Anti-Social Media and the Never Ending Argument

Reading Time: 2 minutes
If I was new to anti-social media I would see it as a complete and utter waste of time. On one side you have influencers and like culture where value is measured in likes and followers rather than meaningful conversations. On the other side you have anonymous accounts that look for arguments constantly. The result is a social media landscape with no Return on Investment for users like me. No ROI.

I was listening to "3. The Fable of the Pikesville Clip: ‘I’ve been burnt by the fire once, so I’ll think twice before posting’" while driving today as well as a few days ago and something about today is also discussed in the podcast. People read into, and hear, what their bias wants to hear. It doesn’t matter whether the clip is AI generated or real, as long as they can justify how they feel by what they think was said, whether they read their own meaning into a post, or heard an AI deep fake that was designed to inflame public opinion.

Some posts are called rage bait, because one side sees one point of view, and the other sees another. The result is a polarised ranting session, rather than a worthwhile and rational discourse. People post their point of view, and bias, rather than seeing nuance. This has a societal cost, when two sides no longer discuss a topic.

The more people argue with me on social media with me, for no valid reason, the more tempted I am to disconnect. Social media companies should realise that what makes social media addictive or compelling, is pleasant, convivial conversations. If I encounter people who want to argue instead, then I have no need for social media.

If I was new to socia medial, based on recent experiences, I wouldn’t stick around. It takes a long time to be seen, and even more to gain traction. When you get trolled more than enjoy pleasant conversations, the value of social media is lost