You can get large amounts of value out of the internet, etc, that you literally couldn’t get otherwise.
Out of the internet? Yes. Out of social media? No.
Please don’t conflate these, because much of the point that those of us who rail against social media are making is that there is much value to, and on, the internet, that social media is killing. (Sometimes: has killed already.)
[Facebook is] also how I plan to go to events, talk to my best friends, and stay up to date on developments in my field.
I do those things too.
Without Facebook.
“Alas!” you say; “You might be able to do those things without Facebook; but my friends are only on Facebook and refuse to communicate with me otherwise; they only plan events via Facebook; and Facebook is the only way to stay up to date on developments in my field.”
This may be true—but whose fault is that, but Facebook’s??
If I am an apple-seller, and I come to your town; systematically murder all of the apple farmers that live there; burn down their apple groves; and then offer my apples for sale—am I “creating value” by providing a tasty good, which no one else is providing?
More broadly: online friendships, learning everything about anything, finding communities, making art for fun, finding out you’re not alone in meaningful ways, changing your life path and worldview, watching Jessica Jones, etc. This includes reflection, relaxation, connection, opportunities for introspection, etc.
Those are great. I like those. I enjoy having them.
I do NOT need social media in order to have them.
A lot of social media is mindlessly looking for attention and crafting an image. Sure. I guess this is a little concerning, but a lot of any interaction is this.
One person’s modus tollens is another’s modus ponens. Social media is bad. So are those other things you listed, for the same reason. (But social media is worse, because it’s more mindless and more addictive and more socially corrosive and more destructive of value and much more effectively consumes all that it touches.)
Above all: you see people making an argument against something bad, but you don’t understand their argument, and so you mentally generalize it, and it seems to you as if they’re making a much more vague argument against a much broader class of things; and so what they say seems nonsensical to you.
No one is railing against all technology, in general, period. That would be nonsense.
Until you can at least roughly accurately summarize the argument of the people you claim are wrong, your counter-arguments will forever lack credibility.
“Alas!” you say; “You might be able to do those things without Facebook; but my friends are only on Facebook and refuse to communicate with me otherwise; they only plan events via Facebook; and Facebook is the only way to stay up to date on developments in my field.”
This may be true—but whose fault is that, but Facebook’s??
You could wield a similar criticism against any communication technology that people like. If there was no Internet, and people preferred to speak with each other via phone (as opposed to, say, writing letters), it would be a little odd to blame the phone company of destroying value and being at fault for everyone preferring to use a phone. Many people prefer Facebook, because it’s genuinely a better way of staying in touch than many other methods.
I do those things too.
Without Facebook.
There’s deep connections and there’s light connections. Deep connections are the kinds of friends you would always find a way to stay in touch with; light connections are those who would probably drop off your radar if there wasn’t an easy way of staying in touch with them, because although you do like them and like hearing about them, there’s only that much time and energy that you have for staying actively in touch with people.
With Facebook, I can stay in touch with many, many more light connections that I could stay otherwise; if there wasn’t a form of social media, these people would just vanish from my life. There are people like former classmates, who I genuinely do enjoy hearing from, but who had totally dropped off my radar until I reconnected with them on FB.
And it’s in part through social media that complete strangers may turn into light connections, and light connections may turn into deep connections. I wouldn’t be exposed to anywhere _near_ as many different perspectives and fascinating articles without social media; the simple numbers of how many people it’s possible to follow with active vs. passive effort, means that this kind of a diversity of views would literally be totally out of reach for me without social media.
Many people prefer Facebook, because it’s genuinely a better way of staying in touch than many other methods.
Better how?
I wouldn’t be exposed to anywhere _near_ as many different perspectives and fascinating articles without social media; the simple numbers of how many people it’s possible to follow with active vs. passive effort, means that this kind of a diversity of views would literally be totally out of reach for me without social media.
That is not a function of Facebook vs. not-Facebook. I encounter many different perspectives and read many fascinating articles, without social media; many, many more than the overwhelming majority of people who do use Facebook. (Frankly, the idea that this would be impossible without Facebook is somewhat absurd. This sort of meme—”without Facebook I couldn’t do thing X!”—is excellent for Facebook, since it makes you think you need it; but it’s just not true.)
Even if true for you, this “diversity of views” business you’re talking about is extremely atypical, in terms of how people use Facebook and what they get out of it. (Or perhaps it is, in fact, illusory? How sure are you that you’re really getting a diversity of views?)
You could wield a similar criticism against any communication technology that people like.
Wrong. A phone vs. a letter is a huge practical difference: instantaneous communication vs. really-not-instantaneous-at-all communication. Facebook, on the other hand, is the same capabilities that can be had without it (but actually worse in almost every way); so value is only destroyed, and not created.
Out of the internet? Yes. Out of social media? No.
Please don’t conflate these, because much of the point that those of us who rail against social media are making is that there is much value to, and on, the internet, that social media is killing. (Sometimes: has killed already.)
I do those things too.
Without Facebook.
“Alas!” you say; “You might be able to do those things without Facebook; but my friends are only on Facebook and refuse to communicate with me otherwise; they only plan events via Facebook; and Facebook is the only way to stay up to date on developments in my field.”
This may be true—but whose fault is that, but Facebook’s??
If I am an apple-seller, and I come to your town; systematically murder all of the apple farmers that live there; burn down their apple groves; and then offer my apples for sale—am I “creating value” by providing a tasty good, which no one else is providing?
Those are great. I like those. I enjoy having them.
I do NOT need social media in order to have them.
One person’s modus tollens is another’s modus ponens. Social media is bad. So are those other things you listed, for the same reason. (But social media is worse, because it’s more mindless and more addictive and more socially corrosive and more destructive of value and much more effectively consumes all that it touches.)
Above all: you see people making an argument against something bad, but you don’t understand their argument, and so you mentally generalize it, and it seems to you as if they’re making a much more vague argument against a much broader class of things; and so what they say seems nonsensical to you.
No one is railing against all technology, in general, period. That would be nonsense.
Until you can at least roughly accurately summarize the argument of the people you claim are wrong, your counter-arguments will forever lack credibility.
You could wield a similar criticism against any communication technology that people like. If there was no Internet, and people preferred to speak with each other via phone (as opposed to, say, writing letters), it would be a little odd to blame the phone company of destroying value and being at fault for everyone preferring to use a phone. Many people prefer Facebook, because it’s genuinely a better way of staying in touch than many other methods.
There’s deep connections and there’s light connections. Deep connections are the kinds of friends you would always find a way to stay in touch with; light connections are those who would probably drop off your radar if there wasn’t an easy way of staying in touch with them, because although you do like them and like hearing about them, there’s only that much time and energy that you have for staying actively in touch with people.
With Facebook, I can stay in touch with many, many more light connections that I could stay otherwise; if there wasn’t a form of social media, these people would just vanish from my life. There are people like former classmates, who I genuinely do enjoy hearing from, but who had totally dropped off my radar until I reconnected with them on FB.
And it’s in part through social media that complete strangers may turn into light connections, and light connections may turn into deep connections. I wouldn’t be exposed to anywhere _near_ as many different perspectives and fascinating articles without social media; the simple numbers of how many people it’s possible to follow with active vs. passive effort, means that this kind of a diversity of views would literally be totally out of reach for me without social media.
Better how?
That is not a function of Facebook vs. not-Facebook. I encounter many different perspectives and read many fascinating articles, without social media; many, many more than the overwhelming majority of people who do use Facebook. (Frankly, the idea that this would be impossible without Facebook is somewhat absurd. This sort of meme—”without Facebook I couldn’t do thing X!”—is excellent for Facebook, since it makes you think you need it; but it’s just not true.)
Even if true for you, this “diversity of views” business you’re talking about is extremely atypical, in terms of how people use Facebook and what they get out of it. (Or perhaps it is, in fact, illusory? How sure are you that you’re really getting a diversity of views?)
Wrong. A phone vs. a letter is a huge practical difference: instantaneous communication vs. really-not-instantaneous-at-all communication. Facebook, on the other hand, is the same capabilities that can be had without it (but actually worse in almost every way); so value is only destroyed, and not created.