Comment by gumaflux

Counter arguments

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.