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

Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

meta.ath0.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 174 posts

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#71

Post by onion2k »

rg111 wrote: post #56

As soon as your news feed becomes too big for you to read all of it and then decide whether to repost anything, the quality of information you propagate is going to fall because of that filtering process. I avoid this by unfollowing people very frequently. I see one stupid candid or a pout or a food shot, I just unfollow that person. Same goes for SJW/White Supremacy types. Whether you are OP or a sharer, you get mut…

Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts. People aren't like that; everyone has many facets to what they're interested in, who they are, and what makes them tick. Removing them from your network as soon as they post anything from your red flag list demonstrates that you're not actually interested in the "social" bit, and really you want a curated list of facts. I guess that's your choice but I suspect you'll find it very isolating eventually.

One of the most important "soft skills" I've learned as developer over the past 25 years is that ignoring people because they're interested in things I'm not interested in makes managing a team incredibly hard. You need to be able to listen even when people are talking about "boring" or irrelevant stuff, because sometimes there's something very relevant buried in there. People aren't one-dimensional and they won't always talk about things you want to hear, so if you reject them on that basis you'll miss the good stuff too. Plus, I've found a lot of the time the rest turns out to be quite interesting too if you take the time to listen.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#72

Post by BeefWellington »

motohagiography wrote: post #8

This explains why the crappiest of efforts are so viral, and why things that try harder fail. When I think of the meme templates I've seen, they're all grade 2 mental level, and they don't engage your critcal faculties, but this is their point. They just pass right by. There is a kind of bias where we must think, "this is so crappy, it has to be real!" which is the complement bias to, "this looks too polished to be r…

> I wonder what examples of things other than memes would be the effect of that bias.

Looking at a similar phenomenon in a different medium, I'd argue that both Nickelback and Adam Sandler films fall into this same category.

People everywhere love to shit on Nickelback but when they were touring they were selling out stadium after stadium after stadium, having albums go platinum, etc. They were an outright commercial success despite being panned critically and seemingly "universally hated."

Adam Sandler films get the same treatment.

My theory is: Sometimes you just want to not think deeply about a thing and turn your brain off and enjoy, and I think that applies to music, film, and memes equally. There's something inoffensive but satisfying about mediocrity in these things.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#73

Post by nxpnsv »

wolverine876 wrote: post #63
rg111 wrote: post #56

As soon as your news feed becomes too big for you to read all of it and then decide whether to repost anything, the quality of information you propagate is going to fall because of that filtering process. I avoid this by unfollowing people very frequently. I see one stupid candid or a pout or a food shot, I just unfollow that person. Same goes for SJW/White Supremacy types. Whether you are OP or a sharer, you get mut…

> SJW/White Supremacy types In what way are these 'types' equated?

In the same way are they equated with food shots…

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#74

Post by jader201 »

onion2k wrote: post #71
rg111 wrote: post #56

As soon as your news feed becomes too big for you to read all of it and then decide whether to repost anything, the quality of information you propagate is going to fall because of that filtering process. I avoid this by unfollowing people very frequently. I see one stupid candid or a pout or a food shot, I just unfollow that person. Same goes for SJW/White Supremacy types. Whether you are OP or a sharer, you get mut…

Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts. People aren't like that; everyone has many facets to what they're interested in, who they are, and what makes them tick. Removing them from your network as soon as they post anything from your red flag list…

> Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts.

Does everyone have to be social via social networks nowadays in order to be considered “social”?

Can’t we just be social, you know, face to face? And then just leave online media to news/facts?

It’s so weird to me that in order to be considered “social” it’s not enough to just be social in person.

Have we really come to that?

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#76

Post by meowkit »

jader201 wrote: post #74
onion2k wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts. People aren't like that; everyone has many facets to what they're interested in, who they are, and what makes them tick. Removing them from your network as soon as they post anything from your red flag list…

> Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts. Does everyone have to be social via social networks nowadays in order to be considered “social”? Can’t we just be social, you know, face to face? And then just leave online media to news/facts? It’s so wei…

In a way, yes.

I think about this a lot. My hypothesis is that social status is increasingly, and will be increasingly, dictated by your "follower" count. How many eyeballs you can attract. Even worse, in my opinion, it will be the primary driver of people's perceptions of you. Basically how good are you at getting attention?

It seems a bit ridiculous to say, but I observe the "high status" or high follower count people networking more and more exclusively with each other. On the other side I see traditionally "high status" people developing their online persona - whether its a youtube channel, twitter account, substack, podcast, etc.

We are in the middle of a societal restructuring (that much is obvious) in a way that the internet is now injecting itself right into the middle of social hierarchy and relationships.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#77

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

wolverine876 wrote: post #63
rg111 wrote: post #56

As soon as your news feed becomes too big for you to read all of it and then decide whether to repost anything, the quality of information you propagate is going to fall because of that filtering process. I avoid this by unfollowing people very frequently. I see one stupid candid or a pout or a food shot, I just unfollow that person. Same goes for SJW/White Supremacy types. Whether you are OP or a sharer, you get mut…

> SJW/White Supremacy types In what way are these 'types' equated?

Seeing either of those pretty much puts my brain in the same place, even though I agree with the SJW side. Reading people argue about it just stresses me out and doesn’t help anyone. It’s like being in “fight or flight” mode with no option to actually fight or flee. The opposite of the way I feel after a good workout.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#78

Post by corpo_punisho »

ultramundane828 wrote: post #65
wolverine876 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SJW/White Supremacy types In what way are these 'types' equated?

I'm assuming they're referencing the type of content they see from opposite sides of the political spectrum. I'm also not assuming any value attribution. In the context of the comment, it seems that they simply do not want political noise in their social network in any form.

"Political noise" is completely subjective. There was a time within the last 10 years when claiming "White supremacists are a serious problem" got you branded as a SJW.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#79

Post by maximus-decimus »

jader201 wrote: post #74
onion2k wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts. People aren't like that; everyone has many facets to what they're interested in, who they are, and what makes them tick. Removing them from your network as soon as they post anything from your red flag list…

> Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts. Does everyone have to be social via social networks nowadays in order to be considered “social”? Can’t we just be social, you know, face to face? And then just leave online media to news/facts? It’s so wei…

If you only leave online media to news/facts, it's not a social network at all. It's an online news paper or a user manual.

You don't have to be social online, but getting angry at people for socializing on a social network is definitely anti-social.

People have spoken over the phone and have had pen pals for a very long time, so "we have come to that" a long time ago.

Re: Social Networks: It's worse than you think (2020)

#80

Post by NL807 »

onion2k wrote: post #71
rg111 wrote: post #56

As soon as your news feed becomes too big for you to read all of it and then decide whether to repost anything, the quality of information you propagate is going to fall because of that filtering process. I avoid this by unfollowing people very frequently. I see one stupid candid or a pout or a food shot, I just unfollow that person. Same goes for SJW/White Supremacy types. Whether you are OP or a sharer, you get mut…

Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts. People aren't like that; everyone has many facets to what they're interested in, who they are, and what makes them tick. Removing them from your network as soon as they post anything from your red flag list…

> Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial.

Disagree. The commenter above may as well lead a healthy social lifestyle AFK. It's just that he/she does not want to be bombarded superficial stuff. There is already too much information presented to us on social media, one can not humanly consume them all, so might as well focus on content that is actually useful in bettering oneself.

Post reply on HN