If you want an example of "inside the bubble" it's thinking any of the social media channels, private or not for profit represent a realistic cohort of community engagement comparable to "the people have spoken"
It's some people, sometimes, in some contexts, saying some things which go to opinion. It's no better or worse than a radio or TV "vox pop" and equally biassed. Or that eternal source of truth "the man in the street you met in the pub that time" or a taxi driver.
I think it's social cancer and I regret ever participating and taking it seriously. It certainly caused me harm, to my own sense of self and to personal relations and trust.
Do yourself a favour and drop out. By all means stay if you enjoy it, but at least drop out of any belief and claim its a true expression of public views in the wide.
Your argument appears incomplete. Either there is some method of obtaining "a true expression of public views in the wide", in which case: What is it?
Or there is no such method, in which case: Why do you specifically advise to drop social media channels? What makes them less valuable as a method of gauging public views than, say, talking to a taxi driver, or an opinion poll? You are suggesting that I drop every belief that each one of these parts accurately represents the whole, but then why specifically ask us to drop out of one of these methods over any other?
Nothing makes them less valuable. They're mostly just as valuable. The problem is belief they're more representative, more "real"
I advise to drop because of cumulative deleterious effects on my mental health and real world social relationships. Some people may have more resilience. I think most people become trapped in mostly narcissistic behaviour.
Most people just don't want to shout things, and the ones that do are a tiny unrepresentative minority. Imho it's that simple, and has been from the get-go
What you say just seems to be a general property of humans exchanging information. Not an intrinsic problem to social media.
Where can we find "A true expression of public views in the wide"?
I've been using social media all my life and for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives.
I never believed it should be my sole source of information just as much as gossiping or talking to my hairdresser shouldn't be my sole source of information. If I want to have a nuanced opinion.
Good outlook. You weigh it comparable to other channels. Media at large places greater weight on it, what's said on it, and it's relative importance.
If we treated all tweets as comparable to spitballing over drinks or hairdresser gossip the world would be a better place.
I am unsure there is any true expression of popular sentiment, ever. My problem again here is inflated beliefs to Twitter as reflective of some wider community view. Quite apart from being anything but random sample, it's riddled with both bots and trolls.
Perhaps I have a weak line of argument. It does cause widespread harm, if not to you certainly to others. At root it shouldn't matter. But, it seems it does. It's like dope. Why all the furore when mature reasonable adults can self police their use and avoid trouble? It's everyone else, who overdo it, who become lost in psychosis, who turn to crime. Sure, decriminalise it. But... look how the Dutch are saying it's far more complex than just open slather. I chose dope as a comparison because it's absolutely not addictive in strict sense and is most definitely socially habituated, as twitter is.
Society isn't better because of social media. Maybe you're OK. Society at large isn't.
Would you eg say teenage girls are not at risk? That people with mental health issues are not at risk? Not that it defines it as "ban it now" but "where's the harm" seems disinegenuous. There's harm. How much, what remediates, unclear. For me, it's avoid. You differ.
I might add my immediate family is also split on this. So I don't believe I am in the majority on this.
Would you eg say teenage girls are not at risk? That people with mental health issues are not at risk? Not that it defines it as "ban it now" but "where's the harm" seems disinegenuous. There's harm. How much, what remediates, unclear. For me, it's avoid. You differ.
Every piece of information that is transmitted between humans carries the risk of harming someone.
I genuinely believe that society at large is better due to social media.
It's some people, sometimes, in some contexts, saying some things which go to opinion. It's no better or worse than a radio or TV "vox pop" and equally biassed. Or that eternal source of truth "the man in the street you met in the pub that time" or a taxi driver.
I think it's social cancer and I regret ever participating and taking it seriously. It certainly caused me harm, to my own sense of self and to personal relations and trust.
Do yourself a favour and drop out. By all means stay if you enjoy it, but at least drop out of any belief and claim its a true expression of public views in the wide.