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

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#111

Post by smallnamespace »

jesperlang wrote: post #109

But what does it mean to be "social"? I've been thinking about this alot lately and it's not easy to define. But social media's version of social is making me more and more uncomfortable. I have so many unfinished thoughts around this but here goes.. I can say that a good social experience is usually in a very small group, dynamic, immersive, thrilling, you can feel it in your entire body, you loose your sense of tim…

> what does it mean to be "social"

It sounds like you're making a distinction between 'public' and 'private', a distinction with a very long history in the West with sharply differing sets of norms.

Early social networks were intensely private, even though you were dealing with individual members of the public.

As networks grow and try to vacuum up connections, the actual connections weaken and social networking becomes either quasi-public (the circle of friends' friends could be hundreds to thousands of people), or if something goes viral then it's just public.

Our norms for public discourse are sharply different from private conversation—you can say lots of things in the privacy of actual friends and family that presumably you wouldn't say in the middle of a town square.

But social media today means that every interaction you have targeted just to friends has a low, but non-zero probability of being judged also by all your neighbors and faraway strangers who have less context. Of course that's uncomfortable—you don't know ahead of time which set of rules are going to get applied to you.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#112

Post by fgandiya »

ricardobeat wrote: post #77
fgandiya wrote: post #50

I'm not sure how to feel about this. From social media I've been able to connect with old friends, enjoy good memes and keep up with current affairs. It's also been useful at times where I've found people willing to put in a good word for a job, mentor me and there are a few people who are really good at providing a fruitful environment for discussion (even controversial topics) that makes me sad to leave. Unfortunat…

Can you explain ‘extra’ in this context? #oldfart

Extra means over the top, excessive or dramatic. Generally, People on Twitter trend to be rather dramatic.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#113

Post by potatoyogurt »

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…

Unless you're also going to disclose all your cookie ids, mobile device ids, connected tv ids, transaction history, income/demographics/consumer preferences, etc. etc., there will still be a lot of room for adtech companies to gather information about you. And even if you do, there is still attribution of purchases to impressions or clicks, audience segmentation, ad retargeting, and many other lucrative areas for companies to trade your data.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#114

Post by jesperlang »

smallnamespace wrote: post #111
jesperlang wrote: post #109

But what does it mean to be "social"? I've been thinking about this alot lately and it's not easy to define. But social media's version of social is making me more and more uncomfortable. I have so many unfinished thoughts around this but here goes.. I can say that a good social experience is usually in a very small group, dynamic, immersive, thrilling, you can feel it in your entire body, you loose your sense of tim…

> what does it mean to be "social" It sounds like you're making a distinction between 'public' and 'private', a distinction with a very long history in the West with sharply differing sets of norms. Early social networks were intensely private, even though you were dealing with individual members of the public. As networks grow and try to vacuum up connections, the actual connections weaken and social networking beco…

yeah, the public/private thing is a biggie for me I think. But maybe it's also the speed / "dynamic-ness"? I imagine an open panel discussion can be quite an intense, immersive and interesting social experience :)

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#115

Post by reaperducer »

laumars wrote: post #99
kardos wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe we should all go back to blatantly stating who we are to make the corporations' information gathering worthless. Well yes, that would devalue your name/address details, so they'd shift to more invasive approaches like reading your emails and messages, bugging your person and/or home, tracking your financial transactions, etc.

Not sure if that’s intended to be taken sarcastically or not but some of those things do already happen like reading your emails/instant messages and tracking your financial transactions.

I think it was sarcasm, since he described most free e-mail services, Facebook messenger, Google Home, and whatever the name is of Google's in-house org that thinks it's entitled to the records of 80% of the world's credit card transactions.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#116

Post by Paperweight »

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.

When everyone's anonymous, anyone can speak their mind without worrying about offending anyone.

When everyone's identified, only the crazies and extremists truly speak their mind - they don't care about offending anyone.

You might end up with a mix of crazies and extremist "thought leaders" with packs of quiet followers - a suppression of the moderates and deep thinkers.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#117

Post by lurkertroll »

bhhaskin wrote: post #72
madprops wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean there's still Reddit, the chans, forums, etc, with a lot of activity, if you want to live those days again.

Reddit is quickly heading down the same path as Facebook. Especially with the new design.

It reminds me of the Digg exodus to reddit.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#118

Post by RileyJames »

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.

When I was in high school, this was MySpace. I remember all my friends learning HTML, or at least enough to copy and paste sufficiently, to build out their custom profiles.

It was a constant process of landing on a friends profile, being amazed by some feature or design and then going back to work on your own.

It also felt more like people’s profiles expressed through design, or music, or gifs, or other media, rather than what they had to say or any form of posts. I don’t really remember “posting status updates” at all, but I’m sure it was a feature.

And then at some point Facebook wiped it all out.

I can’t see people wanting to manage their own homepage. But then again, I remember we all did in high school for MySpace... maybe we will again.

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#119

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Social networks are no longer social

#120

Post by noer »

I really get what this article is talking about. Most of the friends I've had the longest I met on the internet. I went to a small private high school far from my home and had interests that none of my classmates had, plus it was difficult to socialize after school because I lived far away.

I was into Punk & Hardcore and found a local Punk & Hardcore music messageboard (powered by PostNuke!). I definitely remember being at a show (probably in 2003 or 2004) and someone saying, "Wow, most of the people I hang out with, I met on the internet."

When I went to college I met a bunch of friends on a bike focused messageboard I'm still active on. I met people who went to the same school as me, but what was probably the most odd is that I met them online, not at school.

Post reply on HN