Facebook v Twitter

Introduction

facebook and twitter both suck. In a group chat I got into a lengthy debate over which social media is more evil, twitter or facebook. At the time I argued, facebook sucks more than twitter.

The debate started because my friend shared a podcast I wasn't interested in listening regarding facebook. Instead of ignoring his recommendation like the rest of humanity would, I said, "If you have data, I'd like to see it. Otherwise I'm not interested."

The argument took many side streets and detours. In the end, I'm not sure anyone was persuaded to modify their opinion. After further investigation, I may have. See the decision for my current judgement.

Affirmative position

My friend argued and supported the claim that facebook is more evil than twitter.

Here is a quote from an Atlantic article that was references several time in our debate:

"Facebook has conducted social-contagion experiments on its users without telling them. Facebook has acted as a force for digital colonialism, attempting to become the de facto (and only) experience of the internet for people all over the world. Facebook has bragged about its ability to influence the outcome of elections. Unlawful militant groups use Facebook to organize. Government officials use Facebook to mislead their own citizens, and to tamper with elections. Military officials have exploited Facebook’s complacency to carry out genocide. Facebook inadvertently auto-generated jaunty recruitment videos for the Islamic State featuring anti-Semitic messages and burning American flags."

I have objections to some of this evidence, but I'll acknowledge facebook has a lot more negative media and reports. This is suggestive evidence. I asked my friend what it would take to change my friend's mind, and he said damning evidence of twitter. I found a few things, but nothing worth sharing or comparable to facebook.

My friend's argument and stance are both reasonable. If there was an evil metrics we could measure, I would agree those discrepancies in reports alone would make facebook a heavy favorite in the evil match up.

My Biases: The utility

I have tried and failed to have intellectual conversations and debates on twitter. The character limitations and culture of instant communications is terrible for thoughtful discourse.

When I produced and hosted a podcast, I used twitter a lot trying network. And I 'd say that was almost worthless. Certainly a waste of my time. In hindsight, I should have bought ads, and used that twitter time to produced a better product.

Anecdotally, I haven't benefited from twitter.

On the other hand, facebook is useful at times. I have bought and sold items on markertpalce. I have had intellectually stimulating conversations, both with strangers and friends. Still, there are other sites a lot better than facebook of intelligent discussions.

Of course, I have witnessed a lot of stupidity, discrimination from both facebook and twitter. and both are huge echo chambers.

Anecdotally, facebook has a lot more to offer me.

My biases: fake news and elections

There is no evidence that fake news on facebook effects elections, and some evidence that it doesn't. By fake news, I mean intentionally manipulating people with false information. Changing opinions with accurate/honest information is great.

The main idea is that most people who consume fake news, are already very polarized politically, therefore the influences from facebook's newsfeed, and fake news isn't changing people's vote at the ballots.

If I had access to a better database I might find more evidence for or against facebook. But most of the evidence I could access on google scholar supports my previous bias. "People are much more likely to believe stories that favor their preferred candidate, especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks." An Italian study concluded: "Our findings support the view that exposure to fake news (i) favours populist parties, but also that (ii) it is positively correlated with prior support for populist parties, suggesting a self-selection mechanism." We could link studies on political advertising too; I should look into those later.

(Fun finding: there is a third-person perception phenomena that "individuals believed that fake news would have greater effects on out-group members than themselves or in-group members.")

There is softer evidence that, "Facebook, Twitter, and Google go beyond promoting their services and facilitating digital advertising buys, actively shaping campaign communication through their close collaboration with political staffers. We show how representatives at these firms serve as quasi-digital consultants to campaigns, shaping digital strategy, content, and execution. Given this, we argue that political communication scholars need to consider social media firms as more active agents in political processes than previously appreciated in the literature." This isn't directly related to fake news, but it shows how tech companies weld power.

It is clear that companies have agendas, lobby, donate to parties and candidates, and have influence. Maybe future data will reveal more accurate outcomes on social media platforms and manipulating elections.

Measuring outcomes

I don't think about companies being evil. I do a cost benefit analysis, informally, and decide to use a service or buy a product. I have both a facebook and twitter account. I hardy use either, but at times they provide more benefit than cost to me, so I use them.

Does facebook take advantage of people not reading terms of agreement? Maybe, but that is part of the cost of a "free account." Nothing is free. To change my bias experience, I need to know outcomes.

For those who don't know the price of a social media account, it is your data and receiving advertisements. The more time people spend on facebook the more data facebook gathers and the more ads facebook sells. Of course facebook wants people to spend more time on facebook. That is how they run their business.

I want actual outcomes of users of both social medias. Expanding and seeking profits isn't a value criteria for me. facebook isn't a necessity, people can choose to use or not use the service.

Is twitter or facebook more likely to produce a negative effect in the person's life? Is a young person more likely to join a terrorists group, become a cult, attempt suicide, get bullied, or fall into depression on facebook or twitter? This is the some of the data I'd want to know to make a decision about which is more evil, or which is a worse platform for people's well being. 

My Findings

facebook is a lot more like a dictatorship than twitter, click here for other fun facts about the two social media services. Zuckerburg has 53% voting power over the company while Dorsey has 2.34% of the company (both based off their shares in the company).

A 2014 study found that, teens who were bullied online were bullied more on facebook (39%) than twitter (22%) according to a 2014 study (Cox. (2014) "Cox 2014 Internet Safety Survey." The Futures Company). A 2017 UK report on bully found that facebook is a lot worse than twitter, see graph below.

 

I couldn't find any hard data on suicides or terrorism between facebook and twitter. There is a book I want to read about social media and the increase in mental health, depression, and suicide, so maybe I'll find more studies or data to add. Pending future studies or existing studies, a cumulative case against facebook is made..

The decision

I haven't discussed or researched positives. So there is a chance that could swing the debate. My biases lead me to a similar feeling as my utility, but without data that inclination is worthless. The bullying data is enough to override my personal experiences.

Facebook probably sucks more than twitter.

Stay at Home Parenting

The last two days, I've had a taste of stay being a stay at home parent of a school aged child. It's awesome! I drop the kid off at day care, come home, and have peace and quite for about 6 hours until it's time to pick kid up from daycare.

Being a stay at home parent with pre school aged kids is a different story (unless the working spouse makes to pat daycare costs then that would be in the awesome zone.) 

Every parent should have to spend extended time as a stay at home parent. Otherwise, it's just unfair.

The summer of 2019, I stayed home most of my summer break from teaching. It wasn't too bad from what I remember now. But I took a 3 week vacation to Oregon with the kid, and at the time we lived within an hour from the in-laws.

The last six months, I was the stay at home spouse. Making matters worse, the working spouse works 60-80 hours a week with fluctuating day and night shifts. It's miserable at times. I'm not joking, even though it is funny, I thought I was going to literally lose my mind a couple times. My behavior was worse than the toddlers. Most of the time it's varying forms of tedium. After a couple months, it was worse than being a teacher, which is pretty bad.

So reader, how do you know I'm not just ranting and being a whiny liberal? Well, my daughter is in daycare, and I started subbing for $105 a day before taxes. So babysitting other kids, so I can pay someone to babysit mine. Haha, poetic justice???

Anyways, with this week being winter break, I get to feel the nirvana of being a stay at home parent of school aged kids. I could get used to this.

The dishes are done; the house is mostly clean; the dog got a nice long walk on the beach and is passed out; and I get to write a rant. I should have time to workout, read, and play chess before picking up the kid.

So for all you parents who get to work, and don't know what it is like to "watch your own damn babies!" (this is a quote I loved from the novel Jazz by Toni Morrison. I'm using the quote out of context, but it is too good not to use) It's just not fair.

Should our children watch the 1941 Dumbo?

I played Dumbo for my 2.5 year old daughter and she loves it. I was playing online chess while my daughter was watched Dumbo (yes, bad parenting 101), and I couldn't resist The Song of the Roustabouts. I thought wow that's bad. But how bad is it? Is it so bad children in the 21st century shouldn't watch it?

Part 1: The Song of the Roustabouts

I would recommend watching the laborers work, and reading the lyrics. Both are below.

Hike! Ugh! Hike! Ugh! Hike! Ugh! Hike!
We work all day, we work all night
We never learned to read or write
We're happy-hearted roustabouts

Hike! Ugh! Hike! Ugh! Hike! Ugh! Hike!
When other folks have gone to bed
We slave until we're almost dead
We're happy-hearted roustabouts

Hike! Ugh! Hike! Ugh! Hike! Ugh! Hike!
We don't know when we get our pay
And when we do, C
We get our pay when children say
With happy hearts, "It's circus day today"

Muscles achin'
Back near breaking
Eggs and bacon what we need (Yes, sir!)
Boss man houndin'
Keep on poundin'
For your bed and feed
There ain't no let up
Must get set up
Pull that canvas! Drive that stake!
Want to doze off
Get them clothes off
But must keep awake

Hep! Heave! Hep! Heave! Hep! Heave!
Hep! Heave! Hep! Heave! Hep! Heave!
Hep! Heave! Hep!

Swing that sledge! Sing that song!
Work and laugh the whole night long
You happy-hearted roustabouts!
Pullin', poundin', tryin', groundin'
Big top roundin' into shape
Keep on working!
Stop that shirking!
Grab that rope, you hairy ape!
Poundin'! poundin'! poundin'! poundin'!
Oh

There are concerning words and ideas when taken out of context, so can context help or save this song? The words slave and ape capture how black people and workers were treated. The use of slave connects to the history of African Americans.

The word choice of Ape is unnecessary and inappropriate. Even if that is an accurate account of history, it doesn't do anything productive for a children's movie. The back breaking work and desire for sleep capture the working conditions along with the commands to keep working. We get it. It's hard work and workers are not treated well. We can imply racism took place.

 The two most interesting ideas in the song are: "We're happy-hearted roustabouts" and "We throw our pay away."

Could the workers be happy-hearted considering their conditions?

Shortest answer, yes. See the table below for basic economic stats from the Great Depression.

Dumbo is a product of the Great Depression. The unemployment and GDP, although improving by the end of the decade, show the hardships.

We can assume Dumbo, the film, is taking place when unemployment was between 10-25%. Considering the lack of jobs available, working a back breaking night shift with inconsistent pay is better than nothing. Not only were the workers happy to have a job, there were probably unhappy-hearted workers passed up for the job, even white laborers, and especially when the unemployment was closer to 25%.

Furthermore, for the roustabouts, that was the best job they could get. If they had a better job available, they would have taken it. Same if there was an easier job and or a job with better working conditions. Roustabouts like the workers in the film do not have the privilege or freedom to pass up pay. So yes, in a depression and 10-25% unemployment, a worker would be happy to have a slave like labor job.

Do they throw their pay away?

Short answer no. The writers of the song are judging the roustabouts from their higher social position. Are the workers partying they pay away with nothing to show for it? Maybe, but who cares as long as that is their choice.

It is more possible that these workers are family men, working to support their families. And the appearance of wasting money by never buying new or better things is a result of saving and sending money for their family. 

Regardless of where the workers are in the spectrum of "wasting" or saving their income, they're not throwing away their pay. To throw away their pay, they would have to literally throw the money out with trash where no one else would find it. Any spending of their income would support the people who produced and provided whatever products of services they bought.

How do the roustabouts look in the song and film?

Overall, the song is more negative than anything else, especially with a 2020 lens. The point of view for the laborers in the song is off. If the point of view was from a more authentic black laborer's voice, the song would be fine or even great. But as it is, children will not be able to provide the background knowledge of the 1930s.

With all that said, I doubt this song is going to have a significant effect on viewers ideas of race or culture. So even revising the song to clean up the negative portrayals I mentioned, wouldn't have a significant effect on viewers ideas about race or culture either.

The song is fine as it is. It provides parents and families an opportunity to have a good discussion about history, racism, and economics.

Part 2: Disney's Disclaimer 

Disney has a disclaimer before the 1941 Dumbo. It's the same disclaimer used with other media. It reads:

"These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now. Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe. To learn more about how stories have impacted society, please visit www.disney.com/StoriesMatter."

I want to focus on the first sentence, "These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now."

Wrong then

If you believe that right and wrong are absolute and what is wrong or right is always wrong or right regardless of your position in time and space, then that's fine. Enjoy the paradox. I believe right and wrong are relative ideas that should be considered in their original context.

If they were really wrong then, no one noticed...

 

If it was wrong then and now, why wouldn't they take it out? Even on my blog that only 10s of people see, when I find something wrong with a previous idea, I fix it. If you believe something is wrong Disney, fix it! But they don't think it is wrong. Disney simply wants to satisfy the most people without costing them any profits or with minimal financial losses. The throw away disclaimer is somewhat satisfying for some and not extreme enough to piss too many people. It's punting on fourth down in the fourth quarter of a game you have a big lead.

The following is what it really was then (all sources from Dumbo wiki page): (later, I want to read reviews available online myself. I'll share links when I do.)

• Variety wrote that Dumbo was "a pleasant little story, plenty of pathos mixed with the large doses of humor, a number of appealing new animal characters, lots of good music, and the usual Disney skillfulness in technique in drawing and use of color."^[42] 
• Cecelia Ager, writing in PM, called Dumbo "the nicest, kindest Disney yet. It has the most taste, beauty, compassion, skill, restraint. It marks a return to Disney first principles, the animal kingdom—that happy land where Disney workers turn into artists; where their imagination, playfulness, ingenuity, daring flourish freest; where, in short, they’re home."^[43]
• Bosley Crowther, reviewing for The New York Times, wrote that the film was "the most genial, the most endearing, the most completely precious cartoon feature film ever to emerge from the magical brushes of Walt Disney's wonder-working artists".^[44]  
• Time wrote: "Like story and characters, Dumbo's coloring is soft and subdued, free from picture-postcard colors and confusing detail—a significant technical advance. But the charm of Dumbo is that it again brings to life that almost human animal kingdom where Walter Elias Disney is king of them all."^[45]  
• Harrison's Reports praised the film as "one of Walt Disney's most delightful offerings. Technically, it is excellent; the color is exceptionally good. The story itself is pleasing; it combines comedy with human appeal. The only fault is that occasionally the action slows down."^[46] 

The Crows

 

A lot of controversy online is regarding the crow characters. We could dive down a habit hole with the symbol of the crow, but I'll leave that for another blogger. The crows remind me a poem I loved called "Tenor" By Luther Hughes. It's not relevant to Dumbo. it is just good.

The crows are black both literally and figuratively. I like the crows. They are nice; they're cool; they sing the best song; and they help Dumbo fly. Without the crows, Dumbo the character and movie could be in trouble.

 

Conclusion

 

My daughter and I rewatched Dumbo while I wrote part of this posts.

If you're a bit worried about Dumbo, use The Song of the Roustabouts to teach your kids about history and economic theory. The workers were probably content to have a job and they didn't throw away their money. And the crows are positive black characters because they help Dumbo find a happy ending.