'Quit Social Media. Your Career May Depend on It.' (nytimes.com) 186
The New York Times ran a strong opinion piece that talks about one critical reason why everyone should quit social media: your career is dependent on it. The other argues that by spending time on social media and sharing our thoughts, we are demeaning the value of our work, our ideas. (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source.) Select excerpts from the story follows:In a capitalist economy, the market rewards things that are rare and valuable. Social media use is decidedly not rare or valuable. Any 16-year-old with a smartphone can invent a hashtag or repost a viral article. The idea that if you engage in enough of this low-value activity, it will somehow add up to something of high value in your career is the same dubious alchemy that forms the core of most snake oil and flimflam in business. Professional success is hard, but it's not complicated. The foundation to achievement and fulfillment, almost without exception, requires that you hone a useful craft and then apply it to things that people care about. [...] Interesting opportunities and useful connections are not as scarce as social media proponents claim. In my own professional life, for example, as I improved my standing as an academic and a writer, I began receiving more interesting opportunities than I could handle. As you become more valuable to the marketplace, good things will find you. To be clear, I'm not arguing that new opportunities and connections are unimportant. I'm instead arguing that you don't need social media's help to attract them. My second objection concerns the idea that social media is harmless. Consider that the ability to concentrate without distraction on hard tasks is becoming increasingly valuable in an increasingly complicated economy. Social media weakens this skill because it's engineered to be addictive. The more you use social media in the way it's designed to be used -- persistently throughout your waking hours -- the more your brain learns to crave a quick hit of stimulus at the slightest hint of boredom. Once this Pavlovian connection is solidified, it becomes hard to give difficult tasks the unbroken concentration they require, and your brain simply won't tolerate such a long period without a fix. Indeed, part of my own rejection of social media comes from this fear that these services will diminish my ability to concentrate -- the skill on which I make my living. A dedication to cultivating your social media brand is a fundamentally passive approach to professional advancement. It diverts your time and attention away from producing work that matters and toward convincing the world that you matter. The latter activity is seductive, especially for many members of my generation who were raised on this message, but it can be disastrously counterproductive.
fake news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will say this: I think many people myself included simply do not have time for things like social media except for a limited extent. If you're feeling isolated or down about things in the world it can be like a vitamin B12 shot to hang out in the echo chamber for a while. But most people are busy in life.
There are people who seem to make their careers living in social media. I guess if they can do it so much the better. But such people, as widely known as they might be, are rare exceptions. Most peop
TLDR (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TLDR (Score:5, Insightful)
Too long, didn't read.
You didn't miss much. TFA is silly. Ideas and thoughts are not "demeaned" by sharing them. Sharing an idea makes it valuable. You can get feedback, and refine the idea, and the chance of one of your lazy friends "stealing" your idea is wildly exaggerated.
There are plenty of good reasons to minimize social media use, such as wasting time, but even there it is better than passive activities like watching TV. The first warning that you should skip this article is in the first paragraph, when the author brags that "I’ve never had a social media account". So if he has never tried it, how can he be such a big expert about it? Is anyone else sick of listening to non-users acting superior, and preaching on and on about how their choice is the only true path to a perfect life? These people are worse than vegans.
Re:TLDR (Score:4, Funny)
Sharing an idea makes it valuable.
Sharing a fire makes it costly.
Re: (Score:3)
Ideas and thought aren't demeaned by sharing them but they can stunted and distorted in retelling, grow far beyond their merits, and confuse people who are unable to think critically about what they read. All by sharing them in the wrong place.
Think of the "echo chamber effect" of e.g. Facebook. The whole scare of inocculations supposedly leading to autism. Birtherism. The Flat Earth theory. The whole "Obama is coming to get your guns" rubbish. The Hollow Earth theory. Fortune telling throu
Re: (Score:2)
Too long, didn't read.
You didn't miss much. TFA is silly. Ideas and thoughts are not "demeaned" by sharing them. Sharing an idea makes it valuable. You can get feedback, and refine the idea, and the chance of one of your lazy friends "stealing" your idea is wildly exaggerated.
There are plenty of good reasons to minimize social media use, such as wasting time, but even there it is better than passive activities like watching TV. The first warning that you should skip this article is in the first paragraph, when the author brags that "I’ve never had a social media account". So if he has never tried it, how can he be such a big expert about it? Is anyone else sick of listening to non-users acting superior, and preaching on and on about how their choice is the only true path to a perfect life? These people are worse than vegans.
Though he was addressing his message to career oriented people, I watch my granddaughter with facebook or instagram on her cell, eating and never ever leaving her eyes from the cellphone. She has become addicted to a completly wasting her time and is slinking downwards to a high-school grade 11 graduation and no further.
Re: (Score:3)
Total value is not defined as how much value you yourself derive from it.
For instance, the inventor of the wheel probably didn't get proportional value for inventing it.
Re: (Score:3)
or, if you're a conservative, sharing your thoughts on social media can be a quick invitation to lack of advancement and open scorn from your coworkers.
isn't "right think" wonderful!
I'm not sure what kind of person, conservative or liberal, could possibly due that. I could look down on someone for consistently believing something stupid regardless of political inclination. But I would never use that to openly scorn or impede advancement for a coworker.
1. Can you get shit done? Can you fix shit a lot, but a lot more often than what you break shit (because we all break shit sometimes)?
2. Can you get along enough with other co-workers to get shit done?
That's all that matter. I don'
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately the rest of the market does not work this way.
Citation: every job interview ever, especially when they demand facebook access.
In 22 years in this gig, I've never found a job interviewer that would ask for such a thing (mind you that FB haven't been around that long obviously.) I've had a couple asking for my salary history (more on that later.)
I've had a couple of assholes interviewing me, which is fine. I cannot control who the hell is on the other side of every new greeting. All I care of is to polish my A-game and see what's the best deal I can get when I interview (all other factors considering such as "shit, I've been unemp
Re: (Score:3)
Sharing an idea means not charging for it, patent fees, copyright et al. There is no profit in being a sane normal human being who shares and cares, coming from the New York Times, yep, that is pretty much the way I view them, the news paper for abnormals, where greed in every thing. Without us sharers and carers we would still be stuck in the dark ages prior to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Fuck off New York Times, you belong in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] you corporate propaganda ass h
Re:TLDR (Score:5, Interesting)
Spot on. Now I've got a question...does this mean the people who don't have social media accounts are no longer "dangerous loners, with strong anti-social tendencies" and this will no longer count against them? I seem to remember several stories here in /. pushing the whole "if you don't have a social media account, good luck getting hired." And several more pushing the you're a danger to the public good.
Re:TLDR (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not dying because of social media. They're dying because people don't trust them and are looking for their news from any source but them. What's the trust rating of the MSM these days? 6-10% something like that. People know the media have lied, carried an agenda, pushed partisan politics. This is all a problem of their own making.
Re: (Score:2)
And with 3 AC's I'll pick your stupid comment--and yes it's stupid--as the one to reply to.
So they trust the Net of Lies instead? ROTFLOL. The MSM may not be perfect, but it isn't anything like the alt-right lie fest the Internet has become.
So you're perfectly fine with the mass-media centralization? The reporters who colluded with political campaigns to get them elected(see Clinton). [imgur.com] The numbers of ex-reporters in the current US administration, and their spouses who still work for the networks. Or the "big dogs" at the top who have friends and family who work in both. That if I pick up a national newspaper, I'm going to find that same story near wor
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm confused as to why the author would ever think that posting on social media could lead to anything in the first place
Because for 0.00001% of social media users, it actually does lead to something, much like the 0.00001% of kids destined to be a professional athelete who actually make it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes it about as successful as your average pyramid scheme.
Re:Dumb title (Score:5, Insightful)
...I'm confused as to why the author would ever think that posting on social media could lead to anything in the first place. Very strange premise.
In a world where YouTube "stars" earn six-figure salaries, and social media "celebrities" are earning far more than that, you're struggling as to how anyone would ever think that posting on social media could lead to anything in the first place??
It may be narcissistic and nonsensical, but recognize what society AND business actually reward these days related to social media. Cold hard cash is the justification, and that's hardly a strange premise.
Johnny Knoxville (of Jackass fame) has a net worth north of $50 million. Howard Stern (Shock Jock/Professional Asshole) has a net worth north of $500 million, and earns an eight-figure salary today. It's no surprise how idiocy in entertainment bled over to social media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hold on. Like it or not Howard Stern is an INCREDIBLY smart person. Shock is only half the reason he is where is is today. Read his book Private Parts. (the movie is good too, but the book goes much deeper into who Howard is)
I did read his book. And I saw the movie. Sorry, not seeing the Einstein between the ass cheeks.
If a porn star devotes their time to earn a doctorate degree, and continues to be a porn star, they are not demonstrating how incredibly smart or skilled they are in relation to their degree. They are merely demonstrating they are smart enough to recognize which profession is worth their time, or are following the advice of others they've hired.
Re:Dumb title (Score:5, Insightful)
In a world where YouTube "stars" earn six-figure salaries, and social media "celebrities" are earning far more than that, you're struggling as to how anyone would ever think that posting on social media could lead to anything in the first place??
It may be narcissistic and nonsensical, but recognize what society AND business actually reward these days related to social media. Cold hard cash is the justification, and that's hardly a strange premise.
Yeah, except compare the number of "YouTube sensations" to the number of posted videos never viewed by more than a few dozen people or whatever.
Becoming a "social media celebrity" is like becoming of pop music star. Yeah, it can happen, but for every person who "makes" it, there are 10,000 wannabes out there, doing karaoke at the local bar.
Is there money to be made in social media? Sure, but unless you find a very particular niche or a truly innovative thing to do with it, your chances of making it big are perhaps just a little better than playing the lottery. Merely posting random junk every hour like everyone else does on social media won't make you stand out... hence, I'm pretty sure the message of TFA was you have much better luck getting a job if you instead devote that time to developing actual skills.
Re: (Score:2)
In a world where YouTube "stars" earn six-figure salaries, and social media "celebrities" are earning far more than that, you're struggling as to how anyone would ever think that posting on social media could lead to anything in the first place??
It may be narcissistic and nonsensical, but recognize what society AND business actually reward these days related to social media. Cold hard cash is the justification, and that's hardly a strange premise.
Yeah, except compare the number of "YouTube sensations" to the number of posted videos never viewed by more than a few dozen people or whatever.
Becoming a "social media celebrity" is like becoming of pop music star. Yeah, it can happen, but for every person who "makes" it, there are 10,000 wannabes out there, doing karaoke at the local bar.
Is there money to be made in social media? Sure, but unless you find a very particular niche or a truly innovative thing to do with it, your chances of making it big are perhaps just a little better than playing the lottery. Merely posting random junk every hour like everyone else does on social media won't make you stand out... hence, I'm pretty sure the message of TFA was you have much better luck getting a job if you instead devote that time to developing actual skills.
A mother laughing at Halloween masks (Chewbacca Mom) has since earned thousands in gifts from stores, a paid Disney vacation, and full scholarships for her entire family, valued at over $400,000, all because of a single video that went viral. It hardly takes posting "random junk every hour" when a single video rewards people like that, and it's quite the slap in the face to all those who work insanely hard in order to attend college.
Viral videos are further proof it doesn't even take tenacity on social med
Re: (Score:2)
On the inverse, I guess kids should stop playing high school football since the number of kids playing football in HS rarely translates to a professional career in football.
Actually I think they should stop because it is a sport of repeated small brain traumas with an occasional large trauma tossed in here and there.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143653.htm [sciencedaily.com]
The problem I have with social media is that you become what you do... 10,000 hours of social media usage comes down to less than a decade for normal users and 5 years or less for an addict. So, at the end of that period you have a bunch of people trained to read click-bait and thinking what they read
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For many people, it will mean exercising their writing skills with a sometimes pretty harsh audience. I would say that is a worthwhile exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every year you spend not working professionally is lost money.
But could be gained happiness.
Re:Dumb title (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm confused as to why the author would ever think that posting on social media could lead to anything in the first place. Very strange premise.
I could be reading it wrong, but I think this is sort of a spin on the old "networking" and contacts to get jobs trope. "It's not what you know, but who you know" and all that.
A social media presence keeps you in contact with lots of people, and I suppose the idea is that it's kind of like what people used to do in the old days -- going out and hanging out at the "right" parties, getting drinks with the "right" people, etc. Then when it comes time to get the job or the promotion or whatever, I guess everyone's supposed to say, "Gee, he posts great cat pictures! Let's give him the job!"
I jest a bit, but not much. I suppose if you're looking for a job that will involve posting on social media, then obviously having a social media presence might be important for getting that job. Otherwise, my experience is that any social media connections are generally much more shallow than even the staged dinners people used to hold (do they still?) for "networking" purposes. I absolutely agree that "knowing the right people" is important for finding a job -- but I have doubts that your social media presence is the way to do that. At best, you maintain some tenuous connection to a "friend" you've barely met, who might chuckle at your cat photo. At worst, you post some political story to your feed without thinking and end up alienating 30% of potential employers you took such care to "friend."
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I am officially "friends" through social media with many colleagues in my field (though I basically never post anything there), but the people who are actually going to help me if I want to get a different job or whatever are the people I talk to in person, the people I get coffee or lunch or drinks with, the people who actually KNOW me... not some online spectre of me.
Re: (Score:3)
All spare mod points should go to the parent post.
This is how I see (and experience) things as well. Social media connections have become increasingly shallow, to the point of being nothing more than junk gathered in a big drawer.
Professionally peaking, LinkedIn became nothing. Years ago it still had some value because the amount of connections was relatively low and driven by meaningful interactions. Nowadays, almost no day passes without some recruiter from god knows which generic company requesting a con
Re: (Score:2)
"Demographically speaking I should be a heavy social media user, but that is not the case. I've never had a social media account."
I think the author is more confused than we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my nephew's wife got a job that's mostly posting on social media. So there's that, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Headline writers are often not the same people as the article authors.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more like old media vs new media stuff.
Well, my sister-in-law watches six hours of reality TV everyday, and that hasn't led to a good career either.
Re: (Score:2)
But I bet she's well informed. /s
Re: (Score:2)
using the stage to push a political agenda
OMG what a travesty! The integrity of "the stage" will be forever tarnished!
Re: (Score:2)
I have one problem with the term 'fake news' and that it's a new expression for what really is an old problem, albeit with a new take on it. The problem is yellow journalism, it has been around for a long time, and is exactly what we're seeing now. I think by putting a new name to it, they're trying to disassociate themselves with what has been known about for a long time.
I suspect the distinction is being made because I have seen some push from academia to define 'fake news' and it's generally stuff which
Re: (Score:2)
Are you from an alternate timeline where the "recognizable news organizations from around the world" were not revealed as total deceptive pieces of shit a few weeks ago?
The subtext is that the recognizable news organizations from around the world are no more or no less reputable than other random people and sites on the internet. That's what we learned.
And when these recognizable news organizations call other news organizations fake news, they're just desperately defending their turf from encroachment.
Not at all true (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes if you are just retweeting a bunch of stuff your Twitter feed will do nothing for you.
But if you have a professional Twitter feed that you contribute valuable material to, that would be looked on pretty favorably by someone hiring at a company. It's not that much different than having a good record of contribution on GitHub, which I know some employers also look at.
Basically just be aware that anything you do on social media these days will be accessible to companies you may want to work for, use that to your advantage - post responsibly my friends.
Re: Not at all true (Score:3)
Re:Not at all true (Score:4, Interesting)
But folks around here absolutely insist that no company should ever make employment decisions based on your personally stated views. If you want to be a Neo-nazi in your off hours, why, the company should have no right to say "We don't want a Neo-Nazi working for us..." Or, if you're the prospective CEO of a company with a diverse workforce including LGBT individuals, the Board should have no right to disqualify you if you go around declaring "Gays are evil..."
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed! And those people often defens such things on the grounds of free speech.
In my opinion, some of the worst enemies of free speech are it's strongest advocates. They argue that it shouldn't matter what people say because words have no consequences. I say, if it has no consequences, why is it imporant that speech be free? Nothing consequence free is important.
I think free speech is so very important precisely because words can have enormous consequences and effect.
Re:Not at all true (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you old enough to remember when the religious right was the self-appointed gatekeepers of American morality, and had the power to restrict speech they disagreed with?
Your words and attitude remind me strongly of them. Free speech is important, but Howard Stern needs to lose his job, that sort of degeneracy will destroy America, and then no one will have free speech.
Oh, your catalog of sins is different, of course, as if that mattered. 30 years ago it was "too racy, too sexy". These days it's "too racist, too sexist". Censorious moral busybodies, the lot of you.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you old enough to remember when the religious right was the self-appointed gatekeepers of American morality, and had the power to restrict speech they disagreed with?
Old enough? I'm not American.
Your words and attitude remind me strongly of them.
Then you don't understand my words.
Free speech is important,
That is precisely what I said.
, but Howard Stern needs to lose his job, that sort of degeneracy will destroy America, and then no one will have free speech.
You siad that, not I.
Oh, your catalog of sins
Re: (Score:2)
Because when you end up on the news or other media outlet because of your personally stated views it can reflect badly on the employer. We constantly see this happening where somebody will say something racist/offensive, and the first thing the reporter will do is mention who they work for. Who they work for might have nothing to do with the story, but if it's a big enough company with a recognizable name, you can bet that the employer is going to be mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that a lot of people really really want to make this legal so that companies can discriminate all they want. Both on the left and the right. While I don't agree with Libertarians, I do like their concept of "none of my damned business".
Re: (Score:2)
"contribute valuable material to"
Care to provide a single example of valuable material contributed to the world via Twitter?
If your career hinges on social media (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If your career hinges on social media (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said the wrong thing on social media can impact your ability to obtain employment or even cause you to lose your job, setting the privacy settings on a post incorrect can reveal to a jealous and two-faced co-worker that your sick day was a personal day or reveal the truth behind the double face we all wear privately vs the official workplace place we present. There is very little chance you will benefit financially or in your career from social media so using only increases the chance of it hurting you in those ways at some point.
Noted. Goodbye Slashdot. (Score:5, Funny)
I, Anonymous Coward, will stop giving you all my great comments and ideas. My valuable work will go elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Hahaha... Disregard that. I suck cocks.
I get the reference. I guess slashdotters don't read bash.org [bash.org] anymore?
Roller Coaster (Score:5, Insightful)
People go to amusement parks which doesn't contribute anything to their careers either. Author clearly doesn't understand the text based amusement park we call social media.
Re: (Score:2)
People go to amusement parks which doesn't contribute anything to their careers either. Author clearly doesn't understand the text based amusement park we call social media.
People don't earn six and seven-figure salaries riding roller coasters.
The same can hardly be said for social media, which is probably where the confusion lies. You can literally make a career armed with nothing more than YouTube and a camera.
Didn't say it makes sense. Just stating fact.
Re:Roller Coaster (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a gopro camera and videos of riding rollercoasters uploaded to youtube?
Re: (Score:2)
"You can literally make a career armed with nothing more than a basketball", he said to the inner city kid.
With a straight face. "Just stating fact."
Basketballs are toys and you just caused another dropout.
Even a child understands it takes considerable skill and talent to make a career in any sport. On the opposite end of the talent spectrum lies our most coveted social media morons, armed with little brains and an addiction to narcissism so strong it makes crystal meth look like coffee.
There is limited influence upon the inner city kid to drop out of school in pursuit of a career in sports. Social media is working hard to reach billions of potential dropouts every second of every day around the world, crea
Big surprise: NYT gets paid for their ideas (Score:3)
The other argues that by spending time on social media and sharing our thoughts, we are demeaning the value of our work, our ideas. (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source.)
What a shocker. An organization that exists solely because people pay them for their ideas advocates against other people giving away ideas for free. Next, you'll tell me that oil and coal companies argue that renewable energy has more negative environmental impact than fossil fuels and that the gun control crowd says that the more law abiding citizens have guns the more crime we will have.
Profession (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything in moderation (Score:2)
Aristotle had it right -- moderation is critical. Personally, I participate very little in social media, and I have strong concerns (as do many people here) about stuff like Facebook's policies and agendas. That said, if you're willing to put up with that stuff, I don't see a problem with someone maintaining a social media account just to, for example, keep up with the activities of old friends and acquaintances. I know some people who don't even seem to know how to use email anymore, so this is the real
Comment removed (Score:3)
If I read this correctly... (Score:2)
NYT Says... (Score:3)
Facebook is the opiate of the masses.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is the opiate of the masses.
More like Krokodil [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, very much so. In other news, addiction can be bad for your career development.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is the new Television - opiate of the masses. The article is right that unthinking usage of either is a sign of stupidity. However HR may be looking to hire idiots, they are at least easy to control.
Maybe in your profession... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting opportunities and useful connections are not as scarce as social media proponents claim. In my own professional life, for example, as I improved my standing as an academic and a writer
Academics is all about getting works published. Writing is all about getting works published. In 95% of all careers, only your boss, coworkers and maybe a few direct recipients know what you've done. From him it's probably not wise to put out to much drivel on social media because he'll become another blogger with mouth diarrhea, if you read anything with his name on it should be a high quality work that leaves you impressed. For most everybody else though networking is their little way of telling the world here am I and these are my skills, recognition by other professionals is key to making a career. Not that I really have the patience or desire to engage in much of that outside working hours, but there's no denying that a lot of people who are good at it and spend a lot of time doing it get good opportunities.
Re: (Score:2)
For most everybody else though networking is their little way of telling the world here am I and these are my skills, recognition by other professionals is key to making a career.
The question is whether social media is actually effective "networking" for most people, and whether its networking benefits outweigh its dangers.
Social media kind of reminds me of what people used to do a couple decades ago in attending job fairs and some sort of "mixer" or party to "network" among peers and potential employers. (I assume some people still do that, too.)
Anyhow, while it is possible to make contacts at such things, the REAL networking takes place in private conversations. People you h
Just like Golf or other "business-oriented" hobby (Score:2)
In ages past, people advocated taking up things like Golf (or Tennis or simply going to the Gym) to help develop contacts to improve your career options.
Some people took this to extremes and started to waste copious time playing Golf and weakly justifying the time spent to themselves (or their spouses) as somehow related advancing their careers even though it was probably holding them back because it became a distraction to their jobs.
I don't see social media as any different than a modern form of "golf"...
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that Golf generally had a better chance to put you in touch with the class of people who would likely improve your monetary standing, as they generally could afford hobbies like golf.
question... (Score:2)
Kill Your Television (Score:2)
She said, she said
'You don't know shit,
Because you've never been there'
She turned upon him,
Took him by the hair
Spun him round about,
Laughing as he fell about,
Sat down for a drink
In her father's favourite chair
Kill your Television [youtube.com]
Who is this guy? (Score:2)
I've never heard of him. he has no reputation.
Oh crap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a handy way of finding troublemakers, especially if you have 400k potential ones to look after - the ones that do not post are obviously a risk so keep on posting those cat videos
Slashdot included? (Score:2)
To paraphrase a certain highly-acclaimed movie, I Wish I Knew How to Quit You [youtube.com], Slashdot...
Re: (Score:2)
As a computer expert I see 3-4 dangers in FB & (Score:5, Insightful)
As a computer expert I avoid social media for anything mission critical, as I suppose many here do.
I also use fake names, just as in the days of old on IRC and Usenet.
Personally, I see 3-4 big dangers in social media:
1) The first is the obvious one: Total surveillance. Brave New World meets 1984 meets Neuromancer meets Snow Crash. And all in bad ways. Not for me. And I tell everyone I meet what FarceBook and WhatsCrap mean for their privacy.
2) Social Media is very short lived and eats up time at the same time.
3) The negative impact social media has on the human psyche is, in my opinion, quite significant. FOMO, self-esteem issues and F4ceb00k depression are real things and they exist with a measurable amount of people who live through mass social media. Social media emulates belonging to a community whilst at the same time causing us to drift further and further apart.
A point in case: My fiancé is an online PR / SMM worker and loves her job although she's being paid pretty crappy. ... It's a bit scary to be honest. I don't want to know what people will be like 30 years from now.
Just watching her being sucked up into some online thing going on that she has to attend to for private or work reasons at just about any possible occasion makes me look like a super-relaxed shepherd in comparsion.
4) Addiction and behavioral imacpt: I see this issue with younger generations who live through social media and I think it's turning a large portion of those using social media into an ADHD-driven OCD candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to know what people will be like 30 years from now.
What this means is that in the future people will completely hand over control of everything to AI, because their attention span and critical thinking skills will be in the toilet.
Slashdot leads the way (Score:2)
Slashdot has been making me less productive since before Twitter and Facebook were a gleam in the eye of Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg's eyes. And I've been using "well, it's technical, so maybe I'll meet someone or learn something" as an excuse to read slashdot the whole time. Doh! I'm doing it again, right now, as I type. Screw this trash. I'm done with it. I hereby give up caffeine too, since its clearly just a tool the Illuminati use to control us all.
Your Facebook "friends list" can hurt you (Score:2)
You're looking for a job. Meanwhile, you receive a Facebook friend request from an old acqaintance that you haven't seen for years. You accept, and continue your job search.
A potential employer gets your resume, and has a contractor check your facebook account. They check everything they can, including your friend list. They discover that one of your Facebook friends is an ex-con, who just got out of prison after doing 3 years for drug possession. Let's just say that won't help your chances of getting hired
translation (Score:2)
Translation: if people post news and commentary to social media for free, the NYT is out of business.
Journalists, get used to it: you are as obsolete as buggy whip makers.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: if people post news and commentary to social media for free, the NYT is out of business.
Journalists, get used to it: you are as obsolete as buggy whip makers.
There were no buggy whip makers in Idiocracy either, as far as I remember.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right: my analogy was not particularly good. Buggy whip makers may be obsolete, but when their product was in demand, they were actually skilled craftsmen that provided a useful product. Such skill wouldn't exist in the world of Idiocracy. Journalists, on the other hand, neither need a lot of craftsmanship or skill, and they probably played a large role in the downfall of society in Idiocracy. And while 99.999% of all professio
2nd Reason (Score:2)
My second objection concerns the idea that social media is harmless. Consider that the ability to concentrate without distraction on hard tasks is becoming increasingly valuable in an increasingly complicated economy. Social media weakens this skill because it’s engineered to be addictive. The more you use social media in the way it’s designed to be used — persistently throughout your waking hours — the more your brain learns to crave a quick hit of stimulus at the slightest hint of boredom. Once this Pavlovian connection is solidified, it becomes hard to give difficult tasks the unbroken concentration they require, and your brain simply won’t tolerate such a long period without a fix. Indeed, part of my own rejection of social media comes from this fear that these services will diminish my ability to concentrate — the skill on which I make my living.
This is spot on.
I see this behavior from almost all of my co-workers(millenials...) who are looking at their phones every free second they have. It is disturbing behavior to say the least. FB, Twitter, Snapchat, etc; People have a hard enough time staying focused on daily tasks, whether at home or at work, without the constant firehose of social media "focus" being placed front and center into everyones attention.
All Social Media - All The Time
Re: (Score:2)
Social media are vital to me (Score:2)
I have a sysadmin job by day for my main income. But I am also a craftsman and artist in my free time. I occupy a niche within a niche and I am pretty successful and recognized as a skilled person who makes nice things.
None of that would be possible without social media to share pictures of my work, or having customers contact me. More than half my orders come from people contacting me via my fb page. The rest via a forum on which I am very active, and a handful through my website. So I'd say 90% at least v
Re: (Score:2)
Mind Zone (Score:2)
I don't use social media like FB, Twitter, Instagram, snapchat and so on as I get the feeling that I don't get anything done. When my friends ask me why, I tell them that I use computers all the time and prefer not to use them in my down time, then joke that I'd get sucked in and find myself reading about someone's cats at 2:30am. I laugh however it's only half a joke.
Back in the day rec.humor.funny was my favorite but I found that "the net" could really suck you in. Back then I was lucky enough to recogn
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Soviet Amerika, NYT is Pravda!
Re: (Score:2)
Here is one of my problems with it. Social media mostly happens real time. Because of that it unnecessarily injects drama into your life. I don't use any of the main social media services. But, my wife and kids do. It is not unusual for something to blow up online within their peer groups. So my wife and kids start hyperventilating about what happened and looking for solutions and then something happens and the issue gets resolved pretty much on its own.
So, I manage to get through the whole day wit
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is under the mis-impression that it is such a fair an benevolent system that things are only "good" to the extent that they can be monetized, even in the face of clear evidence that some of the most essential activity/technology keeping our society afloat are done for no pay by self-sacrificing volunteers. Those who wield large amounts of capital are especially inclined towards this mode of thought, because they look around and say hey money is power, and I have money, so why can't I get people
Re: (Score:2)
Don't quit social media, if you do you will be one of very few who do.
oh god, not that! What's a lemming to do?
As far as politics go, the big social sites have already chosen sides just like mainstream media. Have fun with your banned accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
More precisely, employee of a media organization that has lost major ground to social media trash-talks social media in a vain hope to regain mindshare for his employer. Only problem - the news media at large - of which the NYT is a part - has lost credibility w/ people, which is why they turned to social media in the first place
Re: (Score:2)
This is very true! Essentially, 'peer to peer' news distribution has replaced 'client server' news distribution. Instead of getting news from organizations whose bias a lot of us can't stand, we get our news from other people we trust, but who do NOT own media organizations. That is what has the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, et al so pissed off. B'cos if this trend continues, advertising on these channels will fall, boardrooms will notice and these organizations will be shut down. All that can't happ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but having no social media allows me to not be distracted
You nailed it.
I actually feel sorry for people when I see them constantly checking their phones for some SM update.
In the past we called people with that behavior "crackheads" or "tweakers".