Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 06-15-2020, 03:49 PM   #21
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

The fact that she was using the Twitter handle "Mortgages_YYC" says to me that she was using her account for business purposes and it wasn't just a personal account.

It becomes a different scenario if it was a personal account that didn't identify her employer or anything, but that's not the case here.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Old 06-15-2020, 04:05 PM   #22
Lubicon
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak View Post
The fact that she was using the Twitter handle "Mortgages_YYC" says to me that she was using her account for business purposes and it wasn't just a personal account.

It becomes a different scenario if it was a personal account that didn't identify her employer or anything, but that's not the case here.
That's a pretty important distinction at least in my mind. Good catch.
Lubicon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2020, 06:50 PM   #23
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Kind of funny she uses that platform to discuss her dear friend that's out of work and in the process pretty well ensures that she will be joining her dear friend on the unemployment line for some time.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2020, 07:17 PM   #24
squiggs96
Franchise Player
 
squiggs96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Section 203
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 81MC View Post
Not to mention, a lady like in this instance is more ignorant than hateful. What Has firing her done, besides illustrate that a stupid opinion means you should lose your livelihood and have your name dragged across the internet?

It says they'd rather have someone who embodies their values of being a decent person working with them, than someone who does not. I don't feel badly for someone who loses their job for speaking in hateful, racist, misogynist, etc. terms. They aren't forced into saying these things and they aren't forced to put them on social media for all to see. When people get fired for actions similar to Joyce's it gives an opportunity for someone who isn't a bag of turds to earn an income. Maybe it will make Joyce a better person. Maybe others will see what happened to her and either change their way of thinking, or at least stop posting it on social media. If it's the latter, at least people being targeted by the hateful words don't have to read it.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
Sorry if this is a stupid thread
squiggs96 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to squiggs96 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-15-2020, 07:26 PM   #25
Zevo
First Line Centre
 
Zevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada View Post
Kind of funny she uses that platform to discuss her dear friend that's out of work and in the process pretty well ensures that she will be joining her dear friend on the unemployment line for some time.
Even better if they hire a transgender person of color in a wheelchair to replace her.
Zevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2020, 09:16 PM   #26
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squiggs96 View Post
It says they'd rather have someone who embodies their values of being a decent person working with them, than someone who does not. I don't feel badly for someone who loses their job for speaking in hateful, racist, misogynist, etc. terms. They aren't forced into saying these things and they aren't forced to put them on social media for all to see. When people get fired for actions similar to Joyce's it gives an opportunity for someone who isn't a bag of turds to earn an income. Maybe it will make Joyce a better person. Maybe others will see what happened to her and either change their way of thinking, or at least stop posting it on social media. If it's the latter, at least people being targeted by the hateful words don't have to read it.
Almost perfectly said. If you’re using a business’ social media related platforms you are broadcasting their values. Obviously this behaviour is not aligned with said values. These are very important in business.

And even if you were using your personal twitter / social media, it’s very easy via LinkedIn or the net to track people back to their employer, and thus- same problem.

So I don’t blame businesses one bit for being highly sensitive to when their employees are out espousing things highly controversial or counter to their values- because simply put it can be quite damaging to their bottom line and cash flows.

Social media is not like chatting with a friend at the bar. A friend at the bar is one person. The internet is millions. This is not a hard concept. Maybe a better like for like would be if you stood on a street corner with a loud speaker yelling highly controversial statements in which case, yeah, you’d probably get fired too.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Old 06-15-2020, 09:50 PM   #27
Oling_Roachinen
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

I wouldn't even care if it was afterwork on a non-work related account. Tough luck. Take your severance and whatever else you may be legally entitled to and get out, the workplace owes you nothing more.

Like Kelly Pocha, the racist who told some Afghan-Canadians to go back to their own country, who was fired (and subsequently rehired....). Or Leipsic who's texts weren't meant to be public.
Oling_Roachinen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2020, 09:57 PM   #28
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Not really in relation to that topic but social media actually GMG and I think it may be actually ruining society completely. Here is one technology that I don’t think made life better for people overall.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2020, 08:55 AM   #29
Frankster
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Frankster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CALGARY
Exp:
Default

I use social like Twitter as a means of gathering information. I'm always the passenger as I can't drive. Driving somewhere and all of a sudden massive backups, hit up @660 traffic and @calgaryCommute to see if there's a reported reason.

Twitter also helped us get resolution with ENMAX a few years ago when our "customer service rep" was condescending at best.

I have Instagram because right now so many artists are doing Instagram Live shows from home.

I use Facebook to keep up with what's going on in my vast network of friends, and keep them up dated on my recovery process.

My rules of thumb are:
1. Will I be embarrassed if my Gramma reads this?
2. Will this affect my ability to find employment?

If the answer to either is Yes, it doesn't get posted
Frankster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2020, 09:27 AM   #30
MoneyGuy
Franchise Player
 
MoneyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Social media are fine when used smartly.

I use Twitter for news on subjects that interest me and Facebook to keep in touch with friends and because it’s important for my work.

I agree that social media are a negative for society. I miss the simpler, more respectful times.
MoneyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2020, 09:33 AM   #31
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

I officially have a bad ankle after rolling the same one for the third time in about 18 months last night.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2020, 09:37 AM   #32
mrkajz44
First Line Centre
 
mrkajz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Deep South
Exp:
Default

I'm convinced that history will look back on the social media age as one of the few times in history that the world actually got worse than continuing to get better. Social media has given awful people echo chambers and convinced them that their behaviour is okay.

As a society we've been pretty good at slowly becoming a better group of people by collectively supporting good people and shunning bad people. However, I feel social media has stopped that trend as its allowed all the bad people to get together and feel like it's everyone else that is wrong, not them. It's truly made the world a worse place.
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
mrkajz44 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to mrkajz44 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2020, 10:19 AM   #33
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44 View Post
I'm convinced that history will look back on the social media age as one of the few times in history that the world actually got worse than continuing to get better. Social media has given awful people echo chambers and convinced them that their behaviour is okay.

As a society we've been pretty good at slowly becoming a better group of people by collectively supporting good people and shunning bad people. However, I feel social media has stopped that trend as it allowed all the bad people to get together and feel like it's everyone else that is wrong, not them. It's truly made the world a worse place.
I think your post highlights the problem with social media, but not in the exact way you intended it to. Racists and bigots and overall terrible people have always existed, in fact, they are probably vanishing at a rapid rate if you look at the last 100 years and how far we've come. The biggest difference is that instead of existing in festering pockets, they're now more visible because everyone is somewhat connected. Those "echo chambers" have always existed, social media is just a different platform for them.

The problem is that human beings are not designed for this big of "a tribe." We're connected to many more people but in increasingly abstract or loose ways, so the important parts of having those connections are lost, because they're not real.

If we believe that social media is bad because it widens the echo chamber, we should also believe that it's good because it widens access to diverse opinions. A racist in hillbilly county USA has gone from having no access to a diversity of opinion to PLENTY of access to it. The fact that most people are more interested in reaffirming their beliefs than questioning them or accepting new information is not social media's problem, it's a problem of human nature.

We're still collectively getting better. There's zero logical argument against that. We're just more aware than ever of the state of ourselves. We can no longer feign ignorance which is actually the issue people are having with social media. We just know enough about the world that it can seem negative, but you have to measure it against the context of where we've been.

Last edited by PepsiFree; 06-16-2020 at 10:21 AM.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2020, 10:54 AM   #34
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
The biggest difference is that instead of existing in festering pockets, they're now more visible because everyone is somewhat connected. Those "echo chambers" have always existed, social media is just a different platform for them.
That's simply not the case, unfortunately. This isn't the way things have always been. There are a variety of factors at play, not just social media, but in the developed world you are less likely to interact with someone you disagree with than at any point in modern history right now. Physical mobility has led to people moving to be near people more like them at an alarming rate over the past couple of decades. Social media isn't just showing what was always there, it is exacerbating the problem significantly. It's no exaggeration to say that these platforms are designed to encourage motivated reasoning - that sort of positive reinforcement of existing views not only radicalizes people by driving them to more extreme places, but provides positive reinforcement, dopamine hits to get you to keep going down your own little ideological rabbit hole. That keeps you on the platform longer, which is the only goal of the algorithms that fill your facebook feed, or your twitter feed, or recommends you videos on youtube. Tristan Harris deals with only a few of these issues in this video but it's a must watch.



Social media's purpose is to exploit certain evolved weaknesses in human psychology to make money. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that that's bad for people individually and bad for society.
Quote:
If we believe that social media is bad because it widens the echo chamber, we should also believe that it's good because it widens access to diverse opinions.
Except that this is not how people use it. See my signature. And as noted above, most of the places people spend their time on social media are literally designed not to provide you with diverse opinions. They're designed to provide you with what makes you feel good, and makes you spend longer on their platform, and makes you come back to their platform. Diverse opinion doesn't do that. Reinforcing your cherished beliefs does. The only form of diverse opinion the algorithm is going to give you is going to be one designed to make you outraged, which will simply entrench you in your existing beliefs, because, again, that keeps you engaged.
Quote:
We're still collectively getting better. There's zero logical argument against that. We're just more aware than ever of the state of ourselves. We can no longer feign ignorance which is actually the issue people are having with social media. We just know enough about the world that it can seem negative, but you have to measure it against the context of where we've been.
I think this is naive. The world is getting better, but social media (and arguably the internet generally) isn't a force for good in it. People no longer "feign ignorance" - rather, more than ever, they're absolutely sure they're right about everything, especially on issues of morality. Doubt is weakness - what wins in this medium is being confident and unequivocal, preferably in condemnation of something.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2020, 10:57 AM   #35
Titan
First Line Centre
 
Titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Exp:
Default

And it brings the cockroaches into the light. That is also a good thing. They are exposed and it lets us know that there is still much to be done and not get complacent.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
You will be happier than a squirrel on a date with another, but sexier, squirrel, or a slumming mink with a squirrel fetish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
It's like losing a game of tic-tac-toe to a lobotomized chicken.
Titan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2020, 11:22 AM   #36
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

I'm not arguing that social media is a force for good, I said no such thing. I'm arguing that it is decidedly neutral (because it's technology, and technology can not be inherently good or evil, but should be measured equally by it's purpose, our use of it and by the potentials of its use), and the negative impacts of it are due to the negative aspects of human nature. Our inability to use social media for good is directly connected to the problem in human nature of tribe limitations. Basically, that the problems of social media are the problems of people, first and foremost. Social media is not "bad" or "evil" or "the problem" but our basic inability to handle it, is.

Much of what you brought up (increased mobility to less diverse locations, confirmation bias and dopamine hits for ideological affirmation, etc) I agree with, but social media is not the root cause of it. You're talking past me and selectively quoting (or reading) to make your point, not sure why. Example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
If we believe that social media is bad because it widens the echo chamber, we should also believe that it's good because it widens access to diverse opinions. A racist in hillbilly county USA has gone from having no access to a diversity of opinion to PLENTY of access to it. The fact that most people are more interested in reaffirming their beliefs than questioning them or accepting new information is not social media's problem, it's a problem of human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Except that this is not how people use it. See my signature. And as noted above, most of the places people spend their time on social media are literally designed not to provide you with diverse opinions. They're designed to provide you with what makes you feel good, and makes you spend longer on their platform, and makes you come back to their platform. Diverse opinion doesn't do that. Reinforcing your cherished beliefs does. The only form of diverse opinion the algorithm is going to give you is going to be one designed to make you outraged, which will simply entrench you in your existing beliefs, because, again, that keeps you engaged.
Where do I mention the design of the algorithm? I even go as far to say as most people are not interested in diverse opinions and more interested in confirming their already held beliefs. The point was access, and every SINGLE person on twitter has access to the same opinions as everyone else. But you must actively seek them out. Who decides the algorithm? You do. Who decides what you learn on the internet? You do.

Do most people care enough to? No. But excusing humanity for issues we could reasonably address on an individual level and blaming social media for making it worse because people have no interest in addressing the issue, is lazy. The issue is people.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2020, 11:28 AM   #37
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

You didn't watch the video... especially at 9 minutes, but watch the video.

You do not decide the algorithm. At all. The algorithm is smarter than you, and is designed to get you to watch things that will keep your eyes on the screen. As mentioned in that video (please, again, watch it), the majority of what people consume on these platforms is stuff that's pushed TO them.

I just think you are vastly underestimating the negative impact of the single-minded profit-seeking motive in this instance. It's just not "decidedly neutral".
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2020, 11:34 AM   #38
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
I officially have a bad ankle after rolling the same one for the third time in about 18 months last night.
hard as Christmas Candy
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2020, 12:08 PM   #39
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
You didn't watch the video... especially at 9 minutes, but watch the video.

You do not decide the algorithm. At all. The algorithm is smarter than you, and is designed to get you to watch things that will keep your eyes on the screen. As mentioned in that video (please, again, watch it), the majority of what people consume on these platforms is stuff that's pushed TO them.

I just think you are vastly underestimating the negative impact of the single-minded profit-seeking motive in this instance. It's just not "decidedly neutral".
I did watch the video, and both the 7 minute mark and the 9 minute mark address the point I'm trying to make. The problem is that our human minds cannot properly manage god-like technology, the problem is not "the god-like technology."

Again, you do decide the algorithm, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It is based on your actions and your choices and designed to predict what you'll most engage with next. But, in no way, does it stop you from ignoring the algorithm and selecting for yourself. In no way, does it stop you from changing the algorithm by making different choices.

You always have a choice.

Perhaps you're too focused on the role of Facebook or Google addressed in the video, which are not "social media" but companies with their own platforms that do dubious things with the information they collect. I fully agree with that. But Calgary Puck is also "social media," so is this place inherently evil and negatively impactful? Are we only served up posts we agree with?

Again, go back and read my initial post with the understanding that I'm talking about social media as a blanket technology, not Facebook, not Twitter, not Calgary Puck, but the concept of social media itself. The problem, again, is not social media, it's people. Everything wrong with specific social media platforms from the backend is based on the motivations of people, everything wrong with specific social media on the user end is based on the limitations of the human mind and our choices.

The algorithm, the design, everything you're presented can be overridden with one simple thing: choice. The problem is that we often choose not to, or make no choice at all. That can't be blamed on technology.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2020, 12:38 PM   #40
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
I did watch the video, and both the 7 minute mark and the 9 minute mark address the point I'm trying to make. The problem is that our human minds cannot properly manage god-like technology, the problem is not "the god-like technology."
But this ignores the fact that the god-like technology manages itself. It is a learning algorithm, the engineers at Facebook don't have their hands on the switch. Granted, it's certainly our fault at some level, in that human beings built it, but it is designed to play on the worst aspects of human nature. As Harris says in that video, it's not a mirror being held up to those worst aspects, it's an amplifier. And the reason it has become an amplifier was that it was designed to make money, and it turns out the best way to make money is to amplify those tendencies.
Quote:
Again, you do decide the algorithm, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It is based on your actions and your choices and designed to predict what you'll most engage with next. But, in no way, does it stop you from ignoring the algorithm and selecting for yourself. In no way, does it stop you from changing the algorithm by making different choices.
This is true, but it is designed to circumvent those choices, and to try to guide you in a particular direction. It's not agnostic about whether it makes the choice, or you do, in other words - it's designed to try to convince you not to make your own decisions. It is therefore not neutral. You can overcome the design if you really want to, I agree, but the design is in itself destructive.
Quote:
Perhaps you're too focused on the role of Facebook or Google addressed in the video, which are not "social media" but companies with their own platforms that do dubious things with the information they collect.
I don't agree at all with the statement that Facebook and Google (or more to the point, Youtube, which Google owns) are not social media companies. Maybe we have different definitions for that, but I think the common usage of that term would include both of those platforms.
Quote:
I fully agree with that. But Calgary Puck is also "social media," so is this place inherently evil and negatively impactful? Are we only served up posts we agree with?
Is vBulletin deliberately designed to promote moral outrage and conflict to keep people on the site longer? I don't think it is, but I guess I could be wrong and there could be some devious and subtle way that it is. Either way, I don't think it matters. Most peoples' use of social media isn't through forums like this one. I don't think it's necessary to demonstrate that every instance of social media is equally destructive, or destructive at all. All of the important ones are, to varying degrees and in various ways, and the insidious thing is that that's exactly why they are so popular.
Quote:
Again, go back and read my initial post with the understanding that I'm talking about social media as a blanket technology, not Facebook, not Twitter, not Calgary Puck, but the concept of social media itself. The problem, again, is not social media, it's people. Everything wrong with specific social media platforms from the backend is based on the motivations of people, everything wrong with specific social media on the user end is based on the limitations of the human mind and our choices.
Okay, but what you're really talking about then is a hypothetical social media platform that is designed solely to encourage the sharing of views and create interactions between people who couldn't communicate directly. If that is what the "concept of social media is", that concept isn't enacted in the real world.

I agree with you that the problem with the technology is its design, which is something that human beings chose (at least at first instance before it started learning and self-modifying). But I'm not sure that that gets us anywhere useful. The social media that actually exists in the real world, is available for us to use and widely is used, doesn't reflect some neutral conceptual ideal. What social media actually is, empirically, is harmful.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:49 AM.

Calgary Flames
2019-20




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016