After pondering it for a while; karens has existed since the dawn of civilization. Once they felt comfy they got yappy. Simply attention whoring, clawing their way out of an existential crisis as cat ladies, pure boredom, or perhaps some gradient there amongst? Who knows their reasoning, if there even is such a thing as 'reason' hidden behind their outbursts.
Granted, dawn of civilization might be somewhat exaggerated, but at the very least we had karens banning toys at the playground long before I even entered kindergarten; before even Internet were commonplace. Cancelling TV shows over some brat in the US blaming his emotional outburst on it. Burning books.
So I'm not sure in what way you mean the karens has been empowered?
From what I've seen: social media hasn't really uplifted the karen, or helped her. It's more of an exposé. Through social media people have gotten to learn that it isn't just their backyard which is infested by these vile creatures. That people aren't alone, in small groups, in being opposed to their nonsense.
Before social media they instead waltzed into government offices and HR departments unbeknownst to others. Was that really better? To simply not know what they are up to?
We also now have faces to the category, such as the ever so elegant Trigglypuff (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trigglypuff), which has somewhat dissuaded more reasonable women from associating with the activity.
It also makes it a bit more bearable, I find, to know what sort of humorous qualities their ground troops hold.
Personal responsibility. Parental responsibility.
If people chose to uphold these core values rather than weather them away under the flag of "Think of the Children!", and its variants, then karens wouldn't hold any power. It wouldn't have gotten the chance to evolve into the trans-pan-pride flag of today.
So, rather. Government is the issue at the base of it, as it gives people the power to shape society no matter their contribution to society. Especially so in places like the US were you can just airdrop in new voters from abroad.
Yes, the neighborhood busy body has always been around, but until social media, their power was more more limited. Now, with one photo or short video clip than can destroy your career, relationships and chances for improvement in all areas and do so in a second and there is no recourse. Especially, if the one posting such stuff is someone unknown face in the crowd.
I suspect that few think of this, which as I said earlier, is part of the problem, but it was just so much freer to do anything before social media watching you all the time. I remember well the first time I saw an actual surveillance camera. It was in my college’s recreation center. Beneath it was a sign that stated, “For your safety on comfort, these premises are under 24 hour monitoring.”, or words to that effect. I did not comforted by that, nor did I even feel particularly safer either. It was and remains quite a chilling realization that I was being watched the whole time I was there.
I do see your points, however I'd argue the fault there is a society putting such weight with something so feeble rather than the tool being bad at its core.
Just like how I don't think it's worth getting rid of all guns just because some lunatic starts shooting up the street with guns, I also don't think getting rid of all social media is worth it just because some lunatic starts spreading lies with social media.
I'd also argue that whether it takes them a second or a week doesn't really matter when it destroys your life. "A week?" you may wonder? Well, in my experience at least, it takes at most a week for every rando in the neighbourhood to "know" you; as in random approaching with: "Hey Kim! Maybe you don't know me, but I know x, who knows y, who z, who knows you.".
Now, that's a benign, albeit weird, experience to give as an example. However, malevolent rumours spread just as fast, or faster in some circles, and, unlike with social media, can end up festering for a long time before you can even know of them or argue against them.
In addition, with access to social media you at least have a couple of platforms that allows you to tell your side of things. Compare that to before social media where old media had your life in their grasp if you rose to any sort of position.
For example, it is old media at the core of lies about Trump telling people to "consume bleach", the same media spreading lies about J6, the "summer of [fiery] love", nazi truckers.
Going beyond politicking; the main reason I see value in social media is for the prospect of free exchanges of ideas & knowledge.
Those "calming" CCTV signs are basically "I am from the government and I am here to help!". Yeah, no, I'm fully with you in regards to that CCTV nonsense.
With social media on the other hand, beyond the handful of karens and their associate virtue signalers, I don't think there's much extra to worry about. Most people are too busy using social media to prop up themselves, and have a very short attention span for what begrudges them.
In summary; my opinion: Social media is great for sharing & finding ideas & knowledge; while on the other hand, the negative aspects are already upheld by old media & the gossipers with social media adding onto little to those societal issues.
The comparison between social media and guns fail because if you also have a gun, you can stop a bad guy with a gun. Have it a social media account in no way helps you stop a bad guy with a social media account.
Social media has not protect against bad press. “Hands up, don’t shoot” did not happen, yet many still believe it did. After 7 years, Snopes finally admitted recently that T did not call Nazi’s very fine people. If any have changed their opinion on T after snopes made that correction, then social media didn’t set the record straight. If the snopes correction didn’t change anyone’s thoughts on T and against the media, then social media couldn’t. Vast numbers of people still believe that T colluded with Russia to steal the election, do not know that Hilary was found guilty and paid a fine for the pee dossier, that a high ranking official in the DoJ was found guilty of lying under oath on this same case and was sentenced to some jail time, that one of the lead investigators into Trump Russia collusion has been sentenced to prison for colluding with Russia himself, that a number of police were killed in the “deadly insurrection” on Jan 6th, have no idea about FATCA/FBAR nor CBT, all despite social media. To me, it does not seem to be carrying out the function you assign to it. Rush Limbaugh provided me with all the alternatives to the main stream media that I required. Social media provides me with almost zero.
And yes, rumors can cause havoc within one’s circles, bay rarely more than one circle and almost never all of them. My personal life and professional life are kept separate. A single pic uploaded to social media with me innocently in the background can easily upend my career, such that is left of it after the panic anyway. Likewise, and argument at work does not directly affect my personal life but it’s sure could if posted for the world to see. One of the many reasons for divorce during lockdowns is that married couples were forced to observe their spouse’s work demeanor and many were shocked at what they saw and overheard. That is not social media but it clearly shows what can happen when our professional selves are recorded for family and friends to see.
But the worst effect of all, is the constant self censorship of those who know to be concerned and the complete lack thereof of those who do not yet know to be concerned that somebody is always at the ready to film them at their absolute worst and post it online for the world to see.
We now have cameras in our classrooms at the medical school. I am not against cameras in the classroom and have never denied permission to those who ask to record a lesson or a part thereof. But to have them there at all times naturally triggers a greater level of self consciousness than is healthy to open discussion. It has a chilling effect, much like a wet blanket smothering a fire.
Nice write-up! But, I will have to disagree on social media.
All social media has really done is unmask how gargantuan the population of narcissists are. Something that has been hinted at since the first drawing, and increasingly so with the all more omnipresent camera.
What really should change is how much people care for "outrage" and the business care for these same fake customers. At least, with social media, the playing field is a bit more level now.
Without it you would still have stuff like slut walks & pride parades. Except, even more people would be lulled into thinking it's accepted by the majority.
Social media also lies at the basis of actual journalism; while old "journalism" is openly pushing for, and exponentiating, all this Sei and Gomorra anyway.
Without social media parents in the US would still be non the wiser of the cancerous growth enveloping their school system.
Without social media the international truckers protests wouldn't have been a thing.
What should rather be asked is why people are letting the state & media be so lenient towards people like that Somali not a Somali, something, dude. Where's the "sei" there? I mean, beside his brain cell.
There's also something to be said of the state & media weaponising karens & immigration policy against the citizens.
Nah, society just needs a proper foot on the ground and a straight back.
While it is true that we would likely not know of the Trucker protest in Canada were it not for social media, we must also consider that social media was used to identify participants in the protest to freeze their bank accounts and cause them other grief. Jobs, employment and educational opportunities have been lost due to postings on social media made while a minor. Government agencies monitor social media posting for what their own nefarious purposes. Of course, there are the various forms of censorship employed on social media platforms themselves with a recent US Supreme Court decision that allows the government to continue to pressure third parties to censor you as long as they are smart about it and do not make it easy to identify by name the persons involved. Early in the panic, I was trying to discuss how the mitigation measures being discussed were counterproductive on Instagram. The WHO sent me a warning that I was spreading misinformation and all content on the subject disappeared from my Instagram feed. Someone warned me that for the upcoming election, unless you go into settings and specifically request it, political content will not appear in Instagram feeds.
Yes, we would be unlikely to learn of the Canadian trucker protest, but Canada would also not have gained the ability to frighten would be future protesters into silence over fear of losing access to their bank accounts. Social groups would not be terrified to recruit new members and thus die out. Employees would not be afraid to blow the whistle on obviously illegal activities that the State supports out of fear of what the Doctor and nurse whistleblowers in Texas are facing over their employer’s violation of a new States law prohibiting sex change procedures on minors. Social media is not like Big Brother, it IS Big Brother.
Sounds like you're thinking of specific platforms. More specifically the Facebook network by the sound of it?
I'm talking about the category of tools that is called social media, under which Substack also falls.
Regarding identification of the truckers; the socialists mainly used arrests, drone footage, police cameras, and their goons in state media to capture faces. Their social media activities added little in that regard.
On the other hand, everything being livestreamed did make it harder for the socialists to go Tiananmen 2.0 on the peaceful protestors.
The government censoring the Internet at large and the government using illegal measures against their opponents; such as J6, hate speech laws, freezing bank accounts, and shutting down their businesses, is an issue separate from the tool.
They are and they aren’t. Social media makes it easier to find out who was where and when. It alone is not used to do this, but it add greatly to this. At the very least, a social media post alerts them to where to start their poking around.
Ask yourself, if you are old enough, are you not glad that everyone didn’t have a phone and a camera when you were a teen or young adult? I sure the fauci am. I sure as hell would not have been able to enjoy life as did then knowing that everyone everywhere has a camera with the ability to immediately post photos online for the whole world to see. True, many of the young are blissfully ignorant of this, but that is part of the problem.
Most of my students are young women with most of my classes being at women’s schools or professions that are predominantly female, such as the nursing school I have long given my students a safety lecture. In recent years I have had to include warnings on the hazards of being in a video of photo posted online. Throughout the course, when a student says they went out drinking and from their classmates questioning it seems that they do not recall the entire night, I tell them not to worry. All they have to do is check YouTube and find out what they did as someone undoubtably posted a video of it. And sure enough, one of my first year female medical students went to a party and could not remember the whole night. A classmate, another female student, posted a video of her table dancing less than fully clothed.
Going back to my OP, groups that handle traditional Japanese festivals are afraid to recruit much needed new members over fear of social media postings.
That perhaps perfectly sums up the problem with social media; you either self censor yourself into a self imposed prison or you open yourself up to worldwide scorn, derision, victimization and or unwanted scrutiny by the authorities.
In Japan, where they have long been obsessed about how they appear to others, it is the self imposed straight jacket that they are opting for, and if this continues on the same tack, it is the death of society here.
I'd say how much you tie your social media to your real life personage is up to each individual. Someone unrelated writing down their phone number in a toilet booth isn't really my issue. Beyond my dislike for vandalism, but I digress.
I don't particularly care about others snapping photos. Perhaps because cameras and photo albums were a core thing in the family and I find great value in data hoarding. I do take issue with the government installing city wide networks of CCTV and enacting laws that force all data of all platforms above a certain size to be passed through their inspection centres.
True, women has liked taking pictures & videos of each-other in various states of undress & inebriation since they got their hands on their first camera. At least you don't have a large amount of early teens doing way worse, like they did back in the 90's. But I don't think that's a reason to get rid of a tool and forego personal responsibility.
Are the festival groups afraid to ban picture taking? Or is it the fear of getting complaints? I can't really see how it would be a greater fear than someone sending a message to old media. Are you sure they aren't just using it as an excuse to drop out because it's mendokusai?
Self censorship is something you generally do when interacting with unknown people in civil society, so I don't really see how social media is worse in that regard.
Some degrees of scorn, derision, victimization(?) is something you will always run into with other groups of mentality. At least with social media you can find like-minded individuals and build a network of support, if that is something you feel you need. On the other end of the spectrum you have growing up in a small town. If happens to trod on a landmine in that scenario, well, good luck.
The authorities will always become scrutinous of those rising in fame & power as it is a rivalry for power. But the tool you use to get there doesn't matter much. Letting the government get to a place where samizdat becomes a necessity is the underlying issue.
I very much agree that collectivism is an issue. I have seen some Japanese talk about and promoting individualism. Sadly, it also tends to come in close relation to DIE, or DIE-like mantra.
Thank you for your comments. This is for me a most interesting and I believe important conversation you and I are having. You are compelling me to think and doing so further has me focusing on several aspects of this; self determination, spread or coverage, and choice.
You stated that you are not so concerned about photos or videos of yourself being posted online citing your family’s love of photography. I too am an abide amateur photographer, but my father was a professional cameraman. Until I joined the navy and went to see things I would likely never see again, I hated the field. It was my father’s thing, not mine. Despite this, he still succeeded in instilling some important lessons on the art. Amount these were the absolute need to get a signed model release before publishing any photo with anyone in it. Another was to never sign such a release except for very specific uses, as spelled out in the release and only with those I trust.
I take a bazillion photos. One of my greatest frustrations with the panic is that it has stopped my task of scanning my negatives into digital format. My wife still works from home due to the panic and as she works in the den, where my noisy negative scanner resides, this operation has ceased. As many of my negatives are yellowing (well, the scenes are yellow) I am dying to scan as many as I can before they deteriorate further, alas, I cannot! Door over a decade I have been shooting with a DSLR and whoa boy! Have I been shooting! While I started to play around with artistic photography along side my normal documentary shots before we had kids, it’s almost all shooting the family and the kids as they grow up. But I do not publish or post any of these. No one needs to be able to identify me kids. Thankfully, this is one area my wife and I do agree on. She has had some arguments with her siblings who want to post pics of their nephews and nieces. No faces if names are given. No names if faces are shown. The kids recently have joined a group that posts videos on YouTube of their activities. They are using assumed names though most others are using their own names. I think this is foolish and naive in the extreme, but it is their parents’ choice. Regardless of what the other parents choose, I do my beat to make sure the pics I take of my kids do not include the faces of other kids. Their parents have not provided me with permission to use their pictures.
You are comfortable having your likeness shared, I am not. I do not presume to tell you should not, but social media denies me and my family to some extent at least from being able to choose not to have our images shared online.
On the way home from my local station, I witnessed something that is see every time I use that station that fits into this discussion. One of the things that have long confused me was statements by other gaijin that the Japanese always follow the rules followed by a common example of “They never jay walk”. Why in the hell does anyone think the Japanese never jay walk? Drive around for a day and you will have this myth dispelled in short order. Yet, this belief persists. So, I gave this a lot of thought and observation. I think I know why.
Casual visitors to Japan go where? Down town Tokyo and other tourist areas. So I observed and noted what i saw in Tokyo. True, very very very few natives jaywalk in Tokyo. Not in business attire anyway. Yet, as I walk to my local train station, I could easily snap a pic showing a score or more Japanese jaywalking across a major thoroughfare; one of the great Kaido’s that connect the hinterlands withy the capital with a speed limit of 50 KPH but no one drives slower than 60 KPH on. What would that by, I asks meself.
When one accepts employment in Japan, we must sign an agreement that we will not engage in any activity that will embarrass our employer. A business man or woman, wearing the required company pin on their lapel would not be caught dead jaywalking near their company as they would likely be seen by a coworker or someone else who may say something bad about the managers of those employed by their company. However, near home, all are neighbors, far from their employers works sites and are just trying to get to works as quickly as possible.
Now, as a motorist jaywalks annoy me at best. In Japan, given the traffic law here, they infuriate me. But now let’s say I am a petty individual who gets a rise outta cause strangers grief. All I need to do is snap that pic and post it online. Now, their jay walking at home causes their employer embarrassment and they lose their job. As infuriating as they are to me, should they lose their jobs and thus their families over jaywalking? That is the power of camera equipped idiot phones paired with social media. It is also why I have never posted such an image, tempted though I have been to do so.
I do not know if you are old enough to recall life before the omnipresent cameras, but I am. Before the surveillance cameras debut, we did not consciously think about how free we were. It was only after seeing them, and the sign, “For your safety and comfort…” that I realized what we lost.
Here is an anecdote to add more color to the story. In the early to mid 90s I served aboard a US naval vessel homeported in Japan. One of my shipmates and I often shared our liberty time in ports of call together. My shipmate had a tendency to consume more adult beverages than his body could handle. Me being the photographer I was at the time, I have many photos of MM3 Drunkard bowing down to the porcelain God in various ports in the Far East. These pics are to this day in my photo albums of the West PAC cruises we took together. I have often joked that I could have an art exhibition titled “Machinist Mate Third Class Drunkard Praying to the Porcelain God in Various Exotic Ports of the Far East”. At that time though, even if I did so, viewership would be limited to those few who physically entered that gallery. I could, given I have a negative scanner, scan and post them on line now or just take a photo with my iPad camera and post them. But to do so would most likely require some malice on my part. But what if I had the same capabilities then as I do now? Would I, also in an advanced state of inebriation, thought not as great as his, had enough of my wits about me to not post those pics online at the time? I doubt it. I have a lot of pics taken while drunk over seas that when I got them developed and saw them sober asked myself what in the hell was I thinking when I took THAT photo. Well, I wasn’t thinking, I was drunk. What would be the result of me posting it online? At the least, I would have betrayed the trusts of a friend and at worst damaged the relationship he had with his fiancé and later wife, his in laws, his family and his future kids. That simply was not possible in the 90s to do. People today lack that filter. They can and do take damaging pics of themselves and friends and post them while incapacitated in some way and end up ruining lives. Then we have third parties documenting others at their worst and posting the evidence for the entire world to see.
Not sure if need to specify, but I'm very much with you in that every individual should have, to the most feasible extent, the option to not have their likeness needlessly spread. I also feel no need to, or even share my likeness publicly; not even as a profile picture in more public profiles. It was just my feelings regarding my own experience on others taking pictures around themselves.
Given my childhood being the woodlands without another house in sight I am well acquainted with a lack of CCTV. On the other hand, cameras (idiot cameras, not these flat ones with a phone function) have always been present to a journalistic degree. However, even before I hit double-digit age I were acutely aware of the restrictions busy-body adults wished to place on others for no good reason at all.
I'm not sure where that places me, but it's the best summary I can give you.
Maybe I haven't "drunk enough", but I've never gotten to that state of inebriation even with the "free" drinks hours of Japanese establishments. So I can't claim to see your perspective there. However, I would argue that there's some personal responsibility in not getting drunk, or high, to that degree and that is one of the underlying reasons for avoiding such a state.
There are various applications available for keeping the phone inaccessible to ones inebriated self. So at the very least the other self snapping inopportune pictures, and sharing the same, can quite easily be avoided.
The actions of secondary and tertiary parties doing the same is of course a different matter. But if someone can be ruined because they are proven to be human then I think we are back to talking about societal issues again.
I can just about imagine those pictures of MM3 being shown off akin to parents showing off early childhood pictures when friends are over for the first time. Sometimes we find the weirdest of treasures in our lives.
Yes, the activities and the people have not changed. What changed is that now, everyone can see almost everything. Yes, self censorship amongst strangers is always prudent, however, with social media coupled with cameras that can instantly send out photos the whole world can see changes things immensely, you are now always in the company of strangers, millions upon millions of them who can instantly see what someone you’ll never know posted of you.
As my student suggested, let’s say that a nonmember volunteer hurt themselves at one of the matsuri groups events, say cut herself while shredding cabbage. Before idiot phones and social media, we would express our genuine concern, get the first aid kit, dispose of the blooded greens, wash the knife and cutting board and she and we would make it right between us. Both parties would pad say everything is “Okay” and that would be the end of it. End of story.
Now, however, there is always some third party that will take a pic or quick video and post it online saying that it is “not okay”. Then what?
Before social media, if some one had a real complaint against a business, they may report it to the company first, then if not satisfied, the Better Business Bureau and possibly the local newspaper, who, if following any journalist principles, would contact the company for comment. The complained against would at least have the opportunity to fix the problem before getting bad PR. Not now. Disgruntled customers go straight to social media and bad mouth anyone they are displeased with for any reason. This has led to people taking long periods off work and even quitting the food service company whose servers I teach English to. The social media posting are visible for all to see, worldwide. The scale is immensely larger than before social media and so is the damaged, perceived and real.
As far as personal responsibility. I think it dilutes tremendously. How do you hold some idiot who posted something bad about you online? Recently there was a video posted of a big time businessman, in finance, I think, punching a young woman. Bad. Never hit the girl. However, I have also read reports that what was posted was just the end of a longer episode where he was attacked and he was fighting his way through the crowd. I do not know if that is true, but what if it is! He lost his job over it.
It’s the “Is Mr. Rabbit Stingy?”, lesson from my kid’s 5th year class.
As I see it, I would chalk these up to societal issues rather than issues with the tools available.
This focus on outrage, immediacy, the addiction to 5 minutes of fame, and the belief that disgruntled "customers"/"fans" are the ones that an organization should set the course for is what truly needs to be fixed.
The "journalists" of old media are also far from guilt-free when it comes to such opportune footage, as I'm certain you are well aware of.
Then there's these "journalists" doing theatrics and actively tampering with the scene, from smearing their bodies in charcoal & mud, or pretending there are strong winds, to posing corpses of children for "the perfect shot".
I'd rather take the camera guy in that classic "knife fight"-drawing having a camera in his pocket than leaving things up to a centralized power.
As an aside, the first page that I found for that drawing, above, has some interesting writing and comments. I had just about forgotten about Scientology, but apparently it's now recognized as an official religion by the US state.
""
The complained against would at least have the opportunity to fix the problem before getting bad PR. Not now.
""
This is a "path of least resistance" and immediacy issue. People simply do this because there's about as much effort behind it as making fists in your pockets and contacting the organization, understandably, takes time before a response is achieved so, thanks to people being trained that a response should be immediate, they take the third option of gossiping on the public square.
Actually, now that I put it like that. This way, with social media, the target gets to know about it early and deal with it, rather than just having the gossipers shush away when an associate draws close. It's just that organizations tend to over-react and are also afflicted with this same disease of an addiction to immediacy.
Yes! Social media empowers Karens and the rest of us are unable to counter them effectively
After pondering it for a while; karens has existed since the dawn of civilization. Once they felt comfy they got yappy. Simply attention whoring, clawing their way out of an existential crisis as cat ladies, pure boredom, or perhaps some gradient there amongst? Who knows their reasoning, if there even is such a thing as 'reason' hidden behind their outbursts.
Granted, dawn of civilization might be somewhat exaggerated, but at the very least we had karens banning toys at the playground long before I even entered kindergarten; before even Internet were commonplace. Cancelling TV shows over some brat in the US blaming his emotional outburst on it. Burning books.
So I'm not sure in what way you mean the karens has been empowered?
From what I've seen: social media hasn't really uplifted the karen, or helped her. It's more of an exposé. Through social media people have gotten to learn that it isn't just their backyard which is infested by these vile creatures. That people aren't alone, in small groups, in being opposed to their nonsense.
Before social media they instead waltzed into government offices and HR departments unbeknownst to others. Was that really better? To simply not know what they are up to?
We also now have faces to the category, such as the ever so elegant Trigglypuff (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trigglypuff), which has somewhat dissuaded more reasonable women from associating with the activity.
It also makes it a bit more bearable, I find, to know what sort of humorous qualities their ground troops hold.
Personal responsibility. Parental responsibility.
If people chose to uphold these core values rather than weather them away under the flag of "Think of the Children!", and its variants, then karens wouldn't hold any power. It wouldn't have gotten the chance to evolve into the trans-pan-pride flag of today.
So, rather. Government is the issue at the base of it, as it gives people the power to shape society no matter their contribution to society. Especially so in places like the US were you can just airdrop in new voters from abroad.
Yes, the neighborhood busy body has always been around, but until social media, their power was more more limited. Now, with one photo or short video clip than can destroy your career, relationships and chances for improvement in all areas and do so in a second and there is no recourse. Especially, if the one posting such stuff is someone unknown face in the crowd.
I suspect that few think of this, which as I said earlier, is part of the problem, but it was just so much freer to do anything before social media watching you all the time. I remember well the first time I saw an actual surveillance camera. It was in my college’s recreation center. Beneath it was a sign that stated, “For your safety on comfort, these premises are under 24 hour monitoring.”, or words to that effect. I did not comforted by that, nor did I even feel particularly safer either. It was and remains quite a chilling realization that I was being watched the whole time I was there.
I do see your points, however I'd argue the fault there is a society putting such weight with something so feeble rather than the tool being bad at its core.
Just like how I don't think it's worth getting rid of all guns just because some lunatic starts shooting up the street with guns, I also don't think getting rid of all social media is worth it just because some lunatic starts spreading lies with social media.
I'd also argue that whether it takes them a second or a week doesn't really matter when it destroys your life. "A week?" you may wonder? Well, in my experience at least, it takes at most a week for every rando in the neighbourhood to "know" you; as in random approaching with: "Hey Kim! Maybe you don't know me, but I know x, who knows y, who z, who knows you.".
Now, that's a benign, albeit weird, experience to give as an example. However, malevolent rumours spread just as fast, or faster in some circles, and, unlike with social media, can end up festering for a long time before you can even know of them or argue against them.
In addition, with access to social media you at least have a couple of platforms that allows you to tell your side of things. Compare that to before social media where old media had your life in their grasp if you rose to any sort of position.
For example, it is old media at the core of lies about Trump telling people to "consume bleach", the same media spreading lies about J6, the "summer of [fiery] love", nazi truckers.
Going beyond politicking; the main reason I see value in social media is for the prospect of free exchanges of ideas & knowledge.
Those "calming" CCTV signs are basically "I am from the government and I am here to help!". Yeah, no, I'm fully with you in regards to that CCTV nonsense.
With social media on the other hand, beyond the handful of karens and their associate virtue signalers, I don't think there's much extra to worry about. Most people are too busy using social media to prop up themselves, and have a very short attention span for what begrudges them.
In summary; my opinion: Social media is great for sharing & finding ideas & knowledge; while on the other hand, the negative aspects are already upheld by old media & the gossipers with social media adding onto little to those societal issues.
The comparison between social media and guns fail because if you also have a gun, you can stop a bad guy with a gun. Have it a social media account in no way helps you stop a bad guy with a social media account.
Social media has not protect against bad press. “Hands up, don’t shoot” did not happen, yet many still believe it did. After 7 years, Snopes finally admitted recently that T did not call Nazi’s very fine people. If any have changed their opinion on T after snopes made that correction, then social media didn’t set the record straight. If the snopes correction didn’t change anyone’s thoughts on T and against the media, then social media couldn’t. Vast numbers of people still believe that T colluded with Russia to steal the election, do not know that Hilary was found guilty and paid a fine for the pee dossier, that a high ranking official in the DoJ was found guilty of lying under oath on this same case and was sentenced to some jail time, that one of the lead investigators into Trump Russia collusion has been sentenced to prison for colluding with Russia himself, that a number of police were killed in the “deadly insurrection” on Jan 6th, have no idea about FATCA/FBAR nor CBT, all despite social media. To me, it does not seem to be carrying out the function you assign to it. Rush Limbaugh provided me with all the alternatives to the main stream media that I required. Social media provides me with almost zero.
And yes, rumors can cause havoc within one’s circles, bay rarely more than one circle and almost never all of them. My personal life and professional life are kept separate. A single pic uploaded to social media with me innocently in the background can easily upend my career, such that is left of it after the panic anyway. Likewise, and argument at work does not directly affect my personal life but it’s sure could if posted for the world to see. One of the many reasons for divorce during lockdowns is that married couples were forced to observe their spouse’s work demeanor and many were shocked at what they saw and overheard. That is not social media but it clearly shows what can happen when our professional selves are recorded for family and friends to see.
But the worst effect of all, is the constant self censorship of those who know to be concerned and the complete lack thereof of those who do not yet know to be concerned that somebody is always at the ready to film them at their absolute worst and post it online for the world to see.
We now have cameras in our classrooms at the medical school. I am not against cameras in the classroom and have never denied permission to those who ask to record a lesson or a part thereof. But to have them there at all times naturally triggers a greater level of self consciousness than is healthy to open discussion. It has a chilling effect, much like a wet blanket smothering a fire.
Love your new signoff. Soon we will look back on this time, regretting that we didn't fully appreciate what we still had before we lost everything.
I think we’ll regret the fact that we didn’t fight to stop it even more.
More time to work, so you can pay your taxes!
Welcome to the West!
Nice write-up! But, I will have to disagree on social media.
All social media has really done is unmask how gargantuan the population of narcissists are. Something that has been hinted at since the first drawing, and increasingly so with the all more omnipresent camera.
What really should change is how much people care for "outrage" and the business care for these same fake customers. At least, with social media, the playing field is a bit more level now.
Without it you would still have stuff like slut walks & pride parades. Except, even more people would be lulled into thinking it's accepted by the majority.
Social media also lies at the basis of actual journalism; while old "journalism" is openly pushing for, and exponentiating, all this Sei and Gomorra anyway.
Without social media parents in the US would still be non the wiser of the cancerous growth enveloping their school system.
Without social media the international truckers protests wouldn't have been a thing.
What should rather be asked is why people are letting the state & media be so lenient towards people like that Somali not a Somali, something, dude. Where's the "sei" there? I mean, beside his brain cell.
There's also something to be said of the state & media weaponising karens & immigration policy against the citizens.
Nah, society just needs a proper foot on the ground and a straight back.
While it is true that we would likely not know of the Trucker protest in Canada were it not for social media, we must also consider that social media was used to identify participants in the protest to freeze their bank accounts and cause them other grief. Jobs, employment and educational opportunities have been lost due to postings on social media made while a minor. Government agencies monitor social media posting for what their own nefarious purposes. Of course, there are the various forms of censorship employed on social media platforms themselves with a recent US Supreme Court decision that allows the government to continue to pressure third parties to censor you as long as they are smart about it and do not make it easy to identify by name the persons involved. Early in the panic, I was trying to discuss how the mitigation measures being discussed were counterproductive on Instagram. The WHO sent me a warning that I was spreading misinformation and all content on the subject disappeared from my Instagram feed. Someone warned me that for the upcoming election, unless you go into settings and specifically request it, political content will not appear in Instagram feeds.
Yes, we would be unlikely to learn of the Canadian trucker protest, but Canada would also not have gained the ability to frighten would be future protesters into silence over fear of losing access to their bank accounts. Social groups would not be terrified to recruit new members and thus die out. Employees would not be afraid to blow the whistle on obviously illegal activities that the State supports out of fear of what the Doctor and nurse whistleblowers in Texas are facing over their employer’s violation of a new States law prohibiting sex change procedures on minors. Social media is not like Big Brother, it IS Big Brother.
Sounds like you're thinking of specific platforms. More specifically the Facebook network by the sound of it?
I'm talking about the category of tools that is called social media, under which Substack also falls.
Regarding identification of the truckers; the socialists mainly used arrests, drone footage, police cameras, and their goons in state media to capture faces. Their social media activities added little in that regard.
On the other hand, everything being livestreamed did make it harder for the socialists to go Tiananmen 2.0 on the peaceful protestors.
The government censoring the Internet at large and the government using illegal measures against their opponents; such as J6, hate speech laws, freezing bank accounts, and shutting down their businesses, is an issue separate from the tool.
They are and they aren’t. Social media makes it easier to find out who was where and when. It alone is not used to do this, but it add greatly to this. At the very least, a social media post alerts them to where to start their poking around.
Ask yourself, if you are old enough, are you not glad that everyone didn’t have a phone and a camera when you were a teen or young adult? I sure the fauci am. I sure as hell would not have been able to enjoy life as did then knowing that everyone everywhere has a camera with the ability to immediately post photos online for the whole world to see. True, many of the young are blissfully ignorant of this, but that is part of the problem.
Most of my students are young women with most of my classes being at women’s schools or professions that are predominantly female, such as the nursing school I have long given my students a safety lecture. In recent years I have had to include warnings on the hazards of being in a video of photo posted online. Throughout the course, when a student says they went out drinking and from their classmates questioning it seems that they do not recall the entire night, I tell them not to worry. All they have to do is check YouTube and find out what they did as someone undoubtably posted a video of it. And sure enough, one of my first year female medical students went to a party and could not remember the whole night. A classmate, another female student, posted a video of her table dancing less than fully clothed.
Going back to my OP, groups that handle traditional Japanese festivals are afraid to recruit much needed new members over fear of social media postings.
That perhaps perfectly sums up the problem with social media; you either self censor yourself into a self imposed prison or you open yourself up to worldwide scorn, derision, victimization and or unwanted scrutiny by the authorities.
In Japan, where they have long been obsessed about how they appear to others, it is the self imposed straight jacket that they are opting for, and if this continues on the same tack, it is the death of society here.
I'd say how much you tie your social media to your real life personage is up to each individual. Someone unrelated writing down their phone number in a toilet booth isn't really my issue. Beyond my dislike for vandalism, but I digress.
I don't particularly care about others snapping photos. Perhaps because cameras and photo albums were a core thing in the family and I find great value in data hoarding. I do take issue with the government installing city wide networks of CCTV and enacting laws that force all data of all platforms above a certain size to be passed through their inspection centres.
True, women has liked taking pictures & videos of each-other in various states of undress & inebriation since they got their hands on their first camera. At least you don't have a large amount of early teens doing way worse, like they did back in the 90's. But I don't think that's a reason to get rid of a tool and forego personal responsibility.
Are the festival groups afraid to ban picture taking? Or is it the fear of getting complaints? I can't really see how it would be a greater fear than someone sending a message to old media. Are you sure they aren't just using it as an excuse to drop out because it's mendokusai?
Self censorship is something you generally do when interacting with unknown people in civil society, so I don't really see how social media is worse in that regard.
Some degrees of scorn, derision, victimization(?) is something you will always run into with other groups of mentality. At least with social media you can find like-minded individuals and build a network of support, if that is something you feel you need. On the other end of the spectrum you have growing up in a small town. If happens to trod on a landmine in that scenario, well, good luck.
The authorities will always become scrutinous of those rising in fame & power as it is a rivalry for power. But the tool you use to get there doesn't matter much. Letting the government get to a place where samizdat becomes a necessity is the underlying issue.
I very much agree that collectivism is an issue. I have seen some Japanese talk about and promoting individualism. Sadly, it also tends to come in close relation to DIE, or DIE-like mantra.
Kim,
Thank you for your comments. This is for me a most interesting and I believe important conversation you and I are having. You are compelling me to think and doing so further has me focusing on several aspects of this; self determination, spread or coverage, and choice.
You stated that you are not so concerned about photos or videos of yourself being posted online citing your family’s love of photography. I too am an abide amateur photographer, but my father was a professional cameraman. Until I joined the navy and went to see things I would likely never see again, I hated the field. It was my father’s thing, not mine. Despite this, he still succeeded in instilling some important lessons on the art. Amount these were the absolute need to get a signed model release before publishing any photo with anyone in it. Another was to never sign such a release except for very specific uses, as spelled out in the release and only with those I trust.
I take a bazillion photos. One of my greatest frustrations with the panic is that it has stopped my task of scanning my negatives into digital format. My wife still works from home due to the panic and as she works in the den, where my noisy negative scanner resides, this operation has ceased. As many of my negatives are yellowing (well, the scenes are yellow) I am dying to scan as many as I can before they deteriorate further, alas, I cannot! Door over a decade I have been shooting with a DSLR and whoa boy! Have I been shooting! While I started to play around with artistic photography along side my normal documentary shots before we had kids, it’s almost all shooting the family and the kids as they grow up. But I do not publish or post any of these. No one needs to be able to identify me kids. Thankfully, this is one area my wife and I do agree on. She has had some arguments with her siblings who want to post pics of their nephews and nieces. No faces if names are given. No names if faces are shown. The kids recently have joined a group that posts videos on YouTube of their activities. They are using assumed names though most others are using their own names. I think this is foolish and naive in the extreme, but it is their parents’ choice. Regardless of what the other parents choose, I do my beat to make sure the pics I take of my kids do not include the faces of other kids. Their parents have not provided me with permission to use their pictures.
You are comfortable having your likeness shared, I am not. I do not presume to tell you should not, but social media denies me and my family to some extent at least from being able to choose not to have our images shared online.
On the way home from my local station, I witnessed something that is see every time I use that station that fits into this discussion. One of the things that have long confused me was statements by other gaijin that the Japanese always follow the rules followed by a common example of “They never jay walk”. Why in the hell does anyone think the Japanese never jay walk? Drive around for a day and you will have this myth dispelled in short order. Yet, this belief persists. So, I gave this a lot of thought and observation. I think I know why.
Casual visitors to Japan go where? Down town Tokyo and other tourist areas. So I observed and noted what i saw in Tokyo. True, very very very few natives jaywalk in Tokyo. Not in business attire anyway. Yet, as I walk to my local train station, I could easily snap a pic showing a score or more Japanese jaywalking across a major thoroughfare; one of the great Kaido’s that connect the hinterlands withy the capital with a speed limit of 50 KPH but no one drives slower than 60 KPH on. What would that by, I asks meself.
When one accepts employment in Japan, we must sign an agreement that we will not engage in any activity that will embarrass our employer. A business man or woman, wearing the required company pin on their lapel would not be caught dead jaywalking near their company as they would likely be seen by a coworker or someone else who may say something bad about the managers of those employed by their company. However, near home, all are neighbors, far from their employers works sites and are just trying to get to works as quickly as possible.
Now, as a motorist jaywalks annoy me at best. In Japan, given the traffic law here, they infuriate me. But now let’s say I am a petty individual who gets a rise outta cause strangers grief. All I need to do is snap that pic and post it online. Now, their jay walking at home causes their employer embarrassment and they lose their job. As infuriating as they are to me, should they lose their jobs and thus their families over jaywalking? That is the power of camera equipped idiot phones paired with social media. It is also why I have never posted such an image, tempted though I have been to do so.
I do not know if you are old enough to recall life before the omnipresent cameras, but I am. Before the surveillance cameras debut, we did not consciously think about how free we were. It was only after seeing them, and the sign, “For your safety and comfort…” that I realized what we lost.
Here is an anecdote to add more color to the story. In the early to mid 90s I served aboard a US naval vessel homeported in Japan. One of my shipmates and I often shared our liberty time in ports of call together. My shipmate had a tendency to consume more adult beverages than his body could handle. Me being the photographer I was at the time, I have many photos of MM3 Drunkard bowing down to the porcelain God in various ports in the Far East. These pics are to this day in my photo albums of the West PAC cruises we took together. I have often joked that I could have an art exhibition titled “Machinist Mate Third Class Drunkard Praying to the Porcelain God in Various Exotic Ports of the Far East”. At that time though, even if I did so, viewership would be limited to those few who physically entered that gallery. I could, given I have a negative scanner, scan and post them on line now or just take a photo with my iPad camera and post them. But to do so would most likely require some malice on my part. But what if I had the same capabilities then as I do now? Would I, also in an advanced state of inebriation, thought not as great as his, had enough of my wits about me to not post those pics online at the time? I doubt it. I have a lot of pics taken while drunk over seas that when I got them developed and saw them sober asked myself what in the hell was I thinking when I took THAT photo. Well, I wasn’t thinking, I was drunk. What would be the result of me posting it online? At the least, I would have betrayed the trusts of a friend and at worst damaged the relationship he had with his fiancé and later wife, his in laws, his family and his future kids. That simply was not possible in the 90s to do. People today lack that filter. They can and do take damaging pics of themselves and friends and post them while incapacitated in some way and end up ruining lives. Then we have third parties documenting others at their worst and posting the evidence for the entire world to see.
Not sure if need to specify, but I'm very much with you in that every individual should have, to the most feasible extent, the option to not have their likeness needlessly spread. I also feel no need to, or even share my likeness publicly; not even as a profile picture in more public profiles. It was just my feelings regarding my own experience on others taking pictures around themselves.
Given my childhood being the woodlands without another house in sight I am well acquainted with a lack of CCTV. On the other hand, cameras (idiot cameras, not these flat ones with a phone function) have always been present to a journalistic degree. However, even before I hit double-digit age I were acutely aware of the restrictions busy-body adults wished to place on others for no good reason at all.
I'm not sure where that places me, but it's the best summary I can give you.
Maybe I haven't "drunk enough", but I've never gotten to that state of inebriation even with the "free" drinks hours of Japanese establishments. So I can't claim to see your perspective there. However, I would argue that there's some personal responsibility in not getting drunk, or high, to that degree and that is one of the underlying reasons for avoiding such a state.
There are various applications available for keeping the phone inaccessible to ones inebriated self. So at the very least the other self snapping inopportune pictures, and sharing the same, can quite easily be avoided.
The actions of secondary and tertiary parties doing the same is of course a different matter. But if someone can be ruined because they are proven to be human then I think we are back to talking about societal issues again.
I can just about imagine those pictures of MM3 being shown off akin to parents showing off early childhood pictures when friends are over for the first time. Sometimes we find the weirdest of treasures in our lives.
Yes, the activities and the people have not changed. What changed is that now, everyone can see almost everything. Yes, self censorship amongst strangers is always prudent, however, with social media coupled with cameras that can instantly send out photos the whole world can see changes things immensely, you are now always in the company of strangers, millions upon millions of them who can instantly see what someone you’ll never know posted of you.
As my student suggested, let’s say that a nonmember volunteer hurt themselves at one of the matsuri groups events, say cut herself while shredding cabbage. Before idiot phones and social media, we would express our genuine concern, get the first aid kit, dispose of the blooded greens, wash the knife and cutting board and she and we would make it right between us. Both parties would pad say everything is “Okay” and that would be the end of it. End of story.
Now, however, there is always some third party that will take a pic or quick video and post it online saying that it is “not okay”. Then what?
Before social media, if some one had a real complaint against a business, they may report it to the company first, then if not satisfied, the Better Business Bureau and possibly the local newspaper, who, if following any journalist principles, would contact the company for comment. The complained against would at least have the opportunity to fix the problem before getting bad PR. Not now. Disgruntled customers go straight to social media and bad mouth anyone they are displeased with for any reason. This has led to people taking long periods off work and even quitting the food service company whose servers I teach English to. The social media posting are visible for all to see, worldwide. The scale is immensely larger than before social media and so is the damaged, perceived and real.
As far as personal responsibility. I think it dilutes tremendously. How do you hold some idiot who posted something bad about you online? Recently there was a video posted of a big time businessman, in finance, I think, punching a young woman. Bad. Never hit the girl. However, I have also read reports that what was posted was just the end of a longer episode where he was attacked and he was fighting his way through the crowd. I do not know if that is true, but what if it is! He lost his job over it.
It’s the “Is Mr. Rabbit Stingy?”, lesson from my kid’s 5th year class.
As I see it, I would chalk these up to societal issues rather than issues with the tools available.
This focus on outrage, immediacy, the addiction to 5 minutes of fame, and the belief that disgruntled "customers"/"fans" are the ones that an organization should set the course for is what truly needs to be fixed.
The "journalists" of old media are also far from guilt-free when it comes to such opportune footage, as I'm certain you are well aware of.
Things like this:
https://www.demilked.com/media-manipulating-truth/
Then there's these "journalists" doing theatrics and actively tampering with the scene, from smearing their bodies in charcoal & mud, or pretending there are strong winds, to posing corpses of children for "the perfect shot".
I'd rather take the camera guy in that classic "knife fight"-drawing having a camera in his pocket than leaving things up to a centralized power.
https://www.sott.net/article/293593-Navigating-the-news-Or-how-to-cut-through-media-lies
As an aside, the first page that I found for that drawing, above, has some interesting writing and comments. I had just about forgotten about Scientology, but apparently it's now recognized as an official religion by the US state.
""
The complained against would at least have the opportunity to fix the problem before getting bad PR. Not now.
""
This is a "path of least resistance" and immediacy issue. People simply do this because there's about as much effort behind it as making fists in your pockets and contacting the organization, understandably, takes time before a response is achieved so, thanks to people being trained that a response should be immediate, they take the third option of gossiping on the public square.
Actually, now that I put it like that. This way, with social media, the target gets to know about it early and deal with it, rather than just having the gossipers shush away when an associate draws close. It's just that organizations tend to over-react and are also afflicted with this same disease of an addiction to immediacy.