With all due respect to @JonHaidt, I increasingly suspect that pieces like this really aren’t about how social media corrupt society, but rather a projection of increasing confusion and frustration within the elite onto society. Short 🧵 1/7 theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
First, romanticism about the “early” Internet or social media in the early 00s overlooks how elitist the early Internet was. Large parts of the population simply weren’t online. There was a notable class divide in Internet access. 2/7 pewresearch.org/internet/2015/…
Second, accounts focusing on how social media make politics stupider often overlook how politics is only a tiny, tiny fraction of what the average social media user consumes online. If you consume a lot of politics on Twitter, you are the outlier! 3/7 journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
Third, if we ask social media users how they enjoy their use experience, they usually enjoy it quite a bit, thank you very much. Because to them, it is not about politics, but instead about friends, hobbies, fun,… The elite’s social media experience is very different. 4/7
So in the late 00s, the unwashed masses conquered the Internet/social media… to have fun with their friends 🤷♂️ To understand what broke our public discourse, maybe the elite should start looking closer to home instead of projecting their weird use experience onto society? 5/7
Analyses jumping from “people enjoy sharing cat pics on Insta” to “democracy in peril” leave out a huge party of the story. Note that @mgurri’s account of how social media undermine trust in elite institutions rests primarily on “more transparency”🫣 6/7 vox.com/platform/amp/f…
So rather than racking our brains seeking tweaks to the social media experience of the average user, we might want to think more about why the elite is having such a terrible time on Twitter and can’t stop making a fool of itself in the eye of the public? #StopProjecting 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Jene, die sich über Twitters Fact-checking freuen und Facebooks liberalere Haltung kritisieren, unterschätzen m.E. die Komplexität der Situation. Im Kampf gegen „Fake News“ grassiert zunehmend ein ebenso naiver wie expansiver Wahrheitsbegriff. 1/5
Konflikte, v.a. politische, entstehen in der Regel nicht aufgrund mangelnder Fakten, sondern rund um die Interpretation dieser Fakten. Es geht meist um Meinungen, Wertungen, Weltanschauungen, nicht Fakten. „Fake News“ sind darum enorm schwierig zu definieren und abzugrenzen. 2/5
Und umgekehrt gehen „Fact-checks“ sehr häufig über Fakten hinaus und sind stark normativ geprägt. Wer also von Plattformen ein politisches „Fact-checking“ fordert, erwartet also mehr als „Wahrheit“: eine Haltung. „Fact-checking“ macht aus Plattformen Medien. 3/5