Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

The book once again reiterates the battle between interpersonal communication and addiction to social media. Technology has added great value to our lives as it makes things easier for us and we can no longer do without it. However, just like every good product it has side effects, affecting us adversely. I believe technology is dividing us more than uniting us, with AI these days you have almost no reason to speak to people anymore. It's why more people are becoming like robots and can't hold conversations they find it stressful, and their attention span is reducing daily.

We can use it to our advantage tho, that's where the family comes in if you find something interesting on social media you share it with everyone we discuss it, if you come across a movie you have to watch it with at least one member of the family. This exercise is tedious because each person is busy but it's achievable with conscious effort.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of technology's dual impact on our lives. It's indeed a tool that, while indispensable, requires careful management to ensure it serves to enhance rather than diminish our human connections.

One way families can use technology effectively is through shared digital activities that promote interaction rather than isolation. For example, engaging in multiplayer video games can be a fun activity for family game nights, fostering teamwork and communication. Similarly, setting up a family movie night (or more likely what you suggested) where everyone gathers to watch a film can create shared experiences and discussions that might not occur otherwise.

Additionally, utilizing technology to learn together can be very bonding. Apps that allow family members to learn a new skill, like a new language or a cooking app, can turn individual screen time into an interactive family learning challenge.

Another effective method is the use of digital platforms for organizing family events or keeping track of each other's schedules. Tools like shared calendars can help manage everyone's activities, making it easier to plan quality family time.

Finally, as much as technology provides these conveniences, it's vital to set boundaries—like designated 'tech-free times'—that encourage everyone to disconnect from devices and connect with each other face-to-face. These periods can be crucial for maintaining the personal interactions that are essential for building and strengthening family bonds.

Would you say that in your experience, setting specific rules or times for technology use within the family has helped manage its impact on your relationships?

[Samana Johann]

Only if new media are with rules, limits, tasks and execution, not a crazy "free world" they can serve, structed like families, nations. It's a world without laws and moral and ideologies for long term benefit, with headless anonymous, yet the main source of conflict and crimes already. A most dangerous jungle, an animal realm and that of hungry ghosts.

You raise an excellent point about the value of regulated media for informed public discourse, particularly in maintaining a society's democratic values such as the freedom of speech. However, the challenge remains in balancing this freedom with the necessity to prevent chaos and misinformation, which can indeed be exacerbated by unregulated digital platforms.

Taking recent events as an example, such as the attacks on Palestine by Israel, the role of media, especially social media, becomes crucially transparent. These platforms have played a significant role in disseminating real-time information and on-the-ground reports that might otherwise be filtered or unreported by traditional media outlets due to political or commercial biases. This real-time reporting has undoubtedly raised global awareness and prompted international responses that might not have been as swift or informed otherwise.

However, the question remains: who should regulate this media while maintaining the right to freedom of speech, and how do we prevent these platforms from becoming conduits of chaos? Given that all humans are prone to biases and errors, entrusting the regulation of media to any single entity could lead to censorship and the suppression of essential voices. Perhaps a multi-stakeholder approach could be more effective, where regulation is overseen by a combination of governmental bodies, independent media watchdogs, and public feedback mechanisms. This approach could help maintain the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need to uphold truth and order in public discourse.

Pseudo liberalism will just stay pseudo liberalism. Life is neither free, or equal, nor unjust. Things have causes. Internet can be seen like a rule and law-less wilderness full of thieves, rubbers and dangers. Aside of the less who have some control of it, hardly anybody can imagine what's going on, or simple ignores he faults as believed "skilful means" (eg. craving over virtues and duties).

My person does not think that any further input of his makes any sense, as it's like husbanding a field of rocks.

Appreciation for good Sushans patient, generosity and Zuvorkommenheit. She should not think that just that will not bear great fruits either. As longer time ago repeated encouraged: It's of no use to grasphold of what's subject to very soon decay. So may she go for something beyond birth, aging, sickness and death. It's become more and more difficult to even trace this track out.

[Sushan]

Only if new media are with rules, limits, tasks and execution, not a crazy "free world" they can serve, structed like families, nations. It's a world without laws and moral and ideologies for long term benefit, with headless anonymous, yet the main source of conflict and crimes already. A most dangerous jungle, an animal realm and that of hungry ghosts.

You raise an excellent point about the value of regulated media for informed public discourse, particularly in maintaining a society's democratic values such as the freedom of speech. However, the challenge remains in balancing this freedom with the necessity to prevent chaos and misinformation, which can indeed be exacerbated by unregulated digital platforms.

Taking recent events as an example, such as the attacks on Palestine by Israel, the role of media, especially social media, becomes crucially transparent. These platforms have played a significant role in disseminating real-time information and on-the-ground reports that might otherwise be filtered or unreported by traditional media outlets due to political or commercial biases. This real-time reporting has undoubtedly raised global awareness and prompted international responses that might not have been as swift or informed otherwise.

However, the question remains: who should regulate this media while maintaining the right to freedom of speech, and how do we prevent these platforms from becoming conduits of chaos? Given that all humans are prone to biases and errors, entrusting the regulation of media to any single entity could lead to censorship and the suppression of essential voices. Perhaps a multi-stakeholder approach could be more effective, where regulation is overseen by a combination of governmental bodies, independent media watchdogs, and public feedback mechanisms. This approach could help maintain the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need to uphold truth and order in public discourse.

Pseudo liberalism will just stay pseudo liberalism. Life is neither free, or equal, nor unjust. Things have causes. Internet can be seen like a rule and law-less wilderness full of thieves, rubbers and dangers. Aside of the less who have some control of it, hardly anybody can imagine what's going on, or simple ignores he faults as believed "skilful means" (eg. craving over virtues and duties).

My person does not think that any further input of his makes any sense, as it's like husbanding a field of rocks.

Appreciation for good Sushans patient, generosity and Zuvorkommenheit. She should not think that just that will not bear great fruits either. As longer time ago repeated encouraged: It's of no use to grasphold of what's subject to very soon decay. So may she go for something beyond birth, aging, sickness and death. It's become more and more difficult to even trace this track out.

Your reflections on the philosophical and spiritual aspects of life provide a much-needed perspective in our fast-paced world. I appreciate your caution regarding the so-called "pseudo liberalism" and the dangers of an unchecked internet landscape, which indeed can be a wilderness of ethical and moral ambiguities. The metaphor of the internet as a lawless realm resonates with the very real concerns about privacy, security, and the quality of information.

However, while acknowledging these concerns, I also believe in the positive potential of the internet to foster societal interactions that are beneficial and enriching. The internet, when used judiciously, can be a powerful tool for learning, sharing knowledge, and connecting with others across the globe. It opens up spaces for dialogue and exchange that were unimaginable in the pre-digital age, allowing for the spread of innovative ideas and cultural exchange that can lead to greater understanding and cooperation among diverse populations.

It's important to recognize that the negative aspects you've highlighted—while certainly significant—are not the entirety of the online experience. The internet can serve as a platform for positive change and personal growth. Moreover, these digital interactions can complement our spiritual and philosophical pursuits rather than detract from them, offering new pathways to explore these age-old concerns.

Thus, while we must be vigilant about the pitfalls of technology and the internet, we should also embrace the opportunities they present for expanding our horizons and contributing to a more interconnected and empathetic world.

[Samana Johann]

People at large are orphans without knowing their relation, children or unknown consume provider running crazy and frustrated, no idea whom the owe obligation to and where they fall in debt. Hardly anybody today has "real" parents, teacher, but re-lay on unknown.

[Adaboo]

Like the new generation of humans, they can't overlook technology at this stage and you may find it difficult to make them understand the negative factors of being overly on the phones. It's the era and things are going in different directions. I believe mobile phones and technology is very important but everything has a negative side to it. What do you think?

[Sy Borg]

The sins of social media appear to be identical to those of mainstream media. That is, each leverages humans' natural negativity bias to sensationalise content. The aim is to "trigger" consumers, to induce strong negative feelings to make them insecure enough to "need" to stay in touch with the latest happenings.

It's simply manipulation, whether it's done by editors or by algorithm designers. So, by triggering each side of the political spectrum, all forms of media have worked to widen the divides, which has caused rifts in families.

One thing I can say for social media that I cannot say about corporate mainstream media - it has the ability to help distant family members connect quickly and cheaply. Given the high immigration rates around the world, the service provided by social media is extremely valuable. Can we say the same about the mainstream media, who attack social media (their competition) at every turn. Mainstream media outlets always call for more regulation of social media but they fiercely resist any regulations themselves.

[Samana Johann]

Simply perfect de-generation.

[Sushan]

People at large are orphans without knowing their relation, children or unknown consume provider running crazy and frustrated, no idea whom the owe obligation to and where they fall in debt. Hardly anybody today has "real" parents, teacher, but re-lay on unknown.

Simply perfect de-generation.

It’s true that in our increasingly digital world, we often turn to technology for guidance and support, sometimes at the expense of real, meaningful relationships with parents, teachers, and mentors.In reflecting on your point about "real" parents and teachers, it’s clear that fostering genuine, face-to-face interactions is crucial for emotional and social development. The digital age has certainly brought about a form of "de-generation" where traditional values and relationships may feel diluted.

However, I believe that technology, when used mindfully, can also offer opportunities to strengthen family bonds and maintain connections across distances.

[Sushan]

Like the new generation of humans, they can't overlook technology at this stage and you may find it difficult to make them understand the negative factors of being overly on the phones. It's the era and things are going in different directions. I believe mobile phones and technology is very important but everything has a negative side to it. What do you think?

You’re absolutely right that technology has become an integral part of our lives, especially for the younger generation. It's indeed challenging to convey the potential downsides when they are so deeply immersed in their digital worlds.Balancing the advantages of technology with its drawbacks is crucial.

Technology certainly offers many benefits, such as keeping us connected over long distances and providing educational resources. However, the negative side—such as reduced face-to-face interactions and potential isolation within families—can't be overlooked.In my view, the key is to find a balance.

What strategies do you think might help in maintaining this balance? Have you seen any successful approaches in your own family or community that help integrate technology in a positive way without letting it dominate our lives?

[Sushan]

The sins of social media appear to be identical to those of mainstream media. That is, each leverages humans' natural negativity bias to sensationalise content. The aim is to "trigger" consumers, to induce strong negative feelings to make them insecure enough to "need" to stay in touch with the latest happenings.

It's simply manipulation, whether it's done by editors or by algorithm designers. So, by triggering each side of the political spectrum, all forms of media have worked to widen the divides, which has caused rifts in families.

One thing I can say for social media that I cannot say about corporate mainstream media - it has the ability to help distant family members connect quickly and cheaply. Given the high immigration rates around the world, the service provided by social media is extremely valuable. Can we say the same about the mainstream media, who attack social media (their competition) at every turn. Mainstream media outlets always call for more regulation of social media but they fiercely resist any regulations themselves.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand and share some of your concerns about the manipulative nature of both social media and mainstream media.

The impact of these platforms on political polarization is indeed profound.Recent studies show that while social media isn't the sole cause of increased political polarization, it certainly intensifies divisiveness through algorithms that favor sensational and emotionally charged content. This tendency exacerbates affective polarization, where individuals develop strong animosity toward those with opposing political views.

It's crucial to recognize that while social media can keep families connected across distances, it can also contribute to isolating individuals within their digital echo chambers. The Brookings Institution suggests that disinformation and hate speech, often aimed at inflaming existing divisions, are prevalent on social media platforms, further deepening political rifts.

Given these challenges, what do you think are effective strategies we can employ to mitigate the negative impacts of social media on political polarization while preserving its benefits for connectivity?

[Sy Borg]

The sins of social media appear to be identical to those of mainstream media. That is, each leverages humans' natural negativity bias to sensationalise content. The aim is to "trigger" consumers, to induce strong negative feelings to make them insecure enough to "need" to stay in touch with the latest happenings.

It's simply manipulation, whether it's done by editors or by algorithm designers. So, by triggering each side of the political spectrum, all forms of media have worked to widen the divides, which has caused rifts in families.

One thing I can say for social media that I cannot say about corporate mainstream media - it has the ability to help distant family members connect quickly and cheaply. Given the high immigration rates around the world, the service provided by social media is extremely valuable. Can we say the same about the mainstream media, who attack social media (their competition) at every turn. Mainstream media outlets always call for more regulation of social media but they fiercely resist any regulations themselves.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand and share some of your concerns about the manipulative nature of both social media and mainstream media.

The impact of these platforms on political polarization is indeed profound.Recent studies show that while social media isn't the sole cause of increased political polarization, it certainly intensifies divisiveness through algorithms that favor sensational and emotionally charged content. This tendency exacerbates affective polarization, where individuals develop strong animosity toward those with opposing political views.

It's crucial to recognize that while social media can keep families connected across distances, it can also contribute to isolating individuals within their digital echo chambers. The Brookings Institution suggests that disinformation and hate speech, often aimed at inflaming existing divisions, are prevalent on social media platforms, further deepening political rifts.

Given these challenges, what do you think are effective strategies we can employ to mitigate the negative impacts of social media on political polarization while preserving its benefits for connectivity?

I consider the dishonestly and lost journalistic standards of the mainstream media to be the primary driver of political division, and that their impact has been, and continues to be, far more influential and damaging than social media.

Where do we read of the sins of social media? In the competition - mainstream media. This forum is social media. Would you consider forum members here to be more or less honest, sincere and moral than mainstream media editors and journalists?

I would say there is no contest. Yes, forum members may be biased, wrong, careless or manipulative to some extent, but they are sincere. I would suggest two changes, but I'm not sure if they are possible.

1) An age barrier so the young have have time for their brains to form for a while without being purely tuned to small screens.

2) Changes to algorithms to allow for a percentage of randomised content. At present, the algorithms are ridiculous. It's at the point where I might want to check out extreme left or right content to know what they are saying, but I tend not to because I will then be INUNDATED with extreme leftist and rightist content for a period.

The algorithms are not even effective entertainment-wise because the algorithms keep serving up content that is so similar to what you've seen before there's no point.

Still, if there is regulation of social media in the future, it will be driven by deafening calls via the mainstream media. The MM sees SM as a deadly rival, and it is leveraging its power and influence to influence policy. By limiting SM, MM can ensure that its own (biased, corrupt and manipulative) voice is the main one.

Where are the calls to prevent mainstream media from dropping misleading headlines or stirring up trouble or panic for commercial reasons?

The mainstream media can be very persuasive, largely because it is the main voice telling us what is happening - but journalistic standards have largely evaporated, and today they are poorly researched, deeply manipulative and dishonest. I want those alternative voices out there. Yes, people form "echo chambers", but mainstream media also has issues with negativity, sensationalism and bias.

A little chaos and danger is the price of freedom. We don't want a situation where the government controls mainstream and social media, do we?

[Samana Johann]

People at large are orphans without knowing their relation, children or unknown consume provider running crazy and frustrated, no idea whom the owe obligation to and where they fall in debt. Hardly anybody today has "real" parents, teacher, but re-lay on unknown.

Simply perfect de-generation.

It’s true that in our increasingly digital world, we often turn to technology for guidance and support, sometimes at the expense of real, meaningful relationships with parents, teachers, and mentors. In reflecting on your point about "real" parents and teachers, it’s clear that fostering genuine, face-to-face interactions is crucial for emotional and social development. The digital age has certainly brought about a form of "de-generation" where traditional values and relationships may feel diluted.

However, I believe that technology, when used mindfully, can also offer opportunities to strengthen family bonds and maintain connections across distances.

Technology serves as a replacement of mindfulness (Sati = remembering, keep in mind) so that one can concentrate on simply consume (samadhi).
One does no more need to put things right to stay in relation, does no more need to proper discriminate, put things on right places and order, but resists in what is called a "flat structure" where algorithm serve with what one then senses as hierarchy.

In cases the tool fail all are total disconnected, whould not even find each other, nor could interact in a non tech-supported relation. Any relation totally relays on unknown third part and it has replaced parents teacher...

Orphans fostered and supplied by machines. That gives all ways to abound even the last ideas of being obligated so that limits of unrestrained consume are cut off.

Look at rooms or houses, the dirt and mass, where people have replaced mindfulness with machines.

(sample on board attached)

[Samana Johann]

Years ago my person got known the "hell" of media addiction. Since then, thought of what could be done to help some to get out again, back to the frame of reference, my person used those medias for simply the sake of getting free of those 'drugs' suggesting having control. Such simply means to get ban all over, in demo-crazy society, firm bond to their "Gods", "lords". Mara does not fear more then that his slaves gain independence from industry, don't relay on a faster wheel of death in the world of sensuality.

So at large my person can resume that's nearly impossible to ever escape from this realm once having become addicted, related, being in re-lay on it. It's a replacement tool for what's known as family or other relations in a normal sociaty.

[Sushan]

The sins of social media appear to be identical to those of mainstream media. That is, each leverages humans' natural negativity bias to sensationalise content. The aim is to "trigger" consumers, to induce strong negative feelings to make them insecure enough to "need" to stay in touch with the latest happenings.

It's simply manipulation, whether it's done by editors or by algorithm designers. So, by triggering each side of the political spectrum, all forms of media have worked to widen the divides, which has caused rifts in families.

One thing I can say for social media that I cannot say about corporate mainstream media - it has the ability to help distant family members connect quickly and cheaply. Given the high immigration rates around the world, the service provided by social media is extremely valuable. Can we say the same about the mainstream media, who attack social media (their competition) at every turn. Mainstream media outlets always call for more regulation of social media but they fiercely resist any regulations themselves.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand and share some of your concerns about the manipulative nature of both social media and mainstream media.

The impact of these platforms on political polarization is indeed profound.Recent studies show that while social media isn't the sole cause of increased political polarization, it certainly intensifies divisiveness through algorithms that favor sensational and emotionally charged content. This tendency exacerbates affective polarization, where individuals develop strong animosity toward those with opposing political views.

It's crucial to recognize that while social media can keep families connected across distances, it can also contribute to isolating individuals within their digital echo chambers. The Brookings Institution suggests that disinformation and hate speech, often aimed at inflaming existing divisions, are prevalent on social media platforms, further deepening political rifts.

Given these challenges, what do you think are effective strategies we can employ to mitigate the negative impacts of social media on political polarization while preserving its benefits for connectivity?

I consider the dishonestly and lost journalistic standards of the mainstream media to be the primary driver of political division, and that their impact has been, and continues to be, far more influential and damaging than social media.

Where do we read of the sins of social media? In the competition - mainstream media. This forum is social media. Would you consider forum members here to be more or less honest, sincere and moral than mainstream media editors and journalists?

I would say there is no contest. Yes, forum members may be biased, wrong, careless or manipulative to some extent, but they are sincere. I would suggest two changes, but I'm not sure if they are possible.

1) An age barrier so the young have have time for their brains to form for a while without being purely tuned to small screens.

2) Changes to algorithms to allow for a percentage of randomised content. At present, the algorithms are ridiculous. It's at the point where I might want to check out extreme left or right content to know what they are saying, but I tend not to because I will then be INUNDATED with extreme leftist and rightist content for a period.

The algorithms are not even effective entertainment-wise because the algorithms keep serving up content that is so similar to what you've seen before there's no point.

Still, if there is regulation of social media in the future, it will be driven by deafening calls via the mainstream media. The MM sees SM as a deadly rival, and it is leveraging its power and influence to influence policy. By limiting SM, MM can ensure that its own (biased, corrupt and manipulative) voice is the main one.

Where are the calls to prevent mainstream media from dropping misleading headlines or stirring up trouble or panic for commercial reasons?

The mainstream media can be very persuasive, largely because it is the main voice telling us what is happening - but journalistic standards have largely evaporated, and today they are poorly researched, deeply manipulative and dishonest. I want those alternative voices out there. Yes, people form "echo chambers", but mainstream media also has issues with negativity, sensationalism and bias.

A little chaos and danger is the price of freedom. We don't want a situation where the government controls mainstream and social media, do we?

While I agree that mainstream media has a significant influence, it's also important to consider how both mainstream and social media contribute to the current climate.

To address political polarization effectively, we need a multifaceted approach. First, media literacy should be a key focus. Educating the public, especially younger generations, on how to critically evaluate information from both mainstream and social media can empower individuals to discern bias and misinformation.

Second, while changing algorithms to introduce more randomized content is a good step, promoting diverse viewpoints through curated content could also be beneficial. Platforms could prioritize content that presents balanced perspectives on issues, encouraging constructive dialogue rather than reinforcing existing biases.

Moreover, fostering environments for respectful discourse is crucial. Social media platforms could implement features that promote civil conversations and discourage inflammatory rhetoric. This might involve enhanced moderation tools and community guidelines that emphasize respectful engagement.

Lastly, regarding regulation, any measures should aim to enhance transparency and accountability without stifling free speech. For instance, both mainstream and social media could be required to disclose their editorial policies and algorithmic practices, allowing users to understand how content is curated and disseminated.

[Sushan]

People at large are orphans without knowing their relation, children or unknown consume provider running crazy and frustrated, no idea whom the owe obligation to and where they fall in debt. Hardly anybody today has "real" parents, teacher, but re-lay on unknown.

Simply perfect de-generation.

It’s true that in our increasingly digital world, we often turn to technology for guidance and support, sometimes at the expense of real, meaningful relationships with parents, teachers, and mentors. In reflecting on your point about "real" parents and teachers, it’s clear that fostering genuine, face-to-face interactions is crucial for emotional and social development. The digital age has certainly brought about a form of "de-generation" where traditional values and relationships may feel diluted.

However, I believe that technology, when used mindfully, can also offer opportunities to strengthen family bonds and maintain connections across distances.

Technology serves as a replacement of mindfulness (Sati = remembering, keep in mind) so that one can concentrate on simply consume (samadhi).
One does no more need to put things right to stay in relation, does no more need to proper discriminate, put things on right places and order, but resists in what is called a "flat structure" where algorithm serve with what one then senses as hierarchy.

In cases the tool fail all are total disconnected, whould not even find each other, nor could interact in a non tech-supported relation. Any relation totally relays on unknown third part and it has replaced parents teacher...

Orphans fostered and supplied by machines. That gives all ways to abound even the last ideas of being obligated so that limits of unrestrained consume are cut off.

Look at rooms or houses, the dirt and mass, where people have replaced mindfulness with machines.

(sample on board attached)

Years ago my person got known the "hell" of media addiction. Since then, thought of what could be done to help some to get out again, back to the frame of reference, my person used those medias for simply the sake of getting free of those 'drugs' suggesting having control. Such simply means to get ban all over, in demo-crazy society, firm bond to their "Gods", "lords". Mara does not fear more then that his slaves gain independence from industry, don't relay on a faster wheel of death in the world of sensuality.

So at large my person can resume that's nearly impossible to ever escape from this realm once having become addicted, related, being in re-lay on it. It's a replacement tool for what's known as family or other relations in a normal sociaty.

You bring up a compelling argument about the overreliance on technology and its potential to replace genuine human connections. The concept of mindfulness, or "Sati," being replaced by a passive consumption facilitated by technology is indeed a concern. When people depend heavily on technology for maintaining relationships, it can lead to a disconnection from real-life interactions and a lack of genuine mindfulness.

However, it's also worth considering that technology can be a tool rather than a replacement. It can enhance our ability to connect with others if used appropriately. The key is to find a balance. Encouraging mindful use of technology, where it serves to enhance rather than replace our real-world interactions, could be a way forward. We can set boundaries for tech use and make conscious efforts to prioritize face-to-face interactions whenever possible.

Moreover, fostering digital literacy is essential. Teaching people, especially younger generations, to use technology as a tool rather than a crutch can help maintain the integrity of real-life relationships and mindfulness.