Social media isn’t monolithically harmful
The article suggests a small group ruins the internet, but this ignores research showing social platforms also democratize discourse, enabling civic engagement and marginalized voices.
Not all online “distortion” amounts to damage
While the piece emphasizes filter bubbles and radical users, algorithmic content curation exists in print and broadcast media too—these are framing tools, not always societal toxins.
Logical leaps undermine its claims
The Guardian implies isolated incidents escalate to systemic ruin—this mirrors slippery-slope reasoning. Without data demonstrating measurable harm (e.g., polarization metrics), it remains speculative.
Forces of good are often overlooked
Platforms frequently host prosocial behavior, from mental health communities to humanitarian fundraising—yet the article omits these evidence-backed positives.
Assumes a universal “ruin” standard
By framing a few actors as “ruining the internet,” the article treats degradation as a one-size-fits-all harm. But norms vary culturally—with differences in how “ruin” is perceived.
Some gaps
1. Integrate empirical data: Use actual trends in polarization, mental health outcomes, or misinformation impact, instead of anecdotal evidence.
2. Compare with legacy media: Acknowledge traditional media distortions to avoid caricaturing social platforms uniquely.
3. Balance the picture: Highlight both negative and positive digital outcomes for nuance.
4. Contextualize “harm”: Define ruin in culturally plural terms, avoiding universal moral assumptions.
Good point. But leisure is not a fixed box (for me at least).
I have been freelancing for 20+ years.
Fully agreed with OC, my clients are not paying for me to sit by the desk they're paying for solutions to problems. The more complex the problem, usually the less tapping on keyboard.
I know, some gigs are in fact just showing your face on Skype or in presence, I have come to avoid these regardless of leisure impact.
Excellent point. Most people don't want to swim in a sewerage. Except of course if someone tells them that vague concepts such as sovereignty is more important than swimming in a lake.
I'd hope that Germany of all countries understands the importance of sovereign democratic government and the harsh conditions people will endure to preserve it.
In fact the behaviour of Germany (and France) in recent times has seriously worsened my perception of these countries. I wouldn't say they're clearly better in my view than the USA, despite Trump.
Should I interpret your comment as helpful ("btw, you can fix that in the settings!") or annoying disregard for the powerful difference between opt-in and opt-out ("there's nothing wrong with bad defaults as long as the option exists to change them!")?
Perhaps if Labour actually won own majority, sounds more like a very poorly run campaign by May. Complete lack of leadership. Just the single fact of shying away from debates.
Great opportunity to put country before party now.
Not a labour supporter myself, but I would saying getting 31 more seats when you were expected to lose 20-100 (according to polls) is a victory. In addition to cons not having a majority, labour can now actually be a proper opposition.
I disagree. It just takes rigid discipline and perseverance. The value proposition, business model, and team emerging from that will be fierce. I sense that these stories are much less reported and talked about, since they have less click appeal...
