HawkShack.com

Despite missing the first 6 games of the season, ranking 14th in passer rating, 19th in passing yards per game, 23rd in completion percentage, and leading his team to 5 straight defeats to end their season, Russell Wilson accepted an invitation to this year's Pro Bowl. Not counting Partick Mahomes who is not elgible due to his participation in the Super Bowl, there are arguably 5 AFC QB's more deserving of a Pro Bowl selection: Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Joe Burrow, Justin Herbert and Bo Nix, yet all of them apparently passed on going to the Pro Bowl.

Russell might have passed on the invite, too, except that Pro Bowl appearances (he now has 9) is a consideration when nominees for the HOF come up, so this appearance will pad his resume.

Why are they still holding this event? Is there any relevance to it at all? It used to be an honor to be selected to the Pro Bowl, now it's turned into a joke.

Flag Football Bowl

It's completely irrelevant

Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:Flag Football Bowl

It's completely irrelevant

That seems to be the direction the entire sport is heading.

It’s still the most popular sport to watch, though.

Regarding the Pro Bowl, I can’t remember the last time I watched it, and the selections have become pretty much irrelevant of late.

NorthHawk wrote:It’s still the most popular sport to watch, though.

Regarding the Pro Bowl, I can’t remember the last time I watched it, and the selections have become pretty much irrelevant of late.

Although it's gaining in popularity overseas, it's on the decline stateside. Super Bowl viewership has been on a downward slope for a decade. While some of that is due to the increasing array of entertainment options, surveys have shown that succeeding generations in general do not identify themselves as sports fans compared to us boomers and Gen X.

I can remember when Steve Largent became the first Seahawk to be selected to a Pro Bowl back in 1978 and watching every minute of the game. It was a big deal back then. But like you, I can't remember the last time I watched even part of a Pro Bowl game. They might as well just name the teams to honor the league's best players and forget about the game.

River Dog wrote:Although it's gaining in popularity overseas, it's on the decline stateside. Super Bowl viewership has been on a downward slope for a decade. While some of that is due to the increasing array of entertainment options, surveys have shown that succeeding generations in general do not identify themselves as sports fans compared to us boomers and Gen X.

I can remember when Steve Largent became the first Seahawk to be selected to a Pro Bowl back in 1978 and watching every minute of the game. It was a big deal back then. But like you, I can't remember the last time I watched even part of a Pro Bowl game. They might as well just name the teams to honor the league's best players and forget about the game.

I'm dubious that the Super Bowl ratings are dropping. I think people are watching it in alternative ways. Some of the recent Super Bowls have been some of the most watched.

There's lots of sports pirating nowadays. I doubt those ratings are tracked on pirate sites. A lot of people have cut the cord and they would watch more sports if they had better and cheaper options online.

I cut the cord a while back as I'm not paying that money for a bunch of channels I don't watch including sports. I still follow football closely.

The younger generation loves their fantasy football. I'm a Gen Xer and I could care less about fantasy football. I know all types of younger folks who play fantasy football and don't care what team they watch or follow. They do it all on their phone including follow the games.

I do think there is a big fall off in hardcore sports fans who follow one team religiously. As far as general following of sports interacting with sports through fantasy leagues and gambling, that seems to be stronger than our generation which is wh companies like Draft Kings is making money. The only thing holding many people back from more sports betting is local laws limiting their access.

A lot of the younger generation prefers a more interactive experience with sports and they don't sit in front of their TVs paying for cable.

River Dog wrote:Although it's gaining in popularity overseas, it's on the decline stateside. Super Bowl viewership has been on a downward slope for a decade. While some of that is due to the increasing array of entertainment options, surveys have shown that succeeding generations in general do not identify themselves as sports fans compared to us boomers and Gen X.

I can remember when Steve Largent became the first Seahawk to be selected to a Pro Bowl back in 1978 and watching every minute of the game. It was a big deal back then. But like you, I can't remember the last time I watched even part of a Pro Bowl game. They might as well just name the teams to honor the league's best players and forget about the game.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm dubious that the Super Bowl ratings are dropping. I think people are watching it in alternative ways. Some of the recent Super Bowls have been some of the most watched.

There's lots of sports pirating nowadays. I doubt those ratings are tracked on pirate sites. A lot of people have cut the cord and they would watch more sports if they had better and cheaper options online.

I cut the cord a while back as I'm not paying that money for a bunch of channels I don't watch including sports. I still follow football closely.

The younger generation loves their fantasy football. I'm a Gen Xer and I could care less about fantasy football. I know all types of younger folks who play fantasy football and don't care what team they watch or follow. They do it all on their phone including follow the games.

I do think there is a big fall off in hardcore sports fans who follow one team religiously. As far as general following of sports interacting with sports through fantasy leagues and gambling, that seems to be stronger than our generation which is wh companies like Draft Kings is making money. The only thing holding many people back from more sports betting is local laws limiting their access.

A lot of the younger generation prefers a more interactive experience with sports and they don't sit in front of their TVs paying for cable.

Sure, some of the decline in viewership is due in part to some of the factors you mentioned. But there's other indicators, too, like participation numbers. When I was in high school, there was an entire community college league within the state: Grays Harbor, Everett, Wenatchee, Columbia Basin, Walla Walla, Spokane Falls, all had football programs. Now, none of them do. Same with small colleges. That's beginning to have an effect. For me personally, I can't get interested in hockey and soccer mainly because I've never played them. But I have played football, basketball, and baseball.

And now, you have college football cutting off an entire region by screwing WSU and OSU, alienating some of the most dedicated football fans in the country. Do they expect Coug fans to adapt the UW? If they do, they don't know Coug fans like I do. Many will quit watching football altogether.

Anyhow, sorry to have veered off topic. It would be a good topic for us in the offseason.

I got a kick out of what JJ Watt says they should re-name the Pro Bowl:

When you get 5 alternates deep, just call it the Participation Bowl.

River Dog wrote:Sure, some of the decline in viewership is due in part to some of the factors you mentioned. But there's other indicators, too, like participation numbers. When I was in high school, there was an entire community college league within the state: Grays Harbor, Everett, Wenatchee, Columbia Basin, Walla Walla, Spokane Falls, all had football programs. Now, none of them do. Same with small colleges. That's beginning to have an effect. For me personally, I can't get interested in hockey and soccer mainly because I've never played them. But I have played football, basketball, and baseball.

And now, you have college football cutting off an entire region by screwing WSU and OSU, alienating some of the most dedicated football fans in the country. Do they expect Coug fans to adapt the UW? If they do, they don't know Coug fans like I do. Many will quit watching football altogether.

Anyhow, sorry to have veered off topic. It would be a good topic for us in the offseason.

The participation part I see too. Younger generation is way more into their phone and video games than our generation. Sorry to say it, but they are physical weaklings too a lot of them. Some are into fitness, but I'm in my early 50s and I'm in physically better shape than the majority of younger people I've met. I imagine I'm somewhat of an outlier since even amongst my age group lifting weights has helped me maintain my shape much longer than my rotund fellow 50 year olds. But even my buddies aren't as addicted to their phones and inactive as the younger generation raised on their phones and constantly connected state. Even when the younger generations are at gatherings or outside, they are still constantly on their phones.

Hard to be a tough football player when you're always busy on the phone.

Makes you wonder if the NFL is going to have to create an AI driven video game NFL at some point for fantasy football and gambling because future generations won't have to play the game, just watch it.

River Dog wrote:Sure, some of the decline in viewership is due in part to some of the factors you mentioned. But there's other indicators, too, like participation numbers. When I was in high school, there was an entire community college league within the state: Grays Harbor, Everett, Wenatchee, Columbia Basin, Walla Walla, Spokane Falls, all had football programs. Now, none of them do. Same with small colleges. That's beginning to have an effect. For me personally, I can't get interested in hockey and soccer mainly because I've never played them. But I have played football, basketball, and baseball.

And now, you have college football cutting off an entire region by screwing WSU and OSU, alienating some of the most dedicated football fans in the country. Do they expect Coug fans to adapt the UW? If they do, they don't know Coug fans like I do. Many will quit watching football altogether.

Anyhow, sorry to have veered off topic. It would be a good topic for us in the offseason.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The participation part I see too. Younger generation is way more into their phone and video games than our generation. Sorry to say it, but they are physical weaklings too a lot of them. Some are into fitness, but I'm in my early 50s and I'm in physically better shape than the majority of younger people I've met. I imagine I'm somewhat of an outlier since even amongst my age group lifting weights has helped me maintain my shape much longer than my rotund fellow 50 year olds. But even my buddies aren't as addicted to their phones and inactive as the younger generation raised on their phones and constantly connected state. Even when the younger generations are at gatherings or outside, they are still constantly on their phones.

Hard to be a tough football player when you're always busy on the phone.

Makes you wonder if the NFL is going to have to create an AI driven video game NFL at some point for fantasy football and gambling because future generations won't have to play the game, just watch it.

I have mixed feelings about the younger generation. I do think that cell phones and tablets get overused, particularly in schools where I think that they should be banned. But as far as it being physically unhealthy for them? IMO it's a generational thing. My parents were horrified about us kids being addicted to TV, something that they didn't grow up with. We've get told not to sit too close to the TV as it was going to burn our eyes out. I see very similar complaints from Boomers and Gen X about Millennials and Gen Z.

Speaking of cell phones in school, the first 4 function calculator I bought cost me $85 in 1975 money when I was going to college. I had a statistics class that had a huge amount of simple arithmetic that had to be performed. It came in real handy for a term paper I had to write. But our prof wouldn't allow us to use them on tests, not because he wanted us to perform the math by hand, but because it would give an unfair advantage to those who couldn't afford them. My, how the times have changed.

River Dog wrote:I have mixed feelings about the younger generation. I do think that cell phones and tablets get overused, particularly in schools where I think that they should be banned. But as far as it being physically unhealthy for them? IMO it's a generational thing. My parents were horrified about us kids being addicted to TV, something that they didn't grow up with. We've get told not to sit too close to the TV as it was going to burn our eyes out. I see very similar complaints from Boomers and Gen X about Millennials and Gen Z.

Speaking of cell phones in school, the first 4 function calculator I bought cost me $85 in 1975 money when I was going to college. I had a statistics class that had a huge amount of simple arithmetic that had to be performed. It came in real handy for a term paper I had to write. But our prof wouldn't allow us to use them on tests, not because he wanted us to perform the math by hand, but because it would give an unfair advantage to those who couldn't afford them. My, how the times have changed.

It is no accident that the TV and rising obesity rates go hand in and in hand along with the processed food environment. And the phone and video games are even more digitally addicting than the TV because of how much time and focus video games take and the social aspect of playing with other people and the phone's portability allows it to be taken anywhere and viewed at any time.

Even when I was young and watching TV, I still got up to go outside away from the TV. Now kids take their portable media with them outside or over to a friend's house and sit there.

You see the result of those behaviors in the younger generation. Thin or obese, weak, no time spent doing physical activity, always looking forward to time on the phone or hours playing some video game on a phone or console.

It's a different animal the smartphone than the TV with limited channels. You see it in the behaviors of younger people and their physical bodies.

It's not a value judgment, it's just what's happening. Phones allow you to basically "watch TV or play video games" all the time, everywhere. Which is why there are laws in place that make it illegal to text and drive, something that never occurred prior to the invention of the cell phone. Imagine how addicting a device must be that you can't even stay off it while driving?

Now companies like META are currently creating glasses to replace the smartphone and Neuralink wants the digital link connected to your brain. So you don't even have the option to put down the phone if it is connected to your brain. And wearing your internet connection as glasses is another way to maintian your connection to the digital medium.

This connection competes with physical activities. You can't do both at the same time. The younger generation is being subject to devices that keep them constantly connected to a digital medium providing them with mental stimulation short and long form 24-7-365. That is very different from our generation growing up with a box TV sitting in the living room and something your parents could turn off that you couldn't take with you to your friend's house.

Technology is definitely changing the younger and future generations mentally and physically.

River Dog wrote:I have mixed feelings about the younger generation. I do think that cell phones and tablets get overused, particularly in schools where I think that they should be banned. But as far as it being physically unhealthy for them? IMO it's a generational thing. My parents were horrified about us kids being addicted to TV, something that they didn't grow up with. We've get told not to sit too close to the TV as it was going to burn our eyes out. I see very similar complaints from Boomers and Gen X about Millennials and Gen Z.

Speaking of cell phones in school, the first 4 function calculator I bought cost me $85 in 1975 money when I was going to college. I had a statistics class that had a huge amount of simple arithmetic that had to be performed. It came in real handy for a term paper I had to write. But our prof wouldn't allow us to use them on tests, not because he wanted us to perform the math by hand, but because it would give an unfair advantage to those who couldn't afford them. My, how the times have changed.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It is no accident that the TV and rising obesity rates go hand in and in hand along with the processed food environment. And the phone and video games are even more digitally addicting than the TV because of how much time and focus video games take and the social aspect of playing with other people and the phone's portability allows it to be taken anywhere and viewed at any time.

Even when I was young and watching TV, I still got up to go outside away from the TV. Now kids take their portable media with them outside or over to a friend's house and sit there.

You see the result of those behaviors in the younger generation. Thin or obese, weak, no time spent doing physical activity, always looking forward to time on the phone or hours playing some video game on a phone or console.

It's a different animal the smartphone than the TV with limited channels. You see it in the behaviors of younger people and their physical bodies.

It's not a value judgment, it's just what's happening. Phones allow you to basically "watch TV or play video games" all the time, everywhere. Which is why there are laws in place that make it illegal to text and drive, something that never occurred prior to the invention of the cell phone. Imagine how addicting a device must be that you can't even stay off it while driving?

Now companies like META are currently creating glasses to replace the smartphone and Neuralink wants the digital link connected to your brain. So you don't even have the option to put down the phone if it is connected to your brain. And wearing your internet connection as glasses is another way to maintian your connection to the digital medium.

This connection competes with physical activities. You can't do both at the same time. The younger generation is being subject to devices that keep them constantly connected to a digital medium providing them with mental stimulation short and long form 24-7-365. That is very different from our generation growing up with a box TV sitting in the living room and something your parents could turn off that you couldn't take with you to your friend's house.

Technology is definitely changing the younger and future generations mentally and physically.

You can point your fingers at a lot of things that has changed if you're looking at explaining obesity. Work is less demanding. Kids don't ride bicycles or walk to school anymore. I used to shovel snow in the winter for money, help my dad collect a couple pickup loads of firewood in the fall, then after football practice, spend an hour each night splitting and stacking it. Farm work used to consist of moving sprinkler pipes and bucking bales. I used to go pheasant hunting from sunup to sundown. No one hunts anymore. Even golf has seen a sharp decline. You can't just say that TV alone is responsible for the change in behavior.

River Dog wrote:You can point your fingers at a lot of things that has changed if you're looking at explaining obesity. Work is less demanding. Kids don't ride bicycles or walk to school anymore. I used to shovel snow in the winter for money, help my dad collect a couple pickup loads of firewood in the fall, then after football practice, spend an hour each night splitting and stacking it. Farm work used to consist of moving sprinkler pipes and bucking bales. I used to go pheasant hunting from sunup to sundown. No one hunts anymore. Even golf has seen a sharp decline. You can't just say that TV alone is responsible for the change in behavior.

The TV is small potatoes compared to the smartphone. It's the smartphone and portable media along with a highly processed food environment and less demanding jobs. A combination as far as obesity is concerned.

But the smartphone is the big one. I'm surprised you don't see it or didn't see it in your final years of working. In my job, we literally have to write people up for excessive use of their phone. It's that addicting. The can't even stay off it long enough to do their work. We had one employee quit their job because we had a post where they didn't have access to their smartphone.

The smartphone is a very different animal from the TV by a country mile. Very different. It has and is changing human behavior like the non-portable TV or PC never did. The smartphone is digitally addicting device that keeps a person connected in ways never before seen. Connected socially via texting and video phone calls, connected to the internet and all it offers, with social media constantly stimulating through the smartphone.

It has had a dramatic effect on what started this original discussion: participation in sports.

You've never sat there and thought about what it would have been like to have been raised with a portable device that allowed you to socialize, watch TV, play games, direct you to your destination, receive your mail, and the like from a young age? That's what this younger generation is dealing with: a constant digital connection from a very young age. It's having an impact on their participation in physical activities.

River Dog wrote:You can point your fingers at a lot of things that has changed if you're looking at explaining obesity. Work is less demanding. Kids don't ride bicycles or walk to school anymore. I used to shovel snow in the winter for money, help my dad collect a couple pickup loads of firewood in the fall, then after football practice, spend an hour each night splitting and stacking it. Farm work used to consist of moving sprinkler pipes and bucking bales. I used to go pheasant hunting from sunup to sundown. No one hunts anymore. Even golf has seen a sharp decline. You can't just say that TV alone is responsible for the change in behavior.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The TV is small potatoes compared to the smartphone. It's the smartphone and portable media along with a highly processed food environment and less demanding jobs. A combination as far as obesity is concerned.

But the smartphone is the big one. I'm surprised you don't see it or didn't see it in your final years of working. In my job, we literally have to write people up for excessive use of their phone. It's that addicting. The can't even stay off it long enough to do their work. We had one employee quit their job because we had a post where they didn't have access to their smartphone.

The smartphone is a very different animal from the TV by a country mile. Very different. It has and is changing human behavior like the non-portable TV or PC never did. The smartphone is digitally addicting device that keeps a person connected in ways never before seen. Connected socially via texting and video phone calls, connected to the internet and all it offers, with social media constantly stimulating through the smartphone.

It has had a dramatic effect on what started this original discussion: participation in sports.

You've never sat there and thought about what it would have been like to have been raised with a portable device that allowed you to socialize, watch TV, play games, direct you to your destination, receive your mail, and the like from a young age? That's what this younger generation is dealing with: a constant digital connection from a very young age. It's having an impact on their participation in physical activities.

I retired in 2018, so yes, smart phones were around. We didn't allow them to be used inside the plant except for certain jobs, like a maintenance leader. We could have them on our person, but they had to be powered off. We used the excuse that it could interfere with certain electronics, kinda like airliners wanting you to turn them off during takeoffs and landings. That and we didn't want picture taking inside our plant for proprietary reasons. We fired a guy because he got caught multiple times watching movies on his smart phone at his workstation. But I'm sure it's become more of a problem since I left.

Obviously, smart phones a factor in today's changing environment, perhaps the largest factor. I'm just saying that there's a lot of things you can point a finger at which has caused a societal change that has manifested itself in an obesity problem. I think there's bigger problems to worry about than cell phones. They're a symptom, not a root cause.

River Dog wrote:I retired in 2018, so yes, smart phones were around. We didn't allow them to be used inside the plant except for certain jobs, like a maintenance leader. We could have them on our person, but they had to be powered off. We used the excuse that it could interfere with certain electronics, kinda like airliners wanting you to turn them off during takeoffs and landings. That and we didn't want picture taking inside our plant for proprietary reasons. We fired a guy because he got caught multiple times watching movies on his smart phone at his workstation. But I'm sure it's become more of a problem since I left.

Obviously, smart phones a factor in today's changing environment, perhaps the largest factor. I'm just saying that there's a lot of things you can point a finger at which has caused a societal change that has manifested itself in an obesity problem. I think there's bigger problems to worry about than cell phones. They're a symptom, not a root cause.

I work in a more corporate environment. A lot of people at their desks. So the smartphone is always lingering about. Some people are better about being off it than others, but the smartphone watching is one of our biggest complaints and productivity problems that we have keep an eye on. These younger workers almost seem addicted to it. Older workers are usually fine, some of them don't even like being on it too much as they're not used to it growing up without it. But the younger generation that grew up with smartphones, they are bad. From a mechanistic biology perspective, I can only assume they've been electronically stimulated by an electronic device so often throughout their youth with smartphones, tablets, and the like that they've developed a psychological addiction to that constant stimulation. If they go too long without some kind of electronic stimulation from their phone, they start to feel maybe anxiety or depression and need the electronically stimulate dopamine hit to feel normal.

First world problems I guess, but still a productivity issue I can see impacting participation in physical activities like football. Why play the game when you can watch it all the time and play fantasy football where you have your own team competing against others. A more mentally stimulative and interactive experience.

River Dog wrote:I retired in 2018, so yes, smart phones were around. We didn't allow them to be used inside the plant except for certain jobs, like a maintenance leader. We could have them on our person, but they had to be powered off. We used the excuse that it could interfere with certain electronics, kinda like airliners wanting you to turn them off during takeoffs and landings. That and we didn't want picture taking inside our plant for proprietary reasons. We fired a guy because he got caught multiple times watching movies on his smart phone at his workstation. But I'm sure it's become more of a problem since I left.

Obviously, smart phones a factor in today's changing environment, perhaps the largest factor. I'm just saying that there's a lot of things you can point a finger at which has caused a societal change that has manifested itself in an obesity problem. I think there's bigger problems to worry about than cell phones. They're a symptom, not a root cause.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I work in a more corporate environment. A lot of people at their desks. So the smartphone is always lingering about. Some people are better about being off it than others, but the smartphone watching is one of our biggest complaints and productivity problems that we have keep an eye on. These younger workers almost seem addicted to it. Older workers are usually fine, some of them don't even like being on it too much as they're not used to it growing up without it. But the younger generation that grew up with smartphones, they are bad. From a mechanistic biology perspective, I can only assume they've been electronically stimulated by an electronic device so often throughout their youth with smartphones, tablets, and the like that they've developed a psychological addiction to that constant stimulation. If they go too long without some kind of electronic stimulation from their phone, they start to feel maybe anxiety or depression and need the electronically stimulate dopamine hit to feel normal.

First world problems I guess, but still a productivity issue I can see impacting participation in physical activities like football. Why play the game when you can watch it all the time and play fantasy football where you have your own team competing against others. A more mentally stimulative and interactive experience.

There is clearly a generational thing going on with cell phones. My best friend, of whom I referenced in the other forum and who will be celebrating his 87th birthday in a couple of months, has a huge irrational paranoia about cell phones. If he sees someone glued to his/her cell phone, it instantly pisses him off. But if he sees someone reading a book or magazine, he doesn't think anything about it. Any mention of him getting a smart phone sends him into a tirade.

I agree that there has to be reasonable ground rules for their use in the business world, and that it's mainly the Millennials and Gen Z that's most likely to be the problem. I just don't think we can blame everything that's wrong with our society on them.

The Apps on the mobile devices are designed to 'hook' the user just like drugs do. Facebook (now Mete) at one time alluded to it and former workers have come out and said the metrics of the algorithms are studied and Apps modified to make users want to or maybe even compelled to view the App on a frequent basis. That's where they get their money so it makes sense from a business PoV but it creates a whole sector of usually younger people that are addicted to their devices. It's also dangerous in that they can manipulate the news in such a way that it skews the reality of what actually happened or is happening. Musk on X is a perfect example of how to push false narratives or a singular point of view to millions very cheaply.

NorthHawk wrote:The Apps on the mobile devices are designed to 'hook' the user just like drugs do. Facebook (now Mete) at one time alluded to it and former workers have come out and said the metrics of the algorithms are studied and Apps modified to make users want to or maybe even compelled to view the App on a frequent basis. That's where they get their money so it makes sense from a business PoV but it creates a whole sector of usually younger people that are addicted to their devices. It's also dangerous in that they can manipulate the news in such a way that it skews the reality of what actually happened or is happening. Musk on X is a perfect example of how to push false narratives or a singular point of view to millions very cheaply.

That reminds me of subliminal advertising, an activity from back in the 60's where they'd put in very small clips of images of something like Coca-Cola in a movie reel that would make people want to go buy a Coke.

You're right about the manipulation of news, but it's not limited to phone apps. Social media is perhaps the worst evil in this field. But the root cause is the stupidity and gullibility of the public that allows themselves to be manipulated. People will believe anything so long as it aligns with their core values. I can't speak for Canada, but the United States is nothing but a pack full of stooges that don't know how to process information.

Critical thinking is an issue up here, too. And we have our share of idiots even to the point that some stooges were flying Trump flags and had bumper stickers that read Biden wasn't my president. Those types are lost causes and are too stupid to realize they don't live in the US. But regarding social media (like Meta and X as examples) many here are being manipulated and they don't have the wherewithal to realize what is happening.
I never joined Facebook or Twitter as when it came out I was still working in IT Security and one of our analysts did a fairly deep dive into what at that time they were using the information for. After hearing his conclusions I knew I didn't want to take part in that and I'm glad I haven't for the most part.

NorthHawk wrote:Critical thinking is an issue up here, too. And we have our share of idiots even to the point that some stooges were flying Trump flags and had bumper stickers that read Biden wasn't my president. Those types are lost causes and are too stupid to realize they don't live in the US. But regarding social media (like Meta and X as examples) many here are being manipulated and they don't have the wherewithal to realize what is happening.
I never joined Facebook or Twitter as when it came out I was still working in IT Security and one of our analysts did a fairly deep dive into what at that time they were using the information for. After hearing his conclusions I knew I didn't want to take part in that and I'm glad I haven't for the most part.

The US and Canada are probably as close socially as any two countries on the planet. For example, there's a huge difference between England and Ireland even though they share a relatively small island.

Yes, the information that Facebook and the other social media platforms collect on their users is concerning. But it isn't just social media. If you click on an article or ad in a Microsoft news feed, it will create an algorithm and start feeding similar articles to you as it helps with their advertising. That's one of the problems with our political situation, that people tend to only read what they are fed, and it's an endless loop of right wing or left wing articles. I've defeated that somewhat by following a variety of websites from both sides of the spectrum, like Fox News, the Washington Examiner, and the National Review on the conservative side and MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post on the liberal side.

Social media has its good and bad attributes. What you mentioned is the bad stuff, and there's lots more that I could add to it. But on the good side, it's helped me get in touch with some old long-lost friends, including a couple of guys that were Japanese exchange students 50 years ago in high school and of whom I visited last year. That wouldn't have happened without Facebook.

That's funny what you said about people in Canada being so stupid that they don't realize that they're not living in the US. I guess I shouldn't limit my comments about morons to just to Americans.

The algorithms are an issue because they think the reader is interested in a subject so they don’t get offered other views.
I was on Amazon years ago and then started getting ads for things I was originally looking for, but not for other things that might have interested me. I would imagine Social Media is similar in that competing views and news feeds mostly give that political focus and not countering articles. So if someone is a CNN viewer he may never see a Fox article and vice versa.

NorthHawk wrote:The algorithms are an issue because they think the reader is interested in a subject so they don’t get offered other views.
I was on Amazon years ago and then started getting ads for things I was originally looking for, but not for other things that might have interested me. I would imagine Social Media is similar in that competing views and news feeds mostly give that political focus and not countering articles. So if someone is a CNN viewer he may never see a Fox article and vice versa.

Yep, that's exactly right. I've noticed that about Amazon, too. It's the same thing with my MSN news feed. But on Facebook, Instagram, et al, you can alter those algorithms by following pages, so they show up in your feed first. It's the same with my MSN news feed.

But people do that on their own anyway, ie refuse to watch certain news channels and watch others exclusively. I remember Idahawkman giving me a hard time because I'd watch the evil MSM (Main Stream Media). However, I did boycott Fox News for a while when they were promoting the rigged election conspiracy nonsense.

IMO, the best way to avoid manipulation is to maintain a strong base level understanding on the subjects being discussed, so you understand the underlying mechanisms of the science behind something or have a base understanding of the issues or history. At least that is what I do as often as I can as I feel the source material is often written in a very legalistic or scientific manner which allows you to make your own decision as to what it really means.

Social media is mostly short, emotionally manipulative takes on something or some person distilling something they've read into a short form video. Even the news is what I would consider short form media with talking heads interpreting some issue according to the agenda they serve or that makes them money with ratings. Though some news is delivery of information about a current issue that you can delve deeper into. That's not a bad use of the news to dispense basic factual information about a current event or issue.

But the political media and social media I have no time for. I hate getting that stuff spammed to my by friends with some sensationalistic, BS headline.

We've really veered off topic, but if anyone's interested, the Participation Bowl, a.k.a. Pro Bowl, comes on today at 12PM PT. Needless to say, I won't be watching.