Facebook, Google and Instagram 'worse than drugs' says Miley Cyrus

Funny thing is ...

... I actually agree with the latest silly little Louise Ciccone wannabee.

At least on the subject of so-called "social" networking addiction.

No, I don't smoke pot. Nor am I a Louise Ciccone fan.

Well?

Quote

At least she can go online: the paper also finds that those who cannot access social networks are in trouble, as they fall on the wrong side of an emerging digital divide.

Typical. There are some of us who are not on the wrong side of the digital divide but who choose not to use Facebook, Twitter, Instageram etc etc forms of social media. I'd probably sing with delight if these ****** sites were shut down tomorrow.

For many they have become totally addictive and may even become a form of self-flagellation.

"The paper hypothesises that the many opinions found online can expose people to ideas that challenge their world view, make them feel less exceptional and, when opinions are strident or include hateful content, offend them."

This just in - different people have different opinions and world views, exposure to different world views may challenge ones own perceptions and, for the kicker, the world is a big and sometimes ugly place.

That kind of statement, quoted above, smacks of parents home-schooling their children to 'protect' them from incompatible world views. We can't have that - after all, if you are exposed to the the whole gamut of human beliefs and opinions - beliefs and opinions they hold just as strongly as you hold yours - you might just realise that your own world view owes little to any absolute or objective truth or right-ness and much to your upbringing and circumstances.

Keep going down that road and you might learn that the world isn't black-and-white and even, if things go particularly bad, to see the that grey world from other peoples' point of view.

Also - breaking news - if you stand up on a street corner broadcasting your personal ideologies and opinions to the public then some people will disagree and some of those will do so loudly and/or impolitely.

Miley Cyrus has a right to express herself. Everyone else, however, has the right to judge her and the right to express that judgement.

Sure people can be cruel, arrogant, callous, spiteful dicks. But, just like in patents, adding 'on the Internet' doesn't magically make it some new phenomenon.

Side effects of education

online can expose people to ideas that challenge their world view, make them feel less exceptional ...

As do most forms of education. But is that really such a bad thing?

"The paper hypothesises that the many opinions found online can expose people to ideas that challenge their world view, make them feel less exceptional and, when opinions are strident or include hateful content, offend them."

But when Facepalm and goggle actively "curate" what they show you (refer TED talk by Eli Parisier on infobubbles) then you may go through life seeing nary a contrary opinion & when reality does smack you in the face you realise that not everybody thinks as you do

Expert?

Blimey, a couple of over-publicised spliffs and she's an bleedin' expert?

O.K. maybe a line of something as well)

Booze is the real culprit here -- how much 'social' stuff is done post-pub?

I won't be getting an achy-breaky heart over it.

...they fall on the wrong side of an emerging digital divide...

..but would apparently, according to the research, be happier (have a better value of 'life satisfaction').

no need for social media

I can devolve to bat-shit crazy entirely on my own, tyvm.

Hmmmmm, young girls following her online may be damaging to their grey matter, but those young girls following her in her destructive drug abuse is something else.

At least she'll be able to afford rehab when she hits rock bottom, but those of today's children who will follow her into the fantastic dismay that seems so wonderful right now may not be so lucky and may have to seek the help of a friendly neighbourhood pimp to keep them going.

I know this is sweeping and there are people who can use recreational drugs in a 'responsible' way, but the price of celebrity isn't always paid by the celebrity and there are lives led into tragedy while the celebrity makes headlines with every step.

Wow!

"The paper hypothesises that the many opinions found online can expose people to ideas that challenge their world view, make them feel less exceptional and, when opinions are strident or include hateful content, offend them."

Of course, this wording makes me suspect that El Reg is already making fun of the Italian group, since this sounds like (they're failing to realize that) what is really dangerous is living an overly sheltered life.

Not to blame the victim here ...

... but perhaps if she didn't act like such a silly git so often her press coverage would not be so ego- bruising? She certainly has the right (some would say "obligation") to act in ways that provoke media coverage, but it is disingenuous at best to feign shock -- shock, I say! -- that some of the resulting coverage has been less than positive. Such is the price of celebrity. (Caveat, of course, that one can lead a saintly life of good works and still get busted down by some internet troll.)