BUZZFEED is Internet Cancer

A young relative of mine recently described these sorts of sites and social media in general as, "The Paradise of drama queens." Of those who forward links to her, "They are drama addicts, can't wait for the next drama. If it doesn't happen soon enough, they make one up."
Not being a social media person, I miss out on all that stuff!
I'm old enough to remember when discussion boards actually were.

a reply to: IvyNeptune

It sells. This nonsense is lucrative. And here we are talking about it.

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: IvyNeptune


...

The internet was supposed to give us all access to the real news and unfiltered, unbiased stuff - and it did for a good long while but now it's on the decline, most outlets have been bought up, smaller sites swallowed by huge corporations and the venues for real articles and news being closed off.


...

This subject in general is probably worthy of a post of its own. However, the underlined portion in particular is a prime example of where people have gone (or been lead) astray. The Internet was not "supposed" to do anything of the sort. The Internet was originally created as a tool to facilitate research. That it has evolved into what it is today was far from the original intent.

What has happened is people have been lead to believe the Internet is supposed to be this magical objective space protected by the guardians of truth and the pillars of morality. In reality it is nothing more than a means of communication which has for the most part been un-governed since its inception. The Internet is absolutely not 'declining', but rather it is exploding. Commercialization and the base greed of money is what has caused what you perceive as 'decline'. E-commerce on any given day represents a staggering amount of monetary transactions between parties...and it grows each and every day.

You see, somewhere along the line propagandists got inside peoples heads and made them think the Internet was this unbiased space where they could spread the "real truth" when in fact it was just their slanted spin-doctoring. They convinced people the Internet was unregulated and therefore free of bias, when this is the furthest thing from the truth. They created a platform from which they could spread their lies. As this practice became more widespread opposing views, equally as biased, cropped up...and the divisiveness became entrenched forever.

Then the advertisers moved in and tried to capitalize on everything. In order to scream louder than the other guy you needed more "hits", bigger servers, more bandwidth, more members (etc, etc, etc) and this took more money. The biggest way to generate this money is from advertising. Pretty soon big fish gobbles up small fish and the endless, vicious, cycle continues.

No, the Internet wasn't "supposed" to "give" us anything even remotely resembling ...real news and unfiltered, unbiased stuff. People were conned into believing it was...and this is a big part of the problem!

a reply to: IvyNeptune

I'm so tired of privileged people barking about the privilege of others, or using their minority status as a free pass to be just as bigoted and generalizing as what they claim to be fighting against.

Ironically I was just reading about a Canadian Buzzfeed author tweeting that Buzzfeed is hiring and would 'particularly like to hear from you if you are not white and not male'. I then tried to find some bio information (which is pretty scanty), but gather from other of her articles that her parents had a typical rags-to-riches story and by the time she was in her teens her dad had a Mercedes - which was rare in those days. My bet is she didn't get through university working at a bar until 5am or doing shifts at McDonalds. Basically she's being a #ing troll and then complaining when people get angry. And no, having a couple of brown or black female journalists in Canada (and there are PLENTY already) isn't going to fix all of history or any of the other idiotic ramblings I've seen her post. The problem isn't because whites have some advantage, but that the senior management still happen to be white (which was a larger proportion of the population in the past than now and all immigrants have had to work up from the bottom, which took much longer in the past than now), and the few plum jobs available go to the offspring of their own neighbours, family friends, siblings, and so on. There is a nepotism problem and hiring a few brown or black people (who'll then in turn hire THEIR friends, etc since that is how it works) does fix that to an extent, but it's still limited. There just aren't enough jobs period for the people who want to get into them and unless you have an 'in' it's hard for everyone no matter how talented they may be.

One of her tweets literally says: IF YOU’RE A WHITE MAN UPSET THAT WE ARE LOOKING MOSTLY FOR NON-WHITE NON-MEN. I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU GO WRITE FOR MACLEAN'S. She also posted a picture that said 'you owe these pale demons nothing'. Okay, I'm married to a non-white person, a good half of my friends aren't white and what this ragey woman is posting is #ing divisive bull#. Society can't be that racist if her family could start from scratch here and make it into the ranks of the upper-middle class in one lifetime. People probably aren't so upset by some of the points she's trying to make, but the asshole way she's putting it across. She's a writer - so she knows exactly what she's doing here, being deliberately combative and then crying victim when the mud she slings gets tossed back on her (similar to a lot of SJWs these days).

Yes, we need more diverse perspectives and stories - including people whose parents didn't instill a major Princess attitude into their kids. Funny enough, in another article she admits to being a bitch to other women and let's face it, how people conduct themselves says a lot more about what they really believe than anything they say:

when I moved away from my hometown at 17, I made friends with a gaggle of boys and it stayed that way. ...
Worse, sometimes I catch myself being unfair or cruel to the women trying to start friendships with me. I’ve become the most nefarious stereotype of a female friend, the one who gets competitive, jealous and mean for no reason.

www.theguardian.com...

www.therebel.media...

And then when people get angry it is because THEY are bigots? Ya don't fight monsters by becoming one, Lady. So yes, I agree, Buzzfeed sucks if these are the "diverse" views getting out there.

a reply to: Tulpa

I saw a comment (but one I couldn't respond to) about how 'slacktivism is ablest and anti-women'... When it's not the two minutes of outrage per day, people toss out silly tweets/facebook posts to justify their lack of genuine action. As if these people sitting all day on twitter getting upset over the latest stupid Urban Outfitters T-Shirt are all wheelchair bound, and are also changing the world in any significant way.

What I find amusing (I agree with those wondering if they just comment because it's trendy) is the level of hypocrisy that goes on. They're all for gay rights until the abuses are done in Middle Eastern countries (throwing teen boys off buildings certainly pales over not getting a wedding cake done by a particular bakery), or they get riled up over school dress codes but sure, women only wear niqabs by choice not because of any community backlash they'd face if they didn't, or saying corporate board rooms need more minorities instead of attacking pay disparity, or posting doomsday articles about global warming but ignoring the degree to which global trade and travel contribute, or the pacific garbage patch but let's all ignore that it's primarily Asian countries contributing to it... The scope for Environmentalist, egalitarianism etc. has become so narrow it's ridiculous. And any nuance or complexity seems lost.

a reply to: Jessica6

Wow. I have no words. I did not know this and it just makes me hate BuzzFeed even more.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Well obviously the internet was not supposed to give us anything, I didn't mean it literally - it's not a sentient, animate being.
I'm aware of its inception and history too - what I meant to say was that the internet was a free space and was a platform for people to talk and for alternative news etc, it wasn't intended for that but that's what it allowed.
Anyone could open a forum or research site and people could chat and share info still can but as we've said the cost of popularity and the inception and necessity of advertising has certainly changed that.
The internet was a place you could read things and get a point of view that you just wouldn't on TV - and you're right about ads and bigger sites and giving us biased slanted opinions.

Of course we can get real unbiased and unfiltered news - sadly these days it's much harder to find and is drowned out by crap and noise.
The internet could be used to break huge stories and uncover corruption etc, in fact it has and both of the biggest stories of the last few years have ended with the men responsible for breaking and leaking the stories going into hiding in different countries.

Most sites don't allow their members to actually do anything including activism these days, the advertisers don't like it and plus it's a legal minefield.
The internet is merely a tool, I'm under no illusion that it's anything else and you taking something I said and extrapolating it to an extreme is fine, but it wasn't the way I meant it and wasn't really my point.
I'm not naive and I don't think the internet is the magical home of revolution

a reply to: Jessica6

Perfect example of how people are lead by the nose to conform with the mass.
If you tell people what they need to be outraged about, it stops them wondering what they should really be mad about.
Manufactured outrage for the mass mind is there to neutralise any genuine grievances that might arise.
After all, it can't really matter if they're not tweeting about it.
Soon you will be considered weird or freaky because you DON'T get all your news from twitter or something.
Remember the last thing you must ever do is have an independent thought. You must be in step with the mob or be termed an out cast.
Weak, easily controlled and only ever getting angry on the "correct" channel, welcome to humanity.

a reply to: stargatetravels

For the record, I wasn't directing my statement at you personally, but rather at the scores of persons who believe the Internet to be something other than it really is.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

the internet is serious business.

a reply to: IvyNeptune

Yup.
What is it they say? Garbage in, garbage out. Somewhere along that line there's profit to be made.

Nice rant, by the way.

a reply to: Tulpa

Thanks. Im full of them.

Im just trying to pace myself as i only just joined. hahaha

a reply to: IvyNeptune

I don't follow or know much about what's Buzzfeed, but if you don't like it why don't you just leave it be?

I mean, there's a lot of things in the world we might not like... Talking about things we don't like them only keeps them around. You can simply just walk away and forget about it... Focus on what you like.

Easy as that.

a reply to: Shuye

Good advice
I have very minimal internet use. I'm either here or buying records. I don't join groups or have feeds or communities.
I'm just joining the rant because I see the effect it has on people all the time. I like a good grumble too.

a reply to: stargatetravels

Like you, I enjoyed the forums much more before the bots were developed and deployed. Back in the days when forums didn't fill the screens with ads---just read and comment. Easy peasy and pleasant before the political/social troll/bots arrived on scene. Long before the development of social media with its drama queens....sigh.