I’m seeing one too many people blaming social media for this and social media for that because it’s just simply - social media. I think about this because I believe that you shouldn’t blame the tool because it is a tool, but blame the person who uses the tool for their intent.

Which means I’m on the side of the camp that actually knows lots of people abuse social media and has it demonized. It’s absolutely silly to just blame a concept or an idea for just being as is. So everyone else is going around blaming and blaming social media for their problems. Not too much the individuals that have contaminated it with their empty-brained existences.

And we all know that some of the more popular social media platforms are controlled by devoid-of-reality sychophants in Zuck, Spez, Musk that sways and stirs the volume of people on their platform with their equally as devoid ideas in how to manage.

Social Media, whether you like it or not, has a use. It’s a useful tool to engage with eachother as close as possible. Might be a bit saturated with many platforms to choose from.

But I just think social media being blamed for just being as is, is such a backwards way of thinking.

  • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
    0·
    30 days ago

    Believe it or not, this is not a necessity of human nature. It’s just your society that’s fucked up.

    Do you look at the prisoner’s dilemma and conclude that cooperation is the obvious answer?

    • aasatru@kbin.earth
      0·
      30 days ago

      The prisoner’s dilemma depends on the fact that the two prisoners cannot cooperate. If you allow information to flow between them it’s literally not a dilemma any more.

      So yes.

      If you mean cooperation with the police, how the hell did you derive that from my text?

      • aasatru@kbin.earth
        0·
        30 days ago

        I should also add that the prisoner’s dilemma is only a dilemma when it is played in only one round. Once it becomes a game of several rounds cooperation arises as the dominant strategy.

        Then again, I’m not sure how the prisoner’s dilemma is relevant here in the first place, I just thought it was a funny point to make.

        • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
          0·
          30 days ago

          only a dilemma when it is played in only one round.

          There is no fixed solution for the repeated case:

          in such a simulation, tit-for-tat will almost always come to dominate, though nasty strategies will drift in and out of the population because a tit-for-tat population is penetrable by non-retaliating nice strategies, which in turn are easy prey for the nasty strategies. Dawkins showed that here, no static mix of strategies forms a stable equilibrium, and the system will always oscillate between bounds

          (1)

          • aasatru@kbin.earth
            0·
            30 days ago

            For cooperation to emerge between rational players, the number of rounds must be unknown or infinite. In that case, “always defect” may no longer be a dominant strategy. As shown by Robert Aumann in a 1959 paper, rational players repeatedly interacting for indefinitely long games can sustain cooperation.