I've never been much engaged in FB,TW or Instagram or too many Social platforms. But I still have to disagree with Mr Linus, after all where would we be without the Slashdot effect?
Social media simply accelerates aspects of what we are as humans. Its well known that we humans are genetically more attracted to the negative than the positive for obvious reasons ... and just to be circular: when was the last time something positive Linus said made the news?
So rather than say Social media is an external invading disease i would rather say it is an expression of what makes us human.
I have spent some time studying genetics, and really have no idea what you mean by “Its well known that we humans are genetically more attracted to the negative than the positive for obvious reasons”
This is the kind of thinking social media enables. When everyone in your group already agrees with what you say, the standards of thought fall due to lack of challenge.
I didn't think it was so challenging to use the term "genetics" after all from a reasonable point of view our genes are the blueprint of the body and our emotional responses derive from that...
I agree that attributing this to genetics is somewhat abstract - it would normally be attributed as a phenomenon of psychology. And "more attracted to the negative than the positive" is an ambiguous way of putting what I guess the OP meant - that fear is a more compelling emotional driver than "positive" things such as the desires to consume or procreate. But in the very long run, since this is all the result of evolution (leaving aside for now the possibility that it is all God moving in His mysterious ways, which, whilst I certainly can't disprove, isn't the thrust of the criticism) and considering that these same behavioral preferences are readily observable in all animals and indeed many plants and bacteria, then the suggestion that they are indeed ultimately transmitted and shaped by genetics seems reasonable?
A euphemism, by which i meant "hard wired". Human's are like every species pre-disposed in so many way to be driven by the negative rather than the positive.
"Add in anonymity, and it's just disgusting," Torvalds said. "When you don't even put your real name on your garbage (or the garbage you share or like), it really doesn't help."
Except when you see people you knew and respected before social media existed posting and "liking" the same garbage. They either just do not care or they do not know any better.
The lack of anonymity lends itself to the emergence of countless self-promoters who specialise in posting yet more garbage, on a regular basis. The aim of which is often directly or indirectly commercial.
Anonymity made for a healthier internet in my opinion. Nobody cared if xXNinja_420Xx said he was going to kill you or that all left-handed people deserve to be in concentration camps. Everyone still runs their fool mouth same as they used to except now you know it's your cousin Drew or Samantha from accounting saying it. Putting a name and a face on internet bullshit was a horrible development.
Given today's culture anonymity is even more important than it ever was. Someone across the world can boycott your place of work and get you sacked for voicing unfashionable opinions. Who will provide for your family then? Don't expect to lean on your partner either, they'll probably push to get her/him sacked too for associating with you.
> Everyone still runs their fool mouth same as they used to
I very much doubt this is true. Yes, people run their mouth on FB and other real-name / real-identity accounts, but not to the same extent as with anonymous profiles. What you see on real name accounts should be assumed to be the tip of the iceberg.
Without anonymity, one risks real-world harassment, stalking, and political, social, or economic consequences for saying things one's society, government, or maybe even employer doesn't like.
Journalists have been murdered for reporting the actions of gangs and corrupt governments. Had they been anonymous, perhaps they'd still be alive.
LGBT people risk being attacked when their identities are revealed online. Many other groups throughout history have been targeted because of their identity -- a prime example being Jews during the Holocaust, when census data was used to find them an round them up.
People will also be hesitant about speaking about wrongs committed by police, corrupt governments, or their employer when they believe their identity is known, for fear of reprisal.
As the ACLU points out: "The right to remain anonymous is a fundamental component of our right to free speech, and it applies every bit as much in the digital world as it does in the physical one."
Social media gets a lot of bad press in the mainstream media. A lot of people in non-tech circles talk about how to spend less time on Facebook, etc., because they feel it has a negative impact.
Personally, I think it's a shame big social media is such a general disaster, because I've always had a good experience on Facebook and Twitter.
its becoming quite a common take on social media, especially all the "look at my blog post on how i quit social media" posts on reddit
youtubers/ig accounts are very open about the effects of social media, maybe you should check some other sites to see HN... isn't that unique in this view
They’re akin to the lead in lead poisoning. Not the disease per se, but the cause thereof. Broadly speaking, ad-driven social networks are incentivised to spread enraging content. That, in turn, incentivises content producers to make such content for broadcast.
I feel that the only reason this has made the news beyond the Linux community (there was also Business Insider [1] and The Inquirer [2] recycling this quote) is because of how fashionable it has recently become to hate on social media.
And while I share much of Linus's distaste for social media (although I am shocked to see he argues against anonymity), the way that papers are now running with this story looks like cheap sensationalism.
Not that I disagree with the idea, but aren't these communication tools highlighting or magnifying some basic human behavior traits? I would imagine this happens on a smaller scale through face to face interaction. Is it just the scale of it all that is the issue?
My opinion is that, while those traits are there, Facebook et al actively manipulate people to express those traits. Yes, similar things happen in face yo face interactions... with psychopaths. In this way, social media is more like a predator than a disease.
> But I've never gone to someone's house and seen their bathroom in that condition.
I broadly agree with your premise, but the nitpicky HN part of my brain feels obligated to point out that a certain amount of selection bias might be at play here. Public bathrooms are by definition places the entire spectrum of the public visits, and is probably a broader and slightly more diverse pool than the people whose homes you personally visit (unless you're a social worker, which you probably aren't because then you would absolutely have seen swathes of homes that a lot of people here would probably deem uninhabitable)
That said, you're not wrong : we've all witnessed friends, acquaintances et al behave differently from one context to another. I live in Norway, and the prototypical example that comes to mind is that kids / young adults here are significantly more belligerent and antisocial abroad than at home where they are subject to the Scandinavian brand of tut-tut judgyness. Basically the spring break phenomenon so it's not unique by any means.
One thing I find attract of anonymity is that a person can make statement without risking it being permanently associated with him for the rest of his life. He can test ideas, push boundaries, perhaps discover something about himself or his previous assumptions. We are only sharing information after all
If most anonymous speech were like The Federalist Papers then I would agree. I think the mean-value of anonymous speech is either zero or negative. I'm aware this is a feeling and not something I can prove.
I was using it a ton, precisely because I could choose which groups I joined and how I engaged with it. It was precisely because fancy pants forum software isn't a great platform for algorithm generated engagement spam that I liked it so much.
Very recent discussion: 25 Years Later: Interview with Linus Torvalds https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19559970
296 points by axiomdata316 5 days ago | 145 comments