zlacker

[return to "Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health"]
1. sbf501+qh[view] [source] 2022-09-22 14:56:25
>>giulio+(OP)
I'd like to see similar study about the original gateway drug: "24-hour News Channels", which was followed by "24-hour Outrage-News Channels". Seems like we've been building toward this, the interactivity of the internet was the paradigm shift (to use a 90's term). EDIT: I realize it isn't news messing with youths' self-esteem (well, in some cases it is), but it is related in that the media is custom-made to drive engagement at all costs.
◧◩
2. gergov+lr[view] [source] 2022-09-22 15:31:06
>>sbf501+qh
Right, engagement at all cost it is, but there is a fundamental difference. Television required professionals where even wrestling and reality TV is scripted: it requires some sort of willful ignorance from the viewer to engage with it.

Social media pushes the illusion that you are not engaging with professionals but peers, and the dominant signals (how many views, likes, comments, etc.) of this day and age were not present with TV. This seriously messes with the innate reasoning of most humans, because for all our individualism we are norm conforming herd animals.

Show a kid a celebrity pushing something and they can tell it's fake. If the same thing is pushed by all of their friends, now we're in the territory of peer pressure which is a different ball game!

◧◩◪
3. PuppyT+GK[view] [source] 2022-09-22 16:53:00
>>gergov+lr
I don't really agree with this. Rush Limbaugh successfully ran a platform on mostly entirely television that deeply poisoned the cultural landscape of the USA at the time (he was defending Reagan's neglect of HIV/AIDS and playing "another one bites the dust" when Freddie Mercury died), and laid the foundation on current polarized rhetoric strategies. He spread lies that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen. He blamed volcano eruptions on the Affordable Care Act. So on and so forth. It's spurious to claim that outrage bait on television hasn't messed up people's brains just because the internet is doing a better job at it. They're just modeling what television was already successfully doing.
◧◩◪◨
4. advant+lg1[view] [source] 2022-09-22 19:22:27
>>PuppyT+GK
I believe Rush did become famous on television, but after the mid-90s it was really all about his radio program. So it might be to your point, fundamentally it isn't the internet, or TV, maybe it was radio.

I do believe that the Rush style radio talk show lays the foundation for Tucker Carlson and all of the conservative pundit TV programming. Which is the basis for the problems we see with Facebook / Fake News etc.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. derac+mh1[view] [source] 2022-09-22 19:27:42
>>advant+lg1
One can trace that lineage in conservative thought back to the John Birch Society.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. pyuser+NF1[view] [source] 2022-09-22 21:49:08
>>derac+mh1
Why stop there? Why not Fr. Coughlin or William Jennings Bryan?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. ch4s3+TH1[view] [source] 2022-09-22 22:00:54
>>pyuser+NF1
Why stop there Girolamo Savonarola was doing it in the 15th century, or Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. dr_dsh+aK1[view] [source] 2022-09-22 22:15:15
>>ch4s3+TH1
> Savonarola

Love that the Catholic Church burned him at the stake for being too conservative. Really! Go Renaissance Popery!!

[go to top]