[What follows is a comment I also made on facebook, of all places] You offer a pathologisation of social media. But like much else, social media are based on technologies that enable good use as much as abuse. Your piece seems to focus on the abusive aspects only. Already the notion of a “junk society” triggers a number of problematic associations, and I assume that there are more disanalogies than analogies between food and society. Moreover, I doubt that social media are necessarily a “vehicle of the establishment, of the perpetuation and enforcement of the status quo” or “deeply unhealthy” – at least without further argument.

Thanks for the comment, Martin! My point is not that SM have bad sides only or that are necessarily pathological. My point is to draw attention to the potential problems that a certain use/abuse of SM may entail. Especially when one takes them seriously as a way of 'expressing oneself' (whatever this may mean).

Thanks for your reply, Andrea! Now, I do take social media as a serious way of expression, be it for political, artistic or all too human reasons. But I fail to see the issues you highlight as problems of social media. Let me pick up on the point of SM being a "vehicle of the establishment". Of course, "the establishment" being what we assume it to be might try and influence people in that way. However, much (sensible) interaction I see on SM could be seen as having the opposite effect of empowerment. So let me make the contrary claim that ignoring social media is a sign of privilege.

Sure, Martin, it *can* have that good effect (I don't think the post denies that), but it can also have the opposite negative effect. When you take a drug, don't you look for potential side effects and right dosages and ways of taking it? Drugs can save your life, or kill you. Depends on how you use them. That's why I think that (even if I fully grant that omnis comparatio claudicat), the analogy with food is a good one: nothing is wrong with say sugar, you may have problems if you don't take any kind of sugar. But you may also die if you take too much of it and in the wrong way. Being aware of dangers doesn't harm, doesn't it? Forgetting potential dangers does. If not using SM is a privilege (which in a sense, it may well be), then more people should have that privilege. It's like saying that since many people do not have food at all, having junk food is better than starving. Yes, it is. But it would be even better to have decent food to avoid starvation (and sometimes, people are led to starvation because their land is used to grow soy for cows that will end up in some junk food for some other people, so giving them junk stuff is not really helping them, but just preserving the system...).

Thanks again, Andrea! With much of what you say now I can happily agree. So I begin to wonder where our disagreement really lies. I think the reason why I react quite strongly to your post is that much of what it reiterates is already in the public sphere: "yes, SM are bad, and they are propagating hate speech etc." You come across as taking the same line by *seeming* to make it look like a guilty pleasure of individuals who just don't happen to have sufficient control over their desires. Now, while some of your diagnosis might be true, this line of argument (I'm saying "this line", not you) carries a note of condescension. Worse still, it individualises guilt: "we all know it's bad, jus get over yourself." So partly, it is a matter of tone. But that tone translates into real content - You say: "Being aware of dangers doesn't harm, doesn't it?" - So you might think, but that's not true. Awareness can trigger anxieties, psycholocal ones (of being addicted) and social ones (of being excluded from the sphere where junk is frowned upon). And in this context the pathological language matters. Ny calling things "unhealthy", you seem to turn it into an individual choice and implicitly deny its political dimensions. - I'm not saying that you *intend* these things. But by using the analogy you do, you're joing a choir that is already singing the tune of a certain establishment: of those noble people who can restrain themselves and do without junk food. - Neither am I saying all your arguments are bad. What I'm saying is that your analogy carries more weight than meets the eye.

To add just one more worry about the analogy, by talking about a "junk society" you seem to end up talking about certain groups of people or their interactions as junk. - Again, I'm not saying that you intend to do this, but this was my initial way of taking the analogy.

Hi Martin, I see. I think that misunderstanding and misinterpretation is an avoidable risk of language (another side effects!). I'm glad this is the case, otherwise we would not have a job. -- As you mentioned, it's not my intention to make individuals culpable or increase their anxiety. The choir may be singing, but perhaps it's just a mere coincidence. The Spinozistic standpoint helps in that: it brings attention to how easily an individual (in Spinoza's sense) is prone to seek recognition and thus buy into the way in which this process contributes to built its own identity. And yes, often they (us, I, everybody) don't have control, this is the very basic idea of having passions and being influenced by external causes stronger than us (which happen all the time to everybody, E1p4). I do think that knowledge may be painful, but never harmful. I do think that ignorance is always worse than painful awareness. Pain and dissatisfaction may crash you, true, but ignoring their causes won't help either. Often, we think that causes are so powerful compared with our own power that we can't do anything. But isn't Spinoza's message (at least in part five of the Ethics), that the mind does have some power to resist even these so harmful and powerful causes? And it does that by knowing, not by avoiding knowledge. That does not make the mind always successful, and that's why Spinoza talks about striving not about achieving. -- Avoiding junk food is no restriction, like non smoking is not a privation of anything that would be good in itself. -- Regarding the 'junk society' as referred to a group of people: no it's not my intention to identify groups of people, since when I say 'junk food', I'm qualifying a kind of *food* and not who eats it. So 'junk society' refers to a way of being social (I hint at this in the third paragraph), not to any person or group in particular (except perhaps if one would self-identify herself as 'junk-eater', but I'm not committed to claim that anybody would do). -- Anyway, in the end, my main point is that identities must be deconstructed, not constructed. And this process is not done once and forever, it's a constant exercise and practice. Perhaps we may agree on this? Maybe SM will add at some point a 'deconstruct' button somewhere to fulfill this role. Let me know when it does ;)

Thanks, Andrea, yes: the deconstructive process "is not done once and forever, it's a constant exercise and practice. Perhaps we may agree on this?" - Yes, by all means. As for Spinoza's backing, I have to say that I am more of a Humean when it comes to certain matters. So I suppose we both in particular could now go on for a while. For the moment, however, I'm more curious to hear what others think. In enabling this, social media themselves (like this blog just now) might actually function like a perfect 'deconstruct button', don't you think?;)