In an "In Memoriam" article about Robert S. Lancaster for the Skeptical Inquirer, Susan Gerbic wrote the following:
"Before Facebook, Twitter, and other social network platforms, we used forums to communicate. Some of you probably still remember these; possibly a few still use them. They are clunky internet websites where people can gather, post stories, reply, form friendships, get in arguments, and waste away a lazy Sunday if you want."
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/...er-7-2019/
The tone of that made me feel a bit like a dinosaur (not unusual these days), but I wonder whether it's really possible to have any kind of in-depth discussion on Facebook and Twitter - or even to post anything there that's not going to be effectively lost after a few days. I can see that they are very good ways of sharing news (I check the SPR Facebook page regularly). But are they really any good for discussion of any but the most superficial and ephemeral kind?
But perhaps I'm making the mistake of asking a herd of fellow dinosaurs what point there is in the activities of those little furry things?
Your questions are pertinent, Chris. Facebook discussions are quickly lost (Twitter I have not even explored, but it seems that much is the same). On a forum like PQ, you have a decent "search" function. Not so on FB; as for Twitter, I don't know.
I’m very sorry to hear Robert died. I only knew him through the JREF forum, but he was an amazing person, as well as an outstanding example of a reasonable skeptical approach.
Linda
Facebook (or for example Twitter) is good for getting news of the sorts of off-beat topic which don't get included in "news" elsewhere. One other thing I quite like (though this varies) is the very broad reach of those sites, there may be many, many different people posting. This at least means there is a certain degree of spreading of ideas.
But often, such discussions tend towards brevity, a quick one-line quip (reminiscent of some of our well-known members' occasional posts) but (with some exceptions) not a lot of depth in discussions.
And of course, not just with regard to our topics, but on any matters at all Facebook is one of the best ways of losing things. There are many posts which flit briefly before my eyes but I can never find them again, even on the same day.
I maintain a discussion board for the ATransC (ghost town). As Facebook became popular, participation dropped to near zero. The last blowout we had amongst participants is one of the reasons we dropped the membership support model.
The here today, gone tomorrow form of communication on Facebook is useless for a meaningful exchange of ideas. The second negative is that I teach a lot in discussions and Facebook forces me to repeat myself over and over. People honestly wanting to earn something about the subject cannot search Facebook to see what has been said.\
Civilization began when elders lived long enough to teach the young about what has been learned by the tribe. By that standard, we are in the process of losing the underpinning of our civilization.
Every time I attempt to start a new study that requires participants, when I begin the process on Facebook (
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ETVisualITCStudy/) and then migrate the discussion to our board (
http://atransc.org/forum/forum-75.html), the discussion dies.
I'm pleased to hear it's not just me.
Perhaps another pertinent question would be what makes Facebook and Twitter so much more attractive to people than discussion sites. I suppose it could be partly that many people aren't interested in having more in-depth discussions. But that wouldn't explain why the use of discussion sites has declined so much (unless they were previously used by people who weren't really interested in discussions!).
Is it that the social media sites cover a broader range of topics, so people can have pursue different interests on the same platform, or is it that they centre more on people and their relationships rather than their interests? Or is it just that they have more bells and whistles than discussion sites? (On the contrary, it seems to me that a discussion site like this with an associated wiki has more functionality, but maybe that's just because I don't understand Facebook.)
(2019-10-26, 07:48 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps another pertinent question would be what makes Facebook and Twitter so much more attractive to people than discussion sites.
I suspect that it's the convenience of having it all wrapped up in a single platform. It's handy to have your "groups" discussions come up in the same news feed as your social discussions/sharing.
Also, perhaps, it is easier to start and advertise groups (e.g., you can easily send an invitation to "like" a new page/group to all of your friends), and to a much wider audience (the whole of Facebook) than it is to start and advertise a standalone forum on its own platform.
According to Sean Parker, Facebook's co founder, it was designed to be addictive and exploit human vulnerabilities. If I remember correctly he also doesn't let his kids use social media as a result.
(2019-10-26, 01:57 PM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]According to Sean Parker, Facebook's co founder, it was designed to be addictive and exploit human vulnerabilities. If I remember correctly he also doesn't let his kids use social media as a result.
Little do you know the social engineering that has gone into Psience Quest's addictiveness... *evil laugh whilst rubbing hands together*
Yeah I was thinking, "how can we start doing some of that?"