Is social media shaping world politics and is populist agenda now more important than democrasy?

raduv1

Distinguished Member
Bit heavy for general chat I know , putting this in P&E where members own personal agendas are rife and to the fore was not the place as I wanted a more ( good luck ) measured approach .

It's simple really , has social media overtaken political debate ? Is it now so powerful that it is used as a weapon for influence and power over debate and discussion and more importantly the truth .

It is a powerful tool , to powerful perhaps where regulations and oversight are lacking for the clicks and clicks only as that free speech we crave and live by =advertising revenue for social media , so why regulate it , right ?
 

raduv1

Distinguished Member
This IS a P&E destined thread I’m afraid
Yup I know , could the forum mods give it a lil chance for a wider audience as at its heart it is social media first over politics .
 
In my opinion social media is more immediate in nature, but not that different compared to sharing opinions and writing into news papers, and how news papers had the power to lobby and spread opinions.

There have always been platforms to share opinions and discuss topics; be it in societies, speakers corner, talks about foreign travels, even news in cinemas.

Instant acces and global reach are different, but the rest including the opinions is not that different I think.
 

raduv1

Distinguished Member
In my opinion social media is more immediate in nature, but not that different compared to sharing opinions and writing into news papers, and how news papers had the power to lobby and spread opinions.

There have always been platforms to share opinions and discuss topics; be it in societies, speakers corner, talks about foreign travels, even news in cinemas.

Instant acces and global reach are different, but the rest including the opinions is not that different I think.
That is ok but a certain POTUS uses it as an official mouthpiece for the WH that the WH then backs up as policy ?

How can one have disscussion on social media when the one posting holds all the cards in the deck ? How can one engage in discussion when it is blocked from you for disagreeing ? but that message remains out there to be used ?
 

The Dude

Distinguished Member
What you're describing is no different to before we even had social media.

Before twitter politicians used television, before television they used newspapers, before newspapers they used cannonballs.

It's not so bad, considering. :)
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
I think Social Media is a double edged sword. On the one hand it is great that information can be distributed easily and seen by all (most) without it being unfairly blocked.

But on the other hand it has become so powerful that it can be used to bully and scare companies, organisation and governments into directions that are not always sensible.

Cheers,

Nigel
 

raduv1

Distinguished Member
What you're describing is no different to before we even had social media.

Before twitter politicians used television, before television they used newspapers, before newspapers they used cannonballs.

It's not so bad, considering. :)
I don't agree as people now only listening to " his masters Voice " using social media to activly suppress news outlets that disagree as being fake news .

I'm not talking party politics here or biased news outlets that indeed do have regulations to follow .

Without regulation, social media has become real weapon for only one voice .
 

The Dude

Distinguished Member
Stop listening then. :)
 

Robbowal

Distinguished Member
The problem with social media is there is no filter on it, its a pure brain fart moment thrown out to the whole world and when its said there is no unsaying it.
I was always told before sending any e mail get up walk away and come back 5 min later and re read it before sending it out (this has saved my bacon on more than one occasion, angry emails cost jobs)
The other issue is it causes a lot of false bravado, think mobile keyboard warriors (i have more followers than you so your opinion doesn't matter types) and as has been said before it gets used as a rock to bash companies into submission even when said company may be in the right, they have to bow down to save face that very instant, and even then the will get lambasted for doing so by others.
 

raduv1

Distinguished Member
Stop listening then. :)
It becomes news and for good or bad the starting point of said news. How does one not listen , we both be discussing it here and now , ain't we ?

Is total apathy the choice ?
 
That is ok but a certain POTUS uses it as an official mouthpiece for the WH that the WH then backs up as policy ?

How can one have disscussion on social media when the one posting holds all the cards in the deck ? How can one engage in discussion when it is blocked from you for disagreeing ? but that message remains out there to be used ?
What you're describing is no different to before we even had social media.

Before twitter politicians used television, before television they used newspapers, before newspapers they used cannonballs.

It's not so bad, considering. :)
Exactly, and unlike the olden days with social media you can actually instantly respond.

So @raduv1 i wholly disagree when you suggest it is blocked from disagreeing. On the contrary, that is fully possible, totally public, and you can instantly link a counter campaign. That really wasn’t possible for most ordinary folk before social media was there.
 

raduv1

Distinguished Member
Exactly, and unlike the olden days with social media you can actually instantly respond.

So @raduv1 i wholly disagree when you suggest it is blocked from disagreeing. On the contrary, that is fully possible, totally public, and you can instantly link a counter campaign. That really wasn’t possible for most ordinary folk before social media was there.
How can one respond to a a random Twitter post when the major news outlets are blocked from doing so ? We even have this social media aspect in real life with the Prez saying I will not take questions from fake news outlets .

Do you not feel social media needs some or any type of regulation? Or is free for al free speech l good for us and good for democracy ? I'm not feeling the latter mate but I can be enlightened.
 
How can one respond to a a random Twitter post when the major news outlets are blocked from doing so ? We even have this social media aspect in real life with the Prez saying I will not take questions from fake news outlets .

Do you not feel social media needs some or any type of regulation? Or is free for al free speech l good for us and good for democracy ? I'm not feeling the latter mate but I can be enlightened.
You can tweet as much as the POTUS can. Nobody is stopping you. Perhaps I’m missing a point here.

Perhaps it is useful for the discussion to highlight what kind of regulation you’d welcome. I think normal laws apply and no further regulation is required.
 

raduv1

Distinguished Member
You can tweet as much as the POTUS can. Nobody is stopping you. Perhaps I’m missing a point here.

Perhaps it is useful for the discussion to highlight what kind of regulation you’d welcome. I think normal laws apply and no further regulation is required.
I can and you can as is the point of the thread, we have moderation on this very forum so members can not abuse or offend . No regulation on social media leads to targeted tweets have an appeal for effect and impact on the population. My point exactly in has social media overtaken politics for populist agenda over democraticly ? You seem to unwillingly agree but are ok with it ?

We are all way to smart on this forum to be led ain't we , way way to smart :D.
 
I can and you can as is the point of the thread, we have moderation on this very forum so members can not abuse or offend . No regulation on social media leads to targeted tweets have an appeal for effect and impact on the population. My point exactly in has social media overtaken politics for populist agenda over democraticly ? You seem to unwillingly agree but are ok with it ?

We are all way to smart on this forum to be led ain't we , way way to smart :D.
I’m not so smart obviously as I honestly don’t get the point you are making. There are laws in place of what you can publicly say, are you suggesting it isn’t enough?

Many social media companies like Facebook and Twitter have very large teams dedicated to reviewing and protecting the vulnerable as well. On our telegram channel we employ specific moderators to moderate what we want and think is acceptable on our channel in addition to the law.

Can you please explain as to what regulation you’d actually like to see. I really think that would help bring your point across and maybe I’d even agree with you. For now I don’t see the need.
 

raduv1

Distinguished Member
I’m not so smart obviously as I honestly don’t get the point you are making. There are laws in place of what you can publicly say, are you suggesting it isn’t enough?

Many social media companies like Facebook and Twitter have very large teams dedicated to reviewing and protecting the vulnerable as well. On our telegram channel we employ specific moderators to moderate what we want and think is acceptable on our channel in addition to the law.

Can you please explain as to what regulation you’d actually like to see. I really think that would help bring your point across and maybe I’d even agree with you. For now I don’t see the need.
Do you really believe this ? or is it just a generic response to agree to your own needs ?

Does Twitter FB and other social media outlets have to comply to the latest and deserved News media outlets ? Does not social media have a powerful unregulated voice ?

You ask what regulation is needed , this is what saddens me as for many none is needed even at the highest level . It's almost that we encourage it and want it and live for it .

If one does not feel the need for social media regulation is it the true bastion of free speech ? As such it can not be used or indeed abused ?
Hmm I'm even more engaged and interested in how it can not be . Enlighten me please :)
 
This is getting circular, until you actually provide a point that is debateble; I.e. you keep on repeating you want regulation but you aren’t staring at all what you want the regulation to do. Then I’m out.

It’s pointless discussing this when existing laws are already there. Both the companies and law enforcement teams monitor and act, but you still want this mythical regulation whatever that may entail without stating what you think it should entail.
 

The Dude

Distinguished Member
I’m not so smart obviously as I honestly don’t get the point you are making. There are laws in place of what you can publicly say, are you suggesting it isn’t enough?
I think? @raduv1 point is that he's not allowed to comment directly on Donald Trump's tweets and obviously that's undemocratic? :D
 

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
I'm not sure I understand the question posed in the thread title.

Populist agenda is democracy. Or rather, democracy is implemented populist agenda.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
An example, in my opinion of the not so good side of social media.

Jamie Oliver's 'jerk rice' sparks debate

Now I actually think Jamie Oliver is a giant knob and quite funny that some snowflakes have ganged up calling him a racist.

But seriously this is the power of social media gone too far.


And also recently.

“Hooray, Disney have a gay main character in the new film, Jungle Cruise”
“Oh no, it’s played by Jack Whitehall, he’s not gay, why isn’t it played by a gay actor”
and then
“Oh no, I’m not so bothered about the casting of Jaack Whitehall, but the role is stereotyped, very camp and mincing”

Okay , I have a few problems with this. Okay, he isn’t gay, but that is what acting is about. Shouldn’t we be letting anyone play any role. Or are we saying that gay actors can only play gay roles.

It’s wrong to stereotype gay people - well they should get rid of Alan Carr, Julian Clarey, Paul O’Grady, Graham Norton etc. plus ban every gay pride event - because you can’t get more stereotyped than any of those.

And finally, it is a Disney kids film. There isn’t much sexuality shown by any characters. So if their isn’t going to be romanace, kissing, flirting or full on rumpy pumpy how on earth do you show that someone is gay. In most Disney things all of those things are taboo, in most cases we have no idea whether the characters are hetro, gay, bi, or something else. There is no need the story doesn’t require it. And that’s the whole point isn’t it in most walks of life you just can’t tell either way. So how is Disney supposed to present a character as gay in a Disney film.


Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
But there is plenty of romance in Disney kids films, from Snow White onward. Two gay characters could even kiss, but if that's still a bit too much for sensibilities, they could certainly have a romance and live happily ever after.

There was a pretty awful Jerry Lewis comedy years ago called 'Cinderfella'. That wasn't gay, of course, but I'm just saying ...
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG SN7CY Soundbar Review, Hisense 55U7Q, LG Nano90, Best of the Month, B+W Sigourney Weaver

Trending threads

Latest News

Sky comedy panel shows back to film new series
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Polk launches MagniFi 2 soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung pulls out of IFA 2020?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 28th June 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
LG Soundbar UK prices and availability for 2020 confirmed
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom