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

81–90 of 174 posts

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

#81

Post by NL807 »

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?

Ironically they are one and the same: the have extremist viewpoints, resentful and hostile.

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

#82

Post by tdsamardzhiev »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #18
awinter-py wrote: post #17

> as the number of messages in the network rises, the quality of those which propagate falls The job of technology here should be to reduce noise, both on open platforms like twtr and closed platforms like slack channels and forums. Computers are good at categorization -- now just use it to restrict what I see rather than recommend extra stuff. Spam detection for things not traditionally considered spam.

That’s what they call a “filter bubble”, though. (Still not convinced that’s an inherently evil thing, yeah, but somewhat convinced an implicit and unavoidable one may not be good.)

It's good to get some exposure to content outside of your bubble. But not to a never-ending stream of crap that is trying to hack your brain.

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

#83

Post by jader201 »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #79
jader201 wrote: post #74

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. 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.

Your confusing having social media/phone/pen pals as alternative vs. it being required to be social.

I never implied that being social over social media is wrong.

The GP, however, was implying that by not engaging in social media (or, using your examples, phone or pen pal) is antisocial, which I argue is wrong.

If engaging in social media is the only way to be social — or, to put it another way, if by not using social media socially you’re considered anti-social — then Facebook et al. have won.

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

#84

Post by jader201 »

meowkit wrote: post #76
jader201 wrote: post #74

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. 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 peo…

This sounds like a Black Mirror episode.

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

#85

Post by mdp2021 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20
crdrost wrote: post #7

Related to this, there is an intimacy of small community which makes you feel valued and a proper contributor, that social networks really seem to oppose: they want to make the network bigger, you are part of the biggest world context, everybody on TikTok is eating a habanero while watching Bob Ross, so only if I do the same nonsense do I have a chance of 100 people noticing and liking the video and maybe opting to s…

Could you imagine if hypothetically, HN suddenly became the world's most popular social network? It would be unusable for it's current purpose and no amount of moderating could ever fix that. This sounds harsh but not everyone deserves to be heard all of the time- myself included.

> no amount of moderating

There can be automated systems to fix that - to rank contributions, with the aim to boost the signal and reduce the noise, with the final aim to facilitate a lean and productive debate and information sharing; and also to connect contributions, to reduce dispersion, etc.

Such systems to rank contributions are related to the theory of voting systems (quantitative ranking of voters and options).

The aim of many big "social networks" is not «to facilitate a lean and productive debate and information sharing».

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

#86

Post by basmango »

abnry wrote: post #43
bjt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invite-only and self-hosted are different things. Discord is invite-only but not self-hosted. Maybe that would work for you?

I want both. Basically I want something federated but not connected to the "fediverse" as in Mastedon. Perhaps I need to look into Mastedon.

Maybe flarum

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

#88

Post by Buttons840 »

crdrost wrote: post #7

Related to this, there is an intimacy of small community which makes you feel valued and a proper contributor, that social networks really seem to oppose: they want to make the network bigger, you are part of the biggest world context, everybody on TikTok is eating a habanero while watching Bob Ross, so only if I do the same nonsense do I have a chance of 100 people noticing and liking the video and maybe opting to s…

I've thought of creating a social network that groups people into small groups of 100 or so, by interests and location. I would advertise it as a chance to escape the monoculture and explain that the cost if you must participate a minimum amount, like 1 post or comment per week on average or something. And then you could mix up the groups every year or two. It would have its pros and cons, but it would achieve the goal of letting small groups form and create their own cultures. It would also succeed regardless of its size, so long as you have enough users to form a small group.

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

#89

Post by tcmart14 »

mdp2021 wrote: post #85
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you imagine if hypothetically, HN suddenly became the world's most popular social network? It would be unusable for it's current purpose and no amount of moderating could ever fix that. This sounds harsh but not everyone deserves to be heard all of the time- myself included.

> no amount of moderating There can be automated systems to fix that - to rank contributions , with the aim to boost the signal and reduce the noise, with the final aim to facilitate a lean and productive debate and information sharing; and also to connect contributions , to reduce dispersion, etc. Such systems to rank contributions are related to the theory of voting systems (quantitative ranking of voters and optio…

It could be automated, but would we want it to be? I don't get to see twitter's or facebook's back-end, but my guess is there is probably already a large sum of automation. Which leads to some of the very things people are complaining about. Right now, I don't see a path forward for automating moderating, meanwhile appeasing everyone. So, I think we would just see the same criticisms of HN emerge that are already present on the mainstream social networking platforms. People would just figure out a way with bots to sway the voting to suppress a voice or lift a voice artificially (something that is probably already done on twitter with people in both directions across all spectrum of opinions).

I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong.

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

#90

Post by pathseeker »

mdp2021 wrote: post #85
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you imagine if hypothetically, HN suddenly became the world's most popular social network? It would be unusable for it's current purpose and no amount of moderating could ever fix that. This sounds harsh but not everyone deserves to be heard all of the time- myself included.

> no amount of moderating There can be automated systems to fix that - to rank contributions , with the aim to boost the signal and reduce the noise, with the final aim to facilitate a lean and productive debate and information sharing; and also to connect contributions , to reduce dispersion, etc. Such systems to rank contributions are related to the theory of voting systems (quantitative ranking of voters and optio…

Those are based on the assumption that votes are equal. There are a lot of people I just don't have any interest in hearing from.

No automated system is going to fix eternal September style problems. And before you suggest that I could simply follow the groups I'm interested in, that's still not the same thing because the people in those groups will still be engaging with/distracted by the people I'm not following.

Post reply on HN