If Facebook was just a neutral platform, then I might agree. But Facebook is very much a system and a company with a very active agenda. Essentially the product is not the software, but each person is the product. Their personal information, behavior, and engagement is being sold and fed to others for financial gain. And their behavior is being manipulated to maximize addiction and dependency.
I totally agree that social media can be used for very good ends as well. Every day, people use it to correspond with people all over the world, share hobbies, and learn new things. But I think a lot of those things were still happening before Facebook too. They just happened more on smaller private websites and Internet forums like this one.
One of the best alternatives for GooTube is LBRY, which is a decentralised open source service/ protocol based on block chain and bittorrent, which enables sharing of any type of media without it being subjected to central control/ censorship/ deplatforming:
It offers a native client, available for all desktop and mobile platforms, and a Web frontend:
Thank you for the responses. I just scanned through Wikipedia very long page about Facebook. I was surprised that so many people use Facebook for News apart from their own relatives and people they actually personally know face-face! It never even occurred to me to use it as a fairly reliable source of any other social news. ABC and Guardian are much better and obvious choice.
Yes, the company received lots of criticism, but it is an evolving communication medium, changing its conditions on use along its way as many other organisations have done. The page about Facebook at Wkipedia ends with a step n the right direction:
" Facebook announced in 2021 that it will make an effort to stop disinformation about climate change…"
Regarding the Facebook and algorithms manipulating peoples behaviour, I can’t speak for other people. All I have noticed is that when I, for example, visit Facebook page of ‘Birds in Backyards’ each day, the Facebook keeps on informing me about similar Facebook pages, as if trying to please me. When I stop for a few days messages diminish.
The algorithm behind it reminds me of what the Buddha said about human mind and what we can see that our mind habitually inclines to, in meditation and in daily life. MN19
“Whatever a mendicant frequently thinks about and considers becomes their heart’s inclination. If they often think about and consider thoughts of renunciation, they’ve given up sensual thought to cultivate the thought of renunciation. Their mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation. If they often think about and consider thoughts of good will … their mind inclines to thoughts of good will. If they often think about and consider thoughts of harmlessness … their mind inclines to thoughts of harmlessness…”
The Buddha’s advice is much more trustworthy than social media, and so I keep out of them except for practical use in my life. To try to separate truth from fiction about Facebook, and about other platforms just gets too complex, who knows the full truth about those companies intentions. Most people like me, don’t have the time for delving into that, so they use Facebook, since it is useful and free. So to give back some personal info for that service is OK. I may be a bit naive, but what harm have I done by using Facebook?
Choice is ours and so are consequences, and as adults we are responsible for our own choices. I believe that education in primary and secondary schools about attraction and dangers of social media platforms, and safe way to navigate in moderation and that is ‘good for oneself and others too’ is needed. It will prevent psychological injuries.
Excellent distinction. An app like WhatsApp, while proprietary, and evil in the sense that it harvests data about its users, selling it, at least sits neutrally, not trying to entertain the users beyond the messages they receive from their contacts. It has a pleasant UI, but it’s not embellished with ads (at least not internally), political messages, games, toys, and other distractions. It doesn’t try to be an all-singing, all-dancing entertainment platform. That’s where I draw the line of minimal acceptability.
It gets the job done fast, then gets out of the way. As a Buddhist monk, I need that, in a communications tool. Monastic culture strongly trains monastics to cut through and eliminate all such worldly fluff in their lives, in all the various dimensions of their life. Monastic culture often borders on ruthless, in striving for such efficiency in lifestyle. These values can be found on the Internet also, but they sure as heck won’t be found on the circus-like communication platforms of the world like Youtube.
I use Signal as my go-to messaging app, as it respects privacy, but for those 25%-or-so of my daily contacts who are unwilling to install Signal, I am willing to “fall back” to WhatsApp, for the privacy-challenged Buddhists who I know I need to talk to (and my idealism around privacy has no “landing place” with them, as it were).
I use the same communications network as all the Youtubers. It’s called the Internet. I’m on “team Internet”, not “team Youtube”, as it were. The Internet is an open platform, Youtube is not.
BTW: this very site you are posting on is also found on this same Internet. It’s trivially true that you are OK with the larger Internet as a whole, at least to some extent, since you posted here whatsoever.
The issue is choice. Looking for more ethical platforms doesn’t mean there won’t be Dhamma on YouTube. It’s about expanding the options. So that those who don’t want to use YouTube can still share and hear the Dhamma. YouTube Dhamma talks are not going anywhere. But hopefully, there will be more alternatives.
I respect every person’s ability to have an opinion, but some of the content on his video is just purely incorrect, and seems to adopt some of the COVID medical misinformation that is afloat. I am not sure why a seemingly intelligent person does not fact check their opinions, especially where a public health issue is concerned, but such is the psychology and politics of the times.
Agreed, and I respectfully suggested to him to post some links to back up his claims. I would appreciate this discussion not getting gravitated into Covid politics (as in, going OT). I was just pointing out that a senior Buddhist monk is venturing onto Odysee whatsoever.
And, also, so that if/when YouTube doesn’t want to share dhamma anymore, the dhamma isn’t all hostage on YouTube.
I personally think YouTube is currently amazing for my interests, including learning about history and Dhamma. But it was better for history content prior to 2016 when they took a swing with their unwieldy censorship tools, aiming at extremist and far-right content, missed it almost entirely, and began hitting people who make videos like, “Hitler: an in-depth history of how awful he was” or, “The Proliferation of Personal Firearms: its contribution to historical and ongoing conflict between ethnic groups in the middle east”. It was a relatively small thing: all anyone lost was money. But it was a shock to a lot of people’s system that reminded them how unreliable any one platform is.
It’s totally possible that social media platforms might take a clumsy swing at Sitagu Sayadaw and end up banning a large swath of monks. Or that the platform might shut down entirely. Or or or or.
There’s also the problem of not just the platform, but other agents on it. For example, for a long time now there’s been a problem where homophobic groups will buy ads on videos in the Queer community. Nothing as blatant as hate speech, but a 13 year old kid trying to figure themselves out watching a video titled, “Love Yourself” might get hit by an ad hinting at how “traditional lifestyles” are so wonderful.
Imagine if in five years there’s no way to opt out of your videos having ads, and Christians or some other group start using the same tactic. You sit down for a Dhamma talk and have to wait for the five minute lecture about your eternal soul to end first.
Right now, I really love YouTube for Dhamma talks. The same way the YouTube algorithm can send people down morally neutral rabbit holes (e.g. analysis of Chinese cultural influences on American children’s cartoons) or morally bad rabbit holes (e.g. conspiracy theories) it can and does send people down morally uplifting rabbit holes (e.g. Dhamma). But that may change.
These are good insights. I can’t be a hypocrite and argue for banning Facebook and YouTube, as I use these platforms to stay in touch with family ( as my extended family is on them routinely), and youtube has been a great archivist of Dhamma talks going back many years. Many a night I’ve been on youtube listening to a 10 year old BSWA/Sujato/Brahmali talk before sleeping. I suppose as a consumer, the old caveat emptor applies; I try to be mindful that these vehicles (just like other vehicles like my car or motorcycle) are useful, and at the same time, dangerous.
This brings up another issue with the following teachers get. Those with controversial views can’t share them. And then their followers won’t know about those views. I won’t stop watching Ajahn Punnadhammo’s talks after seeing the video in this thread. But if this is what he wants to say, I’d rather know about it. How else can we make informed decisions?
I’m curious to hear more from @Jhanarato and @Khemarato.bhikkhu , about what Open Source technologies they use to propagate Dahamma online.
I met Bhante Jhanarato briefly at Wat Buddha Dhamma (our overlapping time there was a short, but enjoyable week). Within the first half hour of meeting him, we figured out we both had Computer Science degrees, and strongly preferred Linux.
As to Bhante Khemarato, I’ve never met him in person, but so far it’s been great making his acquaintance here in this forum, and I know that we both run a Dhamma-focused website (his is here), using Jekyll as the underlying Content Management System. We both made that decision independently, before ever meeting each other! Neat coincidence. Or perhaps synchronicity.
Yes, great points. Not only does Youtube hold all the cards, as it were, but they get to change the rules of the game as they see fit.
I feel that any relationship with social media platforms is sort of like a relationship with a narcissist: from an acquaintance-level distance, they appear very Charming, Charismatic, and they are highly Confident in the goodness of their offerings. It’s only when you get closer to them, however, to a more intimate level, that the subtle badnesses are seen, making one want to get way from them (but always being in a poor position to convince others to do the same).
So the apologists of the world will always rush to the defence of Narcissists (and similarly Social Media platforms), because from their un-nuanced, non-intimate, non-expert view, many good services are indeed offered, and a facade of overall goodness is always carefully preserved.
This forum and the aforementioned website really are it.
I’m a big fan of incrementalism (minor improvements to what’s already working over starting something new) in most cases and especially so in software or social networking where “network effects” make something new particularly unlikely to succeed. “Revolution through evolution” is my motto, for whatever that’s worth!
The most important thing is to realize that we do in fact make choices, and there are consequences to our choices. It doesn’t just happen that we use Windows OS: we choose it, and we choose not to spend a few hours installing and learning Linux. It doesn’t just happen that we are on FB: we choose to be there, and if we think that there’s no other choice, it’s because FB has conditioned us to think that way.
Oh, one thing I forgot to mentioned before: get an adblocker. Break the business model. It’s ludicrous and lazy that our supposed innovative tech companies rely on shoveling endless quantities of crap around the world to pay for things. It’s terrible for humanity and the environment.
If you can, pay for news and other services directly. Be generous and support the livelihood of journalists, programmers, and others whose work you use.
Yes! In machine learning we have a saying: “garbage in, garbage out.” The same law of data governs your brain. Be mindful of what media you’re consuming and what effect it has on you.
Especially local news! It’s a great way to escape the doom and gloom of national politics and is a vital part of democracy: you can have a bigger impact on local issues than international ones.
AdBlockers are a good start, but the better way to “break the business model” imo is through public policy.
We need stricter regulations (and better enforcement of existing regulations!) on internet advertising, media companies, data brokers, etc, etc… we also need governments to support the arts, local libraries, journalism, etc. Imagine how many good, open source alternatives would exist if we had government grants for open-source software or even a UBI? We could even nationalize Facebook or run it like a public utility, barred from profiteering. There are many alternatives to unfettered capitalism: we just need a little more imagination and will.
