 he had us read marshall mcluhan's book -understanding media- in which he said "the medium is the message". it was a decade before zuckerburg was even thought of but its as true today as it was in 1964 when he wrote it. you should (I'm guessing) re- read it.
and somebody needs to show you how to block scripts and cookies, bruni. you dont have to let these clowns follow you everywhere you go. the only ads that follow me are the ones I specifically white list.
and somebody needs to show you how to block scripts and cookies, bruni. you dont have to let these clowns follow you everywhere you go. the only ads that follow me are the ones I specifically white list.
12
Never been on Facebook. Not once have I read anything about Facebook that made it seem interesting. The word "like" says it all.
21
Criticized for his schmooze deficit with Congress, I recall President Obama once exclaiming in exasperation, "YOU have lunch with Mitch McConnell!" I'm with the President on this one.
Sorry, but I've been around a long time. Social media or not, I do not choose any longer to subject whatever time I have left to the uncivil, hateful and often insane rants of figures like Ted Cruz, The Donald, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or, yes, owly jowly Mitch. YOU have lunch with these splenetic folks, or befriend them on Facebook.
I can only close myself to new ideas and ways of thinking if what I've closed out actually ARE ideas or thinking. They are not, unless we consider new and creative ways to say "Hell no, you can't!" as original thought.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Sorry, but I've been around a long time. Social media or not, I do not choose any longer to subject whatever time I have left to the uncivil, hateful and often insane rants of figures like Ted Cruz, The Donald, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or, yes, owly jowly Mitch. YOU have lunch with these splenetic folks, or befriend them on Facebook.
I can only close myself to new ideas and ways of thinking if what I've closed out actually ARE ideas or thinking. They are not, unless we consider new and creative ways to say "Hell no, you can't!" as original thought.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
11
Mr. Bruni, I suggest you install in your computer one of the many options for ad blockers, most free. That should prevent most commercial stalking by Facebook or anybody else.
There is also the phenomenon of just not paying attention to the ads if they get through.
There is also the phenomenon of just not paying attention to the ads if they get through.
17
I find it amusing that a columnist for a liberal newspaper that relies on liberal readers like me is suggesting that Facebook or the internet surround us with what we already like or know. All over the world, people find affinity groups and read and listen to material that reinforces their own world views. My hat is off to conservatives who read the NY Times every day and to liberals that read the WSJ or force themselves to watch Fox News to see what half the country believes to be true. Sadly, The Economist is about as right of center as I can seem to go...I know that I read what reinforces what I believe...
14
I feel the same pressure to conform on Facebook as I do on the NYT website. I browse conservative websites when the groupthink becomes too straightjacketed. These days, though, I find more comfort in writings from past political thinkers, some of whom had had a better calibrated sense of moral outrage.
19
The irony is that given so many choices, so many cable channels, internet sites, blogs, twitter feeds and the like, we are actually cocooning ourselves within the narrow strata occupied by those who think as we do. Hard to believe but we were probably exposed to more diversity of thought back on the days of ABC,NBC, CBS and PBS period.
14
Facebook is just a vehicle. ir depends on what you use it for. if your friends use it to post political commentary, chances are you already knew the political leanings of your friends. it is simply a great way to share. Some persons don't like to share. Thar's okay too, but don't get all holy about it. Some persons don't like to share their newspaper either.
From my experience, Facebook is a gift to special needs parents, who need to share the joys and burdens of every day life. The easy contact with persons who knew you before you became a parent, who cheer the small sucessses that make up your life, the ability to stay in close contact with relatives near and far so you never feel alone, this is technology as a support system and should not be mocked by those whose lives are currently fine.
From my experience, Facebook is a gift to special needs parents, who need to share the joys and burdens of every day life. The easy contact with persons who knew you before you became a parent, who cheer the small sucessses that make up your life, the ability to stay in close contact with relatives near and far so you never feel alone, this is technology as a support system and should not be mocked by those whose lives are currently fine.
16
I don’t use Facebook or any other social media tools, and yet my world can easily become biased. I could live in Cambridge, read the NY Times, watch MSNBC, and listen to NPR in the car to work. Or I could live in Fort Worth, read the WSJ, watch Fox news, and listen to Mark Levin. And many Americans fall into one of those camps –and did long before social media or the Internet came along. Could the internet reinforce these trends? Indeed. And yet I think the internet has actually enabled me to work AGAINST these trends. I read both the WSJ and NY Times (albeit on my phone), rarely watch TV, and listen to a variety of podcasts, including the wonderful Intelligence Squared debates that present both sides of many contemporary arguments. My ability to learn in detail both sides of an issue has dramatically increased.
By the way, one of my favorite interview questions is to ask someone if I were to view your internet search record, what would that tell me about you?
By the way, one of my favorite interview questions is to ask someone if I were to view your internet search record, what would that tell me about you?
23
First of all, I'm in touch with people on Facebook, from my past, and with very few exception who have "friended" me, with whom I'd never have shared an intimate political thought (or any other kind) but for that service. I find that many of them hold views, as reflected through their postings, that are very different from mine. I keep them because it humbles me by showing that my point of view is not for everyone. As for ads: Never open a browser without switching to whatever "incognito" feature your OS allows. That way it leaves your "stalkers" camped out on an IP address you will, in all probability,ever pass through again. It's just the way it is!
13
Today the person who looks up from their phone in a public place is the only one aware.
23
The entire world is what we make of it, not just Facebook. Most people read the books they like, meet up with the friends they like, visit the places they like. So what? I enjoy Facebook and don't mind the controversies that arise from time to time. Life with Facebook is more open than life without Facebook, because my circle of acquaintances is wider on FB than off FB. I don't see how it could be otherwise. You cannot telephone, visit, chat with a hundred people a day, every single day. But you can scroll through your news feed and read what others are reading and share some of their experiences. Get used to it.
6
Here we are all proving the point of the article by socializing it. Ironic. I hope I get some likes.
7
Institutions, like the New York Times, seem to have some fear of social media. Where people used to rely upon a handful of news sources and their immediate neighbors to fashion some view of reality, we are now in contact with people all over the world. My circle of contacts, and the views I am exposed to, have expanded, not shrunk.
In this article (seemingly about Facebook), you managed to get across the idea that Sanders' supporters are angry and that they are a "mob" that swarms People are tired of this insidious bias and are now more likely to just talk to other people around the country and around the world. I imagine that this is indeed troubling for some.
In this article (seemingly about Facebook), you managed to get across the idea that Sanders' supporters are angry and that they are a "mob" that swarms People are tired of this insidious bias and are now more likely to just talk to other people around the country and around the world. I imagine that this is indeed troubling for some.
6
I just do not understand the constant knocks against Bernie and his supporters. I'm a 59 professional female. All my female friends support him. My husband is a 62 year old union worker. All his friends support Bernie. We are not "Bernie Bros". We are boomers that have been working for decades, and have watched the middle class and working class, get shafted. We had HRC shoved down our throats. She will do nothing for us, our kids or our grandkids.
California, we are all counting on you.
California, we are all counting on you.
13
I get most of my news from the NYT and enjoy the intelligent community of commenters. The likeminded environment is therapeutic and gives me hope as this dystopian election season unfolds. But I worry that my news is too limited; indeed, as the years am have gone by, from my perspective, the authority of the NYT has only increased as the rest of the online world becomes less credible and more clicky. But in light of Frank's well considered article, should I consider adding the WSJ to my rotation? I can't bear the thought, but maybe my online news world is too small.
5
This is news? Facebook is just the newest medium in our quest as humans to find those people and ideas with whom we agree. It's always been that way, and always will be.
3
I am known to my family and friends as a bit of a luddite. . I have a track phone and a home computer , period. I was on Facebook for less than 24 hours as when I
joined there were many names of people I knew (or didn't want to!) that popped up -- I was already connected, so I quit. I listen to the radio, read the paper and ruminate about it -- but not too much, I mostly know what my family, friends and colleagues think so we talk about the news, of course, but not too much -- there's work to do, a vegetable garden to tend and behold,
sports, singing, and helping others. I realize this sounds vaguely naive, but it works for me and I sleep well and awake grateful. I did live in NYC for over 20 so if you really want my opinion of Donald Trump...
joined there were many names of people I knew (or didn't want to!) that popped up -- I was already connected, so I quit. I listen to the radio, read the paper and ruminate about it -- but not too much, I mostly know what my family, friends and colleagues think so we talk about the news, of course, but not too much -- there's work to do, a vegetable garden to tend and behold,
sports, singing, and helping others. I realize this sounds vaguely naive, but it works for me and I sleep well and awake grateful. I did live in NYC for over 20 so if you really want my opinion of Donald Trump...
8
I've never accessed Facebook or any other social media. I face the world in all its diversity.
5
I keep looking for something worthwhile on Facebook but never find anything. People seem to be single-minded. One writes about cats, another about gloppy recipes and another about bicycles. Not very attractive people are described as beautiful. To me, Facebook is a poor example of pretty much anything.
10
I think the media's obsession with social media is overblown. Facebook, I love it! It's a great way to be in touch with my old friends and family and see the family photos that are posted. I get a kick at reading some of the bizarre new stories however obtain my news from other sources. I hardly watch the ads on TV and very rarely read the ads on FB. What's all the fuss about? Why did the Zuckerberg have to meet with a group of conservatives? What the hell is going on in the country. What happened to Free enterprise...
7
I have never joined Facebook. I do periodically look at my wife's page, and always think about that quote about quiet lives lived in desperation. What must it be like to go through the day where your source of meaning are various pets doing bad tricks, mall shopping trips, water park adventures, and inspiring quotes from Oprah.
12
I'm surprised no has mentioned the need for an algorithm on the computer which precisely does not stroke your ego, does not feed you what you like, but is an algorithm of truth, which tries to drive the human race to truth. Obviously the human race resists truth, resists devising algorithms to truth, resists computation in support of anything but pet idea, so I suppose we need a counter algorithm, one which feeds truth whether anyone likes it or not. Oh, wait, I suppose that would be classed as a form of computer virus and if with real power and self-determination a harmful form of artificial intelligence.
2
in the most extreme form of reverberating agreement and self-selection, we end up with ISIS and its ilk. The same mechanisms Frank mentions work in all social segments. 1+ billion is a very large number and even a very tiny fraction of that quantity can mean a bunch of terminally angry and otherwise unoccupied crazy people heading for the ME to vent their rage, certain they're doing the righteous thing because many thousands agree with them.
FB is an experiment in human relations, uncharted territory, and there's no reason to imagine its outcome will be benign, or even tolerably ugly.
FB is an experiment in human relations, uncharted territory, and there's no reason to imagine its outcome will be benign, or even tolerably ugly.
2
Facebook works precisely because we ARE tribal. There is some base instinct in humans that drives a need to be surrounded by people like us. Bruni assumes that before FB came along we somehow sought out diverse groups and experiences. We didn't. We lived in neighborhoods surrounded by similar people. Those we didn't like we went out of the way to avoid. We attended churches with people who believed the same things we do. A lifelong Methodist never suddenly decided to attend an Episcopal church one Sunday. We reinforce our political beliefs by hanging out with people that validate them. Tea-party members don't suddenly show up at Bernie rallies to broaden their minds.
No, Mr Bruni. FB is merely a reflection as who we are as a society. It does not drive it. We have always shamed or derided those who don't agree. Politics and religion were never supposed to be dinner table conversation for that reason. We are small-minded and like our biases to affirmed and confirmed. All Facebook does is allow us to do that electronically.
Funny though how the rise of social media coincides with some of the most sweeping changes in our culture since suffrage or the civil rights movement. A black president? Openly gay politicians and military leaders? Coincidence of timing? I doubt it.
No, Mr Bruni. FB is merely a reflection as who we are as a society. It does not drive it. We have always shamed or derided those who don't agree. Politics and religion were never supposed to be dinner table conversation for that reason. We are small-minded and like our biases to affirmed and confirmed. All Facebook does is allow us to do that electronically.
Funny though how the rise of social media coincides with some of the most sweeping changes in our culture since suffrage or the civil rights movement. A black president? Openly gay politicians and military leaders? Coincidence of timing? I doubt it.
17
Bruni places the blame for the echo chamber effect on an ancient tribalism rather than the technology of social media like Facebook. Too simple. Didn't he read an excellent piece in the NYT about the "real bias in Facebook?" Companies like Facebook thrive on creating a mob effect, whether of delight and rage; this is what their algorithms are based on algoritmswhich then produce results largely out of their control. No, there isn't a conspiracy - just a harmful and somewhat cynical nexus of business and technology in play.
6
Don't blame Facebook. It is only a medium, it is only a messenger. Facebook has become the scapegoat for our lazy shortcomings. What we forget is, what goes in, comes out. If we cannot separate wheat from the chaff, unable to discern truth from falsehood, it is our judgement that is highly questionable. We are responsible for propagating a message, right or wrong. It shows our ignorance, our vanity, our narcissism. And Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are capitalizing on our false sense of empowerment, whistling all the way to the bank. Don't blame the Kardashians or other non-entities for getting thousands of 'likes' because we are contributing to those 'likes'.
9
This article makes me smile. It's smart.
But let's acknowledge the irony here. Many of us now gain access to opinion pieces written by Frank Bruni (and Dowd, Douthat, Brooks, Collins, Blow) efficiently through the Internet. We read your various arguments with interest and comment on them (obviously ... that's what I'm doing), thanks to the Internet. And those comments sections, when moderated, are eye-opening, educational. Often combative. An exercise in democracy?
And OK, I'm going to defend Facebook. Without it, I would have no idea what was happening to my sturdy old high school friends or my former college boyfriend. We would all be out of touch.
So.
But let's acknowledge the irony here. Many of us now gain access to opinion pieces written by Frank Bruni (and Dowd, Douthat, Brooks, Collins, Blow) efficiently through the Internet. We read your various arguments with interest and comment on them (obviously ... that's what I'm doing), thanks to the Internet. And those comments sections, when moderated, are eye-opening, educational. Often combative. An exercise in democracy?
And OK, I'm going to defend Facebook. Without it, I would have no idea what was happening to my sturdy old high school friends or my former college boyfriend. We would all be out of touch.
So.
1
Schools, which are the reproductive tools of societies are becoming more and more useless. People “educate” themselves in and with mini-groups who are rapidly satisfied with any information they get.
4
In 1985, Neil Postman warned about becoming an image based society with television, that process has only been accelerated with social media.
3
I don't mind that FB is gearing it's trending news directs me to like minded sites. I don't need to be directed to opposing views. I know what those views are, and I disagree with them. I don't think I'll find common ground. That said, I do find the sites you might like feature irritating, because, well, it's just irritating.
As for the advertising that stalks us through our surfing, that too is annoying but sometimes pretty funny. Last year I was curious about the differences, if any, between the clerical collars of different Christian religions. For months I was served up advertising from clerical clothing sites. As I said, annoying, but also pretty funny.
As for the advertising that stalks us through our surfing, that too is annoying but sometimes pretty funny. Last year I was curious about the differences, if any, between the clerical collars of different Christian religions. For months I was served up advertising from clerical clothing sites. As I said, annoying, but also pretty funny.
1
it is up to each individual on how to use the social media .I for myself follow many varied news outlets on Twitter . If I find the headline interesting I will click on the link and read the article. As for Facebook I think is a wonderful tool to connect with many people in the world who may have a common passion,for me it is cooking and I have gotten some great recipes. Also it is great for connecting with people who have similar sorrows ,as in maybe a child with a peticular disease or disorder and you find some comfort in talking to others .We live so isolated in todays world that is a wonderful feature. As for my personal one I little on it but I need it to access the others . My children have reduced it to just a handful of friends or use it as a networking tool.
1
"But that’s not about a lopsided news feed. It’s not about some sorcerer’s algorithm. It’s about a tribalism that has existed for as long as humankind has and is now rooted in the fertile soil of the Internet, which is coaxing it toward a full and insidious flower."
Mr. Bruni needs to dig deeper. The Internet he rightly criticizes is a capitalist venture intended to benefit shareholders. But how exactly is it that tribalism on the user's end of the system produces a profitable stream of cash on the other side of the curtain? What strange alchemy is at work here?
Mr. Bruni needs to dig deeper. The Internet he rightly criticizes is a capitalist venture intended to benefit shareholders. But how exactly is it that tribalism on the user's end of the system produces a profitable stream of cash on the other side of the curtain? What strange alchemy is at work here?
1
Am I the only person who looks at Facebook to see what people I know are up to? I have found a cousin there who lives far away and the woman who saved my husband's life a few years ago. I have watched far-away friends' children grow and the near ones too. Facebook helps me keep up in general with those who don't live near me, and I love reading about their lives.
As for the other stuff, who has time to wade through it?
As for the other stuff, who has time to wade through it?
3
Well ... I don't have a Facebook account but I do subscribe to the on-line New York Times. I look at it the first thing every morning and many times throughout the day. I read some columnists regularly, some often and some occasionally. And yes, that spectrum does reflect my point of view. I even see an ad for HP home printers over and over, probably because I went to their website to look at home printers. So what. It seems to me your point -- consumers choose information sources that fit their interests -- applies to media in general. Social media is just another form of media. Human behavior hasn't changed, just the ease of access to information.
3
Well done Mr. Bruni. I was sad, though not shocked, by a Pew study of which media sources people trust out of 36 possibilities. Liberals trusted 28, and conservatives only 8, and only one was trusted by both: Wall St. Journal. What the bifurcation was sad, but also that conservatives didn't trust 75% of media sources - that's borderline paranoid. Marshall McLuhan predicted tribalization from television becoming ubiquitous in the world. Jeremy Rifkin in book Age of Access (2001) predicted that people were wanting more "experiences" rather than property, and the internet would be "experience" screened/controlled by for-profit entities - a world we might wish to think twice about going towards. But for the first many years of the internet, news sources struggled with the sustainable business model for it - e.g. how much advertising would have to be sold to cover the costs; would people really pay $15/month for a NYT subscription instead of free access? Etc. I have a lifelong habit of turning off the volume when commercials in radio or TV come on - I don't want to be influenced by people with a bias (that I should buy their product ahead of others). It's a way of preserving some independence in my thinking. But as you note, the internet biz model makes that harder. We'll see if people choose to "turn the volume off" by objecting to the relentless internet post-sale or post-comment marketing - though I'm not sure how they'd do it.
4
I was on Farcebook for a couple of days and it felt like I was in the middle of a school cafeteria, noisy and messy. The application clearly has a mind of its own. Why does it automatically assume that we all WANT to be in touch with everyone we went to high school with? I don't understand the need to publicize every move I make and everything I think. Facebook is Big Brother writ large. The most successful mind control is that to which people will flock willingly. The internet is fantastic, but FB is like a virtual La Brea Tar Pit.
11
Frank Bruni is right. Facebook, and others like it, by their very nature, encourage peer pressure, questionable self-esteem, and the go-along-to-get-along ideology. Personally, I won't have anything to do with it, and I wish more people would take a good look at themselves, and the time they spend, the value they place on this frivolous, shallow occupation. You're being had, folks.
4
My family is scattered across the nation, so I love Facebook! We would never have the time to exchange so many photos and videos without it. And, although I have noticed that if I look at, say emerald jewelry, ads for emeralds and jewelry show up everywhere, I just ignore them. It is more disconcerting to find that something you purchased on a credit card is suddenly following you around. But that's just the way it is. And I'm not at all sure that Facebook is always to blame. Never-the-less, Facebook and the computer allow me to see and follow my children and grandchildren in a way no phone call or letter ever could. I believe we must all accept the fact that privacy is a lost privilege if you own a computer and most likely, even if you don't.
1
For those who utilize Facebook as a means to keep up with past students, as the teacher commented or to form hobby groups as the photographer commented, Facebook is wonderful.
Facebook also invades privacy in two ways: through its advertisers and also through other Facebook users. Many Internet users seem to only use Facebook as their sole Internet vehicle, which totally has surprised me, as the Internet provides a plethora of excellent information on news, science, psychology, how-to websites, art, music streaming, history.
I am never tracked because I use ad blockers (Ublock) on both Chrome and Firefox browsers and if I order online and am surprised others aren't also using ad blockers. Order directly from a website or Amazon, which sends emails to a particular email set up only for subscriptions and purchases. Use news websites like NYT and local paper for news information, not Facebook.
There are easy workarounds!
Facebook also invades privacy in two ways: through its advertisers and also through other Facebook users. Many Internet users seem to only use Facebook as their sole Internet vehicle, which totally has surprised me, as the Internet provides a plethora of excellent information on news, science, psychology, how-to websites, art, music streaming, history.
I am never tracked because I use ad blockers (Ublock) on both Chrome and Firefox browsers and if I order online and am surprised others aren't also using ad blockers. Order directly from a website or Amazon, which sends emails to a particular email set up only for subscriptions and purchases. Use news websites like NYT and local paper for news information, not Facebook.
There are easy workarounds!
2
I guess I'm a maverick. I write what I think on Facebook and let the chips fall where they may. The worst thing about Facebook is that too many people think that meaningful discussion is the "Like" button. Since most of my Facebook "Friends" are really my real friends, I put up with it. A nephew and I have been having a long ans sometimes heated debate about Sanders vs Clinton. Its been great. I just with ther was more meat and less desert.
1
Frank says it best with "It’s about a tribalism that has existed for as long as humankind." Humans have always been tribal. The Internet and Facebook accelerates tribalism which have caused so much division in our society. We used to have left and right fringes with a core middle. The "algorithms" have pushed left leaning centrist to the left by a flood of leftists manifestos. The same has happened with right leaning centrists. The result is that we stopped being a nation and became two tribes.
2
My experience with Facebook is just the opposite of Bruni's. Because I have "friended" so many people I met in childhood and high school and college, Facebook exposes me to a much wider variety of viewpoints than i ever hear from my more recently made friends, who all think pretty much like me. Thanks to Facebook I now much better understand why so many Americans feel so strongly about a threat to their gun rights, why they so object to Obama's executive orders, why they feel outraged by the increasing acceptance of gay marriage and transgendered people using the bathrooms of their choice. It helps that I am not a person who gets upset when contradicted.
65
Just don't go on it.
6
Facebook is what you make of it. When I see comments from some NY Times readers proudly proclaiming that they have never used Facebook, I'm reminded of my friends back in the eighties telling me they had no need of e-mail when they could call someone on the phone or write them a letter. I have relatives in Europe, including nieces and nephews who would never trouble themselves to write me a letter, whose lives I now know so much about because of Facebook. The same is true of faraway friends, who might at most send me an annual update in a Christmas card. On the other hand, when I have Facebook friends who bombard the newsfeed with several memes a day about their views on politics or religion, I hide them. The same is true for those play those silly Facebook games. To a large degree, you can control how much unwanted Facebook noise you want in your life, and you can make it an asset because you're in control of what you allow. If you want an echo chamber or constant political rants, that's what you'll get. Concerning ads and other targeting, Facebook is no different from other online media such as Amazon, the NY Times (with its articles "recommended for you"), YouTube, Yahoo, etc. They all try to give you what they think you want. We can pine for the privacy of the old days, but just like the ubiquitous cameras in shops, parking lots, and malls, much of that privacy is gone, and there's little we can do about it.
29
Don't like facebook? Don't go on facebook. I just don't see the problem.
22
Excellent point, one thought: algorithms that now just offer up sameness could easily be written to furnish us with opposite, contrary, sites. Wonder why 'opposing views' isn't an option?
5
Nice last paragraph.
1
Whether it's religion, politics, or social media, the tribe wants new members.
4
Ironically, at the end of this article, Mr. Bruni invites us to follow him on Facebook.
12
The laugh line on the bottom of the article. "I invite you to follow me on Twitter and join me on Facebook"
33
"Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper", they used to say. Imagine how much less you should believe what people say on the internet about what was written in the newspaper, or about what no one bothered to write in a newspaper. And, just because we're subscribed to the same social media group doesn't mean you should send out what amounts to your personal spam to us, especially if it comes with a cat.
Social media is specious by its nature. It facilitates high speed, high volume rumoring. Yes The Truth can be found there, however, it is never made there.
Social media is specious by its nature. It facilitates high speed, high volume rumoring. Yes The Truth can be found there, however, it is never made there.
2
What's Facebook?
7
Good analysis. What can we do to counter tribalism?
5
I have tried and tried to not blame Republican Radio for this trend overall, but it's difficult. I recognized this trend early on when I realized that I had essentially become a Democrat because the Right was so aggressive against any other ideas and had started to gel under Gingrich as take-no-prisoners, no-negotiation legislators. They made me in the opposition when I would much rather have picked favorite candidates from both parties. The Tea Party made that worse. And the Democrats (to their credit) were disorganized with all sorts of causes. So it wasn't fair to accuse them of anything similar. I force myself to read Fox News and Breitbart etc, but it's so far out of touch, and teems with hate just below the surface, but I don't want to lose touch with what others are gelling around, and it's sad and frightening that people take so much of that as gospel without them reading ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES NEWS. Now I see folks who were more balanced, being pushed as I was, but only looking for those like-minded leftist views, and it;s still the Right's fault for constantly trying to game the system. They're galvanizing both sides, to the detriment of the country.
5
Oh, puh-Leeze! If you don't like being chased around by Jo Malone, it's easy to put a stop to it. You are just too lazy, or too addicted to the "convenience" of the internet, to bother.
1) Don't use Facebook, except as it was originally intended, as a place to keep up with your actual friends. (Note, these are not the same as all the fake "friends" you have never met.)
2) Learn how to use your browser, not just on Facebook, but for the internet in general: Install ad-blockers; Delete cookies; don't share your information; don't use massive spyware programs like Paypal; use the privacy settings (yes, even Facebook has them, though they make them a little hard to find).
1) Don't use Facebook, except as it was originally intended, as a place to keep up with your actual friends. (Note, these are not the same as all the fake "friends" you have never met.)
2) Learn how to use your browser, not just on Facebook, but for the internet in general: Install ad-blockers; Delete cookies; don't share your information; don't use massive spyware programs like Paypal; use the privacy settings (yes, even Facebook has them, though they make them a little hard to find).
11
"Of course these students are not entirely typical of the nation. They are somewhat stupider than average, while simultaneously rather more imaginative and prone to daydreaming. Like most members of the lower classes, they are reactionary in the trust sense: the unfamiliar alarms them and since they have no experience outside what Dr. Montag calls their "peer group,"they are, consequently, in a state of near-panic most of the time, reacting against almost everything. It was Myron who observed in 1964 that all of the male hustlers were supporting Goldwater for president. He wrote a fascinating analysis of this phenomenon and sent it to the ADA, but received no reply." from Myra Breckinridge, by Gore Vidal 1968
9
Facebook and other communication technologies offer tremendous benefits as well as risks. We can effortlessly access information and communicate with friends and associates across the street or around the world. As an independent consultant, I rely on the internet to obtain information about business opportunities and communicate with clients. I couldn't be in my business without the internet.
Like any useful product or service, there is a downside if not appropriately managed. Certainly iphones and internet services can be addictive. I recently invited a friend for lunch, and throughout the meal she held her phone under the table and continued texting as we were talking. Anyone who takes public transportation will see three out of four riders glued to their devices.
Facebook doesn't just warp our worlds, Facebook warps our minds. Properly used, these technologies offer tremendous benefits. But if we can't control the technologies, it appears that they most certainly will control us.
Like any useful product or service, there is a downside if not appropriately managed. Certainly iphones and internet services can be addictive. I recently invited a friend for lunch, and throughout the meal she held her phone under the table and continued texting as we were talking. Anyone who takes public transportation will see three out of four riders glued to their devices.
Facebook doesn't just warp our worlds, Facebook warps our minds. Properly used, these technologies offer tremendous benefits. But if we can't control the technologies, it appears that they most certainly will control us.
16
Not meaning to quarrel with the theme of this essay - which is valuable - it seems to me that the basic weapon against conspiracy theories, willful bias and all the other ills described here is unchanged: critical thinking.
We all have minds, but most of us are lazy in the use of them and seek comfort rather than confusion. Once comfortable, we stop thinking. When we hear someone say "All I know is...", we're probably hearing the truth as seen from his perspective. Left unsaid (and probably unthought) is the path to that truth: "I liked it, so I didn't bother to challenge it. Why would I?"
The Internet simply gives us more of the same. It's not the 'Net itself that's the problem. The problem is an absence of critical thinking, which leads to willful ignorance. That's been unchanged in most folks since before the time of Moses (whenever that really was... think about it!) The mechanisms of gossip and rumor have merely been exponentially enhanced by a blizzard of words through the 'Net.
It's not the 'Net that needs attention. It's the laziness of our way of thinking. If critical thinking has no perceived survival value, we don't bother with it.
We all have minds, but most of us are lazy in the use of them and seek comfort rather than confusion. Once comfortable, we stop thinking. When we hear someone say "All I know is...", we're probably hearing the truth as seen from his perspective. Left unsaid (and probably unthought) is the path to that truth: "I liked it, so I didn't bother to challenge it. Why would I?"
The Internet simply gives us more of the same. It's not the 'Net itself that's the problem. The problem is an absence of critical thinking, which leads to willful ignorance. That's been unchanged in most folks since before the time of Moses (whenever that really was... think about it!) The mechanisms of gossip and rumor have merely been exponentially enhanced by a blizzard of words through the 'Net.
It's not the 'Net that needs attention. It's the laziness of our way of thinking. If critical thinking has no perceived survival value, we don't bother with it.
14
Many years ago, I'm 66, I came to know that our lives, everything we do, everything we see and hear, and everything we, as "individuals" do, is the result of a worldwide long entrenched, and still being honed, perception management program.
Our dreams are infected as well.
Facebook, twitter, and all such interactive Internet programs are portals through which we are manupulated, and managed. The realization of the extent of this insidious control mechanism has yet to be widely known, and may never be sufficiently known to cause a wholesale stepping back from this abyss.
We live now under the yoke of a corporate / military / industrial alliance, one that swung into high gear about four decades ago, so successful even they themselves are amazed.
Anyone who fails to see it is deluded, and allowing themselves to be deluded.
This election year is shaping up to be the first serious attack on this organized destruction of individualism, which is why the establishment is pushing so hard for Hillary.
Sanders is the general leading us in this great battle, one we cannot afford to lose.
Our dreams are infected as well.
Facebook, twitter, and all such interactive Internet programs are portals through which we are manupulated, and managed. The realization of the extent of this insidious control mechanism has yet to be widely known, and may never be sufficiently known to cause a wholesale stepping back from this abyss.
We live now under the yoke of a corporate / military / industrial alliance, one that swung into high gear about four decades ago, so successful even they themselves are amazed.
Anyone who fails to see it is deluded, and allowing themselves to be deluded.
This election year is shaping up to be the first serious attack on this organized destruction of individualism, which is why the establishment is pushing so hard for Hillary.
Sanders is the general leading us in this great battle, one we cannot afford to lose.
12
Not much different from talk radio, just tune in to what you want to hear day after day. Mainstream media has also always been about cultural and ideological hegemony. There is a little box media likes to call responsible journalism which simply reproduces all the political, economic and cultural assumptions held by the dominant class in society.
9
I cut the cord on social media a few years ago and very glad I did. It's completely unhealthy. I see people walking around and "plugged in" all day, everyday busy with their "cult of self(ie)" and look forward to a day when the ego-fad is finally seen for the passé ridiculousness that it is.
14
I think Facebook and Twitter act as pressure valves that prevent actual involvement of individuals to force political and social change. All organization for such change seems to occur online now, with posts about petitions to sign, and of course, always donations to be made in support of a cause. Just this morning my FB feed contained a petition to sign protesting how Verizon is not negotiating with its employees, a protest with which I agree. But all signing does is make ME feel involved and civic minded. I don't believe that such petitions ever accomplish anything or that Verizon management cares how many signatures are on that petition. Where would the civil rights struggle, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the labor movement be if they had all occurred only on-line? Political change occurs when elected officials are made uncomfortable, and worried about their re-election, when actual voters embarrass or harass them into action in a way that cannot be ignored.
11
As ever, a very perceptive and well-written piece by Frank Bruni. I would only add that the insidious potential of internet immersion is more subtle still. Merely browsing on a website (PBS or Amazon, in my case) has cursed me to weeks or months of micro-targeted ads on countless successive websites, which I duly choose to ignore. Even so, it is chilling how thoroughly we are tracked after the most casual clicks.
21
That's not Facebook. And you can erase your history or use private browsing to avoid that.
4
Yes, this is why I do not participate in any social media except comments sections like the New York Times where people have valuable input on every aspect of an issue. Social media sites are simply profit-seeking corporations trying to get the biggest audiences so they can demand the most money. My main concern is how rapidly the internet, combined with other predatory capitalism, is destroying mainstays of civilization like libraries and retail shops. Hopefully the world will put the internet and social media in their place as an "enhancement" to life rather than the outsized "big brother for profit" it is today.
19
I am a professional photographer who had an Instagram feed last year. I since ended it and feel much better.
Like Facebook, Instagram herds its users into like minded feeds where you can post images, really stories, that others approve of. And you begin to pulled into a stream where your individuality is absorbed into a group popularity contest.
And gradually each photograph I posted mattered less than how I displayed 12 or 16 photos together for "storytelling". The patterns and grouping of my page, how it looked, and how many eyeballs liked the images was foremost. I was seeking an audience, asking for their votes, and offering up pictures that would raise my numbers. The quality or the character of one photograph was utterly unimportant. If it was ignored, it had no value.
Once I left Instagram, I started to love photography again. I did it as an exploration and went out into the world to rediscover it.
Politically, culturally, emotionally, we are all inside the bubble until we let ourselves out to breathe again.
Like Facebook, Instagram herds its users into like minded feeds where you can post images, really stories, that others approve of. And you begin to pulled into a stream where your individuality is absorbed into a group popularity contest.
And gradually each photograph I posted mattered less than how I displayed 12 or 16 photos together for "storytelling". The patterns and grouping of my page, how it looked, and how many eyeballs liked the images was foremost. I was seeking an audience, asking for their votes, and offering up pictures that would raise my numbers. The quality or the character of one photograph was utterly unimportant. If it was ignored, it had no value.
Once I left Instagram, I started to love photography again. I did it as an exploration and went out into the world to rediscover it.
Politically, culturally, emotionally, we are all inside the bubble until we let ourselves out to breathe again.
18
It feels so good to be part of an "exclusive clique." Not.
The loss of external reference points is the key insight of Bruni's column today.
Right now we are like sea-faring wanderers trying to guide our ship by stars...located on the ship. You can never turn far-enough right (or left) when you are trying to line up your course with a fake plastic star taped to the railing.
It's probably a boring point to make, but objectivity matters. And it's not an easy process of reading one or two scientific papers and citing the results. It requires not just hearing differing points of view, but understanding them, placing them in context separately and together, and integrating them into a modestly-constructed synthesis of probable reality.
I will say that Facebook is not a very supportive venue for any of this.
Right now we are like sea-faring wanderers trying to guide our ship by stars...located on the ship. You can never turn far-enough right (or left) when you are trying to line up your course with a fake plastic star taped to the railing.
It's probably a boring point to make, but objectivity matters. And it's not an easy process of reading one or two scientific papers and citing the results. It requires not just hearing differing points of view, but understanding them, placing them in context separately and together, and integrating them into a modestly-constructed synthesis of probable reality.
I will say that Facebook is not a very supportive venue for any of this.
13
Most of the ideas lurking about the mainstream today seem to inhabit the fringes - if you were to look at the mass of different ideas in the form of a normal distribution, ideas would tend sharply toward the extremes at either end - the plus or minus 3 standard deviations. These are often the ideas of the rich and powerful - people in a very specific minority, but who use their power and wealth tho push their extremist ideas upon the majority.
I can do without most of those ideas. What is really missing are the ideas that tend toward the center and plus or minus 1 or 2 standard deviations - the ideas from the majority of society.
I can do without most of those ideas. What is really missing are the ideas that tend toward the center and plus or minus 1 or 2 standard deviations - the ideas from the majority of society.
3
Frank I agree with most of your column especially the Jo Malone following you around. Dont these fools realize that that behavior, at least for me, makes me not want to buy from them again? You really did not have to mention Donald Trump did you? I was enjoying my evening Courvoisier till that. Where does he get off with "I am the King of Twitter"? I use Twitter more than Facebook but in small doses but when I want a good laugh I just look up Trump. If anyone is considering voting for this buffoon for President of the United States just look at his Twitter feed for a day or two and I bet you will be sending contributions to Hillary For President ASAP. This person revels in his banality and dictums like a 6th grade drop out. When he says "ISIS I alone can fix" does this "person" have any idea that when most people read that they can not stop laughing? THAT is when Social Media works best.
17
I agree with you, except for the Teflon Donald part. That joke does not make me laugh.
1
We have known for at least a decade that the Internet allows us to narrow our interactions to those who agree with us. FB may be a more recent entry to this phenom, but it is hardly the first.
When I arrive home at 7 pm, I know I have a choice in news offerings: I can watch the Newshour on PBS, or I can broaden my perspective with Fox News.
It's time to recognize, as Paul Krugman has oft suggested, that all positions are not equally valid. I have chosen to believe that PBS will bring me a relatively balanced perspective; I need not tune in to Fox for the other side.
When I arrive home at 7 pm, I know I have a choice in news offerings: I can watch the Newshour on PBS, or I can broaden my perspective with Fox News.
It's time to recognize, as Paul Krugman has oft suggested, that all positions are not equally valid. I have chosen to believe that PBS will bring me a relatively balanced perspective; I need not tune in to Fox for the other side.
4
I think you have to go back to the way people used their cell phones (before they became full blown computers that also make phone calls) to see the beginnings of this degrading of the human mind and spirit.
Before FB, before texting and liking and friending, there were people every where who just had to call to tell some one what they had for lunch or that their plane landed or if they should buy the scented or unscented detergent.
It became so bad that states had to pass laws to stop people from talking on their cellphones while driving. No matter what, where, when or why, answering that call came first.
Before FB, before texting and liking and friending, there were people every where who just had to call to tell some one what they had for lunch or that their plane landed or if they should buy the scented or unscented detergent.
It became so bad that states had to pass laws to stop people from talking on their cellphones while driving. No matter what, where, when or why, answering that call came first.
2
This is a stretch, really it is. How is reading my 'news feed' on facebook substantially different from the choices I make day in, day out about what I read, where I go, what I buy, how I vote? I read the NYT, the New Yorker, a number of French wine journals, the WSJ. I do not read Guns & Ammo, or the National Review. I wear Brooks Brothers, not Prada. I eat at the 'locavore' restaurants where I live, and haven't seen the inside of a McDonalds in 30 years. I do not live in a wagons in a circle community of cookie cutter houses, and never will if I have a choice in the matter, although many people happily do so.
I could go on, but the point is made. We do what we like, which is probably not what some other folks like; we do what we can afford, ditto. We gravitate to people who share our views, while many undoubtedly see the world quite differently. If some guy sat next to me at a bar and began to spout off like Donald Trump or David Duke, I'd do my best to make my exit. If the same guy wanted to talk about how we might implement universal health care in the U.S., or shared my interest in old BMWs and Brit sports cars, I might well engage in conversation. Roughly the same thing happens on facebook. My 'friends' are not neo-Nazis or Trumpeteers or gun nuts, they are simpatico with my world view, whether on facebook or on the street.
Is this new, different, or a threat to civilized society? I doubt it.
I could go on, but the point is made. We do what we like, which is probably not what some other folks like; we do what we can afford, ditto. We gravitate to people who share our views, while many undoubtedly see the world quite differently. If some guy sat next to me at a bar and began to spout off like Donald Trump or David Duke, I'd do my best to make my exit. If the same guy wanted to talk about how we might implement universal health care in the U.S., or shared my interest in old BMWs and Brit sports cars, I might well engage in conversation. Roughly the same thing happens on facebook. My 'friends' are not neo-Nazis or Trumpeteers or gun nuts, they are simpatico with my world view, whether on facebook or on the street.
Is this new, different, or a threat to civilized society? I doubt it.
9
So all Trump knows is what's on the Internet? It figures. The Internet is probably the clearest example of the most fundamental principle of computing: garbage in, garbage out. We see it with Trump every day.
5
Facebook is for vain, clueless and lazy people who believe that giving a stunning amount of personal data for nothing that is used in a myriad of ways by the service provider is a good deal.
I have family members who have embargoed birth announcements by direct contact to wait till they could post the good news. I have friends and family whose only contact with "friends" is via their vainglorious postings and they think that these are real, valid relationships.
Facebook is a scam that is taking control of your on line life, and if you are on it you are a fool.
I have family members who have embargoed birth announcements by direct contact to wait till they could post the good news. I have friends and family whose only contact with "friends" is via their vainglorious postings and they think that these are real, valid relationships.
Facebook is a scam that is taking control of your on line life, and if you are on it you are a fool.
2
Be careful who you insult. Many older people who have difficulty getting around enjoy facebook for no other reason that it helps them connect with people and enjoy details of the lives of grandchilden and far flung relatives they otherwise would have difficulty seeing and connecting with.
6
The "silo" effect was identified more than 20 years ago. And here we are. So how the heck do we get us out of it? Because retaining it and staying here is not an option. Not given what we've already seen happens when we self-select as we have.
Listening to the NTY, and other American media, cry and wail about their impending obsolescence is immensely gratifying in a way. After all, they're afraid, primarily, of their loss of information control and of their loss of relevance. They want to be the arbiters of the American consciousness and it infuriates them that their ability to perform that task is no longer as easy as it once was.
4
Never have been on Facebook; never will be. Yes, I'm 68, and have met, in person, interesting people all over the world because of the internet. But Facebook? No way.
5
Rejecting even the idea of facebook is your right, of course. But I find the often judgy/self-righteous condemnation of FB by people who have _never even tried it_ to be a little closed-minded. Like many things it has both its benefits and risks. I've found that the benefits are many and I have reconnected --in person (!)-- with so many people that, but for facebook, would only be b&w photos in my h.s. and college yearbooks just gathering dust in my basement. Instead, I've dusted off my old yearbooks to jog my memory and attended reunions small and large that I helped instigate after getting glimpses at old friends' current lives. It. Is. Fun. (!)
You might at least consider looking up an old friend in their search engine and see if you don't enjoy the experience. You don't have to go on FB every day. Once a month would be enough to find old friends and mini-reunions and see if you'd like to meet up for dinner, or just exchange an email or two.
I've found it to be a positive in my life.
You might at least consider looking up an old friend in their search engine and see if you don't enjoy the experience. You don't have to go on FB every day. Once a month would be enough to find old friends and mini-reunions and see if you'd like to meet up for dinner, or just exchange an email or two.
I've found it to be a positive in my life.
1
This business of people avoiding opposing viewpoints can be over-exaggerated.
For instance, I don't have a progressive bone in my body, yet I have read the NYTimes daily since 1989, when they started their national print edition, long before internet (and "Comments" days). I even wrote a couple of actual letters to the editor!
For instance, I don't have a progressive bone in my body, yet I have read the NYTimes daily since 1989, when they started their national print edition, long before internet (and "Comments" days). I even wrote a couple of actual letters to the editor!
5
Facebook users posts have become bland and routinized. Relentless birthday wishes, throwback Thursdays, Memorial Day gratitude, I love my mom, my cat, so glad for the great guy that married me. There's nothing wrong with sparing oneself political nonsense that you oppose. Facebook has dressed us in a social straight jacket and shrunk the range of acceptable emotions and moods.
7
Close, Mr. Bruni, very close. Let’s talk something closer to home, though; frankly, I’ve always been bored by Facebook, and I supposedly am their target audience.
About a year ago, I commented negatively on a certain Masters’ champion, because I believed I saw dollars in his eyes. The moderator gleefully, and quickly, approved my comment; the resulting firestorm that was loosed upon me was predictable.
Here we are a little over a year later, and the champion, who had money in his eyes last year, is neither winning much of it currently, nor displaying his prior enthusiasm. When posting a recent comment noting that apparent turnaround, I asked the Commenter Community to acknowledge that I might have been correct. It never got passed the moderator.
Yes, the NYT practices what you are preaching ---Like-Minded thoughts only, unless you’re provocative enough to create some excitement. And, the NYT has the right to do that.
But, the more important point, which you lightly touched on, is an old story, too.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, in Essays on Self-Reliance, stated that “For non-conformity, the World whips you with its displeasure.” If I am a conformist, it’s because I’ve been whipped into being one.
Keep whipping, Humans; you’ll eventually silence me.
About a year ago, I commented negatively on a certain Masters’ champion, because I believed I saw dollars in his eyes. The moderator gleefully, and quickly, approved my comment; the resulting firestorm that was loosed upon me was predictable.
Here we are a little over a year later, and the champion, who had money in his eyes last year, is neither winning much of it currently, nor displaying his prior enthusiasm. When posting a recent comment noting that apparent turnaround, I asked the Commenter Community to acknowledge that I might have been correct. It never got passed the moderator.
Yes, the NYT practices what you are preaching ---Like-Minded thoughts only, unless you’re provocative enough to create some excitement. And, the NYT has the right to do that.
But, the more important point, which you lightly touched on, is an old story, too.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, in Essays on Self-Reliance, stated that “For non-conformity, the World whips you with its displeasure.” If I am a conformist, it’s because I’ve been whipped into being one.
Keep whipping, Humans; you’ll eventually silence me.
3
Perhaps you should read more than just articles about a golf champion. By the way, how can you claim that a moderator "gleefully and quickly" approved your comment? No, seriously.
I read opposite viewpoints on any number of subjects herein. It's why I read the Times. One learns about all sorts of different opinions, perspectives, convictions, philosophies, thoughts, concerns, etc. A lot of comments are hilarious.
If you want to read "like-minded thoughts only," read the comments on Yahoo (so far right it is frightening and not "censored" for obscene rants), Fox News, the Sacramento Bee (my local paper) and, undoubtedly, any of the newspapers in red states. There you will see only your viewpoint.
As to non-conformists being "whipped," try remembering the "hippies" of the sixties whose messages about peace, the environment, decent wages, eating healthy food and learning to accept others is now the mainstream of much of America's consciousness. They were beaten, arrested, denigrated and vilified by the controlling white male Christian authorities in religion, government and business who expected everyone to adhere to their "like-minded" conservative "values."
I read opposite viewpoints on any number of subjects herein. It's why I read the Times. One learns about all sorts of different opinions, perspectives, convictions, philosophies, thoughts, concerns, etc. A lot of comments are hilarious.
If you want to read "like-minded thoughts only," read the comments on Yahoo (so far right it is frightening and not "censored" for obscene rants), Fox News, the Sacramento Bee (my local paper) and, undoubtedly, any of the newspapers in red states. There you will see only your viewpoint.
As to non-conformists being "whipped," try remembering the "hippies" of the sixties whose messages about peace, the environment, decent wages, eating healthy food and learning to accept others is now the mainstream of much of America's consciousness. They were beaten, arrested, denigrated and vilified by the controlling white male Christian authorities in religion, government and business who expected everyone to adhere to their "like-minded" conservative "values."
2
If I read and think about left wing analyses it is because they are valid and penetrating. I ignore the right because it is reactionary and brutal. Bruni thinks that every aspect of existence is endlessly various, but sometimes that is only apparent and what you really see is the infinite development of a fundamental dichotomy.
7
Fifty years ago Canadian media philosopher Marshall McLuhan was extraordinarily prescient. "The medium is the message", " We shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape us", and "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury, when substituted for insight and understanding." The " Global Village" created by the immediacy of the internet is so rapidly transformational we will always be a step behind understanding it's full impact.
2
I agree that news feeds like Facebook and Google Now gives us unsolicited, prompt updates on the topics we care about, and only those. However, I disagree that this narrows our views or consolidates our opinions. When I see an update on Obama, for example, more often than not it is some criticism from his opponents, even though I am a supporter. In my opinion, this deepens our knowledge of specific subjects and encourages us to consider different points of view. News feeds are powerful tools for us to master a few selected (by us) trendy topics, stepping away from the enormous, uncritical amount of information available on the internet.
1
The New York Times is on Facebook. To reach readers, the New York Times posts articles on Facebook, and collects comments. Furthermore when not on Facebook, the New York Times publishes its own narrow viewpoint.
So what is the problem here?
So what is the problem here?
I wonder when Facebook became a "public trust" that has to meet some licensing restriction to be "fair and balanced". The "news feed" is a joke. I use FB mostly to "like" what others are doing, keep up with friends, their children, etc. I find I'm using it less and less for original posts, as are many of my "friends" also in their mid-50s. I read (probably in the NYT) that there is now a renewed push to "unplug" kids and teens. That's an age-old effort. My mother still doesn't like how much TV I watch...
8
This column touches very lightly on the aspect of marketing, the way that one click or one online order can ensure that you see more similar ads or "suggestions" in the future. I think that the monetization of EVERYTHING is the main problem here. This includes not just the obvious ads that we all see, but the much more subtle selling of viewpoints and lifestyles that lead eventually to choices that involve money changing hands. The prevalence of marketing which is used to manipulate our perceptions, opinions and choices in every realm of life has greatly contributed to the decline in public trust of all institutions. Anymore, everything looks like a sales pitch.
6
Ultimately, incessant rage is boring. It's like greed. The more you have the more you need and the more desperately you need it. Most of the angry people I've met this cycle are retired or employed, relatively comfortable and just itching to be victims of something, anything, just to stoke their swelling need to be outraged. They even think bathrooms are bulging with perverted cross dressers waiting for Obama to let them attack our children.
It makes me mildly angry.
It makes me mildly angry.
11
Yes, our social media environment confirms what we already think we know - just like any social environment does. After all, who do we have face-to-face political arguments with? Not our friends. Usually it's with family members, i.e. people we do not choose to socialize with.
Personally my beef with Facebook is that it makes it too easy to share links to whatever we're reading on other sites. Most of my newsfeed is made up of links to articles rather than information about friend's own lives, however mundane or trivial that information may be. I feel that if I have nothing so say for myself, I will not parrot what others - even specialists - are saying about an issue. Let everyone seek out their own information. I'd rather see pictures of friends' dogs than the latest article you read on NYT, Mashable or Fox News.
Personally my beef with Facebook is that it makes it too easy to share links to whatever we're reading on other sites. Most of my newsfeed is made up of links to articles rather than information about friend's own lives, however mundane or trivial that information may be. I feel that if I have nothing so say for myself, I will not parrot what others - even specialists - are saying about an issue. Let everyone seek out their own information. I'd rather see pictures of friends' dogs than the latest article you read on NYT, Mashable or Fox News.
1
I hear about a lot of arguments on Facebook, which are truly gutless. As for "liking" posts, that is just pleasant behavior. I don't see it carrying over to daily life. People who are pleasant "like" posts and nicely comment. People who are angry argue online.
4
It could be argued that greed is at the bottom of this phenomenon, more than tribalism. It used to be that you'd get ads for the local department store or car dealer in your morning paper. Now, ads are tailored to you specifically, based on what you've purchased and what you've clicked on. Information and opinion follow the same approach. If you participate in a cause by signing a petition or giving money (for example, save the bees), you get emails from every related organization, and some not so related in your inbox. There are some I unsubscribe from about once a week. People want money. They want it for their products and they want it for their programs, and computers have found a way to jam it in front of us ceaselessly. It makes me long for the days when the dog raced out the door to get the paper every morning, which I would then read, and then use to line the garbage can or recycle. We were exposed to less in those days, but the variety was actually greater. What have we done?
9
A while back I went on FB for two reasons: 1) Huffington Post converted from its own comment system to FB. I had misgivings, 2) I self-published another novel and all the experts say the best way to promote your work is social media. Well, maybe if you spend 18 hours a day on it. Then I joined a few groups (like-minded) and I would try to post these thoughtful mini-essays and blogs/book reviews which appeared elsewhere. Crickets. Someone would write "Dump the Trump" and get 400 Likes. Finally I realized I was spending more time on FB than I was reading and I felt ashamed. So, while considering deactivating my account, I've taken an indefinite sabbatical from FB for about 3-4 weeks. Guess what? I feel better.
14
FB seems to be a victim of its medium, same as people may fall prey to if they only read the NYTimes online and never read it in print - it is much easier to unpredictably have your horizons broadened by spying an article on a big printed newspaper page, than having that same article unpredictably pop up on a news feed ( ' curated ' by advertisers ) to your tablet or phone screen.
This silo-ing is dangerous because it makes people more easily manipulable by media demagogues and charlatans.
This silo-ing is dangerous because it makes people more easily manipulable by media demagogues and charlatans.
2
I live in a gun-steeped part of the country and have now and then gone onto gun websites to learn about some of the weapons around me. I've bought online a few hunting clothing items for friends. It's really funny to see pro-NRA ads come up on the liberal websites I read for news.
4
I put FaceBook, Twitter, and LInkedIn into the bin some years ago. I am the better for it. While I miss receiving pictures of my grandchildren (three of whom live in Europe), email still delivers them without the distractions of "friends'" opinions and other emotionally-generated material. The result is any of my internally driven anger, joy, or indifference is pretty much do to the interactions I have with people with whom I visit in person or via telephone or email. My wife will ask me where I learned this or that and I tell her that I did research - through reading whether it be via this newspaper or other internet sites that provide qualified material, such as Pew, Wikipedia, and other scholarly publications, where I spend probably too much time, anyway.
8
As an educator, one thing that really concerns me about smartphones and social media is the effect it has on "deep thought" -- that is, the ability to immerse one's mind in an extended session of study.
I believe that most of my students will never have the experience of getting lost for hours in their intellectual mind without interruption, for the simple reason that they have to stop what they are doing every few seconds or minutes to check for text messages, posts on their wall, etc..
I remember clearly in college and graduate school the experience of sitting down at my desk after dinner and working without interruption for hours. I would emerge from my studies three or four hours later and realize I had completely lost track of time because of my immersion in my studies. I suspect very few if any of today's students experience that and I think that it is sad.
An hour (or three) of un-interrupted deep thought is far more valuable than the same quantity of thought experienced in slices of a few seconds or minutes at a time. Deeper mental connections are made. Also, I think one is far more likely to persevere through the challenges of comprehending challenging material if one isn't always stopping to check a smartphone.
There are inefficiencies associated with a computer processor switching between multiple tasks. The human brain is no different.
Smartphones and social media are re-wiring young brains to have very short attention spans - which will have consequences.
I believe that most of my students will never have the experience of getting lost for hours in their intellectual mind without interruption, for the simple reason that they have to stop what they are doing every few seconds or minutes to check for text messages, posts on their wall, etc..
I remember clearly in college and graduate school the experience of sitting down at my desk after dinner and working without interruption for hours. I would emerge from my studies three or four hours later and realize I had completely lost track of time because of my immersion in my studies. I suspect very few if any of today's students experience that and I think that it is sad.
An hour (or three) of un-interrupted deep thought is far more valuable than the same quantity of thought experienced in slices of a few seconds or minutes at a time. Deeper mental connections are made. Also, I think one is far more likely to persevere through the challenges of comprehending challenging material if one isn't always stopping to check a smartphone.
There are inefficiencies associated with a computer processor switching between multiple tasks. The human brain is no different.
Smartphones and social media are re-wiring young brains to have very short attention spans - which will have consequences.
33
I am dealing with in High school and have addressed exactly what you just wrote . I get many rude remarks when I say please put the phone away and I explain that you can not multi task and retain material at the same time !! It is hopeless they continue and it remind of the alcoholic that claims he is not drunk when he can not walk a straight line .It is an epidemic on a grand scale . They are so addicted to Facebook and Twitter and need to know what their friends say very second of the day.Worst the parents are just as bad ! They text them while they are in classand even better call them on the phone. The students do not understand that I have mine set to privacy while I work !!! I believe this is going to be a major problem in a few years when this first graduating class that has been on all social outlets all their lives will continue this pattern in the workplace and productivity goes down.I do not know if companies already have strict rules??
1
What if we regularly are exposed to people who disagree with us--coworkers, relatives, neighbors--and would like to control the stream of info on social media so we can delve deeper into what interests us, or have more exposure to inspiring and uplifting information, videos, and so on? Why is that bad?
If anything, Facebook exposes us to a greater variety of ideas than we might encounter if we live in a small town or racially homogenous suburb, or if we spend most of our time around people are own age who have common interests. We all learn from someone's niece who posts a comment on her thread.
I don't need to hear angry ideologues's information all day long. That doesn't mean I can escape them entirely, regardless of the algorithms. I could read a thread of comments on, say, grandparents caring for grandchildren because of heroin addiction, and come across spammy threads from Sanders and Trump supporters going on about some policy of Hillary Clinton's.
If anything, Facebook exposes us to a greater variety of ideas than we might encounter if we live in a small town or racially homogenous suburb, or if we spend most of our time around people are own age who have common interests. We all learn from someone's niece who posts a comment on her thread.
I don't need to hear angry ideologues's information all day long. That doesn't mean I can escape them entirely, regardless of the algorithms. I could read a thread of comments on, say, grandparents caring for grandchildren because of heroin addiction, and come across spammy threads from Sanders and Trump supporters going on about some policy of Hillary Clinton's.
4
I'm doing this on my IPad because it's convenient to read the Times this way in a relatively small place at the kitchen table (which is piled with magazines and mail in need of sorting). Later I'll enjoy going through the print edition on our patio. I find this digital option quite convenient.
I love the quick informational access the Internet provides - from checking the local movies to figuring out the name of an author I can't remember. Email is fantastic - for brief information, touching base making plans, etc. I've learned it doesn't work for anything beyond a single, focussed message.
Through Facebook, I've reestablished contact with people I lost track of.
This is just a start on how useful the Internet has been - today, tickets a play at a small theater downtown. In short, the Internet is fantastic.
I once agreed that certain aspects of the Internet were pernicious, but the whining about that has, to me, grown stale. To the specific point in this column, the argument of segmentation and tribalization seems very subjective. Access to a nearly infinite amount of information, viewpoints and cultural phenomenon provide the choice to achieve the opposite. The reality is, people will use it in ways that work for them, and that constantly growing phenomenon is not going away.
We all also have the choice to disconnect. If you're looking to the Internet for expansive meaning in your life, much less using Facebook for news, you're probably getting what you deserve.
I love the quick informational access the Internet provides - from checking the local movies to figuring out the name of an author I can't remember. Email is fantastic - for brief information, touching base making plans, etc. I've learned it doesn't work for anything beyond a single, focussed message.
Through Facebook, I've reestablished contact with people I lost track of.
This is just a start on how useful the Internet has been - today, tickets a play at a small theater downtown. In short, the Internet is fantastic.
I once agreed that certain aspects of the Internet were pernicious, but the whining about that has, to me, grown stale. To the specific point in this column, the argument of segmentation and tribalization seems very subjective. Access to a nearly infinite amount of information, viewpoints and cultural phenomenon provide the choice to achieve the opposite. The reality is, people will use it in ways that work for them, and that constantly growing phenomenon is not going away.
We all also have the choice to disconnect. If you're looking to the Internet for expansive meaning in your life, much less using Facebook for news, you're probably getting what you deserve.
7
I am glad to hear others read from iPads and iPhones at "relatively small place(s) at the kitchen table (which is piled with magazines and mail in need of sorting!" I know you are part of my tribe who always have a certain amount of clutter!
The only comment I will make to what you wrote, is that I am sorry to say I feel too many, if not most, people are not as thoughtful or discerning as you in their interaction with social or any other kind of media. And perhaps because of that we are getting what we are getting, i.e., a Donald Trump candidate, in general, because of it.
The only comment I will make to what you wrote, is that I am sorry to say I feel too many, if not most, people are not as thoughtful or discerning as you in their interaction with social or any other kind of media. And perhaps because of that we are getting what we are getting, i.e., a Donald Trump candidate, in general, because of it.
Yes, it's an interesting time in the evolution of communication. I do strive to keep things balanced by seeking out other views. If only I could do this with the mass media, which seems to only be interested in Donald Trump. Even NYT: I've been doing an informal survey of my daily politics email, and a good 70-80% of the listed articles are about him.
3
"With a creative or credulous enough Google search, a self-serving “truth” can always be found, along with a passel of supposed experts to vouch for it and a clique of fellow disciples." - Well. yes, this is definitely 21st century. I am purposefully friends with people of vastly different political opinion on Facebook, to avoid being pigeonholed by the algorithm...
2
I heartily agree with the article here. Yes, we do make our choices and yes we can opt out. But that's not the point. I teach for a living. And I teach digital citizenship and information literacy. And I won't have a Facebook account EVER for all the reasons stated in this article. Pathetically, the people most hurt by Facebook are the people who have NEVER known a world without it. I have had students as young as 9 with Facebook accounts, thanks to parents overriding the security concerns of the website. I have seen the increase in cyberbullying since Facebook. I have watched my own college age daughter be unfriended by all her peers in the blink of an eye over a misunderstanding and left in social media hell in the space of a weekend. It's no wonder that suicide among the ages of 11-19 has been increasing exponentially since 2000 and has now become a public health nightmare. Yes, we all make our choices how to use social media. But there is tremendous fallout from Facebook even when you use it responsibly. And that's the terror of it.
5
The answer to the problem (if it is one) is free speech. Anyone can broadcast their opinion -- it's never been easier. Anyone who is interested in sampling the spectrum can do so. That's never been easier. The New Republic and the National Review are readily available on line. There are conservative biased "aggregators" like Real Clear Politics that are actually pretty good for the non-conservative.
Which is why those of us who read the NY Times should also read the Washington Times, even though we disagree with most of what we find there. I end up getting emails from both publications. If we never read what we disagree with, we can start to assume that everyone (or at least every literate person) agrees with whatever view we hold or opposes us just because they are, I suppose, idiots. Now I have to admit, I have never been able to listen to a whole hour of Rush Limbaugh, but at least I can read what he has said every now and then. Excellent reminder by Mr. Bruni of how the world works today and what we have ceded, not to other people per se, but to a system that insists on pigeonholing us. Is this a system we ought to buy into because it makes choices easier?
2
We're on the planet for 80 odd years (if lucky). That is too short a time for me to waste even a moment on reading the opinions of others with whom I already disagree. I have better things to do with my time....like go hiking, drop in on friends, read books that allow me to escape reality for awhile, and indulge numerous hobbies. I stay informed through a variety of news outlets, which is my responsibility as an informed citizen in a democracy, but I'm not going to spend my day in front of a screen.
We construct precisely contoured echo chambers of affirmation that turn conviction into zeal, passion into fury, disagreements with the other side into the demonization of it. - but not at the NYT, no, never there.
2
Just as Hollywood screenwriters Lawrence Lasker and Walter Parkes were prominent in foreshadowing the frightening implications of the hackersphere ("WarGames," directed by John Badham, 1983), so, too, they were ahead of the curve on the insidious potential of Big Data ("Sneakers," directed and co-written by Phil Alden Robinson, 1992).
"Sneakers," a caper film that came out when Mark Zuckerberg was only 8 years old, had, as its antagonist, a Ben Kingsley character named Cosmo paired against a protagonist played by Robert Redford. The best lines, at least the most chilling, belonged to Cosmo, including these two:
-- "The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data. It's all just electrons."
-- "There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think. ... It's all about the information!"
How prescient those words turned out to be. But we can't say we weren't warned.
"Sneakers," a caper film that came out when Mark Zuckerberg was only 8 years old, had, as its antagonist, a Ben Kingsley character named Cosmo paired against a protagonist played by Robert Redford. The best lines, at least the most chilling, belonged to Cosmo, including these two:
-- "The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data. It's all just electrons."
-- "There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think. ... It's all about the information!"
How prescient those words turned out to be. But we can't say we weren't warned.
6
I think this is an excellent commentary on political Facebook/Twitter and how they become an echo chamber if one is susceptible. But in a national election it's important to remember much of the U.S. doesn't use social media - yet if they're of age their votes count as much as everyone else's. But since they're not hooting and hollering about who they're going to vote for apparently it doesn't count to some people.
My retired grandparents have an iPad but use it to watch occasional weeknight streaming church services/look at family photos. Yet they have CNN on all day - that is, until Don Lemon comes on; bless his heart, but when he's on it's a signal for my grandma to watch the day's "The Young and the Restless" on DVR. They read the newsPAPER every day and watch the local news/national news every day. (They miss Dan Rather, the late Peter Jennings, Carole Simpson, Diane Sawyer, and Bob Schieffer. Those were their folks but now they like Lester Holt.)
So while many people assume many demos of voters aren't informed that's often not the case. They're informed and voted for Sec. of State. Clinton in the primary and will do so again in November. That's pretty much all the drama/emotional output involved there - meaning there is none. For every person *online* threatening to stay home/vote third-party/write in someone, I maintain hope it'll be countered by these *offline* voters who quietly cast votes. If they're the actual 2016 silent majority, Trump/Sanders are in trouble.
My retired grandparents have an iPad but use it to watch occasional weeknight streaming church services/look at family photos. Yet they have CNN on all day - that is, until Don Lemon comes on; bless his heart, but when he's on it's a signal for my grandma to watch the day's "The Young and the Restless" on DVR. They read the newsPAPER every day and watch the local news/national news every day. (They miss Dan Rather, the late Peter Jennings, Carole Simpson, Diane Sawyer, and Bob Schieffer. Those were their folks but now they like Lester Holt.)
So while many people assume many demos of voters aren't informed that's often not the case. They're informed and voted for Sec. of State. Clinton in the primary and will do so again in November. That's pretty much all the drama/emotional output involved there - meaning there is none. For every person *online* threatening to stay home/vote third-party/write in someone, I maintain hope it'll be countered by these *offline* voters who quietly cast votes. If they're the actual 2016 silent majority, Trump/Sanders are in trouble.
6
I’ll assume Mr. Bruni didn’t notice that his article is a kind of example of the homogeneity he deplores: Each paragraph is just another variation on, or paraphrase of, his one idea. Let him rest assured that I quit Facebook soon after it was born, have no social media accounts, and ignore with great oblivion the impotent stalking by ads. Still, I can’t escape the feeling that the world has become a communal club where everybody is hypnotically interested in the same things: tv, music, technology, immigration, celebrity heroes, etc. I hope that’s really an illusion and that people are actually individualists in their own minds and hearts.
2
What Facebook has revealed is the failure of America's public education system to teach critical thinking. We are among the most naive and gullible people in the world--at least two generations behind our European contemporaries.
8
I use Facebook to express my political views, and I receive posts from people who do not agree with my views. Maybe I am an exception? I believe Facebook requires us to read information that should broaden our perspective, even if it doesn't change our minds. In terms of partisan politics, I don't believe Facebook is a difference maker because I believe we are aligned with our political preferences already and that is not likely to change. I find Facebook much more bi-partisan than Fox News, talk radio or the Wall Street Journal. Anyone who thinks Facebook is the cause of our political polarization has identified the right problem, but the wrong cause.
5
It's hard to have a conversation about, say liberal versus conservative approaches to reducing carbon emissions, when the conservative starting point is denying the FACT that the problem exists and blaming Obama for wanting to kill the economy with regulations, etc. Similarly, why would I want to talk civil rights with someone who believes I am disordered because I'm gay and thinks that "voter fraud" is a real problem? I have more productive conversations with my cat.
4
Frank I love Joe Malone perfume but I purchased from Nordstrom trotting all the way to the store. I purchased Bobby Brown from internet and whatever product I check internet they start stalking me. Wrote to someone about my pluming problem then some sites were stalking me as well. Whom to blame ?
But besides that FB can be used to my advantage if I am careful. I limit my friendship only to folks who are related to me but live far away and only accept friends those I know personally.
To this day and age being in FB for four years I have only " Ninety" friends and I love that.
FB is an excellent tool to bring the World closer.
But besides that FB can be used to my advantage if I am careful. I limit my friendship only to folks who are related to me but live far away and only accept friends those I know personally.
To this day and age being in FB for four years I have only " Ninety" friends and I love that.
FB is an excellent tool to bring the World closer.
1
I tend to vote Republican and my husband Democrat up until 2012 when he switched to vote Obama out after voting for him in 2008. Anyhoo. We rarely go on Facebook preferring our relationships to be more intimate. Our friends consist of many different ideologues - Progressives, Conservative, Libertarian. What I love about our relationships with these people is they are all very accepting of what others believe. That is what you get when you turn off the Machines and Use The Force, Luke.
Facebook has its uses for many people, but it is not the replacement for human contact that they like to think it is. When I see a family sitting together at a restaurant and nearly all of them are on their cell phones and not even looking gat one another, it turns me off. I tried Facebook and decided it was taking too much time away from doing human things, like actually talking to the people I was with. I dumped it and I don't miss it.
4
I think Mr Bruni has an excellent point here. This week, I learned something new about FB: content one disagrees with can be eliminated from a conversation, "purifying" the stream. I had responded to a post by a very conservative FB'er who was gleeful that Target's stock price was down, attributing that to the boycott by those offended by Target's stance on bathrooms. Now, the poster linked to a news bureau story and when I followed that, the story was that Target's sales were not down - not just up as much as projected (which, if you follow stocks, pretty much always means a drop in price). Moreover, the business news had just been full of stories about retail woes in the past quarter. So, I posted a response that just pointed out sales weren't down, and that the results were broadly true over the industry. That got two responses about Satan and then my post was "disappeared".
I get the benefit of clearing out trolling comments (didn't THINK I was being a troll!) but this capacity homogenizes the discussion so an echo chamber results. I wonder whether our ability to so effectively tailor/choose/control what we hear or read has damaged our ability to reason through problems?
I get the benefit of clearing out trolling comments (didn't THINK I was being a troll!) but this capacity homogenizes the discussion so an echo chamber results. I wonder whether our ability to so effectively tailor/choose/control what we hear or read has damaged our ability to reason through problems?
4
Good or bad, social media, the internet and 300 channel cable have given back some power to individualism. I am a boomer, part of the three channel universe of old. My generation saw daily newspapers being bought out as rival chains negotiated towns and cities away to each other leaving communities with one editorial position. School boards banned books that were too titillating, too provocative or just plain disturbing to main stream culture. Our media wasn't liberal biased but it sure was main stream biased. We watched the same shows , the same advertisements and each night we listened to Walter tell us how it was.
Before Facebook and Google and Duck Dynasty, we had the Rotary Club, the local hair salon and Bonanza. We were more predictable and we had not much choice. As much as I share Mr. Bruni's concerns about talk radio and Fox "News" and cookies guiding our internet experience, I still favor the freedom and choice afforded by the technology we now enjoy. There will always be growing pains. We didn't need the seat-belt before we developed the internal combustion engine. We will figure this out too. In the meantime we are more liberated than ever before. After all, you are currently reading the simple comments of a small town doctor in the NY Times.
Before Facebook and Google and Duck Dynasty, we had the Rotary Club, the local hair salon and Bonanza. We were more predictable and we had not much choice. As much as I share Mr. Bruni's concerns about talk radio and Fox "News" and cookies guiding our internet experience, I still favor the freedom and choice afforded by the technology we now enjoy. There will always be growing pains. We didn't need the seat-belt before we developed the internal combustion engine. We will figure this out too. In the meantime we are more liberated than ever before. After all, you are currently reading the simple comments of a small town doctor in the NY Times.
17
The different social media are only as useful as their users allow. Lazy thinkers get what little information from the least reliable sources. I communicate better with my children and know more about people in my life generally. Facebook occasionally leads me to a link on an issue that I might not find but most of what I saw or a long time was useless even harmful. I trust I will get a start with the New York Times but look for other sources to expand. I avoid most sites that primarily aggregate and sites ideologically based. If a site proves to fe engaged in misleading its user I might look at it again but there would have to be some extraordinary reason to rely on anything it reports. I consider myself liberal and conservatives tend to judge my information as coming from liberally biased sources even if it comes from a well known conservative source. The push for conservative purity in The Republican Party seems to me to have led to more intolerance of differing ideas. I have had encounters with people I know who do not even seem to hear what I say. Their eyes glass over when I talk and the individual just goes on as if I had been silent. A lot of what I hear from the right as being based on fact sounds like it was divined. Regardless where on the political spectrum that behavior comes from I find it best to simply move on even if my instinct is to become a troll and turn in to Hermann Hesse's Harry Haller. I don't need to do that again.
3
excellent article
I would like to emphasize the danger of herd mentality that all of this social media creates, sometimes for the good but look at the consequences when it get harnessed for evil.
I would like to emphasize the danger of herd mentality that all of this social media creates, sometimes for the good but look at the consequences when it get harnessed for evil.
5
I sometimes participate on Facebook with two groups of people. The first is comprised of many of my high school and teenage years. The other is from a mostly Jewish community group that also is partly made up of those from our junior and senior high school, the Jewish Community Center, college friends and our temples. The great majority of us have know each other for greater than 50 years. The groups though similar are also vastly different. The Jewish group has a different level and flavor of camaraderie. I also hear from former employees and one or two people from my last employment. But mostly the first two groups are the ones in which I join and actively read and contribute posts. There is a great deal of friendly banter. However I must agree, Facebook warps our view. We are friendly but that's it. We can't take positions on politics or for that matter on anything else. We're left with mediocrity and general platitudes and politeness. We acknowledge birthdays, anniversaries, the birth of grandchildren and graduations as well as weddings. Sometimes we sadly report a passing of a classmate, friend, parent, or even a child. There are no outbursts.
What we don't find is insight. There are no revelations. There is no excitement about the coming election and little dissent or conflict about the candidates. There is no risk taking. None. No one steps out of line. We're just too civilized and desensitized. We are politically correct and inoffensive. We are stagnating.
What we don't find is insight. There are no revelations. There is no excitement about the coming election and little dissent or conflict about the candidates. There is no risk taking. None. No one steps out of line. We're just too civilized and desensitized. We are politically correct and inoffensive. We are stagnating.
3
But this has always been the case! How is this self-reflective mirroring any different than what took place in a medieval village or a neolithic tribe with their lock-tight mores and belief systems and world views, checking and double-checking the actions of its "members"? Really what we're talking about is human nature and the ego's need coming for self-corroboration, proving it exists by showing that it's right. Sucking the air out of all difference in order to thereby show that it exists. It's a merry-go-round that only can only stop with some form of meditation practice relaxing the iron grip of the ego and allowing in non-judgemental space and light.
72
Yep. You're not gonna find mindfulness or a state of awareness staring at FB. I don't understand the fuss.
If social media creates Frankenstein monsters, they are of the users' making, not the site.
If social media creates Frankenstein monsters, they are of the users' making, not the site.
1
Since I refuse to Facebook my world is fine and "I do not pity the fool" who does. Facebook always seemed too fearsomely narcissistic and potentially addictive to me. Akin to an electronic drug that would eat up my time and invade my privacy. The "price" that I pay is some isolation from my family and friends that participate in Planet Facebook.
Our East African 180-200,000 years old one human race biological DNA genetic evolutionary natural selection nature and nurture drives us to seek salt, sugar, fat, water, habitat, sex and kin. All of our science and technology create tools to serve the biological interests of pattern recognition and reproduction of more vertebrate mammal primate apes like ourselves.
Hormones, pheromones, body language, primary and secondary sex characteristics and spoken language were the original biological human social media. Written language led to printed language which led to electronic transmission of language by telegraph then phones then radio and television. Now electronic media includes the Internet and social media.
What comes next are warnings from science fiction. In the Star Trek universe are the Borg who unite and absorb the biology and technology of any race that they encounter into their collective. There is "holodeck" technology, robots of Star Wars, the "Matrix" universe and the biological technology of the Shadows of Babylon 5. Star Trek had a game so addictive you could not sleep with dire results.
Our East African 180-200,000 years old one human race biological DNA genetic evolutionary natural selection nature and nurture drives us to seek salt, sugar, fat, water, habitat, sex and kin. All of our science and technology create tools to serve the biological interests of pattern recognition and reproduction of more vertebrate mammal primate apes like ourselves.
Hormones, pheromones, body language, primary and secondary sex characteristics and spoken language were the original biological human social media. Written language led to printed language which led to electronic transmission of language by telegraph then phones then radio and television. Now electronic media includes the Internet and social media.
What comes next are warnings from science fiction. In the Star Trek universe are the Borg who unite and absorb the biology and technology of any race that they encounter into their collective. There is "holodeck" technology, robots of Star Wars, the "Matrix" universe and the biological technology of the Shadows of Babylon 5. Star Trek had a game so addictive you could not sleep with dire results.
6
I have had a long life and I have formulated my views based on study, intellect, and experience. So why should I subject myself to reading a lot of views O lmpw from the first word I will not agree with at all and find to be stupid or poorly written or so off the norm that they make no sense. I will not subject myself to Facebook at all finding it full of drivel for the most part. I don't want to waste time reading FB and the opinions of people I don't know. So there.
3
People have always been tribal as you noted. How do people chose the churches or temples they go to or don't go to; they mostly follow in the footsteps of their tribe. But to me the global promise of more information and ideas created so much of it that one had to winnow info down somehow and that led to tuning to like minded people and ideas. We have a whole TV network that is a one trick pony for conservative ideas. It was divided us so that it is difficult to discuss ideas with people face to face. I just clam up, seething with ideas, but don't want to get into a shouting match. My brother and his wife are MA liberals while her family are northern NY conservatives. At Thanksgiving dinner she threatened to fine anyone who mentioned politics $25. Hardly anyone reads newspapers daily. I lived in a condo complex with 48 units housing artists, teachers and the like. I counted 5 daily subscriptions to a newspaper, I was one of them. I force myself to read conservative columnists in the Times or the Washington Post and the news feed has a broader perspective. I have a Facebook account and never look at it. Twitter from what I've seen is mostly idiotic and ditto I guess all the myriad sites. Recently I got lost while driving and stopped to ask for directions. The young gas station attendant asked do you have a smart phone? No (I'm too dumb to have a smart phone). GPS? No, that's OK I'll look at my map. I'm older and need mental stimulation.
7
Well Frank, let's start with media that posts click bait headlines and provide multiple means of sharing. It is how they get paid. That conservatives went to FB demanding? equal treatment is laughable. Everyone wants to produce trending media. Yet a suburban mother in a Chewbacca mask bested them all.
It is either the democratization of news or the bell tolling on thoughtfulness.
It is either the democratization of news or the bell tolling on thoughtfulness.
5
A leader becomes a failure when he surrounds himself with yes-men who only tell him what he wants to hear. Eventually some reality that he didn't want to hear about will become unavoidable and be that leader's undoing.
This also is true for the rest of us, the more we use information technology to narrow our view rather than broaden our horizons.
This also is true for the rest of us, the more we use information technology to narrow our view rather than broaden our horizons.
5
That is not the only outcome of Facebook and the internet, Michael...
The First Amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Modern technology increases the ability of regular folks to exercise all of the above... The ability to comment on this somewhat back-door political "opinion", piece for example...
You do recognize that the corporate owned "mainstream" press has not been doing its job of informing the people for a good while now, right?
The First Amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Modern technology increases the ability of regular folks to exercise all of the above... The ability to comment on this somewhat back-door political "opinion", piece for example...
You do recognize that the corporate owned "mainstream" press has not been doing its job of informing the people for a good while now, right?
To pick up on Bruni's op-ed, it occurred to me that the internet and social media enables and strengthens the concept of "ignorance is bliss." It has never been easier to find people who share common thoughts and opinions usually through sites that promote a given view.
When it is so easy to find people online, and niche websites, and media outlets that share your world view, most people (not all) will skip introspection, and not bother challenging what they read or hear, and fail to engage in the process of critical decision making. Once they find a home where their views are vindicated, it is far easier to go with the flow. The internet unfortunately is a wasteland of people where ignorance is bliss.
When it is so easy to find people online, and niche websites, and media outlets that share your world view, most people (not all) will skip introspection, and not bother challenging what they read or hear, and fail to engage in the process of critical decision making. Once they find a home where their views are vindicated, it is far easier to go with the flow. The internet unfortunately is a wasteland of people where ignorance is bliss.
5
People have always held tight to personal convictions. And while some are open to replacing or expanding their views (a sign of maturity and personal growth), others aren't. That's the nature of things.
However, the apparent impact of social media and the Internet I find most disturbing are the "gangs" and gang mentality that radically form (due to support by many like-minded narrow-minded others) which feed (for the purpose of control) a kind of verbal crime frenzy or the over the top shaming and denigration and demonizing of those who express a different point of view.
While Cognitive Dissonance (the internal discomfort that follows coming face to face with differing ideas) can cause some to research a topic and grow, it causes others to toss verbal stones and dig in deeper. And the latter reaction is more a reflection of personal insecurities that have turned belief into personal identity that must be protected at all costs than it is an expression of genuine"passion and zeal." Passion and zeal don't behave unseemly; but fury does. And fury is what we've all seen regarding many of Trump's supporters and surprisingly Bernie's too. Thus, acceptance and learning to disagree without being disagreeable is the hard to achieve ideal.
However, the apparent impact of social media and the Internet I find most disturbing are the "gangs" and gang mentality that radically form (due to support by many like-minded narrow-minded others) which feed (for the purpose of control) a kind of verbal crime frenzy or the over the top shaming and denigration and demonizing of those who express a different point of view.
While Cognitive Dissonance (the internal discomfort that follows coming face to face with differing ideas) can cause some to research a topic and grow, it causes others to toss verbal stones and dig in deeper. And the latter reaction is more a reflection of personal insecurities that have turned belief into personal identity that must be protected at all costs than it is an expression of genuine"passion and zeal." Passion and zeal don't behave unseemly; but fury does. And fury is what we've all seen regarding many of Trump's supporters and surprisingly Bernie's too. Thus, acceptance and learning to disagree without being disagreeable is the hard to achieve ideal.
9
One real problem with social media like Facebook is that is allows people to circle the wagons with people and sources they agree with.
In climate science, this is a real problem, as wealthy industry supports a mirror infrastructure that mimics the real thing, and gives the impression there is something there. There are enough people with reasonable credentials (not the best, and a long way from the majority) that it is possible to regard reality as a big conspiracy. This won't last forever (reality and nature are powerful, and their messages get louder and louder).
But any algorithm that traces your preferences and feeds you what you want will not break you out of the circle of backslapping ignorance.
It is true (recovering Bernie fan here, still like him) that the conspiracy theories flying around in Bernie circles are a little shocking, some of them. But NYT reporters should use great care in criticizing them, as lumping them all in a bunch with the fringe ones whose violent hatreds isn't fair to Bernie or his supporters.
Obama gave an excellent speech last week about political action and democracy at Rutgers 250th anniversary (I suspect his other speeches, I heard about one at Howard, are similar.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkCABjFT32A
In climate science, this is a real problem, as wealthy industry supports a mirror infrastructure that mimics the real thing, and gives the impression there is something there. There are enough people with reasonable credentials (not the best, and a long way from the majority) that it is possible to regard reality as a big conspiracy. This won't last forever (reality and nature are powerful, and their messages get louder and louder).
But any algorithm that traces your preferences and feeds you what you want will not break you out of the circle of backslapping ignorance.
It is true (recovering Bernie fan here, still like him) that the conspiracy theories flying around in Bernie circles are a little shocking, some of them. But NYT reporters should use great care in criticizing them, as lumping them all in a bunch with the fringe ones whose violent hatreds isn't fair to Bernie or his supporters.
Obama gave an excellent speech last week about political action and democracy at Rutgers 250th anniversary (I suspect his other speeches, I heard about one at Howard, are similar.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkCABjFT32A
5
An awful lot of my Boomer generation don't use FB except for posting cute pictures of the grandkids or updating friends on their latest health travail, certainly not for political or news information. However, that doesn't stop so many of them in suburban Chicago and other areas of the country from taking their cue from Fox News and the like. I get plenty of diverse opinions; however, most of it is regurgitated stuff from slanted news sources. So we have to mostly agree to disagree to remain friends.
5
I think we need to make important distinctions between the internet in general and social media in particular.
I love the former. For an information junkie, the internet is a wonderful thing--the world at your fingertips. Of course, one does have to develop the capacity for critical curation, but that is what a decent education is for, presumably.
Social media I am not as fond of, as it seems its function is not primarily informational. (Confession--I am not on Facebook or Twitter; I only have a LinkedIn account, used sporadically.) I prefer my internet forays solo.
That is not to say that I don't communicate by electronic means, but I much prefer "old fashioned" email, which is usually one-on-one or to at most a small group. Most of my utterances don't need to be perused by the entire universe; my most widespread musings are usually right here in the Times' comments.
And I don't feel cut off, or unexposed to alternative views. An unrepentant liberal, I subscribe to many newsletters, blogs, etc., of moderate and conservative bent. Of course, the algorithms of such noticed "click patterns" bring lots of other stuff into my inbox, of varied views, which I then dutifully peruse to see if I want to keep reading them. I will often keep perusing even extreme, "crackpot" sources, with the idea that one should always know what the fringe is thinking. I already know what the like-minded are thinking.
So, one can avoid what Bruni describes. But it takes effort.
I love the former. For an information junkie, the internet is a wonderful thing--the world at your fingertips. Of course, one does have to develop the capacity for critical curation, but that is what a decent education is for, presumably.
Social media I am not as fond of, as it seems its function is not primarily informational. (Confession--I am not on Facebook or Twitter; I only have a LinkedIn account, used sporadically.) I prefer my internet forays solo.
That is not to say that I don't communicate by electronic means, but I much prefer "old fashioned" email, which is usually one-on-one or to at most a small group. Most of my utterances don't need to be perused by the entire universe; my most widespread musings are usually right here in the Times' comments.
And I don't feel cut off, or unexposed to alternative views. An unrepentant liberal, I subscribe to many newsletters, blogs, etc., of moderate and conservative bent. Of course, the algorithms of such noticed "click patterns" bring lots of other stuff into my inbox, of varied views, which I then dutifully peruse to see if I want to keep reading them. I will often keep perusing even extreme, "crackpot" sources, with the idea that one should always know what the fringe is thinking. I already know what the like-minded are thinking.
So, one can avoid what Bruni describes. But it takes effort.
29
I cannot understand why Bruni has chosen to attack FB just as Republicans are desperately to find a new way to bring to heel any type of media that has not yet yielded to them as most have already done.
I am old, handicapped and FB is literally my "windows of the world". I have found old friends, even in other countries; I delight in science news, discoveries an the like. I love animals and rejoice every time there is a new species discovered. I love flowers, rocks and poetry. I find all of that on FB and more. I also happen to have an advanced degree from a time when education in the USA was not the travesty it is today. In other words, I use FB to extend my knowledge, communicate and learn.
I want nothing to do with American fascism, centered on the "Religious Right" and the Republican Party. I unfriend anyone who will defend either. For all the talk of open-mindedness going on, I do no longer have the patience to try.
Ads drive me bananas, and so idiotic posts like "I am having a taco", prayers and invocations of all kinds, and endless granchildren's pics (though I must admit the latter are endearing). I have learned the beauty of "hide this post" and "block that individual".
Technology, if well-used, can enrich our lives. But in a nation of perpetual adolescents and crybabies, whose education is usually just a veneer, technology helps to accentuate the worst negative traits of our species, particularly our delight in letting others think for us.
I am old, handicapped and FB is literally my "windows of the world". I have found old friends, even in other countries; I delight in science news, discoveries an the like. I love animals and rejoice every time there is a new species discovered. I love flowers, rocks and poetry. I find all of that on FB and more. I also happen to have an advanced degree from a time when education in the USA was not the travesty it is today. In other words, I use FB to extend my knowledge, communicate and learn.
I want nothing to do with American fascism, centered on the "Religious Right" and the Republican Party. I unfriend anyone who will defend either. For all the talk of open-mindedness going on, I do no longer have the patience to try.
Ads drive me bananas, and so idiotic posts like "I am having a taco", prayers and invocations of all kinds, and endless granchildren's pics (though I must admit the latter are endearing). I have learned the beauty of "hide this post" and "block that individual".
Technology, if well-used, can enrich our lives. But in a nation of perpetual adolescents and crybabies, whose education is usually just a veneer, technology helps to accentuate the worst negative traits of our species, particularly our delight in letting others think for us.
14
I had no interest in Facebook until I found a good use for it as an elephant advocate. Facebook has brought together a worldwide community of advocates and the organizations on the ground that we support. Not only are we making a difference by sharing real-time information and planning events and strategies, we are making connections with great people we never would have known without it. This is not only true of elephant advocacy. Facebook is saving a lot of homeless dogs and cats by creating a network for shelters and rescues that would be impossible without it. I am grateful.
10
Who is the "we" that Bruni repeatedly refers to, people who apparently are confirmation bias zombies only seeking others like them.
These drones don't reflect most of the people I know:
-people who use ad blockers, VPNs, and do not tracking preference selections so that a Jo Malone purchase does not follow them around the Internet;
-people who scan multiple media sources regularly to gain a more complete perspective on a political issue;
-people who intentionally follow people on Twitter who do no reflect their personal views so that they might understand others' perspectives;
-people whose sense of what might be possible is broadened by their access to diverse content sources on Instagram and Pinterest ...
-people who use the Internet with intention to connect with individuals different from them, the try and expose themselves to others' viewpoints, and who become consumers of multiple viewpoints instead of one monolithic narrative.
The "we" Bruni describes fails to account for the diversity demanded by and embodied within the very pronoun he has chosen.
These drones don't reflect most of the people I know:
-people who use ad blockers, VPNs, and do not tracking preference selections so that a Jo Malone purchase does not follow them around the Internet;
-people who scan multiple media sources regularly to gain a more complete perspective on a political issue;
-people who intentionally follow people on Twitter who do no reflect their personal views so that they might understand others' perspectives;
-people whose sense of what might be possible is broadened by their access to diverse content sources on Instagram and Pinterest ...
-people who use the Internet with intention to connect with individuals different from them, the try and expose themselves to others' viewpoints, and who become consumers of multiple viewpoints instead of one monolithic narrative.
The "we" Bruni describes fails to account for the diversity demanded by and embodied within the very pronoun he has chosen.
6
Mr. Bruni measures Facebook encounters against an idealized pre-Facebook world in a Norman Rockwell painting, where imaginary citizens, gathered together for a town meeting, politely exchange contrary points of view.
FB is a herd, and people seek comfort in herds. Only at the high end of human existence--among philosophers, scientists and great political leaders--do people engage in face-to-face or long-distance encounters with those with different points of view.
That said, given the massive amount of information that's out there, FB functions for many of us as a place to find pictures of our friends and a place to find good tips on what to read. For example, on FB, I found the link to Andrew Sullivan's excellent essay in NY Mag on how we arrived at the moment where Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.
But while FB may see arguments, it's not a place for philosophizing. The other day, I posted on my wall the following quotation from Gloria Steinem: "Women lose power as they age." I got lots of rabid pushback, along with insinuations that I am some sort of anti-feminist for even posting this. Not one "friend" was willing to ponder, even for a second, that Steinem was talking about the way natural youthful female beauty has often brought down even the most powerful men.
Which is why I don't ask much of FB other than that it give me the best of the cute animal videos.
FB is a herd, and people seek comfort in herds. Only at the high end of human existence--among philosophers, scientists and great political leaders--do people engage in face-to-face or long-distance encounters with those with different points of view.
That said, given the massive amount of information that's out there, FB functions for many of us as a place to find pictures of our friends and a place to find good tips on what to read. For example, on FB, I found the link to Andrew Sullivan's excellent essay in NY Mag on how we arrived at the moment where Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.
But while FB may see arguments, it's not a place for philosophizing. The other day, I posted on my wall the following quotation from Gloria Steinem: "Women lose power as they age." I got lots of rabid pushback, along with insinuations that I am some sort of anti-feminist for even posting this. Not one "friend" was willing to ponder, even for a second, that Steinem was talking about the way natural youthful female beauty has often brought down even the most powerful men.
Which is why I don't ask much of FB other than that it give me the best of the cute animal videos.
15
I as an older adult opened my Facebook page and eventually had. About thirty or forty friends. Mostly extended family and those close. After a couple of years I hated it and never went there. I decided I do not like the newer social technologies. Texting,Facebook, LinkedIn. So much time wasted trying to be witty and with it. As it turned out, I found I would rather speak in person or spend time in person with those I enjoy being with. There is really no substitute for for being with someone you care for or making new friends- the old fashioned way
23
Me too. We are becoming socially isolated. All part of the decay of our culture. Better to live in the small geographic area where people look after each other. Preferably another country. Maybe Iceland or New Zealand.
2
I'm a millennial who works in tech and has been involved in social media and internet communication starting with texting and AOL Instant Messenger back in the early 2000s, transitioning from Xanga to MySpace and most recently Snapchat and Facebook. I can't speak for my generation, but about 2 years ago I became extremely disenfranchised with my generation's means of communication. When I go to a party or get on a bus and watch everyone reflexively hide behind their phone (usually with FB open) something just feels unsettling about it. It came to a head a couple years ago in college. I felt like the more I used FB, the more depressed I became for no good reason. I didn't even care really about friends' opinions--it just became something to mindlessly flick through when I had a spare minute. That and texting begun to occupy every spare minute of my life. I realized that I was robbing myself of the silent reflection that I had grew up to, and drowning out my own individual voice with a constant barrage of ideas. That's when I dumped the zuck and texting in lieu of hanging out face to face in reality at bars and friends' houses and even buses. I use my phone to call. I can't express how much better I feel, reclaiming my self consciousness from this data overload. I still have a FB that I check for events (no one calls me to invite me anymore). I've fallen hard onto traditional media like the nytimes and even radio's superior narrative. Hoping my gen. awakens.. but not likely
515
Three cheers for radio! I'm in my 50s and the radio was a godsend growing up. I still listen to the radio (local news and talk, NPR, top 40, rap and oldies) in my car. At home, I'm on Facebook, etc. but I do have a soft spot for radio.
5
Thank YOU, Millennial Nerd, for your thoughtful analysis of social media. Perhaps it is a fad that young people will finally figure out is too controlling in their lives and put it in it's place as an enhancement to their lives. Why constantly participate in something that leaves one anxious and sad? Life is GOOD!
6
I, too, felt depressed after using Facebook; why I closed my account.
5
I am a Democrat. I hear the views of Republicans quite often. Almost all of their ideas are based on faith or belief and not evidence. Consider the zombie ideas that have been completely debunked yet still live in minds that the Enlightenment has sadly passed by: supply side economic prosperity, voter repression to guard against fictitious voter fraud, global warming is not human induced, evolution is unproven, poverty results from rather than causes social pathology ....the list is endless. When I ask for facts, they get angry.
It's my decision to live as much as possible in a fact based world. I will remain open to hearing anything Republicans have to say. I will strive to be polite in the face of the mainly xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, classist answers that I normally encounter in the hopes of learning something valid and reliable based on logical reasoning and empirical knowledge. I continue to hope that I do not labor in vein.
It's my decision to live as much as possible in a fact based world. I will remain open to hearing anything Republicans have to say. I will strive to be polite in the face of the mainly xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, classist answers that I normally encounter in the hopes of learning something valid and reliable based on logical reasoning and empirical knowledge. I continue to hope that I do not labor in vein.
72
Not easy to communicate with reptile brains. The potential for education is there but as the article suggests the path to enlightenment is paved with an endless array of distractions.
4
Over the last few months I have asked several of my more thoughtful Repub and Demo friends "Who are the intellectual equivalents of Krugman, Stiglitz and Chomsky on the conservative side?" I do this because I might actually be open to their arguments, if they are factually based. I am still waiting for a response. Please drop the apparently few of us looking for credible, intelligent conservative counterpoint a few names/sources...if they exist.
3
In the early days of online discussion forums, years before Facebook came along, I was always troubled by what I then dubbed the "tag team" approach adopted by some forum participants. They would band together and attack a participant whose views they didn't share in order to silence him. It was exactly the kind of thing I had observed on the playground as a child, only now adults were doing it, often in more vicious ways. And that, of course, is how conformity has always worked and why it can be so ruinous. It turns everything into an "us vs. them" proposition and, in doing so, confines the narrative to an agreed upon point of view. Ultimately, it leads people to see opposing points of view as not merely different, but false and/or evil.
20
When I was a student years ago, I took a socialist theory course with Prof'. Oilman. One take away from the course was that read conservative, liberal, and radical newspapers and publications and somewhere along the line you gleam the truth.
However, though differing points of view are a click away we are, as Mr. Bruno points out, becoming more tribal. It may be that political website and blogs that demonize the opposition and take a no prisoners attitude have contributed more to our current state of affairs than anything. It is right wing talk radio writ large.
As far as Facebook is concerned, there is tendency for those in power to take a paternalistic attitude that we know best. No you don't. The future of this country is to let free expression rule and reign. That is the only way we will gleam the truth.
Prof. Oilman was right then and his is right now.
However, though differing points of view are a click away we are, as Mr. Bruno points out, becoming more tribal. It may be that political website and blogs that demonize the opposition and take a no prisoners attitude have contributed more to our current state of affairs than anything. It is right wing talk radio writ large.
As far as Facebook is concerned, there is tendency for those in power to take a paternalistic attitude that we know best. No you don't. The future of this country is to let free expression rule and reign. That is the only way we will gleam the truth.
Prof. Oilman was right then and his is right now.
7
Undoubtedly, mainstream media would consider FB a threat and with two columnists writing about it this morning, that view of mine seems to be validated. How could this be? Bernie Sanders built his campaign on social media. And that's a direct threat to the establishment cause of control over propaganda, our economy and our lives. Sanders has filled stadiums to capacity over and over and over flowing, but the mainstream media turns a blind eye. Yes, the people disagree with the establishment. It's out there, but the NYTimes and others do not report on it.
13
Another example of a "new tool for ancient impulses":
my DVR, which lets me fast-forward through sporting events if my team is losing, thus erasing the thrill of victory while avoiding the agony of defeat.
Would road rage exist if we craved safer, rather than faster cars?
my DVR, which lets me fast-forward through sporting events if my team is losing, thus erasing the thrill of victory while avoiding the agony of defeat.
Would road rage exist if we craved safer, rather than faster cars?
4
I have a facebook page for two reasons, the family and to administer facebook pages for various non profits posting information and notices. It reaches over 80% of members under 35 and is much better than sending out an email to 500+. As to the trending box and the ads, who pays attention to them?
7
I think FB makes our tribalism more efficient. Outside the online realm, people line up as MSNBCers, FOXers, Mets fans, etc. Even without the branding, we cluster with like minds at breakfast counters. It's really a path of least resistance - socially easier. And presumably safer.
The real scary thing is how our inherent tribalist nature is so prone to manipulation - show us a threat and we circle the wagons. So if someone is good at finding new threats, they have us. Our instincts get in high gear, and soon the influential power of the press, "free"speech and social media combine to fold us into a willing, self consuming queue at the packing house gate.
The real scary thing is how our inherent tribalist nature is so prone to manipulation - show us a threat and we circle the wagons. So if someone is good at finding new threats, they have us. Our instincts get in high gear, and soon the influential power of the press, "free"speech and social media combine to fold us into a willing, self consuming queue at the packing house gate.
3
I believe this article points out something crucial that many millennials and other younger generations overlook, dismiss, or are completely unaware of: the difference between news from professionally managed organizations like the NYT, and online alogorhythm-driven news feeds like those on Yahoo and FB.
Professional news organizations deliver news that they objectively feel its readers NEED to know to stay informed. Clearly, these organizations are not perfect, but through them you will read conflicting ideas and gain at least some understanding of the many viewpoints associated with a particular issue. On Yahoo, if you don't want political articles and don't read them, they disappear. Or if you don't like particular perspectives and viewpoints, they stop showing up. Even Google searches work the same way - isolating people from anything they feel is unsavory.
Professional news organizations deliver news that they objectively feel its readers NEED to know to stay informed. Clearly, these organizations are not perfect, but through them you will read conflicting ideas and gain at least some understanding of the many viewpoints associated with a particular issue. On Yahoo, if you don't want political articles and don't read them, they disappear. Or if you don't like particular perspectives and viewpoints, they stop showing up. Even Google searches work the same way - isolating people from anything they feel is unsavory.
16
Facebook's prohibition on anonymous posting lies at the core of this problem. Instead of a creating a zone of free speech, Facebook renders all speech a competition for group approval.
It is doubtful that most people actually believe what they post, or really bear the countenance they claim -- since each burst of public speech is turned into something of a loyalty contest.
It is doubtful that most people actually believe what they post, or really bear the countenance they claim -- since each burst of public speech is turned into something of a loyalty contest.
6
Advance of knowledge such as computation, the internet, certain internet sites and search engines gaining monopoly, the decline of interest in the humanities (especially profound literature), and what this bodes for politics and national coherence in general?
Two people in conversation generally respect polite conversation. At table with increasing numbers of people it becomes table talk, civil discourse. Now increase the numbers of people to point of political party and a nation's general view of itself. We can perhaps call this in more accurate terms than anyone cares to admit or measure, progression of cowardice, conformity, lie from politeness to propaganda, to point where we have to ask if it is at all possible to have simultaneously increasing numbers of people and increasing arrow of conversation dedicated to truth or are we faced with an inverse relationship here.
So far it appears knowledge runs ahead where it is safe, does not offend, where we can agree on it (generally math, physics and apparently computers which are compatible with totalitarianism to point of most virulent and dangerous religious and political belief). Knowledge lags in profound, accurate, honest, subtle and direct language spoken or written which always seems to contradict easy coherences of group whether polite table talk or political party or nation. The question is, of course, can people cohere as talk progresses to truth, or does such divide people to point of "system failure to truth."
Two people in conversation generally respect polite conversation. At table with increasing numbers of people it becomes table talk, civil discourse. Now increase the numbers of people to point of political party and a nation's general view of itself. We can perhaps call this in more accurate terms than anyone cares to admit or measure, progression of cowardice, conformity, lie from politeness to propaganda, to point where we have to ask if it is at all possible to have simultaneously increasing numbers of people and increasing arrow of conversation dedicated to truth or are we faced with an inverse relationship here.
So far it appears knowledge runs ahead where it is safe, does not offend, where we can agree on it (generally math, physics and apparently computers which are compatible with totalitarianism to point of most virulent and dangerous religious and political belief). Knowledge lags in profound, accurate, honest, subtle and direct language spoken or written which always seems to contradict easy coherences of group whether polite table talk or political party or nation. The question is, of course, can people cohere as talk progresses to truth, or does such divide people to point of "system failure to truth."
6
In small towns Facebook is the political information outlet since local newspapers have disappeared into economic Internet-induce oblivion. Interestingly this can infuse readers with information that is helpful. It also opens discussion to some highly unstable individuals who expose themselves as ill judged over time. One other impact is people leaving Facebook where it becomes too unpleasant in face-to-face life where this cannot be avoided.
In this context is the unsettling news about who owns guns and exhibits an insecure paranoid need to have them.
In this context is the unsettling news about who owns guns and exhibits an insecure paranoid need to have them.
2
"We construct precisely contoured echo chambers of affirmation that turn conviction into zeal, passion into fury, disagreements with the other side into the demonization of it."
What a beautiful takeaway, poetic in its content and form.
What a beautiful takeaway, poetic in its content and form.
26
The "how we let them use us" part of the equation deserves more attention. Because FB makes money by selling eyeballs to advertisers, as the saying goes, it is incentivized to provide users with what they will consume with ever increasing interest.
6
That people have a confirmation bias is a well known phenomenon in psychology. In other words we seek information that confirm our naive theories. And that too from people who think and act like ourselves. This bias gets exaggerated in the context of social issues that do not have clear-cut answer or in cases of emotionally charged issues.
What FB has done is to speed the process; it has not changed the fundamental process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
What FB has done is to speed the process; it has not changed the fundamental process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
19
It strengthens the bias
Facebook and other social media are the opposite of mindfulness. Instead of letting us just be in the world, aware of the here and now, they facilitate us in contemplating our own navels. People like nothing better than to shout “Me, me, me!” all the time, and in that sense digital social media are the absolute perfect indulgence of our egos.
18
Is it really tribalism that makes me seek out intelligent, fact based, well researched, well written/spoken and scientifically reasoned arguments? I prefer to think of that as realism, not tribalism. Either way, it would appear that, whatever tribe I'm in, we're in danger of extinction.
20
If I never use Facebook, never rot away at my computer staring at social media, and spend my time outdoors, hiking, biking, and having fun friends... does that warp my world too?
7
I'm on line. But not on Facebook.
Had my offers. Declined them.
I'm still standing.
Had my offers. Declined them.
I'm still standing.
11
Maybe Bruni could write an overwrought column on the use of Facebook on college campuses and how it distorts students priorities and competitiveness.
2
This is being repeated over and over but are there studies that show people don't read any sites that have diverse viewpoints? Or is this just inferred from the phenomenon of facebook? I don't get news from fb and I don't have most of the actual discussions I engage in on fb. My life isn't that circumscribed. How many people's lives are?
6
This is why I don't do Facebook. But I actually feel discriminated against. Many internet sites do not let one comment on a story if one does not have a Facebook account. But.....oh, well. I just won't do it.
128
On a similar point, when one wants to recommend an article, that article is then posted on one's Facebook page, so I won't recommend an article anymore. I regard Facebook as a means of staying current with family and friends, and don't want to discuss politics in that forum.
2
Republicans love to sneer at people who "whine" and "play the victim."
How odd. That's their own favorite ploy. Year after year they cry, "Poor us! The media have liberal bias!" Whichever newspaper or website they've accused then starts promoting one right-wing lie after another, to prove they're not biased. Now they're going after Facebook, which I doubt will dare to stand up to them.
Heck, when they discovered that the IRS checks both conservative and liberal groups to make sure they're not secretly political groups trying to grab tax breaks, the right-wing cried "IRS bias!" and laughed all the way to the bank. They'd already slashed funds for IRS investigations of tax fraud, but that didn't satisfy them. They had to make themselves immune from investigation by whining "bias!"
And don't forget the supposed war on Christians. Right wingers invented and adore the victim stance.
How odd. That's their own favorite ploy. Year after year they cry, "Poor us! The media have liberal bias!" Whichever newspaper or website they've accused then starts promoting one right-wing lie after another, to prove they're not biased. Now they're going after Facebook, which I doubt will dare to stand up to them.
Heck, when they discovered that the IRS checks both conservative and liberal groups to make sure they're not secretly political groups trying to grab tax breaks, the right-wing cried "IRS bias!" and laughed all the way to the bank. They'd already slashed funds for IRS investigations of tax fraud, but that didn't satisfy them. They had to make themselves immune from investigation by whining "bias!"
And don't forget the supposed war on Christians. Right wingers invented and adore the victim stance.
60
Perhaps the internet in the end will turn out to be the opening of "Pandora's Box". As noted in this article we all seek out communities comprised of those with like minds, be it politics or music interests, or reading the New York Times. It is closing our minds to other sources of news, musical tastes, or even listening to a differing political viewpoint for fear of of not being accepted if we mention we have done so online or in even in private, that leads to political correctness. This risks losing our self identity. That is scary, and it is dangerous. It is in essence, a form of mind control within a particular community whether by default or manipulation.
4
Anyone who looks to Facebook for news gets exactly what they deserve.
27
I do not see much use for a Facebook and never had it. I value my privacy a lot more than the possibility to be tracked for every move I make. If I need to contact friends I can call them or send an email.
I do not see why I need to let everyone know all about myself and would rather not use such technology.
Facebook does not help one to get diverse opinions but amplifies his or hers' own thoughts. I have lots of other sources to get credible information.
I do not see why I need to let everyone know all about myself and would rather not use such technology.
Facebook does not help one to get diverse opinions but amplifies his or hers' own thoughts. I have lots of other sources to get credible information.
47
Or, as I do, eschew Facebook and other social media outlets.
I had a discussion with my 22 year old daughter last night about whether to try to have discussions with people to change their minds or not. I advocated to do so, even just as an intellectual exercise. One of the problems with Facebook, as reported by my daughters and my sister (not what they tell me, but the inference I draw from what they do tell me) is that social media sites select for thin skinned reactions. People may be more willing to enter the echo chamber rather than risk incurring someone's wrath.
I'm a chef. I don't understand how people who need skins as thick as a rhino in order to survive this business can be so overly thinned skinned on social media...But that condition affirms my decision to live without social media sites.
I had a discussion with my 22 year old daughter last night about whether to try to have discussions with people to change their minds or not. I advocated to do so, even just as an intellectual exercise. One of the problems with Facebook, as reported by my daughters and my sister (not what they tell me, but the inference I draw from what they do tell me) is that social media sites select for thin skinned reactions. People may be more willing to enter the echo chamber rather than risk incurring someone's wrath.
I'm a chef. I don't understand how people who need skins as thick as a rhino in order to survive this business can be so overly thinned skinned on social media...But that condition affirms my decision to live without social media sites.
17
I don't see any chance to engage in conversations and change minds anymore. In a comments section on another website that is not moderated, lots of people engage in some sort of dialogue but I have yet to see any of the hardliners change their thoughts one bit despite being presented with facts contrary to their assertions. I just see most of this as a way for people to vent and promote their positions.
12
Bruni is dead wrong in attributing this evil to tribalism. Anyone who has actually lived in a small scale (tribal society) knows that for survival you have to get along with people with whom you disagree and don’t see eye to eye. So you learn tolerance, and perhaps more importantly, in the clash with other members of such a close knit group you learn who you are. (Think of how you learn this by living as the member of a family.) The luxury that technology gives us of only associating with people like us is something completely modern. Nevertheless it is the manifestation of an ancient desire—the desire to live in a magical world of one’s own making. The great sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman, beautifully expressed it:
“[As] reality is what resists the will, it is all about getting rid of reality. It is about living in the world made of one's wishes alone; of mine and your wishes, of our – the purchasers, consumers, users and beneficiaries of technology – wishes.”
Bauman, Zygmunt; Bordoni, Carlo (2014-07-17). State of Crisis (p. 154). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
Bruni is right in that it’s an ancient desire, but he is wrong in calling it tribalism. It is an ancient Gnostic desire to live in a magical world of one’s own making.
9
"Ah, love, could thou and I with him conspire
To change this sorry scheme of things entire
Would not we shatter it to bits
And then remold it closer to our heart's desire."
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (quoted from memory without access to the source)
To change this sorry scheme of things entire
Would not we shatter it to bits
And then remold it closer to our heart's desire."
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (quoted from memory without access to the source)
3
The only way to combat this is too have a feature that presents the opposing views. Even if you disagree with the opposing sides premise it gives you perspective to see what the other side is thinking.
Humans always segregate themselves. We find comfort in sticking with what we know. Now we are just doing it virtually instead of by class, race, religion, or ethnicity.
Humans always segregate themselves. We find comfort in sticking with what we know. Now we are just doing it virtually instead of by class, race, religion, or ethnicity.
5
"Pariser parsed"? Too cute by half.
1
When Hillary does get Bernie out of her way, whether by making convention concessions or otherwise, it would be a mistake for her to stop watching her left flank. One person who would probably win the party's nomination, were she running, is Elizabeth Warren. I have known her for thirty-five years. What you see is exactly what you get. And what you don't see is Warren endorsing Clinton. In some respects, Warren is more of a 'lefty' than Bernie is, and in her short time in the Senate, she may have accomplished more than Sen Sanders did in all his Senate years. Either way, she is to the left of Hillary, has pointedly declined to endorse her to date, and as an articulate spokesperson for her causes, she has the potential to put Hillary to shame. The good news is that she would not do anything to harm the party's election chances. Even so, post-Sanders, there will still be someone there to keep Hillary 'honest.'
5
Interesting that people value the endorsements of Congresspeople, the people with the lowest approval ratings of anyone in government. The one that has any meaning is that of Elizabeth Warren and it hasn't been forthcoming. What does that say about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton?
2
Why didn't Warren run in this election?
2
This is hardly the first essay to point out that FB and similar programs are designed to give us more of what we've already told them we want. 'Likes' in particular seem to be intoxicating, and people pander for them like lab rats manically pressing a lever to keep getting doses of cocaine while they ignore their food and starve to death.
Disclosure. I have a FB page, but in part because I won't 'friend' anyone I don't actually know, my circle is only four friends (one of whom died last year), nor do I post much of anything on my own page. I don't have a news feed and maybe two favourite sites. Just about the only FB sites I visit is the NYT. And I don't count 'likes' to my comments because I don't necessarily know who gave me a thumbs-up and why - it could easily be someone who misread my comment, or someone whose approval I'd rather not have.
Disclosure. I have a FB page, but in part because I won't 'friend' anyone I don't actually know, my circle is only four friends (one of whom died last year), nor do I post much of anything on my own page. I don't have a news feed and maybe two favourite sites. Just about the only FB sites I visit is the NYT. And I don't count 'likes' to my comments because I don't necessarily know who gave me a thumbs-up and why - it could easily be someone who misread my comment, or someone whose approval I'd rather not have.
2
FACEBOOK Has become emblematic of the 21st century embodiment of capitalism, powered by relentless greed for optimal quarterly stock earnings, has opened a Pandora's pandemonium of targeted marketing. Gone are the saturation sprayings of toxic mass advertising, now morphed into exquisitely targeted focus according to our past history of online browsing. I'm certain that cancer researchers would be delighted to discover chemical pathways as accurate and effective as online advertisers have done. Alas, tracking interests is orders of magnitude more accurate than designing biochemical interventions to eradicate cancer cells. The goal of consumerism is to use any available mean to turn people into better consumers of goods and services, mindless though the offerings may be. Ominously, the software used to track the interests of consumers, in at least one iteration, is called something like "Soul Mate," which suggests that where the pharos roaming the earth nowadays, what they would need for their afterlife would be comprised of unlimited credit and access to broadband computer services eternally connected to the pyramid burial chambers. No doubt, the secret of the sphinx in the 21st century may be the intellectual property of banksters and economic terrorists, who will stop at nothing until they have persuaded us that our pleasure demands unending purchases with eternal revolving credit card debt. Ah, to die, perchance to shop. How's your credit? What please thee milady?
1
In the 1930s people died of consumption. Back then it was tuberculosis bacillus.
Now society is decaying via a different kind of consumption. Better to create than to consume. Just another form of slavery. Our master is our narcissistic ego. A short cut to the blissful state is reflected in the epidemic of drug addiction. The social media craze is just a form of addiction for many.
I challenge you dear reader to go on your 2 week vacation without you iPhone.. Too much. You couldn't do a 3 day weekend I wager.
Now society is decaying via a different kind of consumption. Better to create than to consume. Just another form of slavery. Our master is our narcissistic ego. A short cut to the blissful state is reflected in the epidemic of drug addiction. The social media craze is just a form of addiction for many.
I challenge you dear reader to go on your 2 week vacation without you iPhone.. Too much. You couldn't do a 3 day weekend I wager.
2
Where do people get the time to constantly post on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram etc. and then check the accounts of not just close and distant family, but friends of friends of friends and their favorite show biz and political celebrities? Then again, if you treat almost every moment of your day and night, whether driving, attending movies and concerts, having meals, working, meeting friends, pushing your toddler's stroller etc. as better accompanied by one long stream of texts to be read or tapped out at lightning speed, I suppose it is possible to find the time. Are people always able to process in a thoughtful way the instantaneous information overload that they send and receive and sort out the "good" and "fact based," from the "bad" and downright "ugly?" I have my doubts.
18
I suspect that many of these people don't actually "read" anymore, or at least not that which is longer than a tweet or a newsfeed.
2
Succumbing to Facebook and smart phones, are the new addictions and psychological neuroses of the 21st century, which profit only those businesses and their advertisers financially, while expediting their invasion of our privacy.
7
Facebook can be addictive, but can also be useful as an alternative to other escapist endeavors such as habitual sports watching, computer game playing, etc. As people have increasingly lived lives of quiet desperation in our continually expanding godless universe they have moved away from communal activities that had involve personal face-to-face interaction and have become tribes of one. Facebook is a natural outgrowth of the telegraph, telephone, motion picture, television, and print media. Technological changes come not at all without a heavy human price. Being unwise in the use of technology has been to mankind's detriment from the beginning. I agree with your conclusion that the changes we need in order to improve our human condition lie deep within us, and social-media does not provide either the correct method or the message.
12
Lots of Luddites writing comments on their smartphones! I wasn't born into the world of the Internet like my kids but I wish I were. The social media, instant communication, and access to knowledge are the most amazing developments in human history and their impact has been mostly positive. Mr. Bruni's point was that people are using these magnificent tools improperly because of narrow-mindedness or stupidity and he is right. But until we can hack our genome, we'll have to put up with it.
6
I love the Internet. My life has changed immensely because of it.
I met my wife, partially because of the Internet.
I got a job because of the Intenet.
I connected with people I hadn't see in 35 years because of the Internet.
And that's just for starters.
I met my wife, partially because of the Internet.
I got a job because of the Intenet.
I connected with people I hadn't see in 35 years because of the Internet.
And that's just for starters.
6
people who obsess about digital media, cyberstalking, corporate and government surveillance, encryption to protect their privacy and the political echo chamber need to log off, sell their devices and find a cafe where they can talk to real people.
dying may be the best cure of all, because when you finally realize you're dying you realize how much of everything you spent your time worrying about and obsessing about just doesn't matter at all, was completely empty, entirely pointless.
the great shame in all this time spent in digital media and the echo chamber and worrying about alienation and fragmentation and the chillingly ruthless efficiency of electronic tribalism is that it is all depends on your belief that it is important. and most of that belief comes from marketing.
we've turned our technology into a kind of movie star and we love it with the same prostrate sense of fascination, adulation, escapism and inferiority. marketing assures us our love is reciprocated in products made expressly for our needs. it's all rather pathetic.
dying may be the best cure of all, because when you finally realize you're dying you realize how much of everything you spent your time worrying about and obsessing about just doesn't matter at all, was completely empty, entirely pointless.
the great shame in all this time spent in digital media and the echo chamber and worrying about alienation and fragmentation and the chillingly ruthless efficiency of electronic tribalism is that it is all depends on your belief that it is important. and most of that belief comes from marketing.
we've turned our technology into a kind of movie star and we love it with the same prostrate sense of fascination, adulation, escapism and inferiority. marketing assures us our love is reciprocated in products made expressly for our needs. it's all rather pathetic.
5
Oh horse pucky. I use it to stay in touch with my kids who live in another state and some close relative. I also get Robert Reich's Facebook posts, and it gives me an opportunity to argue with the Sanders fanatics, and see just what their thinking is.
I might read on of the news articles if it looks interesting, but they are a lot more neutral than the WSJ which I subscribe to. If you read one of the advertisements it will set a cookie. If you know know to use your browser, you can reject them.
the comments I see here are some of the most ignorant opinions I have seen for a long time. Paranoia seems to prevail. Facebook is free, it is paid for by the advertisers, but if you are not computer wise and do not know how to structure you r browser, it is not their fault. If you use Mirosquish Internet Explorer, you probably should not have a computer.
If you are so dense that others opinions influence you without examining them, it is not Facebook's fault. The first thing you learn when doing a research paper, is "Who Says So?" At least I can argue with the messengers on Facebook, try it with Faux Noise and see how far you get.
No one is forcing you to use Facebook, it is a convenience, it allows my kids to dunn me frequently.
I might read on of the news articles if it looks interesting, but they are a lot more neutral than the WSJ which I subscribe to. If you read one of the advertisements it will set a cookie. If you know know to use your browser, you can reject them.
the comments I see here are some of the most ignorant opinions I have seen for a long time. Paranoia seems to prevail. Facebook is free, it is paid for by the advertisers, but if you are not computer wise and do not know how to structure you r browser, it is not their fault. If you use Mirosquish Internet Explorer, you probably should not have a computer.
If you are so dense that others opinions influence you without examining them, it is not Facebook's fault. The first thing you learn when doing a research paper, is "Who Says So?" At least I can argue with the messengers on Facebook, try it with Faux Noise and see how far you get.
No one is forcing you to use Facebook, it is a convenience, it allows my kids to dunn me frequently.
64
I don't quite get the contempt of this comment. It seems to me we need to explore the unintended results of media and the internet, of movies and editorials, and all the other public outlets that can affect us in ways that are both conscious and unconscious. Thank-you.
2
I agree. It depends on how "we" use Facebook, setting privacy settings, limit number of friends (how can someone have 200 or 600 "friends"?), exercising some reserve and no negativity. I "silence" friends who "talk too much", and get out of fan sites that send out too many posts in one day. Other than that, it's nice to remain in contact with friends and family, with overseas friends, sharing photos and news. It's a convenience sending messages, private messages through facebook. And if I want to take a sabbatical from facebook, I can do that. We have choices!
2
Im just old enough to have come of age before Facebook, hurried to get to a movie early to see the trailers and had high school reading lists that are part of a common curriculum. I guess my point is that I greatly value the shared experience of culture and lament the increasing fragmentation that technology has given us. I think there is something sad and distorting about only being exposed to people, ideas and culture that already interest you. perhaps I sound like every older generation complaining about the good old days - but my gut tells me this is different and it's bad different. Humans and our societies need connection and common points of reference.
81
Just consider that, before social media, most of our friends and family might have sat down to a meal with us perhaps once or twice a year at special events of one sort or other. In that way we were usually able to "grin and bear it" if our relationship with said individuals wasn't exactly stellar. We could talk about the weather and the Yankees and other unimportant topics, thus avoiding any unpleasantness. What has social media done? it has BROKEN those relationships. Not only are we subjected to the ignorant utterances from these people but every possible stupidity is now firmly in our faces. So we must ask ourselves: were we better off living in ignorant bliss with our idiotic friends and family or is it better to KNOW the beast within our midst so that we might slay it by hitting the "unfriend" button? My list of contacts has halved itself over the last 5 years and well, I guess I'm so much the better because of it. No more wasted time with false people.
9
Some family. We have 5 kids, 2 sons-in-law, a daughter-in-law, and 12 grandchildren. The grandkids range from age 22 down to age 33. Total of the bunch with me and my wife is 22.
We have dinners with around 15 or so of these twice a week; up to all 22 about once a month (the older ones being in college, etc.)
This "once or twice a year" family dinner-- too bad.
We have dinners with around 15 or so of these twice a week; up to all 22 about once a month (the older ones being in college, etc.)
This "once or twice a year" family dinner-- too bad.
2
A perfect example of the filter bubble, as chosen by the user rather than the programmer.
1
If you think you can effectively judge or understand others based on their facebook posts, you might be selling people short. A person whose on-line posts are shallow or misinformed may be leading a very rich life and be full of wisdom that you are missing out on when you drop them from your contact list.
Getting up early in the morning, an acquitance of mine in his 80th reads newspaper which is delivered every day. He goes to walk with his wife for an hour and has breakfast. He reads paper books and talks with neighbors face to face. He drinks beer with his son in the evening and eats supper with his granddaughter. He never uses a personal computer but he enjoys his life.
I don’t like the life depending completely on PC and the internet. It is much more important for me to talk with my family and friends directly than using PC. I restrict the time of the net as short as possible. I access Facebook only on Sundays.
I don’t like the life depending completely on PC and the internet. It is much more important for me to talk with my family and friends directly than using PC. I restrict the time of the net as short as possible. I access Facebook only on Sundays.
89
I read my print paper every morning but in the evening, live on my iPad with my NY Times, Facebook and other Internet sites and apps.
What would my life have been like the last 9 years without being able to read and post NY Times comments? It is something I love doing. If an article doesn't have a comment section, I rarely read it because I don't get a chance to participate in the conversation.
I'm relatively shy and don't like making conversation with strangers (I hate small talk), so writing has always been my outlet. So Bruni can go on about Facebook and the Internet but let's face it. What would we have done these last 20 years without the net? And would most of us give it up?
What would my life have been like the last 9 years without being able to read and post NY Times comments? It is something I love doing. If an article doesn't have a comment section, I rarely read it because I don't get a chance to participate in the conversation.
I'm relatively shy and don't like making conversation with strangers (I hate small talk), so writing has always been my outlet. So Bruni can go on about Facebook and the Internet but let's face it. What would we have done these last 20 years without the net? And would most of us give it up?
8
Matsuda, your friend is both a wise and fortunate man: That he has family and friends to connect with daily is a wonderful thing, your comment made me realize the genius of Facebook is in the allowing people of who perhaps have neither to create a social life for themselves, real or imagined. How terrific your acquaintances life sounds, once this election is over my very brief affair with the computer will be over as well. Thank you, Matsuda, for reminding me of how sweet the roses smell.
1
"We’re less committed to, and trustful of, large institutions than we were at times in the past."
No one worked harder and more effectively that Ronald Reagan to discredit the federal government. He spent his eight years in office repeatedly telling us the government is the problem, not the solution. Our taxes finance the problem makers, so every tax dollar collected is used to dig the hole deeper (except for money given to the military, of course). Then in 2008 the financial sector showed what it could do to trust.
"We’ve surrendered universal points of reference. We’ve lost common ground." Turn Facebook and the niche tree-houses off today and tell the grumbling net addicts to look outward for points of reference, and common ground. So long as they don't focus on politics, economics, healthcare, Middle East warfare, abortion, the gun ownership epidemic, Supreme Court, public schools, the safety net, global warming, China, Russia, banks, Wall St ........they might find a public issue having a common ground or universal points of reference. Maybe we could all agree that both the likely presidential candidates are blonds (without getting too deep into the peroxide thing).
No one worked harder and more effectively that Ronald Reagan to discredit the federal government. He spent his eight years in office repeatedly telling us the government is the problem, not the solution. Our taxes finance the problem makers, so every tax dollar collected is used to dig the hole deeper (except for money given to the military, of course). Then in 2008 the financial sector showed what it could do to trust.
"We’ve surrendered universal points of reference. We’ve lost common ground." Turn Facebook and the niche tree-houses off today and tell the grumbling net addicts to look outward for points of reference, and common ground. So long as they don't focus on politics, economics, healthcare, Middle East warfare, abortion, the gun ownership epidemic, Supreme Court, public schools, the safety net, global warming, China, Russia, banks, Wall St ........they might find a public issue having a common ground or universal points of reference. Maybe we could all agree that both the likely presidential candidates are blonds (without getting too deep into the peroxide thing).
9
Lol. You are the very embodiment of this article. Not about politics at all, but for you it's about 'Ronald Regan did such and such....' to divide us.
Of course, Reagan united support in a majority of nearly every state. That will be filtered out for you. He got bipartisan votes often often. That will be filtered out for you. Obama, by voting record, is as a fact, the most partisan president in history. That will be filtered as well.
Bruni's comment about institutions isn't even about government. But you need it to be, because you are the very mascot he identifies.
Of course, Reagan united support in a majority of nearly every state. That will be filtered out for you. He got bipartisan votes often often. That will be filtered out for you. Obama, by voting record, is as a fact, the most partisan president in history. That will be filtered as well.
Bruni's comment about institutions isn't even about government. But you need it to be, because you are the very mascot he identifies.
Thanks for this... technology is a surely a magnifier of our impulses.
Even a motorcycle magnifies mobility in good ways and potentially horrible ones.
As an electrical engineer, I've often pondered whether the very nature and construction of digital information platforms, which at their root separate and sort everything into "1's" and "0's," is responsible in part for the balkanization that seems to be infecting us the more we interact with it.
Even a motorcycle magnifies mobility in good ways and potentially horrible ones.
As an electrical engineer, I've often pondered whether the very nature and construction of digital information platforms, which at their root separate and sort everything into "1's" and "0's," is responsible in part for the balkanization that seems to be infecting us the more we interact with it.
11
Years ago when some scientists told us that the poles had not reversed for many years and were overdue to do so, I relished thinking about what we would do if all the technology powered by electricity suddenly stopped. Unfortunately, that has not yet happened. All my plans of what to do are nil. But I still wonder if it is true and some day all of this tech magically disappears...
3
Speak for yourself, your impulses,not mine.
2
Bad news...the reversal of the north and south poles (and the period of flux while that happens) might have other effects, but it has no effect on electronics.
Frank has incisively diagnosed the problem. The primal needs for self-glorifcation and to retreat to the safe confines of the familiar are now met by the internet, which is part hall of mirrors and part echo chamber. Serious journalists have to resist the temptation to get pulled into the fray. They must challenge, provoke, surprise, and educate, and think about how many people they will annoy by taking an unpopular position, not "how many likes am I going to get."
20
Few people behave in this manner, whether it is on social media or IRL. Except that a platform like FB just puts a billion users within easy access of each other.
There is much truth to this in particular the creation of " micro communities " contributing to an erosion of trust in large institutions ,though of course that isn't all negative as large institutions (media, government, churches) really should be forced to re-earn trust that was often to freely given. I wonder also where and when exactly more than a tiny minority of people ever sought out and engaged with views, culture and knowledge that didn't conform to there predisposed beliefs and interests ?
13
You deserve a Nobel Prize for this observation. Well, maybe...
You have hit the nail on the head: we predispose ourselves to like-minded viewpoints, and we then bind them into the cement of our worldview. I've seen my Facebook news feed degenerate into one homogeneous ideology. We have effectively isolated ourselves from alternate perspectives. And when there is a disagreement, it devolves into un-following someone or, worse, unfriending them. There is no longer a tolerance for disagreement; it either fits with my viewpoint or it gets extirpated by the algorithms that govern our online intercourse. It's the logical extension of Fox News, but it's self-inflicted.
If I didn't rely on Facebook to communicate non-controversial information, I would leave it in a heartbeat. It seems more insidious with each passing day. It provides the perfect medium for ugly discourse, and it's more polarizing than any other factor I can identify. And people are getting very rich by promoting this behavior. Ugh!
You have hit the nail on the head: we predispose ourselves to like-minded viewpoints, and we then bind them into the cement of our worldview. I've seen my Facebook news feed degenerate into one homogeneous ideology. We have effectively isolated ourselves from alternate perspectives. And when there is a disagreement, it devolves into un-following someone or, worse, unfriending them. There is no longer a tolerance for disagreement; it either fits with my viewpoint or it gets extirpated by the algorithms that govern our online intercourse. It's the logical extension of Fox News, but it's self-inflicted.
If I didn't rely on Facebook to communicate non-controversial information, I would leave it in a heartbeat. It seems more insidious with each passing day. It provides the perfect medium for ugly discourse, and it's more polarizing than any other factor I can identify. And people are getting very rich by promoting this behavior. Ugh!
22
Who is this We Kemosabe?
6
I haven’t experienced Facebook, so I’m sure you’re right about it. But isn’t it true that people would always read the newspapers that agreed with their views b4 any social media was invented? One could even say that with social media, they now might be exposed to more views sometimes, not less. The reader posts get replies that may have convincing counter arguments.
Newspapers were often frankly partisan, with no pretense of balance. Few readers bothered to type, stamp and mail a letter to editor, with little chance of it being read.
Fox News has dominated the country in radio and TV, after monopoly laws were repealed. So a few megamedia corporations own news media and none of them is progressive, and the range of views is narrow. So much is off the table in our politics.
Public TV/radio are under funded by those hostile to it, and are delivered into the arms of corporate sponsors, who also fund our elections. So this has to affect its coverage and tone. There’s little countervailing non commercial media that’s independent. We don’t get the range of views needed to solve our huge national problems. At least Times reader comments are moderated, so are readable and give a wider range of views.
Newspapers were often frankly partisan, with no pretense of balance. Few readers bothered to type, stamp and mail a letter to editor, with little chance of it being read.
Fox News has dominated the country in radio and TV, after monopoly laws were repealed. So a few megamedia corporations own news media and none of them is progressive, and the range of views is narrow. So much is off the table in our politics.
Public TV/radio are under funded by those hostile to it, and are delivered into the arms of corporate sponsors, who also fund our elections. So this has to affect its coverage and tone. There’s little countervailing non commercial media that’s independent. We don’t get the range of views needed to solve our huge national problems. At least Times reader comments are moderated, so are readable and give a wider range of views.
1
I'm not a fan of Facebook though I have an account and occasionally will check in when prompted by a friend who directs me to something interesting another friend or family member posted.
But I am very happy that I discovered a group of people who share my interest in photography. I started a conversation five and a half years ago on a photography website expecting it would end in a few days but it is still going strong, with participants from around the world. We don't talk about religion, we don't talk about politics but we do celebrate the use and enjoyment of manual focus lenses made by Nikon. We've even sent a lens around the world and shared photos taken on a separate blog. Personally, I believe finding these strangers and getting to know then through our shared interest in photography has enriched my life immensely. I've even traveled to Europe to visit one of those friends made in cyberspace. Together we traveled to Turkey where we met three other photographer friends.
The internet doesn't always narrow one's perspective. Sometimes it makes it easier to explore shared interests while one makes new friends.
But I am very happy that I discovered a group of people who share my interest in photography. I started a conversation five and a half years ago on a photography website expecting it would end in a few days but it is still going strong, with participants from around the world. We don't talk about religion, we don't talk about politics but we do celebrate the use and enjoyment of manual focus lenses made by Nikon. We've even sent a lens around the world and shared photos taken on a separate blog. Personally, I believe finding these strangers and getting to know then through our shared interest in photography has enriched my life immensely. I've even traveled to Europe to visit one of those friends made in cyberspace. Together we traveled to Turkey where we met three other photographer friends.
The internet doesn't always narrow one's perspective. Sometimes it makes it easier to explore shared interests while one makes new friends.
157
Good piece, Frank. Yes, Facebook has warped our world - social media and the internet and the world wide web are ours for the taking and using as were all new inventions that preceded these life-changing innovations. The wheel, the horseless carriage, the whale oil lamps, electricity, radio, the telephone, and so on. But life is not better "plugged in" and assuming the position of prayer over plastic cyber widgets that just for now rule our lives and social connections. Everything, including our very planet Earth obsolesces. The "full and insidious flower of the Internet" hark right back to Audrey II in "Little Shop of Horrors" - the huge ("YUGE") flower that screams "FEED ME" and is fed living human beings. Horror movie, 1960, horror musical show 1982. Planned obsolescence is the story of human life, and innovations like the internet are the rough beast slouching to Bethlehem in Yeats's "Second Coming". As you write, The internet and Facebook are the traps and curse of our lives online. We choose to plug in. Mankind are creatures of choice. And just as we can choose to examine the soul-rotting noise and artificial intelligence of our computers blatting Facebook and TV and cyber widgets, we can choose to quieten our lives by unplugging and just living, the joys of our brief lives are found in watching our passages through life, not in watching and thumbing our wee dark screens which communicate nothing to nourish our souls before lights out.
10
Human beings have acted in irrational ways for centuries. Various scientific strategies to assess the data that we get is mostly not used, and not even understood, by most. Emotions matter to all of us, but do not guide us to "the
truth" of anything except what our feelings are. A case can be made that the current fragmentation is driven by overpopulation (read Barker,s Ecological Psychology, and one finds in the effects of under and over populated communities robust explanations (and evidence to support) much of what we call modern social alienation, bowling alone, etc. I would argue that the success (and sustainability) of a political democracy has depended on a relatively "democratic" economic system. The growth of a bourgeoisie at the end of the middle ages was the economic revolution that made the political revolutions of the late 18th century "an idea whose time had come", e.g. possible. The unscientific theories of Adam Smith, as a framework for incorrectly explaining (and hence writing the institutional rules for) the industrial revolution (applied science - technology) - made the industrial revolution happen. Fast forward to the present -resources are not infinite,
the rules of the modern strictly for profit corporation are re-creating a (high tech) feudal economy. The economic foundations of democracy crumble.
Climate change does not fit the economic models. Feudalism is returning
No intenet needed. A scientific construct?
truth" of anything except what our feelings are. A case can be made that the current fragmentation is driven by overpopulation (read Barker,s Ecological Psychology, and one finds in the effects of under and over populated communities robust explanations (and evidence to support) much of what we call modern social alienation, bowling alone, etc. I would argue that the success (and sustainability) of a political democracy has depended on a relatively "democratic" economic system. The growth of a bourgeoisie at the end of the middle ages was the economic revolution that made the political revolutions of the late 18th century "an idea whose time had come", e.g. possible. The unscientific theories of Adam Smith, as a framework for incorrectly explaining (and hence writing the institutional rules for) the industrial revolution (applied science - technology) - made the industrial revolution happen. Fast forward to the present -resources are not infinite,
the rules of the modern strictly for profit corporation are re-creating a (high tech) feudal economy. The economic foundations of democracy crumble.
Climate change does not fit the economic models. Feudalism is returning
No intenet needed. A scientific construct?
3
I don't use Facebook for news. I'm old. But neither do my kids, and they are squarely in the age group that we are told does.
I suspect there are other factors, having to do with those seeking "new" this way. Either it isn't very important to them, or they are already so deep in an ideological hole that they wouldn't be reached by any competing ideas anyway.
It is really quite easy to avoid this Facebook effect. Those subject to it either just don't care about the news anyway, or want to avoid any views but their own.
This enables, rather than causing. It enables those who are near clueless, or willfully ignorant of alternative views. It does not cause them to have no care for the news, nor does it cause them to be closed minded.
I suspect there are other factors, having to do with those seeking "new" this way. Either it isn't very important to them, or they are already so deep in an ideological hole that they wouldn't be reached by any competing ideas anyway.
It is really quite easy to avoid this Facebook effect. Those subject to it either just don't care about the news anyway, or want to avoid any views but their own.
This enables, rather than causing. It enables those who are near clueless, or willfully ignorant of alternative views. It does not cause them to have no care for the news, nor does it cause them to be closed minded.
15
Choosing something is a positive, powerful action. In the USA, most of us have nearly unlimited choices in all areas of life. There is also a nearly unlimited number of people, companies, and organizations that try very hard to influence us to choose what they are offering or selling. The internet is particularly insidious for this purpose, using information we provide to enable others to sell to us more effectively.
My solution is not to let someone or something choose me; I am the chooser of what I read, look at, or buy. I am old school, I guess. I don't Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, or Instagram. I don't click on like buttons. I don't give to unsolicited fundraising appeals. I am the Chooser.
My solution is not to let someone or something choose me; I am the chooser of what I read, look at, or buy. I am old school, I guess. I don't Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, or Instagram. I don't click on like buttons. I don't give to unsolicited fundraising appeals. I am the Chooser.
35
You seem to be in the minority here.
3
Just the fact that I gave your comment a thumbs up indicates that the premise of the article is correct.
1
I recently bought my child an analog watch. After toying with it all of 30 seconds, my child asked "What ELSE does it do?"
Our world is changing fast, at a acceleration not ever seen before.
Internet and apps like Facebook, which was once purely virtual, started imitating life to become virtual reality. It is so intimately entwined with our lives, that it is now the reality -- there is nothing fictional or virtual about it anymore.
What are the long term consequences? Will everyone think in an algorithmic manner? Will everyone act in menu-driven way? Will it dampen creativity?
That would be a very dull and boring world. I am glad I got my child the analog watch.
Our world is changing fast, at a acceleration not ever seen before.
Internet and apps like Facebook, which was once purely virtual, started imitating life to become virtual reality. It is so intimately entwined with our lives, that it is now the reality -- there is nothing fictional or virtual about it anymore.
What are the long term consequences? Will everyone think in an algorithmic manner? Will everyone act in menu-driven way? Will it dampen creativity?
That would be a very dull and boring world. I am glad I got my child the analog watch.
26
Facebook is a company, Frank, and it will exploit all our weaknesses to make money. And there is nothing wrong with that. As for warping our world, it can only do so if we let it. The overall impact of Facebook has been decidedly positive. I cannot describe the joy that I have felt when long-lost friends from the mists of time have appeared on my screen in pixelated form! My world-view has not changed because of Facebook but it gives me a window into the lives of people I care about that I wouldn't otherwise have had because of the constraints of modern life. Conspiracy theorists, especially on the right, can ascribe a lot of sinister motives to Facebook, but I do not believe that it is knowingly engaged in subtle manipulation of popular thinking. But if it is, and is succeeding, then my hats off to Mark Zuckerberg!
21
Little could Marshall McLuhan have imagined the extent to which the expansive "global village" that he envisioned would find a way to become a hovel of inbreeding and groupthink, marinated so deeply in narcissism.
As Vance Packard wrote a handful of years earlier in "The Hidden Persuaders":
"The most serious offense many of the depth manipulators commit ... is that they try to invade the privacy of our minds. It is this right to privacy in our minds -- privacy to be either rational or irrational -- that I believe we must try to protect."
A crucial caution, albeit largely unheeded. In the Age of Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon, the depth manipulators are fully at the controls.
As Vance Packard wrote a handful of years earlier in "The Hidden Persuaders":
"The most serious offense many of the depth manipulators commit ... is that they try to invade the privacy of our minds. It is this right to privacy in our minds -- privacy to be either rational or irrational -- that I believe we must try to protect."
A crucial caution, albeit largely unheeded. In the Age of Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon, the depth manipulators are fully at the controls.
51
The problem is google, Facebook, etc is designing it's software to meet the needs of advertisers not users. I wish there was an opt out option for customization of what I see online. I don't need Facebook or Google guessing my interests based on a few clicks then rearranging what I see. I don't get all my information online, or make all of my purchasing choices there. So, it has a false sense of who I am anyway.
86
Oh a conspiracy, a conspiracy to take over our minds.
7
There is an opt out. Opt out of Facebook. Clean out your internet browser's history several times a day, so those cookies don't get embedded to track you. Install a good ad blocker. Visit only news sites of recognized quality and integrity like this one. And read the comments from a wide variety of people below each story when you do.
4
The Facebook phenomenon only proves that the herd instinct in humans is alive and well. Or that people are sheep, etc, etc. Most people today live harried, hectic lives. They want things easy. Facebook plays on this. Yes yes, it's so wonderful to be able to connect with old friends and all that, but at bottom, Facebook is gathering vast quantities of information on each and every user, and using that data to manipulate us. It is a mass brain-washing tool of corporate America. Thank you Mr Bruni, for an important piece.
53
I have enough "friends", thank you.
I don't need any more.
I don't need any more.
2
It's always a useful reminder that American liberalism equates European conservatism. Merkel and Cameron both operate left of Obama. When we talk about an alleged bias of social media, Silicon Valley or Hollywood against conservative ideas, it is nothing but a main stream disgust against right reactionary and stupid propaganda such as tax cuts for the rich trickle down, the earth is 10.000 years old, climate change a coax coming from China, intelligent design is an alternative theory to evolution, the second amendment is about the unrestricted right to own a gun...
45
The universe earth included is closer to 5700 years. At that point in time everything was created to appear billions of years old. That explains why a star that we see a million light years away has really been there only 5700 years. Intelligent design.
Whoever designed humans might have introduced an imperfection.
Whoever designed humans might have introduced an imperfection.
And how about that kitchen sink?
1
"It's not about a lopsided newsfeed... it is about tribalism that has existed for as long as humankind..."
That is precisely the point. Social media can amplify the best and the worst in us, but it shows us nothing new. People now see and pass on idiotic memes that can be discredited in the swipe of a google search today. Yesteryear, they believed Orson Welles' alien invasion.
Our newsfeeds can fill up with hateful talk or with stories from Humans of New York, depending on what we choose to read. We used to have to gather at the feed store or the local bar to share in the hateful talk, or at the church supper for the uplifting stuff.
Fast, efficient, omnipresent communication is here to stay. We need to get used to it, and learn techniques to ignore the noise, really just as we used to ignore the spiteful or racist neighbor.
That is precisely the point. Social media can amplify the best and the worst in us, but it shows us nothing new. People now see and pass on idiotic memes that can be discredited in the swipe of a google search today. Yesteryear, they believed Orson Welles' alien invasion.
Our newsfeeds can fill up with hateful talk or with stories from Humans of New York, depending on what we choose to read. We used to have to gather at the feed store or the local bar to share in the hateful talk, or at the church supper for the uplifting stuff.
Fast, efficient, omnipresent communication is here to stay. We need to get used to it, and learn techniques to ignore the noise, really just as we used to ignore the spiteful or racist neighbor.
107
Social media can amplify the best and the worst in us, but it shows us nothing new. - That would depend on the group, Cathy. Some are echo chambers, but you don't have to pick them.
le plus change, le meme chose. (Hope that's right) Anyway, long time ago, in journalism school, surveys of newspaper reader's habits showed they always first read stories they agreed with and turned away from other stories that challenged their beliefs. so not much has changed. willingness to challenge ones own opinions and beliefs seems difficult for most people. either it is built-in or the product of an educational system that promotes conformity of thinking and discourages open mindedness and listening to another point of view. so perhaps Facebook should develop a new option of its users - Opinions Different from Yours - Friends to Disagree With - and see if that helps.
16
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose :)
7
With over 45 years as an educator servicing children, my Facebook experience is entirely focused on the lives of past and present students and parents. These connections are extraordinarily validating and affirming as former students, some now middle aged adults, reconnect with me and describe personal moments in their lives when I introduced an idea, had them read a book, showed them a film, or directed them in a student play. I am so very grateful for Facebook-- this altogether extraordinary opportunity to know that my life as a school man has been purposeful, and that for some of my students, I have had a profound effect young people who were my students over these four and half decades.
183
Needing Facebook to confirm your dedication and impact to totters seems to imply that what you did was not enough for you... And that something else had to provide validation... And that's what Facebook is about. Sorry for being plain here, but I am a teacher too.
2
Very interesting as well as unsurprising. Decades before Facebook could have been imagined, at college I felt the sort of social and political "shaming" that makes timid teens retreat from vies that don't match the prevailing ethos.
What is surprising is the weight and value we put on sites like FB. As a relatively late adopter, I'm not a huge consumer--I will post photos and the occasional article, but it's the last place I'd go to learn anything.
So to me it's alarming that a man like Trump is such an avid consumer. He clearly reads little, and questions even less. He's my age, but is as gullible as a kindergartner. I often wonder what he did all day before tweeting and social media took over his obviously ADHD mind.
Once FB becomes your library instead just an extension of your friends photo albums, you know you're in trouble. Somebody should mention that to Trump, unless they fear the wrath of the clone thought police.
What is surprising is the weight and value we put on sites like FB. As a relatively late adopter, I'm not a huge consumer--I will post photos and the occasional article, but it's the last place I'd go to learn anything.
So to me it's alarming that a man like Trump is such an avid consumer. He clearly reads little, and questions even less. He's my age, but is as gullible as a kindergartner. I often wonder what he did all day before tweeting and social media took over his obviously ADHD mind.
Once FB becomes your library instead just an extension of your friends photo albums, you know you're in trouble. Somebody should mention that to Trump, unless they fear the wrath of the clone thought police.
268
Perhaps, Christine, you might want to consider broadening the community of ADHD people you know. There are many of us who remain curious, read profusely, and continue to think critically as we make our way through our lives. Making such a shallow and uninformed comment such as yours seems, however, consistent with Mr. Trump's style.
Facebook is great for keeping up with family and friends but as a political or commercial medium, it is better ignored as a general rule.
The larger on-line content world can be roughly divided into ideological garbage, sensationalism, entertainment, friends, families and kittens and the last and most useful category, content that attempts to meet minimum standards for accuracy and clarifies more than it distorts.
It's not that hard to separate the last category from the rest. And it's this category that makes the Internet so powerfully informative.
Hopefully, our children learn in school the critical thinking skills they need to avoid becoming Donald Trump some day, another sad statistic in untreated mental illness.
The larger on-line content world can be roughly divided into ideological garbage, sensationalism, entertainment, friends, families and kittens and the last and most useful category, content that attempts to meet minimum standards for accuracy and clarifies more than it distorts.
It's not that hard to separate the last category from the rest. And it's this category that makes the Internet so powerfully informative.
Hopefully, our children learn in school the critical thinking skills they need to avoid becoming Donald Trump some day, another sad statistic in untreated mental illness.
144
DSM-V 301.81 is, sadly, that "untreated mental illness".
Perhaps, someday, he'll get help but I'm not optimistic.
Perhaps, someday, he'll get help but I'm not optimistic.
I noticed Bruni made reference to angry Bernie Sanders voters.
Really? Hillary voters aren't angry? Trump's aren't?
Actually, I'm not angry at all. I'm happy with the country the way it is right now with President Obama. The campaigns --- both of them at the moment -- are a mess but Obama is sailing the good ship America just right. If only I we can keep him here, at least another 4 years, until we can get some decent candidates who can take America into the 2020's.
However, the knock on Bernie and his supporters did not escape my view. Those who feel the Bern are not necessarily those who will write "angry" messages on Facebook. That is totally unfair to the candidate and his supporters.
Really? Hillary voters aren't angry? Trump's aren't?
Actually, I'm not angry at all. I'm happy with the country the way it is right now with President Obama. The campaigns --- both of them at the moment -- are a mess but Obama is sailing the good ship America just right. If only I we can keep him here, at least another 4 years, until we can get some decent candidates who can take America into the 2020's.
However, the knock on Bernie and his supporters did not escape my view. Those who feel the Bern are not necessarily those who will write "angry" messages on Facebook. That is totally unfair to the candidate and his supporters.
366
Perhaps he should have made reference to the over-sensitive Bernie supporters who seem to manage to find insult or even evidence of anti-Bernie conspiracies in even the most innocuous of statements.
16
Four more years. Write in Obama.
4
If I write him in, we'll have President Trump.
We may have Trump regardless. The media wants Trump at the moment but I'm assuming they're going to try to bring him down. Or not. Maybe ratings are bigger than the country. I remember the movie Network, particularly that big speech near the end: "There are no Russians," etc. Ratings trump (pun intended) all.
We may have Trump regardless. The media wants Trump at the moment but I'm assuming they're going to try to bring him down. Or not. Maybe ratings are bigger than the country. I remember the movie Network, particularly that big speech near the end: "There are no Russians," etc. Ratings trump (pun intended) all.
3
A few things:
I read the article about the Facebook curators this morning and was disturbed that rather than the social network hiring journalists -- or at least journalism students as interns -- they put 22 year olds with very little work experience in charge of posting data to my FB wall. Increasingly I have been beginning to click those "trending" topics but now do so with a more watchful eye. The fact that these are not even Facebook employees but are being paid over $50,000 a year makes one wonder what actual journalism students are thinking, particularly with the decline of the print media. I was one who had considered journalism oh so many years ago in my youth...
As for the internet follow us around with ads, I point right to the NY Times, who occasionally shows me ads for, I believe it is, Mack Weldon men's underwear. There is no reason for me to purchase such underwear and not only is it distracting, it is inappropriate. What if I were viewing this at work? And really....why do I need to see someone's underwear, even if it is an ad, on my NY Times page? I clicked on the "X" to get rid of the ads and hopefully won't see them again.
As for conservatives complaining about Facebook, I have an idea. Why doesn't Fox News come up with "FoxBook," a rival to Facebook? Or just wait 6 months until Trump gets in because everything will be turned upside down anyway.
I read the article about the Facebook curators this morning and was disturbed that rather than the social network hiring journalists -- or at least journalism students as interns -- they put 22 year olds with very little work experience in charge of posting data to my FB wall. Increasingly I have been beginning to click those "trending" topics but now do so with a more watchful eye. The fact that these are not even Facebook employees but are being paid over $50,000 a year makes one wonder what actual journalism students are thinking, particularly with the decline of the print media. I was one who had considered journalism oh so many years ago in my youth...
As for the internet follow us around with ads, I point right to the NY Times, who occasionally shows me ads for, I believe it is, Mack Weldon men's underwear. There is no reason for me to purchase such underwear and not only is it distracting, it is inappropriate. What if I were viewing this at work? And really....why do I need to see someone's underwear, even if it is an ad, on my NY Times page? I clicked on the "X" to get rid of the ads and hopefully won't see them again.
As for conservatives complaining about Facebook, I have an idea. Why doesn't Fox News come up with "FoxBook," a rival to Facebook? Or just wait 6 months until Trump gets in because everything will be turned upside down anyway.
43
Get Adblock. You'll never see an ad again. Just as I could not watch TV without the mute button, I could not be on the internet without Adblock. Too overwhelming, too distracting, too annoying.
The Times sent me a survey about the blocking of ads. And encouraging me to allow it because it would help keep down it's price. I said, "If you don't allow me to use Adblock, I will cancel my subscription." I can't take it. And I won't.
The Times sent me a survey about the blocking of ads. And encouraging me to allow it because it would help keep down it's price. I said, "If you don't allow me to use Adblock, I will cancel my subscription." I can't take it. And I won't.
12
Personalisation and Curating are two words I really, really hate when used in the context of the internet. Both words are overused and misunderstood. Overpaid (or possibly underpaid interns) with no life experience "curating" something for me?
4
I complained to the NYTimes about those same, "they who shall not be named" underwear ads which I thought were distracting, inappropriate & disgusting, to no avail.
1
I guess I'm in the infinitesimal minority of people who have never used Facebook. I don't have a smart phone, and while I do have a cell phone, it has a rotary dial. (Only kidding. But it's 10 years old.)
Facebook isn't merely a convenient way to get news and opinions, and exchange greetings with friends. It's a tracking system designed to glean every scrap of information about you so that businesses can exploit you more effectively.
The idea of being sheared like a sheep for personal information to feed the gaping maw of advertisers doesn't appeal to me. I don't want to be tracked, or have ads shoved down my throat as I browse the web. I use an ad blocker, and refuse to visit any site that tells me to turn it off.
I visit newspaper sites for news. I want to see the bigger picture, rather than living in a silo, selectively getting feeds only from things that I like. I enjoy edgy exchanges of ideas rather than preaching to the choir, or, worse yet, choirs preaching to each other. I sort of enjoy being outraged, and challenged, and made to defend what I think.
Fortunately, I'm always right about everything, so there's no danger of my views being changed. Except sometimes they are. Those are interesting moments that the silo-dwellers will never experience.
Facebook isn't merely a convenient way to get news and opinions, and exchange greetings with friends. It's a tracking system designed to glean every scrap of information about you so that businesses can exploit you more effectively.
The idea of being sheared like a sheep for personal information to feed the gaping maw of advertisers doesn't appeal to me. I don't want to be tracked, or have ads shoved down my throat as I browse the web. I use an ad blocker, and refuse to visit any site that tells me to turn it off.
I visit newspaper sites for news. I want to see the bigger picture, rather than living in a silo, selectively getting feeds only from things that I like. I enjoy edgy exchanges of ideas rather than preaching to the choir, or, worse yet, choirs preaching to each other. I sort of enjoy being outraged, and challenged, and made to defend what I think.
Fortunately, I'm always right about everything, so there's no danger of my views being changed. Except sometimes they are. Those are interesting moments that the silo-dwellers will never experience.
532
Wonderful comment as always. I, too, am part of that "infinitesimal minority of people" who don't use Facebook.
A friend of mine the other day made much the same observation as you, to wit, the day is really a waste if something somewhere hasn't made us think differently, or at least be outraged or challenged or moved.
In any case, it's the Techno Ego Broadcasting Corporation for the masses. How utterly dull.
A friend of mine the other day made much the same observation as you, to wit, the day is really a waste if something somewhere hasn't made us think differently, or at least be outraged or challenged or moved.
In any case, it's the Techno Ego Broadcasting Corporation for the masses. How utterly dull.
78
I have never used Facebook, LinkedIn, etc., either, although my sense is that the pressure to do so for those still in the full-time workforce is severe. I also have a non-smartphone cell phone (my only phone now; I can't afford both a landline and mobile service). I clear my computer cache, cookies, etc., almost constantly, and I'm not online all that much.
14
I've used FB - primarily to read the NYT opinion section page - and I have exactly four FB friends, counting the one who died (but your page is forever, apparently). No cell phone. No laptop. I have one desktop PC, and a tablet that is on loan to me in case I need it for contract work, but which I haven't bothered to figure out how to use for anything except that specific purpose. In our wired society, this puts me somewhere between the Amish and Robinson Crusoe, I suppose.
6
Facebook has become one of the more dangerous means of mass communication and potential cultural manipulation that we’ve ever seen. To what extent is the average mind manipulable by suggestion; and when the same suggestion is offered to millions (billions?) at the same instant, what potential for viral tsunamis are possible?
Haidt also has a point. Our natural impulse is to herd with people who look like us, sound like us, hold the same values and despise the same things. It’s only the reality of a diverse world that forces us to interact intensively and constantly with those who don’t, providing the prospect that we might adjust our convictions by exposure to those of others. But if more and more of our lives are focused on those we “like”, where is that opportunity? We merely reinforce our worst angels – or anyway, our angels, and to heck with anyone else’s.
I certainly sympathize with Frank’s Jo Malone experience (whatever Jo Malone is). I can’t buy anything on Amazon (and I do, a lot) without having everything I view online intruded on by some algorithm’s view of what I may be interested in buying next based on what I bought last. This, however, likely will make our people more circumspect about what they buy online when they’re NOT using Mom’s computer. Imagine being regaled with ads for streaming porn all the time – imagine MOM being so regaled and wondering what’s going on.
As to Facebook, we’ll need to teach our kids to seek disagreement and not wallow in “likes”.
Haidt also has a point. Our natural impulse is to herd with people who look like us, sound like us, hold the same values and despise the same things. It’s only the reality of a diverse world that forces us to interact intensively and constantly with those who don’t, providing the prospect that we might adjust our convictions by exposure to those of others. But if more and more of our lives are focused on those we “like”, where is that opportunity? We merely reinforce our worst angels – or anyway, our angels, and to heck with anyone else’s.
I certainly sympathize with Frank’s Jo Malone experience (whatever Jo Malone is). I can’t buy anything on Amazon (and I do, a lot) without having everything I view online intruded on by some algorithm’s view of what I may be interested in buying next based on what I bought last. This, however, likely will make our people more circumspect about what they buy online when they’re NOT using Mom’s computer. Imagine being regaled with ads for streaming porn all the time – imagine MOM being so regaled and wondering what’s going on.
As to Facebook, we’ll need to teach our kids to seek disagreement and not wallow in “likes”.
37
One of the freakiest things I've heard of lately, is a billboard that, as you walk by it, will change to show you an ad of something they know you want.
I'm glad I don't live in a big city so I don't have to be a walking experiment.
I'm glad I don't live in a big city so I don't have to be a walking experiment.
9
One of the freakiest things I've EVER seen was a billboard of Dave Letterman on the northbound West Side Highway, as one approached the George Washington Bridge. There was Dave, with his Cheshire cat, gap-toothed grin, advising: "Attention motorists, New Jersey is closed".
3
I always read your comments not because they are well thought out and well written. That's a qualification. I read them because I almost always have a different opinion. You are conservative. I am a Warren Sander's fan. I need to be challenged. It strengthens me.
Your post is an exception. I agree with your points.
Your post is an exception. I agree with your points.
7