Interesting. I wonder if this is why people's accounts get cloned.
I do remember when you used to watch TV and you weren’t warned about things. If you didn’t like them you turned off.
Did you know you can still be friends but not have to see what they put up?
I have a few friends like that. One in person is the kindest, most thoughtful chap you can meet but on FB has fallen down the Antivaxx rabbit hole. Others whom I know are straight up and likeable just repost any old bollocks, especially specious "wasn't it all wonderful before the foreigners and equality laws ruined it" type posts. I'm sure we all have a soft spot for George & Mildred but that doesn't mean we also miss National Front rallies or "My Next Door Neighbour Isn't White".
Oh yeah I missed the important word. Shame you can ignore/unfollow some people in the real world.Yep, that's what I meant by "unfollowing" above. Maybe it's called something else. I like the straightforward use of the term "ignore" for that function on the better forums.
My introduction to fb was when a high school friend now living abroad suggested we we start a group for the high school class so we could talk. Good. Then several people I had nothing to do with in HS friended me and I didn't know enough to ignore them and to disable notices. The day after, one of them in Colorado posted that she was settling in on the couch watching a movie. Partially good. Then she talked about the movie. Not good. Then she posted about how she loved hot chocolate and I found the unfriend button. And then I remembered what she does for a living - she's a nuclear physicist.
It’s as effective as ‘put a heart on your wall but don’t tell anyone why’ for awareness or a cure for cancer. No point either.
Seems to me that they fall in two categories. Those with a "Romanian bots" origin, groups of people paid by the item to make some kind of point by appealing to something other than the reader's reason, and then those same people who believe and spread absurd stories such as from qanon because it gives them a self and something to do that feels important. The false stories of women being kidnapped fall into the latter - the poster thinks they are attracting attention on fb.
It's like-harvesting. Reacting or commenting (even with a 'laugh' or to point out it's rubbish) gets your name on a saleable list.
This wasn't Facebook, but I had a review of one of my books where a lady (who had obviously been subjected to a sexual assault at some point) left a lengthy and scathing review where she highlighted a plot point, called it out as rape and marked the book down several stars. There was no rape in the book and if she'd read between the lines she would have realised what was really going on. But her knee-jerk response was 'there was sex, it must have been rape'.
Yup, exactly. People have awful experiences and that's hard luck, but stuffing it down everyone else's throats is tedious.
Every time I think, hmm, maybe I should start using "Like" buttons (on here or elsewhere), stuff like this makes me feart.
In effect, it's influencing the analytics. On You Tube now, most regular creators (read as: those who want to earn money) ask viewers to "Like, Subscribe, Hit the Notify Icon" and, if you feel reckless "Comment". As one recent video I watched (entertaining but obviously click-baity) put it: "Hey, do this! It is little for you to do but it means so much to us!"
Some of them, especially in books, have been the topic of of a lot of author debate. How do WE know what may 'trigger' a reader? And what if the 'trigger warning' ruins the twist in the book? How much onus do we put on our readers to take care when choosing their reading material, and how much responsibility do we bear for making sure the reader isn't triggered?
You'd get loads of 'likes' though.
On my daily Kindle email a few years ago I was offered a saucy book about 'forbidden love'.
Techy's a bit obsessed with this.
Caution: Bruce Willis is dead all along
