I'm sorry is there a philosophical question or debate to be had (using philosophy and not mindless political opinion) or is this just what the site is now.

Thank you, I fixed it.

In principle, in our virtual media environment, do 'real facts' matter? — Number2018

Probably. But to air on the side of safety. For many folk when it comes to things that don't immediately and blatantly affect them, "things don't matter until they do."

Basically, they do. Some are just less relevant than others. That is to say can exist without major coverage.

From what I’ve seen it’s pretty vacuous in terms of politics. It reminds me of the Occupy protests. I wager everyone will just walk away when they realize they cannot operate society as a music festival for an extended period of time.

Probably. But to air on the side of safety. For many folk when it comes to things that don't immediately and blatantly affect them, "things don't matter until they do."

Basically, they do. Some are just less relevant than others. That is to say can exist without major coverage.
31 minutes ago — Outlander

You are right. I need to re-formulate my question again. Yet, don't you think that we leave in time
of accelerating social changes? These changes are critically dependent on the simultaneous and intensive media coverage of a certain set of selected facts, producing the platform for the construction of public opinion and important political decisions. So, even some people can ignore
the media coverage, they will be eventually effected by it.

From what I’ve seen it’s pretty vacuous in terms of politics. It reminds me of the Occupy protests. — NOS4A2

There are important differences comparing with the Occupy protests of 2011. I think that the media coverage as well as the general public support has changed.

I don't think you or I can ever name a period in history where society wasn't rapidly changing.

Social media has redefined any definition of media. We see something good, bad, or sad, we can share it. In an instant. It truly is the people's house. Most media sources, large corporate ones or personal channels tend to lean toward one political persuasion or the other. It's more or less balanced. I think each majority political view has its problems, rather extremes that can lead to bad outcomes. And some simply view one as 'more restrictive' or 'less wholesome'. It's a delicately balanced yin and yang I suppose.

That this becomes an news issue tells a lot of the present.

Let's see how long the American version of Christiania endures in Seattle. If it continues, perhaps it turns into a nice tourist attraction for Seattle. The Space Needle is quite old now, I guess.

I don't think you or I can ever name a period in history where society wasn't rapidly changing. — Outlander

I can't entirely agree. Speed and acceleration have been increasing compared to the Middle Ages when the whole generations did not experience (subjectively) any changes.

Social media has redefined any definition of media. We see something good, bad, or sad, we can share it. In an instant. It truly is the people's house. — Outlander

It is right. But what are the changes? Probably, the content has become more instantaneous, turbulent, momentarily, and affective, carrying with it much less formalized, rational, and founded on knowledge meaning.

Most media sources, large corporate ones or personal channels tend to lean toward one political persuasion or the other. It's more or less balanced — Outlander

I see it differently. As far as I know, in most western countries the dominating media platforms manifest
the coordination in their approach to critical current issues: climate change, gender politics, human rights, etc.
(I think that the US situation with Fox News vs. the rest of the media is exceptional, I am not sure about the UK and Australia). Moreover, often, the content of a particular political view is almost not relevant. The media can momentarily create a powerful image/message and drop it at any time. Now, who remembers the Russian Collusion, the impeachment of Trump, or even the Covid-19 pandemics?
A political leader (Trump, Biden, Trudeau, etc.) can run an entirely different campaign in four years. As if he is not the same politician.
Our historical memory has been contracted and compressed. We live in the intensive and rapidly changing today's media environment.

I think each majority political view has its problems, rather extremes that can lead to bad outcomes. And some simply view one as 'more restrictive' or 'less wholesome'. It's a delicately balanced yin and yang I suppose. — Outlander

It is correct regarding the rational content of political views. However, ideological programs have lost their priority to the intensive dynamics of the media events. At the same time, social media amplify and intensify immediate interactive processes of the mass media.

Social media has redefined any definition of media. We see something good, bad, or sad, we can share it. In an instant. It truly is the people's house. — Outlander

It is precisely the point that I want to discuss again. We can instantaneously share our judgments, moral views, perspectives, emotions, feelings, and perceptions due to social media. The inner dimensions of our individual existence are momentarily transmitted to the most encompassing level of global social networking. Our continuous engagement animates the dynamic of individualization processes and compensates for the progressive loosening of the traditional social fabric. Social media creates a space where the wide-ragingly social resonates with the intensively individual.

I think we all know there's a difference between people who live on social media 24/7 and those who prefer to talk to others in person or read a newspaper or books. Great. You get to see the judgements, views, and opinions of billions of people you don't know and may not ever. What does that do for the concerned reader? Besides, this doesn't get much coverage now, but you can buy followers, likes, retweets, all of that. Plus you never know who's a bot or shill.

I've always found it odd how on Trump's twitter posts even the top comments rarely ever have more than a few thousand retweets. And only a few replies down you have very few comments and discussions.

Do you count the early days of YouTube as 'social media' or would you say that's reserved for the social network/microblogging explosion?

I think we all know there's a difference between people who live on social media 24/7 and those who prefer to talk to others in person or read a newspaper or books. — Outlander

You are right. Yet, even ‘those who prefer to talk to others in person or read a newspaper or books’ would inevitably feel the pressure of the new styles of writing, reading, communicating, and socializing. Individuals that cannot or do not want to adapt themselves could be ostracized
and isolated.

You get to see the judgements, views, and opinions of billions of people you don't know and may not ever. What does that do for the concerned reader? — Outlander

I will continue my line of argumentation: let say that 'the concerned reader' stays away from being actively engaged in social media. However, social media is not just one more medium of communication. The social has been moved to the cyberspace. This transformation has reshaped our society's social fabric: it affects how we see each other, ourselves, and our world. Regarding 'the concerned reader,' somebody said that there are no readers anymore, there are just users.

I've always found it odd how on Trump's twitter posts even the top comments rarely ever have more than a few thousand retweets. And only a few replies down you have very few comments and discussions. — Outlander

Trump is the innovator and front runner of social media. He expresses the instantaneous reactions and judgments of the mass of his base. They are not supposed to discuss and reflect - they enjoy a sense of community and membership. Further, there is no time for discussions: the mass should catch up with the speed of the media evens. Their production presupposes the specific regime of truth and relation to social reality – ‘fake news.’

Do you count the early days of YouTube as 'social media' or would you say that's reserved for the social network/microblogging explosion? — Outlander

I think that YouTube is the one more platform of social media. One can communicate and express a variety of things, but there is also a selection and competition created by the mass of users. It also functions like the production of eco-chambers.
All in all, social media is not about good or bad. Probably, they become one of the primary vehicles of reciprocal processes of individualization and socialization. It is not clear if they also function as a new way of social control.