The impact of social media on storm chasing

[JamesCaruso]

To @John Farley ’s point above, I use Duck Duck Go as my search engine. But I still got the results @Dan Robinson described when I tried the two searches he mentioned as examples. Duck Duck Go is still a good alternative though, mainly for privacy reasons. They also seem to do less filtering of “disinformation.” I put that in quotes because I don’t necessarily want a tech company defining for me what’s “disinformation” and what is just an alternate opinion. I can decide for myself based on the source and based on what seems to be the consensus view. Regardless of individual political leanings, we should all be able to agree there is often a political bias when a tech company decides something is “disinformation.” I recall a situation where I did a Google search for a human rights situation in China, for example, and no matter how many letters I typed the auto-fill never completed the search text, but on Duck Duck Go it did. It seems that the type of thing Dan noted shows an increasingly narrow view that only the “experts” (mainstream media, government, academia) are credible sources and individuals with knowledge cannot be. If this were true, we may as well get rid of Wikipedia.

 

[Jason N]

I've seen a rise in alternative search engines to get away from tracking and data mining, one of them is Brave. I don't know how well it performs or not, I just know there is a push to get away from having everything you search for being sold to companies, or having map services like google, snapshot everything and track you at all times.

 

[gdlewen]

To @John Farley ’s point above, I use Duck Duck Go as my search engine. But I still got the results @Dan Robinson described when I tried the two searches he mentioned as examples. Duck Duck Go is still a good alternative though, mainly for privacy reasons. They also seem to do less filtering of “disinformation.” I put that in quotes because I don’t necessarily want a tech company defining for me what’s “disinformation” and what is just an alternate opinion. I can decide for myself based on the source and based on what seems to be the consensus view. Regardless of individual political leanings, we should all be able to agree there is often a political bias when a tech company decides something is “disinformation.” I recall a situation where I did a Google search for a human rights situation in China, for example, and no matter how many letters I typed the auto-fill never completed the search text, but on Duck Duck Go it did. It seems that the type of thing Dan noted shows an increasingly narrow view that only the “experts” (mainstream media, government, academia) are credible sources and individuals with knowledge cannot be. If this were true, we may as well get rid of Wikipedia.

I agree with @JamesCaruso re: DuckDuckGo. Haven't used Google in several years. The last time I looked myself up on Google, the top result was my political party voter registration (I kid you not.) On DuckDuckGo my top results were various papers I'd co-authored. And now I realize I'm not discussing the impact of social media on chasing anymore but I did want to get that affirmation of James' point out there before I stop: there is a difference in the search engines.

 

[gdlewen]

To @John Farley ’s point above, I use Duck Duck Go as my search engine. But I still got the results @Dan Robinson described when I tried the two searches he mentioned as examples. Duck Duck Go is still a good alternative though, mainly for privacy reasons. They also seem to do less filtering of “disinformation.” I put that in quotes because I don’t necessarily want a tech company defining for me what’s “disinformation” and what is just an alternate opinion. I can decide for myself based on the source and based on what seems to be the consensus view. Regardless of individual political leanings, we should all be able to agree there is often a political bias when a tech company decides something is “disinformation.” I recall a situation where I did a Google search for a human rights situation in China, for example, and no matter how many letters I typed the auto-fill never completed the search text, but on Duck Duck Go it did. It seems that the type of thing Dan noted shows an increasingly narrow view that only the “experts” (mainstream media, government, academia) are credible sources and individuals with knowledge cannot be. If this were true, we may as well get rid of Wikipedia.

OK one more point re: Wikipedia. I never rely on Wikipedia except for science/math information--areas where there is an objective truth that is not dependent on one's interpretation or ideology. As some areas of science become increasingly politicized, the utility of Wikipedia in turn becomes increasingly marginalized--I just can't rely on a source that can be updated or modified by pseudo-anonymous internet entities with unknown pedigrees.

 

[Jesse Risley]

My issue with social media largely revolves around the outrage culture that it has manifested. Some of that DOES actually intersect with chasing, as anyone who has witnessed so-called "Weather Twitter drama" can attest. It's drawn a lot of people into the hobby of course, as a sort of catalyst even more powerful than what the release of Hollywood's Twister did in the 1990s. That probably was bound to happen anyhow. Nevertheless, a recent NYT opinion poll noted as follows:

Loudonville, NY. Eighty-four percent of Americans say that some Americans not exercising their freedom of speech in everyday situations due to fear of retaliation or harsh criticism is either a very (40%) or somewhat (44%) serious problem, according to a new national New York Times Opinion/Siena College Poll. Over half, 55%, of Americans say that they have held their tongue, that is, not spoken freely over the last year because they were concerned about retaliation or harsh criticism, and compared to 10 years ago by 46-21% Americans are less, rather than more, free to express their viewpoint on politics, and by 35-28% less, rather than more, free to discuss issues of race. C.f., 84% Say Americans being Afraid to Exercise Freedom of Speech is a Serious Problem

So, my issue largely revolves around the disproportional reactions those on social media have to things they don't like and how they feel compelled to punish those who think or act differently.* In chasing, it may mean having online mobs castigating you for some simple mistake (I'm not defending blatantly dangerous driving behaviors) or criticizing how, when and where you chase and trying to contact your employers when they feel their righteous indignation warrants it. It's just not moving us in a positive direction socially, so I don't engage much with Weather Weenies on social media. I don't know that it's had a largely net positive on the hobby, but many of the same issues people have been raising since the 90s are simply exacerbated by video evidence plastered all over the web. Most of those concerns are not new per se (e.g., poor driving, too many people on higher end setups, lightbars, negative encounters with the local or state constabulary, relying too much on technology and CAMs over learning how to forecast, etc.).

*I'm well aware that the First Amendment protects you from government sanction but not from criticism or reproach from individuals or private entities.

 

[Jason N]

My issue with social media largely revolves around the outrage culture that it has manifested.

Agreed, I see that as almost purposefully designed (tin foil thought) but maybe it's organic to society at large when you put millions of people on a platform spouting off nonsense. I can't really say for sure. but it seems to me, people today are way easier to anger, emotionally react and it shows up in aggressive driving, hot tempers tied to stressful situations (the FOMO of trying to get action footage of tornadoes which are tied to SM likes and monetized hopes and dreams). Our world today seems to reflect the SM culture that has outpaced reason and thought, for reaction and response. Something in the last 2 generations of people is missing these days, everything turns into crisis mode when your problem isn't really a problem. My personal view is, we (those of born in the 70's and beyond) don't truly know what problems or suffering are as a mass society. So, we just sit around and create them, self-destructing, from the inside out. There are numerous reasons for that I think, but this chat is for Social Media and chasing, I won't diverge from that more than need be.

 

[gdlewen]

Agreed, I see that as almost purposefully designed (tin foil thought) but maybe it's organic. I can't really say for sure. but it seems to me, people today are way easier to anger, emotionally react and it shows up in aggressive driving, hot tempers tied to stressful situations (the FOMO of trying to get action footage of tornadoes which are tied to SM likes and monetized hopes and dreams). Our world today seems to reflect the SM culture that have outpaced reason and thought, for reaction and response. Something in the last 2 generations of people is missing these days, everything turns into crisis mode when your problem isn't really a problem. My personal view is, we (those of born in the 70's and beyond) don't truly know what problems or suffering are as a mass society. So, we just sit around and create them, self-destructing, from the inside out. There are numerous reasons for that I think, but this chat is for Social Media and chasing, I won't diverge from that more than need be.

I think a lot of it has to do with the relative anonymity of on-line posting. A related example--I noticed when driving to work in NJ that people were much more aggressive before the time change, when that hour meant we were driving in relative darkness. After the time change, it was light enough to see the other drivers in their cars and the level of aggressiveness dropped perceptibly. In other words: when they knew they could be seen they were less likely to be aggressive. That's an empirical observation but integrated over years and years...and years and years....