View Full Version : The Social Dilemma
https://painterskeys.com/
In Director Jeff Orlowski’s 2020 documentary The Social Dilemma, he reveals that access to to the internet on handheld devices beginning in 1996 coincided with millennials entering grade school, producing a generation unable to distinguish between their online social currency and personas and in-real-life experiences.
While I have not viewed this documentary, I was struck by this impact of the internet on young people. It may explain the difference between generations and their perception of the internet and its importance. While I enjoy the internet as a useful tool, it serves my needs rather than defines me or my identity as this impact on youth seems to indicate.
Do you agree with the underlined portion above? Is it cause for concern about this generation and the subsequent ones, the future of education, our communities, our world?
happystuff
10-30-20, 12:04pm
I don't have an answer at this point, but your post made me think about the number of people I know who "gave up" social networks for Lent about two years ago. So many of them went back to it before the Lenten period was over and others actually suffered from "withdraw".
ApatheticNoMore
10-30-20, 12:33pm
Millennials seem plenty astute, how many older than them are just addicted to t.v. instead of social media? How is that any better?
Now happy is another matter, and social media may indeed add to unhappiness, but it's not the only thing adding to unhappiness.
When I was a young person, you never heard individuals refer to their “brand”. I’m not sure what that means exactly, except a sort of media-based persona you use to market yourself. Sort of an artificially created and curated reputation.
Whether that’s a good thing or a bad one, I’m probably too much of a dinosaur to judge.
I hate that "brand" thing as well. I first heard about it in college, 20-some years ago.
I guess I'm just a generic product; no cachet here. Oh well.
ApatheticNoMore
10-30-20, 1:14pm
20 some years ago sounds about right, we were supposed to "brand" ourselves, instead of having job security see. I mean I suppose "influencers" are trying to make a living on nothing but brand fumes, so they are the idea reduced to it's ultimate absurd essence, where only vapor is left (I mean we were told to brand ourselves so we could find employment not for the brand to be our employment).
But the idea that everyone is supposed to turn into a brand is older that that. We can't rely on employment being stable so we constantly have to be creating a brand, one may have skillsets yes, but that's a dime a dozen, we need a brand, I guess a linked-in is a best attempt, but one may not be so unique a snowflake as all that.
I hate that "brand" thing as well. I first heard about it in college, 20-some years ago.
I guess I'm just a generic product; no cachet here. Oh well.
That’s a good point. I think your identity, especially your public or social identity used to be a much simpler thing with fewer parameters. Everybody wears certain masks, but it seems to be a much more involved process now.
While old guys like me were using the net as a sort of encyclopedia, post office and storefront, the fresher generations seemed to be using it as a means of personality development and social interaction. Whether that is more or less honest or healthy than pre-net days I don’t know.
Growing up I was fairly isolated so a real country mouse when I went to the big city. I didn't know that bad people exist, harmful stuff happens and found out through some bad experiences that could have affected my life permanently. Fortunately, some 'angels' came by and rescued me at the right time. I made sure that our kids were not so naive but they had their challenges.
My concern is that all these issues in real life still exist and now there are all these artificial challenges being added to the mix. Not saying that there are not marvellous benefits as well but - are our youngsters now living in an artificial world with the internet identity without checks and balances of observations and observers that are available in real life.
Is this part of the challenge to the authority of the Big Tech now going on in the legal realm?
catherine
10-30-20, 5:18pm
Yes, "branding" is done for business and for personal purposes. You figure out what specific personal cues are going to project what you want to tell other people about yourself. That's why hippies had long hair, why goths wore black, why golfers wear IZOD.
But with social media, it gets so much more complex. At least in person, someone might assume you're a hippie but then they see you IRL in living color and get a more nuanced picture of your personality. On social media, you completely curate your image. You wind up very one-dimensional. That's OK for mature adults I guess. I have friends who know the real me. But for young people whose relationships are going to be predominantly based on projections of pieces of their personalities, that can't be good. I'm so glad my kids are not kids anymore
Here is the trailer for Social Dilemma
https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224
iris lilies
10-31-20, 12:03pm
On one of the forums I read, probably it was Mr. Money mustache, there were posts about kids in school who want to be YouTube stars. Apparently that is such a common thought that one teacher designed a unit in her careers course about being a YouTube influencer. Good god.
Did my teachers design a unit about being Hollywood starlets, Sears catalog fashion models, or professional sports players on B and C teams? No they did not.
On one of the forums I read, probably it was Mr. Money mustache, there were posts about kids in school who want to be YouTube stars. Apparently that is such a common thought that one teacher designed a unit in her careers course about being a YouTube influencer. Good god.
Did my teachers design a unit about being Hollywood starlets, Sears catalog fashion models, or professional sports players on B and C teams? No they did not.
You have hit on my concern. We, the earlier generations, are still seeing the world through our lenses but those coming up see the world through different lenses. Theirs are based on outside influences that include reduced human interaction or, even worse, echo chambers of their doubts and fears without the balancing or human interaction to validate those fears or concerns. Is this contributing to the opioid crisis and are we talking past each other between generations?
Each generation feels that it is not understood to some degree as societal changes do trigger conflict between the younger and older but this seems more like not seeing people but seeing the image on a device instead as the reality.
Every generation thinks they invented art, morality and sex. That is more or less a constant. I’m not sure if the newer iterations are better or worse served by the internet in terms of the lessons they learn and the values they acquire.
It’s always been the case that the young are more concerned about peers than people setting themselves up as wise elders. Echo chambers are nothing new. But it may be easier to culture more efficient and specific identities now.
Are the arcane rituals and symbols of TikTok qualitatively different than the signals transmitted by a camouflage jacket or an NPR tote bag? I don’t know.
Every generation thinks the generations that follow it are doing everything wrong.
To answer the OP's question, since much of the younger generation spends ALL day on their devices, even when in the presence of other people, is there actually a meaningful difference between their online social currency and personas and in-real-life experiences? If one cares to go looking one can find articles from back in the day decrying how the radio, or the telephone, or the television were ruining people's lives and ruining society because they changed people's behavior in terrible terrible ways. Worrying about whether everyone having always everywhere internet is ruining people and society now just seems the next iteration of that same concern.
I saw the movie. There were some interesting takeaways but I thought it was a little overly dramatic about the declining state of things.
SteveinMN
11-1-20, 12:04pm
is there actually a meaningful difference between their online social currency and personas and in-real-life experiences? If one cares to go looking one can find articles from back in the day decrying how the radio, or the telephone, or the television were ruining people's lives and ruining society because they changed people's behavior in terrible terrible ways. Worrying about whether everyone having always everywhere internet is ruining people and society now just seems the next iteration of that same concern.
Amen to that.
3483
Amen to that.
3483
Good point, Steve, but the difference is, everyone got the same news--maybe you would choose between the Daily News and NY Post, but basically there was a wide variety of information, and as you turned the pages, your eyes would glean the headlines of a variety of topics. Today, people self-select topics and news sources online and it narrows their worldview, IMHO.
Good point, Steve, but the difference is, everyone got the same news--maybe you would choose between the Daily News and NY Post, but basically there was a wide variety of information, and as you turned the pages, your eyes would glean the headlines of a variety of topics. Today, people self-select topics and news sources online and it narrows their worldview, IMHO.
But there was quite a difference in the coverage and even the viewpoints among the Post, Daily News, and Times (though until the last decade or two, there wasn't much difference between the Post and Daily News). Choosing one paper over another made it possible to remain in your bubble through reading only what the editors chose to cover, how the journalists wrote stories, etc. I don't see that as much different from today except maybe in tone, which has become stronger on all sides of the spectrum.
I also think the competition for eyeballs on-line is such that viewers do get presented a variety of headlines/viewpoints on topics that may or may not be interesting to the them. Some on-line news sites provide op-eds. It would be nice if Facebook or Twitter did, but I think they rely a little too much on diversity being provided by a heterogeneous group of friends/followers. Some people also use aggregators like Apple News or SmartNews or whatever Google probably has in that space.
There's plenty to decry about how social media checks facts or stems flat-out misinformation. But channeling consumers into an echo chamber is nothing new.
Back in the days before 24/7 instantaneous communications, you got your news, if any, from your neighbors and the occasional broadside. I'm with those who say every generation needs to set its own course, as has always happened.
ApatheticNoMore
11-1-20, 4:34pm
I don't see how any of this has a generational angle. The opiate crisis, I'm sure there are young people say in their 20s that abuse drugs, there always have been, they are susceptible, but isn't the stereotypical death from despair middle aged?
Are those ending up in echo chambers really millennials etc.? They sure as heck aren't what brought us Trump! Our choices amounting to the sorry choices of Biden v Trump is not millenials.
There's a lot of people who may lack social contact (well with a pandemic it's nearing 100% but even otherwise) but I don't even see that as generational. Aren't there lonely senior citizens as well etc.?
I don't equate drug dependency with age, although the really hard-core often die prematurely.
From what I can tell drugs, including alcohol and prescription drugs, are pretty equally distributed among age groups.
There has always been malaise, and though it has understandably peaked lately, it's likely not permanent.
Remember when we watched the evening news at 6 or 11? Any other time, you couldn’t see it. Sept. 11, 2001 happened and now we have news 24/7.
I now like the old way better - all the bad news of 2020 has changed my mind.
Remember when we watched the evening news at 6 or 11? Any other time, you couldn’t see it. Sept. 11, 2001 happened and now we have news 24/7.
I now like the old way better - all the bad news of 2020 has changed my mind.I think you're right, but I'd put the effective date much earlier. I think it was the advent of CNN and the Baby Jessica in the well drama which started it all in the 80's.
CNN first went on the air 24/7 in 1980, which seems incredible now. I was pretty young at the time, but I remember how bizarre 24 hour news seemed to the adults I knew then. Continuous news seemed pointless - how could anyone fill all 24 hours of the day with news? Some accused the channel early on of stretching stories out to fill space, but now it seems like 24 hours isn't nearly enough time to get everything in, because the definition of "news" has expanded to fit the 24-hour medium. Now someone's "wardrobe malfunction" counts as news, as does just about anything else that courts attention. Social media hasn't improved the situation as a 24/7 "personal news" medium. I only vaguely remember the time before everything and everyone was just a button push away. It was a long time ago now.
I think you're right, but I'd put the effective date much earlier. I think it was the advent of CNN and the Baby Jessica in the well drama which started it all in the 80's.
Ah that might be ... I insulated myself from cable TV in the 80s for religious reasons and I must have forgotten the 90s already.
I was a news junkie from a young age. I began reading the local paper in first or second grade. We got cable in 1982. I loved news all the time! I later got a journalism degree and was a newspaper reporter in northern Michigan in the early 90s.
Good point, Steve, but the difference is, everyone got the same news--maybe you would choose between the Daily News and NY Post, but basically there was a wide variety of information, and as you turned the pages, your eyes would glean the headlines of a variety of topics. Today, people self-select topics and news sources online and it narrows their worldview, IMHO.
But there was quite a difference in the coverage and even the viewpoints among the Post, Daily News, and Times (though until the last decade or two, there wasn't much difference between the Post and Daily News). Choosing one paper over another made it possible to remain in your bubble through reading only what the editors chose to cover, how the journalists wrote stories, etc. I don't see that as much different from today except maybe in tone, which has become stronger on all sides of the spectrum.
I also think the competition for eyeballs on-line is such that viewers do get presented a variety of headlines/viewpoints on topics that may or may not be interesting to the them. Some on-line news sites provide op-eds. It would be nice if Facebook or Twitter did, but I think they rely a little too much on diversity being provided by a heterogeneous group of friends/followers. Some people also use aggregators like Apple News or SmartNews or whatever Google probably has in that space.
There's plenty to decry about how social media checks facts or stems flat-out misinformation. But channeling consumers into an echo chamber is nothing new.
I also think choosing one paper over another was also a way, at the time, for people to signal to others which 'tribe' they were part of. Certainly someone looking at a bunch of people on a train reading various papers would have a different opinion about someone reading the NY Post versus someone reading the Wall Street Journal. And who knows, perhaps the reader of the Wall Street Journal would have recognized a difference between himself and someone reading Barron's. (I have no idea why but my father had a strong preference for Barrons when it came to investment information. Every sunday morning he went out to a newsstand in denver and bought it religiously. However, judging from his longterm investing success perhaps he was on to something.) Certainly not as individualized as the curated online presence one can create today, but still notable to other people seeing them.
I was a news junkie from a young age. I began reading the local paper in first or second grade. We got cable in 1982. I loved news all the time! I later got a journalism degree and was a newspaper reporter in northern Michigan in the early 90s.
I bought my first TV because of CNN. I still like 24 hour news.
You want to talk old? I used to listen to the news on shortwave radio.
You want to talk old? I used to listen to the news on shortwave radio.
Not shortwave, but I love radio news. I’m addicted to BBC Radio - and not the World Service. Primarily Radio 5 Live and Radio 4.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.