TLDR: Mastodon is very white, male, status quo, global north, and designed in a way to limit its potential for use in social movements.
Mastodon feels very different from Twitter, deliberately. It is truly like Live Journal. It is about people who are happy with their social circle and who think of virality and discoverability as a problem. They just want to communicate with the people they know, and limit other things. Ironically, it is more like a private gathering than a public space.
The activist thing would be interesting to have a closer look at. I am somewhat sceptical of the claim, given that for example the impact social media had on the Arab spring protests was probably vastly over-stated. And in addition: not every internet mob is activism, even if participants might feel that way.
Social media very clearly has a huge impact on society nowadays, and activism relies on the ability to spread ideas to recruit people to a particular cause. Your attitude seems to be prevalent with the people of the background the author calls out.
That last part doesn’t seem like an argument and more an accusation. And for the first part, certainly, however for how many leftist activists i see only and how many people scream for society to “CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE” it has done nothing of the sort. Its huge impact is seen in specific areas, harassment of companies (employees) to deliver better products (bankruptcy), amber alerts, casual awareness of whatever the hell is THE thing we need to fight for… And yet nothing is solved becausr it’s an individual talking about paying attention to an individual and not giving applicable solutions, everyone loves Sophism apparently.
Your own argument is a form of sophism. The fact that people are still discovering how to use a new medium to effect change doesn’t reduce the importance of the medium in any way. Ultimately, ideas spread through people communicating with one another, and social media is one of the main means of communication today.
Been a while since i saw what i wrote, but if i remember correctly i called for the end of sophism by giving a solution, idk how tf that makes my argument sophist since a sophist would want an eternal argument, that’s all i’ll say here and thank you for your time.
Sophism is generally used to refer to an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid. The claim that social media is not a valuable medium for effecting change is not a sound argument.
The activist thing would be interesting to have a closer look at. I am somewhat sceptical of the claim, given that for example the impact social media had on the Arab spring protests was probably vastly over-stated. And in addition: not every internet mob is activism, even if participants might feel that way.
Social media very clearly has a huge impact on society nowadays, and activism relies on the ability to spread ideas to recruit people to a particular cause. Your attitude seems to be prevalent with the people of the background the author calls out.
That last part doesn’t seem like an argument and more an accusation. And for the first part, certainly, however for how many leftist activists i see only and how many people scream for society to “CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE” it has done nothing of the sort. Its huge impact is seen in specific areas, harassment of companies (employees) to deliver better products (bankruptcy), amber alerts, casual awareness of whatever the hell is THE thing we need to fight for… And yet nothing is solved becausr it’s an individual talking about paying attention to an individual and not giving applicable solutions, everyone loves Sophism apparently.
Your own argument is a form of sophism. The fact that people are still discovering how to use a new medium to effect change doesn’t reduce the importance of the medium in any way. Ultimately, ideas spread through people communicating with one another, and social media is one of the main means of communication today.
Been a while since i saw what i wrote, but if i remember correctly i called for the end of sophism by giving a solution, idk how tf that makes my argument sophist since a sophist would want an eternal argument, that’s all i’ll say here and thank you for your time.
Sophism is generally used to refer to an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid. The claim that social media is not a valuable medium for effecting change is not a sound argument.