Just stop paying attention to it. Period. Imagine if everyone did that ... and looked at someone who didn't like "what are you, 12?"
I have never been on it or paid any attention to it. (No I don't consider this site or commenting on legit news sites "social media" - I'm talking about FB, X, Instagram etc.)
Too bad about social media. (He says as he writes on social media…) Anyway, much (most?) of it is juvenile musings that can turn out to not just be wrong and insulting — but also dangerous. As long as we all know that. But we don’t all know that. Our kids do not. It has affected them constantly and grossly. This is now recognized as the main cause of what has happened to the generations under 40. Again as long as “we” all know that and every time someone quotes social media, that quote should be followed with a request for actual facts.
Mr MacDougall writes that the media now follows social media, writing the second draft of history. One remembers a time when what the press wrote ( with the possible exception of National Enquirer) could be taken as true because research, truth and liability were real things. No such responsibility is required of the current iteration of social media. You enter that carnival funny house at your own risk, and if you choose to give credence to what you've read, you have basically waived the liability waiver on truthfulness and accuracy and have yourself to blame if it proves a hoax.
I did not read/hear much about the #kategate travesty, other than to scan the headlines and get a gist of the latest time-waster-explosion on social media. As always, it's appalling.
Andrew MacDougall's conclusion is rather hopeless in tone: "You can control what you put into this digital world; you cannot control what comes out of it." Realpolitik, I suppose.
Journalists feed off the endless shit show in their own way, finding seemingly endless examples of abhorrent online behaviour to make yet another point on the tawdry, disagreeable nature of online life. Like so many ongoing struggles, the challenge of coming to grips with WTF never ends. One outrage fuels another, until a new one comes along to change the direction of online conflict, arguments and lies inherent in the weapons of online life: anonymity and a keyboard. Or, in the case of the "influencers", notoriety, which leads (possibly) to podcasts, youtube, TV appearances, and yes, Substack newsletters, and income.
I'm not sure where this leads us, other than to beat a path to the door of one or another "media strategist" who will offer advice on how to stay ahead of a story where "ahead" really doesn't exist.
Media strategists have been around for a long time. I've worked closely with some, and felt uncomfortable with the cynicism and arrogance that often prevails. Some have reaped great rewards in influence and income. Some get people elected, others get scoundrels out of trouble. Some do both. It's their business.
As others who have commented here, paying less attention to the drivel that permeates social media - and "legacy media" (I'm talking to you, New York Times. Globe and Mail and many others) - and passes for truth, may be the best strategy - one that media strategists seldom offer.
I'm bemused by the sheer sense of entitlement people display on social media. It could be feeling they have a "right" to know about a prominent person's health or family issues (they don't, unless it directly affects the person's ability to do a political job), feeling they have the right to expect that someone they tweet to or about has to respond to their posts immediately (they don't, and the person they're tweeting at may have more important things to deal with than answer a tweet or video), or feeling they have the right to demand a public figure take a stance on some political issue they may not have any knowledge or expertise on (they don't, and the public figure shouldn't have to reply to or address their demands).
Every time I feel guilty for shuttering my Twitter account and limiting my Facebook interactions to a few specific things, shit like what Mr. MacDougall describes reminds me why I did.
If social media is the first draft of history then it is a miserable draft that will be quickly erased and just as quickly forgotten. Those who wade in the cesspool of social media are those who feel before they think and speak before they understand and real history, written after proper reflection and analysis, will pay them no heed.
FWIW I have nothing to do with social media (okay other than InstaGram, on which I’m an addict in my incestuous little world of naval history stuff), and quite agree with Andrew’s premise regards drafters of history. Too many of our other commenters are taking the ostrich approach — presuming that by their ignoring it, social media will just go away. But this denies the fact that, even without their non-support, it’s here to torment others and will remain a major driver of social interaction, and will shape our formative understanding of what’s going on around us.
They could have chosen to be honest from the start. They chose poorly and poured gas on the fire. For all the moral panic over social media's ability to spread lies, it's also quite capable of exposing lies. Trying to suppress her bad news only made it worse.
I'm sure Queen Elizabeth had some adjustment to make as her reign coincided with broadcast television. This led to the BBC documentary Royal Family where cameras went into the palace.
Maybe in this modern age you have some trusted podcasters go to Adelaide Cottage and interview WiIl & Kate to discuss her health. Off-camera (we don't want to embarrass her) but on the record. I nominate Jen & Matt.
I wonder if you are underestimating the extent to which some will simply start to boycott social media platforms that indulge the “rush to the bottom” that you described.
Perhaps, though, I’m just being naive about humanity.
Andrew, you have described all my rationale for not having any involvement with social media. It’s a zoo and the inhabitants are free to roam at will.
Social media is rage farming....know thy enemy.
You pay far too much attention to social media.
Don't like social media and its effects?
Just stop paying attention to it. Period. Imagine if everyone did that ... and looked at someone who didn't like "what are you, 12?"
I have never been on it or paid any attention to it. (No I don't consider this site or commenting on legit news sites "social media" - I'm talking about FB, X, Instagram etc.)
"But the internet makes fools of us all."
Speak for yourself, buddy.
Too bad about social media. (He says as he writes on social media…) Anyway, much (most?) of it is juvenile musings that can turn out to not just be wrong and insulting — but also dangerous. As long as we all know that. But we don’t all know that. Our kids do not. It has affected them constantly and grossly. This is now recognized as the main cause of what has happened to the generations under 40. Again as long as “we” all know that and every time someone quotes social media, that quote should be followed with a request for actual facts.
Mr MacDougall writes that the media now follows social media, writing the second draft of history. One remembers a time when what the press wrote ( with the possible exception of National Enquirer) could be taken as true because research, truth and liability were real things. No such responsibility is required of the current iteration of social media. You enter that carnival funny house at your own risk, and if you choose to give credence to what you've read, you have basically waived the liability waiver on truthfulness and accuracy and have yourself to blame if it proves a hoax.
I did not read/hear much about the #kategate travesty, other than to scan the headlines and get a gist of the latest time-waster-explosion on social media. As always, it's appalling.
Andrew MacDougall's conclusion is rather hopeless in tone: "You can control what you put into this digital world; you cannot control what comes out of it." Realpolitik, I suppose.
Journalists feed off the endless shit show in their own way, finding seemingly endless examples of abhorrent online behaviour to make yet another point on the tawdry, disagreeable nature of online life. Like so many ongoing struggles, the challenge of coming to grips with WTF never ends. One outrage fuels another, until a new one comes along to change the direction of online conflict, arguments and lies inherent in the weapons of online life: anonymity and a keyboard. Or, in the case of the "influencers", notoriety, which leads (possibly) to podcasts, youtube, TV appearances, and yes, Substack newsletters, and income.
I'm not sure where this leads us, other than to beat a path to the door of one or another "media strategist" who will offer advice on how to stay ahead of a story where "ahead" really doesn't exist.
Media strategists have been around for a long time. I've worked closely with some, and felt uncomfortable with the cynicism and arrogance that often prevails. Some have reaped great rewards in influence and income. Some get people elected, others get scoundrels out of trouble. Some do both. It's their business.
As others who have commented here, paying less attention to the drivel that permeates social media - and "legacy media" (I'm talking to you, New York Times. Globe and Mail and many others) - and passes for truth, may be the best strategy - one that media strategists seldom offer.
A very useful comment on the status of communication today.
I'm bemused by the sheer sense of entitlement people display on social media. It could be feeling they have a "right" to know about a prominent person's health or family issues (they don't, unless it directly affects the person's ability to do a political job), feeling they have the right to expect that someone they tweet to or about has to respond to their posts immediately (they don't, and the person they're tweeting at may have more important things to deal with than answer a tweet or video), or feeling they have the right to demand a public figure take a stance on some political issue they may not have any knowledge or expertise on (they don't, and the public figure shouldn't have to reply to or address their demands).
Every time I feel guilty for shuttering my Twitter account and limiting my Facebook interactions to a few specific things, shit like what Mr. MacDougall describes reminds me why I did.
I wish more people would just ignore it. It's only getting more and more toxic over time.
Perhaps Jr could recommend an on-line harms protection for the Royals??
If social media is the first draft of history then it is a miserable draft that will be quickly erased and just as quickly forgotten. Those who wade in the cesspool of social media are those who feel before they think and speak before they understand and real history, written after proper reflection and analysis, will pay them no heed.
FWIW I have nothing to do with social media (okay other than InstaGram, on which I’m an addict in my incestuous little world of naval history stuff), and quite agree with Andrew’s premise regards drafters of history. Too many of our other commenters are taking the ostrich approach — presuming that by their ignoring it, social media will just go away. But this denies the fact that, even without their non-support, it’s here to torment others and will remain a major driver of social interaction, and will shape our formative understanding of what’s going on around us.
They could have chosen to be honest from the start. They chose poorly and poured gas on the fire. For all the moral panic over social media's ability to spread lies, it's also quite capable of exposing lies. Trying to suppress her bad news only made it worse.
I'm sure Queen Elizabeth had some adjustment to make as her reign coincided with broadcast television. This led to the BBC documentary Royal Family where cameras went into the palace.
Maybe in this modern age you have some trusted podcasters go to Adelaide Cottage and interview WiIl & Kate to discuss her health. Off-camera (we don't want to embarrass her) but on the record. I nominate Jen & Matt.
I wonder if you are underestimating the extent to which some will simply start to boycott social media platforms that indulge the “rush to the bottom” that you described.
Perhaps, though, I’m just being naive about humanity.