Why I hate social media (today) « Unreasonable Faith Forum

Unreasonable Faith Forum » General » General Discussion

Why I hate social media (today)

(55 posts) (18 voices)

Started 1 year ago by Ty
Latest reply from zach

Tags:

rolex watch price

« Previous 12

Kodie
Member

I had a question about windowsill gardening and Ursa talked to me privately for a few minutes about it. I agree some people have areas of expertise and can be very convenient to talk to, but I also think I just don't require the intimate endorsement of knowledge from someone I know, and I would still like Ursa if he didn't know anything I needed to ask. I think people on the internet "out there" also know what they are talking about if you don't happen to have a friend who does know, and the bonus for me is that I don't have to, if I don't feel like it, forge a personal friendship with that person. That's what bookmarks are for.

But cornbread recipes aren't really the controversial topics I'm really concerned with. I think a while ago - one of my friends posted a comment on the page of one of their friends that showed up in my feed about that other person's gastro-intestinal issues. That's just.... why?

Posted 1 year ago #
drax
Member

I can find almost anything I want on the internet without interacting with people or Facebook. I have a Fakebook account. An account that isn't in my real name (like Kodie) It has no friends and no info. I use it simply to like things if it will get me something for free or at a discount. Once I make the transaction, I go back and unlike it. Other than that there is nothing on Facebook that I want that I can't get somewhere else.

If I ever do get stuck for info. apparently I can just ask Ursa ;)

We should start an Ask Ursa! thread... everything from cornbread to windowsill gardening!

Posted 1 year ago #
Noelle
Member

Yes. An Ask Ursa! thread would be very helpful.

Posted 1 year ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

Sure. I can answer any and all questions. I just don't guarantee that I'll be able to answer them correctly.

Posted 1 year ago #
Ty
Moderator

The downside to an author FB page is that you kind of have to accept every friend request. And then you have to be nice.

Posted 1 year ago #
Ty
Moderator

Thinking about it, it may be that this is all exacerbated for me. If left to my own devices, I wouldn't use social media at all. I just have no interest in it. But my job requires me to engage in it to some degree, and it also removes all the filtering systems that make it tolerable for other people. I can't limit my friend list. I can't tell idiots off. I'm pretty much required to respond to everyone who directs something at me, friend everyone who asks it, and check into sites I'd never look at otherwise at least once a day to see if I have to respond to someone. Probably even people who like social media wouldn't like it much if that's how they had to use it.

I honestly don't know how the writers who are active on social media do it. Some of them chat with everyone who pings them, and build little cults of personality using FB and twitter. That's a useful skill nowadays.

Posted 1 year ago #
Jabster
Member

"At least google has "don't be evil" as one of their company values."

Which is much the same as when people say god is love. Google isjust another behemoth out to make money however fluffy they like to appear. Remember that this is the company that "mistakenly included code in our software that collected samples of payload data from WiFi networks," in it street view cars.

"They also never sell your data to anyone."

That's how they make their money ... why do you think that they've updated their privacy policy to link together all the information gathered by all their apps - answer: to make even more money.

Don't mus-understand me though, FB is probably worse as it really seems to have gone out of its way to invade your privacy and help people do it for them. I can honestly say I don't trust them one bit not to misuse any data I put into it and that's why I don't.

Of course this misses the obvious point of why the fuck do people think other people are interested in some 'funny' picture they found on the internet?

Posted 1 year ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

What, Ty, you're not busy building your own e-cult? Such Luddism is disturbing.

Sure, you've got to friend everybody who asks or you're defeating the purpose, which is to promote yourself. Doesn't mean that you can't unfriend any troublemakers later.

I don't think you're obligated to answer ever single post. Once the traffic gets high enough, that's physically impossible anyway. At best, you can keep tabs on the questions that are being asked, and answer the popular ones. Once a week is often enough to pontificate for the masses.

And what would Harlan Ellison say about the obligation to be polite to your fans?

Posted 1 year ago #
Kodie
Member

As much as I don't like facebook as much as everyone else, I have no plans to go to google+. One of the things that sucks about facebook and all social media is that you "have to" get on it now to know what's going on. It's too convenient for people to assume everyone is on facebook and now maybe a few people will take their business to google+, and so you almost have to have both to keep in touch with all your friends easily. Even people will say, "I never check my email anymore, but you can get to me on my facebook." So you are left to decide if you want to be in contact or not. Then some people are only really using facebook because they have a lot of friends there but putting their good stuff on google+. I have no idea. It's connecting and disconnecting at the same time. I don't really like to "friend" a lot of people I only know casually. As it is, I have 4 friends out of 13 that I don't really know very well at all: one friend from a different forum neither of us visit anymore, my ex-boyfriend's ex-roommate, a good friend of my best friend, and a guy who is a mutual friend of 2 people including one of the aforementioned. There are so many ways to get in touch but people only use the easiest one, even with their closest friends, and possibly to keep in better touch than one would with people who would otherwise never call you, like distant cousins and people you used to hang with in high school. Imagine what it's like if you are currently in high school, you will never know the effect of losing touch with your classmates so you can wonder why they are looking you up 20 years later to catch up and see what you've made of yourself.

Anyway, this article made me think extra twice about adding google+:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jw_on_tech/archive/2012/03/13/why-i-left-google.aspx

I say that's a no.

As for Ty - I want to hug and kiss every single comment you make. Maybe someday you will be able to be yourself and your fans will love the real you and anyone who is put off can go scratch. I think there's a fine line between being polite and alienating the people who love your work, but being on your best behavior is also alienating, since it puts distance between you and your fans (possibly a necessary distance). People who are fans want to be "in," they want to know you, people like to like cool people and recommend their books to other people. I don't think of facebook as the right place to get into serious arguments, unless that person borrowed money and his phone is disconnected, but I digress. But there's plenty of stuff between locking horns and stifled expression.

Posted 1 year ago #
Ty
Moderator

"That's how they make their money"

No, they make their money by placing ads on pages. None of the data flows to the advertiser other than click throughs and placements.

What FB does is similar, but more intrusive. And more likely to send some of that data to a partner. But, as with all these things, YMMV.

Kodie, you're sweet, but the obligation to invite everyone who's bought your book into your life, make them an 'insider', is one of my objections to the current marketing of novels. Of course, if someone finds me at a con and buys me three vodka tonics at the bar, they are going to get the unfiltered me. But they were asking for it at that point.

I also like G+ because it doesn't make my eyes hurt to look at it. FB is hideous.

Posted 1 year ago #
Noelle
Member

Ok Ty. You get my sympathy. I'd rather see you unfiltered myself. But a job's a job.

2 servings of anything gets me plenty drunk. Last time I tried 3 I was very sorry. Hot Damn 100 is very much bad.

Posted 1 year ago #
Ty
Moderator

Noelle, UF is where I unfilter. Which is why I try to avoid linking my persona here with the me who writes.

You were drinking Hot Damn? Wow. That's like what a frat boy drinks on a dare.

Posted 1 year ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

Careful, Noelle! It is possible to OD on cinnamon, and the active ingredient is alcohol-soluble.

Posted 1 year ago #
Noelle
Member

The throwing up and passing out was enough of a lesson. Can't drink the stuff anymore.

Posted 1 year ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

Bummer. I guess that means that you won't be wanting my cinnamon-oatmeal cookie recipe?

Posted 1 year ago #
Noelle
Member

Fake hot cinnamon flavoring and real cinnamon are 2 different things. I'll take cinnamon baked goods any day.

Posted 1 year ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

If the trans-cinnamic acid content bothers you, you might want to go with true cinnamon (a.k.a. Ceylon cinnamon). That horrible burn is from common commercial cassia cinnamon. They come from different species of tree. The artificial flavoring may be synthesized in the lab (not really sure, might be just as cheap to extract it from cassia bark), but it's chemically identical to the active ingredient in cassia.

Posted 1 year ago #
Ty
Moderator

See, and I hate cinnamon, so I never have this problem. I'll drink Hot Damn when they discover it's the only cure for cancer, but not before.

Posted 1 year ago #
Jabster
Member

"No, they make their money by placing ads on pages."

Which are targetted at you by the data they collected about you and it's going to get worse now they are hooking up there different streams of data.

To me that's selling your data how would you describe it and why is it any different to just selling that data directly to someone who is then going to use it to target ads at you?

Posted 1 year ago #
Ty
Moderator

The difference seems really obvious to me. The advertiser has no idea that their ad was presented to YOU. All they've purchased was the right to place ads, counting on google to show them to people most likely to be interested in them. They have purchased no information ABOUT you.

Posted 1 year ago #
Jabster
Member

... well it's not obvious to me. If google sold the information to someone what would they do with - use it for targeted ads. What do google do with that information - use it for targeted ads. I really don't see how cutting out the middle man means they are not selling your data - a commodity, that's how google treats your data and they've made a hell of a lot of money out of it.

Posted 1 year ago #
Kodie
Member

Well yes, there are operating costs, and if we think we can use these utilities for "free," I don't know why we shouldn't expect them to gather our info and advertise at us. Isn't that what getting eyes to look at a thing is really for? Again, another reason I never use my real information. So my ads are in Norwegian, I don't give a fuck, as long as they're not something I have to scroll past to look at what I want to, and I filed some filthy complaints when they tried that. I'm a little confused since at home I have adblock, that was over last summer when I had to use the library computers, so maybe they still do that. But nothing in my profile is true, and I don't post excessively personal info on my wall. I am (but I'm not) concerned about corporation privacy, but I'm also weirded out that people in general could look me up and find out what I'm eating and how many kids I might have.

I also use loyalty cards at the supermarket, you don't think I fill out the form, though! Just take one and peel off the keychain thingie. So they are gathering my purchase habits, they don't have my name and address. Fuckers like Comcast have everyone's address and anyone who opens a pizzeria in a 10-mile radius, apparently, but they don't have my name.

I'm MORE concerned about google, since the results they feed back to you are tailored to your profile and past search habits, and you have to log in now to get your search preferences, like more than 10 results per page, open link in new window.. I assume safesearch? They have my name (depending which account I use to log in), but they can't make me give them my phone number.

Posted 1 year ago #
Jabster
Member

"Well yes, there are operating costs, and if we think we can use these utilities for "free," I don't know why we shouldn't expect them to gather our info and advertise at us."

Why of course, but how many people really think about it like that? If I go and buy a watch the value of that transaction is clear - I'll give you some money and you give me a watch. When it comes to 'free' services then it starts to get murkier. I'll give you a watch for free but it tracks your movements and then sells that data. Now does it get advertised as a free watch with some small print to read or not?

So we have services that are free but have add-ons for premium services (say Skype or some online games) services that are currently free until they work out how to make money out of you (say Viber) and services that are always free but use the data about you (this is where google and Facebook come in).

"I'm MORE concerned about google, since the results they feed back to you are tailored to your profile and past search habits, and you have to log in now to get your search preferences, ..."

I'm more worried by Facebook as they have more personal data and they have a pressing need to generate more dollars per-customer if they want to look to the stock market to raise more cash - and you guessed it, what they can sell is your data. In addition they seem immune to any bad publicity surrounding the privacy they provide. Indeed they go out of their way to remove your privacy and have to be forced to do anything that enhances it. I suppose the reality of thought is why bother with privacy as it reduces the amount of money we can make and are customers just keep giving us more and more data regardless.

So then what about google, for me the biggest worry is that they're trying to make google and its products your portal to the internet - so we have search, maps, the cloud, You Tube, usenet groups etc. What they want is for you to access the internet with google as its starting point and then they can track whatever you do.

Edit: The other aspect I always have a problem with is the vast aggregation of personal data being performed by private companies. Aggregation of data is one of the worse things you can do in terms of security - it's bad enough the amount of data the government holds (and frequently manages to lose) on people but it surely can't be right that google holds even more?

Posted 1 year ago #
Kodie
Member

@Jabster - I am only personally more worried by google than facebook. What you say is also true, but only if people actually use their real info on facebook, which I don't. I don't understand how people were so eager to just give that stuff away without thinking in the first place.

Posted 1 year ago #
zach
Member

@UrsaMinor An emergency recipe hotline is SUCH A GOOD IDEA!!!

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.

A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

Why I hate social media (today)

Reply