Oh noez social media

This blog is my sole footprint on "social media" and it is decidedly antisocial, as is its proprietor. I never got onto Twitter; I bailed OkCupid and Facebook (and soon enough Firefox) over fake-marriage. I keep hearing from every side about Social Media Toxicity. I tend to agree... for the individual who doesn't rely on it for a living. As whether this is good or bad for the Aristotelian Citizen however -

Still, one side in particular made a lot of noise about Cambridge Analytica. This trended the same side as who used to blame the Russians for how the 2016 election went here - although the former were quite coy about their own den(ial)ibility. Turns out the story was crap. Just like the Russian Collusion story.

"Not Even Wrong", some might say. Dr Peter Woit didn't stick to his knitting. But don't ask Woit about this BBC piece (nor about his postelection slander Julian Assange and Wikileaks, quite likely fronting for Russian secret services); he's moved on to The Social Dilemma. That one's also being hit but by the time Woit gets around to it, he'll have moved onto the next great windmill.

Want to know why a lot of people don't trust The Science^TM anymore? Much of that is because of scientists like Woit meddling outside their lane and doing it with lies. Also his not-so-implicit critique of the means by which dissidents get their message out via Non Approved Channels and, by extension, of anyone disagreeing with the Holy Word Of Woit generally.

As for social-media as a phenomenon: We in Gen-X remember when the VHF channels went unquestioned, especially before talk radio. Manufacturing Consent, the saying went. The problem isn't social-media as such and it is certainly not groups like Cambridge Analytica occasionally getting in on it.

The problem is... well, the problem is Woit. The problem is monopoly gatekeepers and their apologists. I'd say the best way forward is for these companies to be broken up. The madder Woit gets, the better we get.