Sociological dialogue on realism in social media

Q: What happens in social media today? 

A: People post stuff which is relative to their circumstances. The events or ‘episodes’ recorded in social ‘feed’ are categorical and consequentially constructive. The feed is relative to the past and the future, it’s a timeline essentially. Facebooks timeline for example

Q: What do you see besides exclusive articles, by taking a Cross-Section of someones timeline?

A: It’s a framework for understanding that person. You can see what has been, is and will influence them. You can interpret their emotional state and rational mindsets regarding circumstance with a externally objective viewpoint which they didn’t have at the time. 

Q: Does this benefit us?

A: Certainly it’s useful in analytical senses, to determine parameters of human understanding, so based on logic, assumptions and intrinsic reason, all in mind perhaps to evaluation of the human condition. Yet this whole social media activity is neutral, it doesn’t actually confer anything about that person necessarily, only their data. It could be anyones, it could be your cross-section in the end. Assessing a timelines cross-section however large or small, doesn’t benefit you beside the initial knowledge in how to engage an active assessment as a skill, thus increasing your intelligence. It doesn’t benefit the person who owns the reel either, they who make it available as a sequence, because your objective understanding of the meta-data is irrespectively external and inapplicable to them in the present. It is a mere facade, a fascist ideal which is promoting psychological sciences which break open and inspect the foundations of human kind, in the actual structural formulations of society, sociology and socialism.  

Q: Is that why people reject Facebook occasionally, or up and delete their profile suddenly?

A: Yes fundamentally they don’t want to be identified with the practices of scientific enquiry, largely due to its associative disregard. Science can at times after all create a terrible fall-out and by not wanting anything to do with it, and the person distancing themselves either in simple censuring, or total deletion; enforces the fact that the object-subject dichotomy isn’t authorised. 

Q: Why isn’t the object-subject dichotomy authorised?

A: Because the analytical framework is insubstantial and out of context. There is no absolution to contextual reference as a system by meta-data. If for example someone has posted a certain 'series' they may become evidently diagnosed with a mental condition, or become suspect to criminal activity, whether potential or concurrently under investigation. The break-away realm of social media with closely based capacity for information control, is a anarchic framework, without recourse to justice or even constructive assembly beyond virality.

Q: How is that different to the real world?

A: It’s not so different, but in the real world the ability of anyone with freedom of senses, to observe a discernibly wrong act is available, but is limited in the privacy control ‘place’ of ones social media feed. 

Q: So, a person can pretend in public, and be a total criminal in private, in the real world too…

A: Of course, but the opportunity for law to control, and be the primary power in society is restricted in favour for individually totalitarian control. 

Q: Then the person in social media is actually in charge of their own State?

A: Pretty much, however they choose to run their State, determines what kind of person they are in the real-world too. Some closely control their friend lists for example, others let anyone or everyone in and see their profile. These classes aren’t recognised even as so much commonly as someone recognises you are dressed well, or badly, in the real-world.

Q: Is this Neutrality a problem globally?

A: Not necessarily, and not under the responsibility of the Corporations running the Network, but potentially. Because of the power shift away from Freedom of Law, to restriction of Social Rights.