Facebook’s Algorithm Deserves More Credit for Sowing Society’s Disharmony
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
–Socrates, during his trial where he was sentenced to death.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Why are we all so mad at each other all of a sudden? Why does every decision seem to be split down society 50/50, from the United States Presidential election, to the Brexit vote in Britain? Why are we more distrusting of each other than any other time in the last nearly 50 years? How did 2,500 years of Western Civilization that seemed to be at a slow but steady march towards equality, democracy, and tolerance for one another all of a sudden hit a patch where we’ve regressed, and blood is being shed in the streets because of it? Do the injustices of today really add up to the injustices our forefathers faced, or is it just our perception of it all?
Everywhere you look, society is more polarized than any other time in recent memory along racial, cultural, economic, and religious lines, and people are comparing 2016 to the type of riotous anger and disharmony prevalent in 1968. So how did we get here? There are a few easy factors to point to, such as the growing economic divide between rich and poor, and how every sector of society, not just politics, seems to be suffering from a lack of true leadership, partly stemming for our need to blame others for the dilemmas we see and face, leaving a society that is unable to be universally trusting of anyone.
But maybe the problem is much more fundamental. Maybe it’s just the way we’re perceiving the outside world due to the way we interface with it. The Internet was supposed to open up the possibilities for human intellect and enhance our appetite for learning and discovery. And for many years that’s exactly what it did. However something changed in the last few years, marked by the recent moment when Google ceased to be the #1 way individuals were referred to content on the web, and Facebook took the lead. Where Google and other search engines encouraged people to ask questions and search for answers, Facebook looks to serve people all of the media they interact with on any given day in their curated algorithm, stultifying curiosity, and stimulating a reality-tunneled cultural window defined by ultra-focused and polarized media outlets purposely slanted to incite the senses and stimulate engagement and sharing … and sometimes violence.
The data on how Facebook’s news feed is set up to serve you media that will reinforce your already-established thoughts and ideologies is well documented. There isn’t anything dubious behind this necessarily, it’s just obvious: if Facebook wants to keep you on their platform, they should serve you content you’re more likely to interact with. And as users “like” certain pages and posts, the focus of their Facebook feed continues to turn more inward and self-serving.
As Frank Bruni of The New York Times observed recently:
More prevalent for many users are the posts we see from friends and from other people and groups we follow on the network, and this information is utterly contingent on choices we ourselves make. If we seek out, “like” and comment on angry missives from Bernie Sanders supporters, we’ll be confronted with more angry missives from more Sanders supporters. If we banish such outbursts, those dispatches disappear…
The Internet isn’t rigged to give us right or left, conservative or liberal — at least not until we rig it that way. It’s designed to give us more of the same, whatever that same is: one sustained note from the vast and varied music that it holds, one redundant fragrance from a garden of infinite possibility…
We construct precisely contoured echo chambers of affirmation that turn conviction into zeal, passion into fury, disagreements with the other side into the demonization of it.
Carnival barkers, conspiracy theories, willful bias and nasty partisanship aren’t anything new, and they haven’t reached unprecedented heights today. But what’s remarkable and sort of heartbreaking is the way they’re fed by what should be strides in our ability to educate ourselves … Growth of the Internet promised to expand our worlds, not shrink them. Instead they’ve enhanced the speed and thoroughness with which we retreat into enclaves of the like-minded.
After years of being accused of being complicit in the closing of minds, Facebook decided to go on the offensive, and like a tobacco company telling the public their product does not cause Cancer and presenting their own set of facts, Facebook posted a blog on May 7th, 2015 called Exposure to Diverse Information on Facebook. In the missive Facebook took two primary stances. The first was to shield blame from themselves for the nature of people’s feeds, and instead blamed people’s behavior and choices.
“While News Feed surfaces content that is slightly more aligned with an individual’s own ideology (based on that person’s actions on Facebook), who they friend and what content they click on are more consequential than the News Feed ranking in terms of how much diverse content they encounter,” Facebook says, taking the onus off of themselves and their algorithm for creating an echo chamber for their users, while also partially admitting that the algorithm caters to people’s already-established tastes and habits.
But the crux of Facebook’s argument was that even news feeds streamlined to certain ideologies still on average serve news from opposing points of view.
Specifically, we find that among those who self-report a liberal or conservative affiliation,
- On average, 23 percent of people’s friends claim an opposing political ideology.
- Of the hard news content that people’s friends share, 29.5 percent of it cuts across ideological lines.
- When it comes to what people see in the News Feed, 28.5 percent of the hard news encountered cuts across ideological lines, on average.
- 24.9 percent of the hard news content that people actually clicked on was cross-cutting.
In other words, you’re still likely to see or click on news stories from a different point of view than your own about 25% of the time, on average at least. Though for some it could be much less. But the most important thing to note about the Facebook study is that it admitted that the vast majority of the hard news stories that show up in people’s feeds are from a strongly slanted point of view, whether it is liberal or conservative, while news that tries to take an unbiased perspective makes up very little of people’s news feeds.
“There was substantial polarization among hard news shared on Facebook,” Facebook’s own study admits, “with the most frequently shared links clearly aligned with largely liberal or conservative populations, as shown below.”
As you can see above, the gray, or neutral stories make up very little of the content on Facebook, actually the least-shared content on the format, while the stories in blue and red considered polarizing make up much of what you see in your feed. So even though Facebook may serve up hard news to you that cuts across your political ideology, most of what you see is still from a biased, extreme viewpoint.
This type of news interaction not only helps perpetuate extreme viewpoints of your already-predisposed ideology, it also shows you the biased and polarized opinions for the other side of the perspective, painting the other side with extremes, and likely emboldening your opinions and the vehemence behind them. In other words, Facebook is a war of extremes that is made worse by the political diversity of its news feed, not facilitating the open-minded sharing of viewpoints.
Not only can we not agree on issues, we can’t even agree on the basic facts surrounding the issues because they’re all being served from slanted viewpoints.
Is all of this manifesting into the actions of people on the streets, or inspiring psychopathic killers to take extreme measures to assert their ideologies on others? That may be a leap of faith, and additional research is needed. But it is interesting that in many cases, including both of the latest mass shootings in San Bernardino and Orlando, the killers took to Facebook to profess their ideologies during their killing rampages. Killing people wasn’t enough, they had to take to Facebook to assert their self-righteous ideologies. Other recent killers and extremists are regularly exposed as narcissistic ideologues through the images, affiliations, and postings of their Facebook pages. Police are currently investigating whether a specific Facebook post inspired the individual who recently killed five police officers in Dallas to take action.
But this goes much beyond high-profile cases of violence that may be scary, but are isolated, even if they sow further political divisiveness through the Facebook news feed as society reacts. Our everyday world is affected by the widespread polarization of society. Nothing can get done in a government of gridlock, where both sides are expending the majority of their energy undermining the other, instead of moving society forward as a whole. It could be the reason the most unpopular candidates for the American Presidency ended up on top. And as more people use Facebook as their primary interface with the Internet and the world, the problem only becomes exacerbated.
What’s the solution, if any? The Google search algorithm actively looks to feed Internet users news from more respected and unbiased sources first, as well as filtering out news and information from many of the spurious outlets that thrive on Facebook. That is also one of the reasons Facebook has overtaken Google in referrals, because Facebook is giving into people’s hatred, biases, and fears, which is a powerful medium for engagement. Not only is the majority of traffic to Internet articles now coming from Facebook, the majority of news outlets are specifically catering their news to exploit Facebook’s news feed algorithm, compounding and exacerbating the echo chamber effect.
Until the users of Facebook can wake up to implicit bias in their news feeds, and Facebook starts to implement some basic controls on the quality and perspective of the news it feeds to people, the problem looks to only get worse, and the polarization of society along with it.
July 11, 2016 @ 9:14 am
I think this basically boils down to the fact that people like having their opinions validated.I think Internet culture in general is a cause of the eroding of basic face to face interactions. If someone has the nerve to disagree with you on a comment page they are often immediately refered to as an idiot with little consequences. Some people think because they can insult someone on line it gives them free reign to do it face to face .Pretty much saying that “MY OPINION IS RIGHT BECAUSE IT’S MY OPINION”.No one is right 100%of the time but Facebook’s feed can certainly make you feel that way.
July 12, 2016 @ 6:53 am
Which speaks to the much larger problem of the overwhelming number of people who seek out validation on the Internet, oftentimes from complete strangers. It’s sad, really.
July 11, 2016 @ 9:44 am
The biggest point you made that needs to be highlighted even more is the fact that the majority of articles, blogs and such that are shared are from dubious sources at best…sources that may have little or no editorial control over their content and serve not only to take advantage of a person’s inherent biases but to do so with content that may be totally inaccurate and purposely inflammatory.
July 11, 2016 @ 9:44 am
This points to I think an even bigger problem, that slanted stories are seen as “news” at all. News should just be facts. Slanted stories are opinion pieces. We seem to have forgotten that. (According to my fb habits, the world is run entirely by cats. I’m fine with that. ;))
July 11, 2016 @ 9:57 am
I think you addressed the problem with Facebook head on. The combination of extremely slanted/biased articles and non-credible sources just reenforces one’s own beliefs. Long-form articles that present both sides and leave the reader to form their own conclusion are never shared, liked or commented on.
I don’t know what the solution is. Perhaps facebook could assign credibility scores to pages, and have their appearances on user’s newsfeeds be proportional to the scores.
July 11, 2016 @ 12:32 pm
As much as I’d love to see something like that, I’d be highly concerned by the method by which these “scores” would be assigned. As I’m sure we’re all familiar, even newspapers with centuries of history have their own biases. And furthermore, individual reporters from a credible news source can mishandle journalism. This also introduces the issue with Facebook acting as a “curator” – people already give it flak for tampering with “trending news” stories.
Also, the gray area between “news” and “opinion” on Facebook is can be very subtle and dangerous. I prefer my news to be as neutral as possible, but just like everyone else, I have opinions that I hold strongly. If there’s an opinion that you strongly hold, I don’t think people should be obligated to share only neutral articles. People should feel free to share opinions – it’s healthy and constructive debate, ideally, that should help people understand the “other side” better, and if they can make a better informed opinion. Unfortunately, opinions and news gets mixed up, and people who don’t look carefully will consider them the same.
This might sound like a jaded perspective, but I think as long as online media like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit exist, “news” will be free to be shared to people with similar beliefs, and nothing’s going to change. What could change things is a focus on education on a widespread and institutional level: teaching people to critically assess their sources, as well as understand the role of data, statistics and science.
July 11, 2016 @ 12:51 pm
Assigning credibility scores definitely a tricky thing, for all the reasons you just mentioned, especially with “news” vs “opinion” . I more-so am talking about the viral/farm websites that blatantly post factually false stories. This happens in politics, science (a LOT in science) and everywhere in between. It’d at least be a start, but yes, it would have to be done/programmed very carefully. The solution to the problem is multi-faceted, and this wouldn’t be the only tatic.
July 11, 2016 @ 3:11 pm
Google has something along those lines called the “Google score.” It’s basically a number from 1 to 10 (though there are probably variants in there), and each site is assigned one. The way Google comes up with these rankings has to do with traffic, engagement, and specifically, the amount of sites linking to a given site as a credible source. For example, if The New York Times, CNN, and the BBC are all linking to a specific website and citing as a source, the likelihood of that source being credible is greater than if none of them are. That’s why Google also emphasizes that websites link to their original sources of information (and credits them in Google rankings when they do).
For example, Examiner.com was downgraded in Google’s algorithm after numerous examples of plagiarism and incorrect reporting. You could still find Examiner in search results, but they would be below other sites deemed more credible. Of course there are ways to game Google’s system too, but generally speaking, it has worked. Meanwhile Facebook takes no exceptions to anything. You can be ISIS and post something, and as long as lots of people share it, it will show up in more and more people’s feeds.
July 11, 2016 @ 1:24 pm
I would hate the idea of credibility scores for pages. In the corporate world there will be back scratching and cronyism so that favoured pages are rated higher. It is (or should be) up to the individual to use their critical thinking skills to decide for themselves what is credible and what is crap.
July 11, 2016 @ 10:41 am
I think this is spot-on, Trigger. My boyfriend and I are on different sides of the political spectrum. Recently while discussing a “scandal,” we were both referring to articles we read that were fed to us via Facebook. After a few minutes of an increasingly heated conversation, we realized we were seeing completely different articles and publications, each of us receiving information that is prepared to further validate our own points of view. We had to then backtrack, try to find the most neutral sources we could, and read that information together.
I enjoy having a relationship with someone from a different background and world view. It challenges my way of thinking, and in the end makes me a better person, imo. I try to pass this value onto my children. My family frowns upon me being with someone “different,” to the point where they don’t associate with me much at all. If we all took time to listen to each other, and in relation to this article, open ourselves up to different types of media, or at the very least, neutral pieces, it would advance critical thinking and empathy.
July 11, 2016 @ 11:04 am
I love to see people’s different points of view as well, and that’s why from the very beginning of this site, I tried to emphasize the importance of the comments section so folks would be encouraged to share their own opinions, especially ones that are in disagreement with mine.
When I started Saving Country Music, the viewpoint was from a very specific “scene” and ideology. But then I started to discover that there was great country music all over the place, and if you didn’t scream and insult the other side, but actually talked to them in a civil manner, some common ground could be found, and some positive outcomes could result.
I get chided often that all Saving Country Music does is post negative stuff. Most of the time I can trace those comments back to people who only interface with the site only through Facebook. I’m positing positive stuff all the time, but it is the negative stuff that is emphasized and finds the best reception in the Facebook algorithm.
But as Facebook says, it’s not all their fault. People are still making their own decisions on what to like, and what to share. It’s imperative on all of us to make better choices.
July 11, 2016 @ 1:02 pm
Applause for your articles on Guy Clark, “Precious Memories,” etc. These are important, positive articles that a lot of us appreciate, even if we don’t happen to comment on them all.
July 11, 2016 @ 4:19 pm
I think another problem is in all the media consolidation we have seen going on during the last twenty years, not only in terms of TV or radio, or even the Internet, but in terms of print media as well (newspapers; magazines, etc.). Virtually everything is corporatized now, to the extent that the corporations in charge of these information/media outlets push one kind of agenda or the other. It doesn’t matter if it’s liberal or conservative, Left or Right, Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or otherwise.
But beyond being able to couch our opinions in clear, concise ways without resorting to a surfeit of attacks on those we don’t agree with, the individual must always be willing to analyze what he reads, and from multiple sources, and then make up his/her own mind about things. Don’t necessarily take what one publication says as the Gospel.
July 11, 2016 @ 10:56 am
Many thanks to you trigger for taking the time to write this article. And I hope
many people also will take their time to read it.
These are my thoughts on this too. And what I also have seen is significant increase in fake newspapers with their own aganda., in most cases, at least here in Sweden, they write racist articles that are more or less fictional. But unfortunately a lot of people do believe in them…
July 11, 2016 @ 11:04 am
this article would of been perfect for the SCM message board.
i’m glad i don’t do social media. i don’t have anything to promote though either so it’s pretty usless as far as i’m concerned
July 11, 2016 @ 3:29 pm
Not sure if the SCM message board will ever be resurrected. Just not that much interest in message boards these days. The comments sections sort of supplant it.
Just a side note I meant to put at the beginning of the comments: I’m going to have another timely Facebook article coming up soon. I haven’t gone Facebook crazy, it’s just in the news and needs to be addressed.
July 13, 2016 @ 4:13 am
I’m not sure if you use Reddit or not, but if you do, have you thought about making a subreddit as a replacement for the message board? Even if there is little to no interest for it, it can stay up without having to pay anything.
July 13, 2016 @ 3:43 pm
SCM on Reddit would be even better
July 13, 2016 @ 8:36 pm
I am actively looking for someone who is willing to be a Reddit surrogate for Saving Country Music.
I don’t use Reddit because I’m not exactly sure how to, even though I’ve spent hours trying to figure it out. For some reason, Reddit and my brain work in different ways, and I’m usually pretty good at figuring out the in’s and out’s of social networks. I do have a Reddit account, and have dome some stuff over there, but still feel over my head.
That said, SCM has had some pretty big success on Reddit. I’ve gone front page twice in the last six months, including getting up to the #2 spot. The article on the arrests in Houston for the merch thefts was posted by folks in four different places on Reddit. SCM articles work much better over there because the users are much more distinguishing compared to Facebook, where all I seem to do is start drama because I try to challenge people’s notions. I also get a lot of love from Fark. Both of those are much better alternatives to Facebook, and I wish I had a bigger presence there. But there’s only so much time in the day, and I don’t want to show up to Reddit and disrespect the format by only trying to promote my own crap. If SCM goes over there, I want to try and be a part of that community. If folks think they’ll participate/help/promote a subreddit over there and we can make it work like a message board, I’m game, and will do what I can to get it started.
July 15, 2016 @ 5:22 pm
i do reddit for sports mostly. and r/aww. thats about the extent of what i know about that place. finding stuff to talk about and keeping an eye on the inmates is probably easy enough. design and all that would take some homework. i got some free time coming up. if you think it’d be fun and in the spirit of this place, email me. i’ll try to pitch in.
July 11, 2016 @ 11:15 am
Conservative and liberal media have been pitting people against each other for over 25 years. Each side portrays the other side as either stupid or evil. The 24 hour news cycle feeds us a constant stream of aggressive, annoying loudmouths, each trying to out-shout the other. It’s no mystery as to why we are so divided. It used to be common courtesy to not discuss religion or politics; now every idiot feels that it is their moral obligation to spew their opinions to anyone in shouting distance. Social media is just another outlet to preach to your side’s choir, or piss off those who disagree.
July 11, 2016 @ 1:20 pm
Conservative and liberal media have been doing that for a whole lot longer than 25 years. It’s been going on for decades, ever since the advent of television, maybe even print media. I have been on both sides of that divide in my short 33 years until I realised that it was all nonsense and became libertarian. Thankfully there are sizable numbers of people who are now doing the same which is actually thanks to the Internet as the likes of CNN, Fox, BBC et al do not have the same power over the masses as they used to.
July 11, 2016 @ 11:16 am
I got in FB trouble once… one of my “friends” posted a Luke Bryan post, and I flooded the comments section with Vern Gosdin, Jason Isbell and Hank Snow videos until FB thought I wasn’t a real person… It’s a goofy interface that Facebook uses…
Of course, all I ever post are videos of my model trains and stuff… BUT I think the problem here is that too many people aren’t able to question things anymore… We have arrived at our opinions and we can no longer ask ourselves if the truth is elsewhere…
July 11, 2016 @ 1:28 pm
My Twitter feed is a mix of socialists, capitalists, left and right libertarians, anarchists, Keynesians, Austrian school followers and more. I purposely sought out people to follow who would challenge my views on the world. Social media is just a tool, a platform, how it is used is down to the user.
July 11, 2016 @ 3:03 pm
The difference is, Twitter shows you everything in your feed based off of a binary “last in first out” model. It’s Facebook’s algorithmic approach that makes it much more complicated in what you see, and how you might perceive it. That’s what also makes Facebook lousy for use during real time events, and Twitter / Instragram perfect.
July 11, 2016 @ 3:08 pm
Corporations have purposefully encouraged us to confuse rights with privileges in our capitalist societies . We are told ” You deserve it ” ..we are shown the latest shiny toys from cars to TV’s , phones and computers …we are teased by vacations ,artificially priced real estate , over-priced trendy clothing and more . We are subtly ‘ encouraged ” ( brain-washed with marketing and credit cards ) to consider these things ” rights” rather than privileges and we’ve come to believe that we ALL should have all of these things in a just world . And if you DON’T have these things or aren’t chasing these things you are lesser human being ( a loser ) in the eyes of society . The pressure put upon us by these false and empty ideals and the frustration incurred when most of us can’t realize them creates a feeling of low self-worth , helplessness and failure resulting in irrational , unexpected and often harmful behavior …verbal and physical . As long as ” economic growth ” is seen as the measure of a successful society and not , simply , happiness in the work you do and the life you live this situation will continue to escalate . As long as the dollar is the thing we worship and measure our worth by we are a dog chasing its tale and becoming progressively more discouraged and worn down by the same results of our misdirected efforts over and over again .
July 11, 2016 @ 3:44 pm
” There are a few easy factors to point to, such as the growing economic divide between rich and poor, and how every sector of society, not just politics, seems to be suffering from a lack of true leadership, ”
I’m going with these two things over facebook Trigger.
As long as the lower downs are busy fighting with each other, the higher ups will keep doing whatever they want. And they’ve been doing very well haven’t they? Last tweny years, everything went to them.
So the divisions are encouraged by the people at the top. They love this stuff.
July 11, 2016 @ 5:29 pm
The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.
July 11, 2016 @ 5:41 pm
Facebook is a scourge on the human race. Read a book, quit trying to distract yourselves from reality, and if you have to then read a book and learn something.
July 11, 2016 @ 6:11 pm
I use Facebook less and less all the time. That started when they started using algorithms. As the algorithms become increasingly convoluted, Facebook becomes more and more useless.
I’m pretty much out of the Facebook game entirely. I use it for a couple of immediate family members whom use it exclusively and a few bands that suck at Twitter.
The people I follow on Twitter give me a pretty good view of all sides AND I get to choose what I see. How quaint.
July 11, 2016 @ 6:48 pm
This is all news to me because I don’t have a FB account.
I’m on it, though, when my wife decides to chronicle what we arehavingfor dinner, where we are going on vacation, etc.
This article probably slams the door shut on the prospects of my ever getting a FB account.
I think it’s kind of a PITA that whatever I’m shopping for onAmazon shows up as side or top ads on news sites I read.
It’s embarrassing when my secretary walks in and sees a news site with a pair of truck nuts swinging off to the side.
July 12, 2016 @ 12:29 am
Spot on.
I left fb because I have a diverse range of friends and ended up falling out with a lot of them over our differences instead of enjoying our similarities.
For example, I live in a rural area, but a lot of my friends live in cities and they have been fed so much one sided information that they aren’t even open to finding out that farmers are not torturing animals for pleasure all day.
My solution is to get off it, and I call on everyone to help. Bands, post your gigs on your website/email list. People, share politics by email or message where you are sharing, not challenging. And if you can, just stop using it.
July 12, 2016 @ 6:11 am
Spot on article. I seek out news and commentary from all over the political spectrum and my opinions change all the time. This is a healthier way to engage with the world, but you have to actually work at it.
July 12, 2016 @ 6:56 am
Thanks for that very important post, Trigger. My rule now is that before I let myself completely flip out over a story I see on Facebook, or on MSN VCA, or anywhere really, I Google the subject to see what other sources are saying. I wish people would be a little more aware of all of the bias out there and how it can color even well-intentioned people’s perceptions and reporting. We need to take a little more personal responsibility for getting all sides of a story.
July 12, 2016 @ 7:51 am
Talking but slanted article It’s not only happens in politics…”First Aid Kit” has recorded a song in that old Recording booth at the Third Man Records and most likely just for fun….
https://www.instagram.com/firstaidkit/
And look that’s happening…
http://diymag.com/2016/07/12/first-aid-kit-record-new-song-at-jack-whites-third-man-studios
And in one Swedish Newspaper it has become a single produced by Jack White….
And they also been checing out guitars at Carter Vintage Guitars. And
posted a photo of Klara holding Gibson from 1928.
So soon you can probably read that Klara has bought Maybell old guitar…The fact that Maybell’s guitar now belongs Country Music Hall of Fame or that it’s not even the same model that Klara is holding will probably not stop them….
July 12, 2016 @ 12:45 pm
Great article. Glad to see attention being called to this issue. Count me in as having quit FB when the algorithms struck, too. Makes me lots of friends at 21…not. Though I have noticed a handful of other young people growing tired of social media, partially because we have been using it for such a significant percentage of our lives. I got on FB when I was 13; it feels silly to me now. What do I even have to share anyway? The same old photos? Opinions which will just grant me nasty comments from people I haven’t talked to in five years? No thanks. I wonder if this trend will grow. When I do browse Twitter and IG, I don’t even use the feed at all. Keeping up with a feed is tiring, even when it is chronological. I just type in who I want to look at, and then browse like I would any web page. These sites are designed to keep you glued to them, and I refuse to play anymore.
July 13, 2016 @ 3:30 pm
In addition to everything that Trigger has posted in this particular article, as well as what everyone else here is posting, Facebook has given a lot of its members some type license to constantly throw their life out there for all to seesome people need to be sure their friends are either likingor commenting in pictures, posts, videos, etc. in order to see if people are thinking about them and they feel some sort of validation in that. I see a lot of this. I’m sure you all have. I’ve gotten into discussions, sometimes heated, with people because of this. They’ll post things that are so vague that it’s as if they’re fishing for comments. They’ll post things about a particular person but with little details. The said person they’re talking about will then post back and it becomes a social media war. The end result is two people using Facebook as a platform to attack each other when a phone call or private message would have been so much simpler. The problem with doing something like that is…..you can’t attract an audience. Me, I’ve messaged people privately about some of their posts and I’ll get what is one of the most confusing and humorous responses….”Who are you to disagree with me??? I have more friends than you!!!” Right. Some of these ‘friends’ are groups, friends they probably met once, friends from other friends, etc. so should I feel devalued because you have more ‘friends’ than me….based on what your Facebook account says? Ridiculous. These folks will live and die by Facebook. For all the hood and great reasons to have a FB account, are just as many to not. Trigger’s article is proof. Big time. (I LIKE this article, Trigger)
September 27, 2016 @ 7:53 pm
America has turned into a bunch of sheeple. Our country and its policies are being dictated to us through both mainstream media and social media. People form their opinions based on the words of the Kardashians more than through thier own research. We are self destructing from within.