I go to the bank and get cash. Businesses accept that cash for goods and services. I observe no difference in my social media habits because I do not use Meta products.
And me. So your "exception" hypothesis is getting weaker :)
You've really got me thinking.
Is there a word for that thing when "everyone knows" what they think
"everyone is doing", but once they start to dig deeper it turns out
nobody really is? Everyone is pretending to, because they think that's
what everybody should say and do?
Mass delusion? Group fallacy? Fashion? Groupthink? None quite capture
it.
I think what's happening here is selection bias. The people who proudly have no Meta accounts are replying to each other saying "me too". The hundreds of others who were reading did not reply.
I'm alluding to something a bit more interesting, I hope.
We don't have a way to test those hundreds of voices comprising the
supposed silent majority. I'm saying that when/(BIG if) one does - via
some hitherto undevised ingenious experiment which always yields truth
- we find that no... in fact everyone is at best ambivalent, but
mostly going along with what they think the majority view is.
I'm sure there's a name/concept for this in group dynamics.
Consensus mythology? (I'm just making that up)
A hallmark is that interrogating the group yields one answer, but each
individual considered privately will give you a very different
answer.
But it's not "group-think" I'm talking about, because that implies a
more overt pressure. Rather it emerges in the absence of coordination
amongst an implied majority when there exists a loud propaganda
message designating some other group a minority.
I think this effect has important implications in the kind of 50:50 +
swing elections we've seen over the past few years. For example, in
Brexit, a mass of lethargic voters assumed "everyone will vote
against" and didn't verify the reality by asking lots of diverse
friends. It's not that people are trapped in actual bubbles so much as
bubbles of their own mind based on assumptions about those around
them.
Sorry, that's probably a long and clumsy way of saying something
obvious.
I see what you're getting at. I do know that many people, when asked about Whatsapp (especially parents complaining about the "obligatory" school Whatsapp groups), wish they didn't have to use it. I'm not sure how serious that sentiment is, or if they really would wish that if they understood the consequences, but as an experiment I have been attempting various community organisation projects that explicitly do not use Whatsapp. They've been quite successful, so far! We have just started co-ordinating a monthly kid's play session in our street, and I have a regular biking group.
Think about the situation for a second. You'll be switching to other methods, and so will everyone else, all at once. Do Amex and Mastercard even have the capacity to take up the slack with no notice? Do you really think that every critical component of a cost-optimised system will have been over-provisioned to be able to take on hundreds of millions of additional customers in a single day? And if one fails, the demand switches to the remainder and crashes them too. It's a classic cascade failure.
I suspect it would take up the slack - depending on how the failure happened and when it happened.
I don't believe payment processors have the same number of payments every second, so Amex and MC have to be sized for the largest spike (+ some) that they can endure, and so unless Visa fell right when they were already maxed out, they'd likely continue.
And Visa has fallen before; if it was anything like a long-term failure, you know all the other processors would be spinning up as much extra capacity as they could. And many stores still have the paper machines for credit slips.