Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social networks are no longer social

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#51

Post by reaperducer »

pcurve wrote: post #4

The article mentions of days when you were anonymous, getting to know strangers through common interests and exchanging ideas. I do miss those early days. For me, social network stopped being social as soon as reasonable assurance of anonymity when out the window once companies started pressuring people use their real identity, and that became the norm.

The article mentions of days when you were anonymous

It's funny how in the early days of the internet, everyone was so open and honest about who they are that it was very common for their e-mail messages, Usenet posts, finger plans, etc... to have their real names, home and/or work addresses, and home and/or work phone numbers.

Then the scammers discovered the internet, and everyone had to dummy up about who they are.

Then the corporations got involved, and decided to use "AI" unmask everyone and sell that information back to the scammers.

I wonder what the next move is. Maybe we should all go back to blatantly stating who we are to make the corporations' information gathering worthless.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#52

Post by gaius »

wybiral wrote: post #18

I vote we return to the age of late Geocities, forums, and early blogs. Less conformity in design, less "social" by modern definition, but more people who just liked one topic enough to build something about it and communities forming around them.

My group of real-world friends did an overnight migration (well not quite but once it started it was very fast) from Livejournal to Facebook; in retrospect that was a mistake and we all should have stayed on LJ.

The killer feature? Being able to tag people in photos, such an obvious thing, but LJ was unable to do it. Add events and it was game over for LJ.

Incidentally, I said at the time, it was a massive strategic blunder for Google+ to launch without full integration with the Google Calendar. People want a one-stop shop and FB was it for photos and events.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#53

Post by rrebelo »

iagovar wrote: post #32
rrebelo wrote: post #21

> Watching distant cousins fight about politics I've long been cautious to step into the WhatsApp hysteria going on here in Brazil. But the last (disgraceful) election here was the last straw. The level of stupidity in the memes from both sides was far beyond repulsive. A solution that is working so far: automatic regulation. I created a Telegram group with a bot that censors the most common names and expressions on…

Hmmm, this is an interesting take. I may apply it to one of my communities. I've been playing with the idea of banning politics entirely, but that's what most people want to talk about. Did you notice any improvement on the level of discussion? Or do they just reacted different with each other posts? Also, do you just censor the keyword or remove the post entirely?

Beware: the devil is in the details. The trick is to choose the most provocative, trolling or insulting words. I let people discuss generic terms such as income distribution, fiscal crisis, education, etc. But I filter out terms such as "comunist", "fascist", "Bolsonaro" (the Brazilian version of Rodrigo Duterte) etc.

> Did you notice any improvement on the level of discussion?

So far, people are still on a "treading the waters"/"sensing the environment" period. But I sense that:

* The posts tangent to politics don't immediately trigger a knee jerk reaction. Surprisingly, when people discuss politics in a more abstract way, there is a lot more "I agree with you" between people that used to fight a lot. I count this as an improvement, although it is too early to see an increase of depth of understanding on the issues.

* In the beginning some people complained about my heavy-handed approach, calling it censorship and authoritarianism. I just didn't engage in their complaints. My standard response was "my house, my rules".

* There is a lot more of light-heart, especially among the younger ones. Childish jokes and memes are still around, but nothing offensive. In friends and family groups it is ok, these are habits I don't want to break.

> Also, do you just censor the keyword or remove the post entirely?

I remove the post and post a standard bot answer. Often, the bot gives some false positives, but people find it funny (e.g: "PT" is the acronym for both the main opposition political party and for "total loss" in Portuguese). Because I use regular expressions, people started a game of trying to outsmart the bot. Since it was for fun, it only helped sharpen up the expressions.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#54

Post by mistrial9 »

there have been pundits and intellectuals all along that predicted the current state of affairs (to a greater or lesser extent). When Facebook arose in the beginning, it caused (and still causes) quite a bit of anguish in those circles. Some of the less-stable people had actual despair and negative life-outcomes, seeing what was basically their "worst-case scenario" come true, and the wealth that went with it.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#55

Post by 40acres »

I think there is a balance to be struk but I don't know what it is. As someone who frequented gaming forums in the late 2000s I've seen the dark side of 100% anonymous forums: there is definitely a lack of humanity that comes across in communities where anyone could be a dog. There is no repercussion to speech and there is very little context to conversations.

When humans interact we not only process the words that are communicated but the context: what is our social history, what facial expressions and micro-expressions are being displayed, what is the race and/or social standing of the people involved. All of this is lost in anonymous conversation.

Now, this definitely has it's perks, it allows for communication on a neutral platform, where racial and sexual discrimination is less likely to occur and individuals can choose which parts of themselves to reveal, but humans are not really built to communicate this way, and it shows if you've ever been on an online forum or in a chatroom of an online FPS.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#56

Post by whatshisface »

reaperducer wrote: post #51
pcurve wrote: post #4

The article mentions of days when you were anonymous, getting to know strangers through common interests and exchanging ideas. I do miss those early days. For me, social network stopped being social as soon as reasonable assurance of anonymity when out the window once companies started pressuring people use their real identity, and that became the norm.

The article mentions of days when you were anonymous It's funny how in the early days of the internet, everyone was so open and honest about who they are that it was very common for their e-mail messages, Usenet posts, finger plans, etc... to have their real names, home and/or work addresses, and home and/or work phone numbers. Then the scammers discovered the internet, and everyone had to dummy up about who they are…

>Maybe we should all go back to blatantly stating who we are to make the corporations' information gathering worthless.

Google doesn't stop at your name and address, in fact that's not even what they are mainly interested in. Revealing your identifying information would just open yourself up to harassment, especially when a tech company leaks the top 10,000 list of the most-likely-to-buy customers of some embarrassing product.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#57

Post by flyinghamster »

octosphere wrote: post #13
pcurve wrote: post #4

The article mentions of days when you were anonymous, getting to know strangers through common interests and exchanging ideas. I do miss those early days. For me, social network stopped being social as soon as reasonable assurance of anonymity when out the window once companies started pressuring people use their real identity, and that became the norm.

You can still be anonymous on Facebook if you use their onion service[1]. Although I think you can't register for an account under Tor, which is counter intuitive (I mean why would you offer a Tor hidden service if you can't register under it?). In that case I would register using a 3G/GSM IP which many people share (instead of a unique IP where few people share it); and then, once registered, proceed to browse Faceb…

> In that case I would register using a 3G/GSM IP which many people share

Be careful... some cell providers use IPv6 these days. T-Mobile US gives me an IPv6 address and a 192.0.0.x CGNAT address.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#58

Post by Kye »

octosphere wrote: post #14
lazyjones wrote: post #11

This article brought to you by the Oath network, a faceless media conglomerate that slaps a hostile privacy policy in your face when you dare click on such links and asks you to agree to their dubious handling of personal information and preferences. The social aspect of the Internet used to be about people communicating with people. Today it's about large corporations deciding how you interact, who gets to know abou…

Outline to the rescue: https://outline.com/2XKLG2

Outline's ToS and privacy policy are collectively almost 2000 words.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#59

Post by zanny »

40acres wrote: post #55

I think there is a balance to be struk but I don't know what it is. As someone who frequented gaming forums in the late 2000s I've seen the dark side of 100% anonymous forums: there is definitely a lack of humanity that comes across in communities where anyone could be a dog. There is no repercussion to speech and there is very little context to conversations. When humans interact we not only process the words that a…

Except participation on anonymous forums is wholly voluntary and you have no immutable paper trail to stalk you across the whole Internet. You can at whim make a new account and be a new person, and avoid the parts you didn't like on your last romp around.

Widespred persistent harassment only grew in popularity as real identities were plastered all over the popular sites.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#60

Post by newscracker »

octosphere wrote: post #13
pcurve wrote: post #4

The article mentions of days when you were anonymous, getting to know strangers through common interests and exchanging ideas. I do miss those early days. For me, social network stopped being social as soon as reasonable assurance of anonymity when out the window once companies started pressuring people use their real identity, and that became the norm.

You can still be anonymous on Facebook if you use their onion service[1]. Although I think you can't register for an account under Tor, which is counter intuitive (I mean why would you offer a Tor hidden service if you can't register under it?). In that case I would register using a 3G/GSM IP which many people share (instead of a unique IP where few people share it); and then, once registered, proceed to browse Faceb…

> Just be careful, because if you are using Facebook with Tor, you run the risk of outing your real identity from things like your social graph, search queries, likes, and other metadata.

You can’t be anonymous from Facebook or from Facebook users (with or without Tor) without violating its ToS and worrying about being blocked and asked to prove your real/authentic identity if you piss off some random person online or get flagged by one of its bots that check accounts periodically.

Post reply on HN