True on all counts except the solution. Regulating them out of existence is just typical Progressive bullshit. A better approach would be to do away with the regulatory and tax provisions they already enjoy. The big guys are always better able to exploit a highly regulated environment to their advantage.
Vinay has come a long way in the past year or so, but until he questions his own Progressive mindset he will have a long way to go.
This is one of your best, if not your best, article yet! I hope these media giants do get “cut up” into tiny little pieces. They are polluting the minds and destroying the souls of many people, especially the young, who are so susceptible to the endless messaging that tells them both that they aren’t enough and that the world is doomed. That’s no future that anyone wants to live or work for.
My thoughts exactly. He acts like the benevolent monarch who trusts his ministers are telling him the truth that his dastardly deeds are dandy indeed. And when he visits a looted village or weeping child he cannot see it was his policies that let thugs destroy the people.
Thank you for this. But be careful that your fellow doctors don’t manipulate your righteous anger at social media into building an even stronger censorship regime. Did you see the article in JAMA this week about how dangerous social media “misinformation” is? They are building support against social media in order to kick doctors like you (and me) off of it. It’s totalitarian!
As a pediatrician who sees first hand the mental health harm of screen time, I want smartphones for kids banned. But just stay on your guard and don’t let other doctors use our feelings to pressure Zuckerberg into being even more of a dictator!
Google "Yellow Journalism." This is an old story. The exact same thing can be said about Television. "For the first time in history, advertising can be sent directly into one's home 24/7"
"Better limit children from watching too much TV or they will be negatively effected." Etc. "Keep your kids off social media, make them go out and play." I have a 20 year old. He is taking some time off of college to back pack Europe. He sends me pictures and thoughts of architecture/museums/churches, etc. Yesterday he told me he is going to Auschwitz. He rented and watched Schlinder's List on his phone. (He's in Krakow, Poland). He is traveling alone, but meets up with lots of folks. He is very social and is on social media. During Covid there were many young folks traveling around in Vans seeing the USA for themselves. You publish on social media. So does Malone and Rose. The far right has their sites, that propagandize their folks. Cannibals anyone?
Propaganda for the benefit of the rich was invented in the 1920s and is now practiced by government and corporations all over the world. Hitler/Goebbels admitted he was copying American corporate propagandist (probably learned about it from his buddy Henry Ford). Those advertisers on early TV? They directed the outlines of the TV shows. What we got was the 1950s conformity in the name of organized capital, until we didn't. First literature (The Beats) and then Music (The hippies) and progressive politicians (MLK; Johnson......Civil Rights) turned over the conformity of the 1950s. That was in the face of TV programming to the opposite.
You are doing your part to counter the messaging............using the order of the day..........the internet/web. Facebook is just another capitalist enterprise looking out for itself, like the newspapers and then TV media. My son's generation has already moved on from facebook. They are killing traditional broadcasting piece by piece. They know how to use the internet for their own independence/learning/connections. They aren't fixed into the old way of consuming idea's. They are a curious bunch...............they will figure it out and then live very different lives from their parents, just as I live a different life than my parents and my parents lived very different than my grandparents.
The thing about capitalism is that it is a double edge sword. It tries to replicate itself, to maintain its ability to be profitable, to enrich a small group of people. The other side is there are always folks creating disruptive enterprises ready to bring legacy businesses to its knees.
May I respectfully suggest that your solution of "regulating them to bits" may actually make matters worse. I don't think that it is intuitively obvious that moving the decision making from "young people who lack wisdom, courage, compassion, and scars" to some yet to be determined regulatory body will improve things. Monopolists love rather than loath regulatory bodies as these are, often, easily captured and create often insurmountable hurdles for other competitors. (Case in point: I believe that you and I can agree that the FDA has been largely captured by the large pharmaceutical companies and, eight mice later, Pfizer is awarded a $5 billion contract for a booster of questionable utility.)
This doesn’t mean that I completely discount the role of regulation; it definitely has its place. However, I feel that, perhaps, your example of the 20th century industrialists might hold some type of blueprint for how to deal with the current digital revolution. Let’s take petrochemicals: the advances in materials and manufacturing in petrochemicals touch, essentially, every area of our lives. In your own practice treating patients, there is almost nothing that you touch in the course of treatment that does not, in some way, involve petrochemicals. We are better for it. At the same time, petrochemicals have caused massive environmental damage (and continue to do so).
The digital revolution has, in the same vein, created many positives: we can connect with friends and family around the world easily and we have access to information and deep thinkers across a wide range of subjects and ideological persuasions. Your own digital platform is a perfect example; I, and many others, have been exposed to your expert analysis and knowledge in regards to research methodologies that have enriched my own understanding and ability to evaluate arguments and evidence. At the same time, the digital revolution has caused massive individual and societal harms.
So the question is really one of the harm/benefit balance and how we, as a society, move the needle away from the former and towards the latter (accepting that, at least in this world, we will never get to a zero harms/all benefits situation).
Perhaps, at a high level, this would look something like this: 1) remove protections from civil action for harms (personal and societal) caused. 2) lower the barriers for entry into the market. And 3) ensure that the SEC is vigilant and aggressive in combating anti-competitive behaviors on the part of the monopolists.
Your most pointed statement yet Dr. Prasad. I have a love hate with social media. I love the news and shows I WANT on YouTube, but I hate what the algorithms dish up to me. I love the world's knowledge at my fingertips, but I hate the never ending BS and pure lies I get from so many platforms. I've become a very selective consumer and I try hard to ignore the rest. No Twitter, Instagram or TikTok for me. Facebook only on my laptop for sharing pics of my daughter with friends and relatives or saving recipes. Other than that, it's a dumpster fire of bad information that leads to bad behavior, that leads to a ugly, narcissistic, anxious society. And I agree: break it up into little competitive pieces that can suit everyone. And apply the rules of liable and malace that govern the media. That'll shut em up.
One last note. Facebook and Google capture 50% of the world's advertising dollars. Everything else fights for the other 50%. Why control is so stilted towards those two monoliths.
Brilliantly said! In what insane world does one think that connecting people virtually is anywhere near the same as connecting them in real life. He seems to be one of those people who think technological process is only a good thing, that transhumanism is the way forward. It feels to me like this sort of technology is a parasite that has infected a significant proportion of society. And if we let it continue infecting everybody we will just get further and further away from connection to the natural world, to each other, to what it literally means to be human.
Vinay is growing. That is good. He is seeing the light. But his solutions, while earnest, lack the insight into not wanting to transfer the regulation from the corporations to regulate but to the government. Imagine how that looks in , say, Russia. Competition in the market place. Not excluding those who disagree. Praising those who disagree with you but being respectful would be ideal. But, alas, maybe this ship has sailed
Thank you Vinay! We need more people to wake up to this as sadly it is destroying our interpersonal communication and social connectedness which is so important to us and our society!
True on all counts except the solution. Regulating them out of existence is just typical Progressive bullshit. A better approach would be to do away with the regulatory and tax provisions they already enjoy. The big guys are always better able to exploit a highly regulated environment to their advantage.
Vinay has come a long way in the past year or so, but until he questions his own Progressive mindset he will have a long way to go.
This is one of your best, if not your best, article yet! I hope these media giants do get “cut up” into tiny little pieces. They are polluting the minds and destroying the souls of many people, especially the young, who are so susceptible to the endless messaging that tells them both that they aren’t enough and that the world is doomed. That’s no future that anyone wants to live or work for.
My thoughts exactly. He acts like the benevolent monarch who trusts his ministers are telling him the truth that his dastardly deeds are dandy indeed. And when he visits a looted village or weeping child he cannot see it was his policies that let thugs destroy the people.
Thank you for this. But be careful that your fellow doctors don’t manipulate your righteous anger at social media into building an even stronger censorship regime. Did you see the article in JAMA this week about how dangerous social media “misinformation” is? They are building support against social media in order to kick doctors like you (and me) off of it. It’s totalitarian!
As a pediatrician who sees first hand the mental health harm of screen time, I want smartphones for kids banned. But just stay on your guard and don’t let other doctors use our feelings to pressure Zuckerberg into being even more of a dictator!
More on the JAMA article here:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/this-month-in-the-american-medical
Superb article that led me to subscribe.
Google "Yellow Journalism." This is an old story. The exact same thing can be said about Television. "For the first time in history, advertising can be sent directly into one's home 24/7"
"Better limit children from watching too much TV or they will be negatively effected." Etc. "Keep your kids off social media, make them go out and play." I have a 20 year old. He is taking some time off of college to back pack Europe. He sends me pictures and thoughts of architecture/museums/churches, etc. Yesterday he told me he is going to Auschwitz. He rented and watched Schlinder's List on his phone. (He's in Krakow, Poland). He is traveling alone, but meets up with lots of folks. He is very social and is on social media. During Covid there were many young folks traveling around in Vans seeing the USA for themselves. You publish on social media. So does Malone and Rose. The far right has their sites, that propagandize their folks. Cannibals anyone?
Propaganda for the benefit of the rich was invented in the 1920s and is now practiced by government and corporations all over the world. Hitler/Goebbels admitted he was copying American corporate propagandist (probably learned about it from his buddy Henry Ford). Those advertisers on early TV? They directed the outlines of the TV shows. What we got was the 1950s conformity in the name of organized capital, until we didn't. First literature (The Beats) and then Music (The hippies) and progressive politicians (MLK; Johnson......Civil Rights) turned over the conformity of the 1950s. That was in the face of TV programming to the opposite.
You are doing your part to counter the messaging............using the order of the day..........the internet/web. Facebook is just another capitalist enterprise looking out for itself, like the newspapers and then TV media. My son's generation has already moved on from facebook. They are killing traditional broadcasting piece by piece. They know how to use the internet for their own independence/learning/connections. They aren't fixed into the old way of consuming idea's. They are a curious bunch...............they will figure it out and then live very different lives from their parents, just as I live a different life than my parents and my parents lived very different than my grandparents.
The thing about capitalism is that it is a double edge sword. It tries to replicate itself, to maintain its ability to be profitable, to enrich a small group of people. The other side is there are always folks creating disruptive enterprises ready to bring legacy businesses to its knees.
Dr. Prasad,
May I respectfully suggest that your solution of "regulating them to bits" may actually make matters worse. I don't think that it is intuitively obvious that moving the decision making from "young people who lack wisdom, courage, compassion, and scars" to some yet to be determined regulatory body will improve things. Monopolists love rather than loath regulatory bodies as these are, often, easily captured and create often insurmountable hurdles for other competitors. (Case in point: I believe that you and I can agree that the FDA has been largely captured by the large pharmaceutical companies and, eight mice later, Pfizer is awarded a $5 billion contract for a booster of questionable utility.)
This doesn’t mean that I completely discount the role of regulation; it definitely has its place. However, I feel that, perhaps, your example of the 20th century industrialists might hold some type of blueprint for how to deal with the current digital revolution. Let’s take petrochemicals: the advances in materials and manufacturing in petrochemicals touch, essentially, every area of our lives. In your own practice treating patients, there is almost nothing that you touch in the course of treatment that does not, in some way, involve petrochemicals. We are better for it. At the same time, petrochemicals have caused massive environmental damage (and continue to do so).
The digital revolution has, in the same vein, created many positives: we can connect with friends and family around the world easily and we have access to information and deep thinkers across a wide range of subjects and ideological persuasions. Your own digital platform is a perfect example; I, and many others, have been exposed to your expert analysis and knowledge in regards to research methodologies that have enriched my own understanding and ability to evaluate arguments and evidence. At the same time, the digital revolution has caused massive individual and societal harms.
So the question is really one of the harm/benefit balance and how we, as a society, move the needle away from the former and towards the latter (accepting that, at least in this world, we will never get to a zero harms/all benefits situation).
Perhaps, at a high level, this would look something like this: 1) remove protections from civil action for harms (personal and societal) caused. 2) lower the barriers for entry into the market. And 3) ensure that the SEC is vigilant and aggressive in combating anti-competitive behaviors on the part of the monopolists.
With respect.
Your most pointed statement yet Dr. Prasad. I have a love hate with social media. I love the news and shows I WANT on YouTube, but I hate what the algorithms dish up to me. I love the world's knowledge at my fingertips, but I hate the never ending BS and pure lies I get from so many platforms. I've become a very selective consumer and I try hard to ignore the rest. No Twitter, Instagram or TikTok for me. Facebook only on my laptop for sharing pics of my daughter with friends and relatives or saving recipes. Other than that, it's a dumpster fire of bad information that leads to bad behavior, that leads to a ugly, narcissistic, anxious society. And I agree: break it up into little competitive pieces that can suit everyone. And apply the rules of liable and malace that govern the media. That'll shut em up.
One last note. Facebook and Google capture 50% of the world's advertising dollars. Everything else fights for the other 50%. Why control is so stilted towards those two monoliths.
Great article. Nailed it.
Brilliantly said! In what insane world does one think that connecting people virtually is anywhere near the same as connecting them in real life. He seems to be one of those people who think technological process is only a good thing, that transhumanism is the way forward. It feels to me like this sort of technology is a parasite that has infected a significant proportion of society. And if we let it continue infecting everybody we will just get further and further away from connection to the natural world, to each other, to what it literally means to be human.
Vinay is growing. That is good. He is seeing the light. But his solutions, while earnest, lack the insight into not wanting to transfer the regulation from the corporations to regulate but to the government. Imagine how that looks in , say, Russia. Competition in the market place. Not excluding those who disagree. Praising those who disagree with you but being respectful would be ideal. But, alas, maybe this ship has sailed
Spot on but also strip the protection they enjoy via 230.
Typos Doc. 💋💋
But I agree.
I don't think most people understand that social media is a deterrent from actual feelings/life.
Spot on !!!!!
Amen VP!!
Thank you Vinay! We need more people to wake up to this as sadly it is destroying our interpersonal communication and social connectedness which is so important to us and our society!