I believe that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Snapchat have a positive impact on the world. Here’s why.
The Original Post
https://steemit.com/sndbox/@steeminator3000/i-hate-every-aspect-of-social-media
In the above post, fellow Steemian and 
Steeminator makes a few points in his post:
(1) Social media encourages people to fake a better life than they really have. People act like their lives are perfect, but it is a lie - and it makes us feel inferior (or just is lame to be a part of.)
(2) Content on social media is no better than cable TV.
(3) Steemit is different because the incentives are better.
Let’s look at all three of these… because to be honest, I think social media is an incredibly good thing.
(1) Social Media Encourages People to Fake a Great Life
It is undeniable that people use social media to show a glamorized version of themselves. Vacations and fancy dinners get a disproportionate share of the screen time, while boring days at work are swept under the rug.
This brings to mind a great Henry Rollins quote… You aren’t stupid, are ya?!
“Perhaps you’ve thought to yourself.. that is so fucking weak. What a bunch of sellouts. I hate their guts!” […] “Of course the ad is trying to sell you something you don’t like […] but you aren’t stupid, are ya?”
Henry is talking about the idea of bands “selling out” by letting their songs be used in commercials, but a similar idea applies to social media. Sure, you may see a few friends posting bullshit to pretend they have a better life. But…
Why are you friends with so many bullshitters?
If you cultivate a great group of friends, you won’t encounter so much garbage. My social media streams are mostly full of legitimate content from people who I want to hear about. I see my friends going on tour, I see my grandma starting a new business in her 70’s, I see my mom graduating from hairdresser school to begin an exciting new career.
None of this is fake or bullshit - I know it’s the real deal! If somebody is going to post a bunch of photos of themselves flexing at the gym or whatever, I will unfollow them.
Social media helps me stay connected with people who I otherwise might never see. My grandma lives halfway across the country, but I get to see much more of her life thanks to Facebook. My brother also lives far away, and is terrible at responding to texts, but uses Snapchat regularly and so I get to talk to him daily through there.
The list goes on and on…. and even if there’s some annoying advertisements, I am happy to ignore those in favor of the increased connectivity with my family.
Content on Social Media is No Better than Cable TV
Honestly the same argument from the last segment applies here… why are you following so much crap?
I see tons of rad content on my YouTube feed - that’s right, youtube, let the hate-mail commence - that I would never be able to see on cable. Yesterday I watched a brilliant lecture by Peter Thiel, one of the tech world’s most visionary investors and entrepreneurs:
Soon after that, I relaxed with some more casual content. One of my favorite music reviewers is an entirely independent creator, promoting DIY music, veganism, political activism, and more. His form of content would have never had a chance if YouTube hadn’t existed in 2010 when he started - and this was before ANY blockchain video services had emerged to provide an alternative.
Nowadays, I would like to see a YouTube alternative as much as the next guy… but the only one that offers a viable final product right now is vid.me, and that is equally centralized, just a different group of people in charge. Still waiting to see a good app that can actually compete with YouTube on more than ideological grounds (i.e. one that can host videos reliably at all) //(and I suspect that LBRY will be the blockchain to do it - more on that in another post)
You get the point. Even on Twitter, as crazy as it may sound, there is some deep thought-provoking content. In fact, I regularly debate blockchain with people who are WAY above my pay grade over there. If Steemit is great thanks to monetary incentives, then Twitter is great thanks to intellectual incentives.
Steemit has smart people too - but money warps things in a certain direction. Twitter’s lack of financial incentives are useful in creating a purely intellectual platform for rational debate. Which brings me to point #3:
(3) Steemit is Better Because the Incentives are Different
Steemit is incredible. I spend 20+ hours here, perhaps 30-40 hours, every week. So that’s something I want to say up front.
But I would rephrase this point. I’d say: Steemit is different because the incentives are different.
Money is not a purely positive influence on a network. Here are a few of the bad sides of a financially incentivized network:
(1) Greater incentives for spam commenting and fraud.
(2) Higher barrier to entry due to funding accounts (HF20 will help with this)
(3) More risk - as you accrue SP, you become a target for hacking both here and on your other banking accounts.
Of course, it’s all worth it. Steem is the birthplace of many amazing initiatives. When I first joined Steem, the Curie project’s support showed me that I could earn a new income stream as a musician. This place is why I don’t have a boss right now - it’s at least 50% of my freelance income.
But not all networks benefit from monetary incentives. Do 140 character tweets need to generate income? I’d argue no, absolutely not. The tweet format is a great way to discuss and to build your network. Money is an awkward fit for the format.
I expect this to be a controversial point - and I have a lot more thinking to do about it. If you are looking for some spirited debate, definitely give me your arguments against this idea in the comments.
Final Thoughts
I’d like to thank Steeminator3000 for his great posts and involvement on the Steem platform. He’s an awesome guy and I am proud to be a member of
Now it is your turn. What do you think about social media? Let’s keep this conversation going in the comments.