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

141–150 of 174 posts

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

#141

Post by mikro2nd »

peakaboo wrote: post #101
capableweb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're effectively describing Scuttlebutt in a nutshell. Small communities that are formed ad-hoc by peering with each other. "Follow" mean you'll help replicate their content for others who follow them + you. Scuttlebutt is already successful even though it's very small so far. Tags and other things can be used to explore content on the network, as long as you've found an entry-point. I'm a bit split about spreading…

The name is awful. I certainly don't want to spread the word about "scuttlebutt". So I guess that's a good thing, keeps it small and cosy.

What is so awful about "scuttlebutt"? In the old days, when ships were wooden, real sailors were pressed, etc., etc., every ship had a water container available to the sailors -- a water butt -- bigger than a puncheon but smaller than a tun. So sailors would share gossip (probably about how misguided their management was) -- scuttle -- around the water butt, hence "scuttlebutt".

Where's the "awful"?

eta: Exactly what we today refer to as "water cooler chatter/gossip"

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

#142

Post by rg111 »

NL807 wrote: post #80
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. 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.

Yes, I lead a very content and happy life.

I have the best SO, caring friends (I just don't buy into the popular culture- soulless movies like Avengers, sports, celebs, TikTok awfullery, virtue signalling, covert racism, keyboard activism, and so on.

I am content with the social media that I use.

I happen to be a good organizer. I organize religious ceremonies despite being irreligious, I organize other socio-cultural activities and actively take part in them.

As I have grown old, I have learned that it is in my best interest to not show my full self by default- I had gotten judged for not conforming to shallow social norms, being an atheist, etc.

And while on social media, I get to be close to my true self.

For people who don't conform with social norms, either for individual traits or other reasons, social media is simply hellish in nature.

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

#143

Post by beebeepka »

varjag wrote: post #111
Ambolia wrote: post #108

The lies and conspiracy theories were always there. The difference now is that there are lies and conspiracies in different directions rather than a consensus of lies and conspiracy theories. Of course it remains to be seen if it's possible to create a consensus of a nation without centralized media like we had until now. If it's not, we will have to get used to the population fragmenting into different groups with d…

> The difference now is that there are lies and conspiracies in different directions rather than a consensus of lies and conspiracy theories. Quite the opposite, the once-thriving ecosystem of conspiracy theories is gutted now. Social networks did to it what industrial farming did to agriculture. It's one huge monoculture spanning nations, generations, languages and cultures. Even across the professed political align…

I can't relate to your experience at all. What you say is certainly true but at the same time maybe you are too quick to judge people? Try topics that aren't that hot so that real thoughts may surface instead of propaganda

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

#144

Post by varjag »

Ambolia wrote: post #140
varjag wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference now is that there are lies and conspiracies in different directions rather than a consensus of lies and conspiracy theories. Quite the opposite, the once-thriving ecosystem of conspiracy theories is gutted now. Social networks did to it what industrial farming did to agriculture. It's one huge monoculture spanning nations, generations, languages and cultures. Even across the professed political align…

I think there is still a whole ecosystem of conspiracies, the only reason they look more homogeneous now is because 50% of the population of america is basically "out" now, there's no narrative that integrates them into the country, so they instead coalesce around a set of simplified so called conspiracy theories. The simplifications for the masses will always look more ridiculous and basic. I like the analysis sayin…

Thing is I'm not just talking about America, all these talking points are now transnational and come just as bundled.

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

#145

Post by vic-traill »

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.

I gave up on Usenet newsgroups when the noise in groups of interest (mainly rec.music., comp.lang. and comp.sys.*) led to me spending too much time managing my killfile in relation to actually reading and replying to news.

It really was too much to self-moderate your way through. The volume was just too much. As well, you couldn't sort through the trash to find the pearls.

The volume was a trickle compared to volume today. I don't have a source for this assertion, but I think it is reasonable.

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

#146

Post by everdrive »

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.

>This sounds harsh but not everyone deserves to be heard all of the time- myself included.

The exact same rules don't quite apply to real life, but they make for a nice comparison: in a small group of people (say, 4-5 people) no formal rules are needed. Generally, everyone will have a chance to speak and be heard. Imagine a a much larger group, say, 300 people. There's no way everyone can meaningfully be heard. In the real world no one goes into a group of 300 people to communicate with those 300 people. Usually there is a speaker or performer communicating them as an audience. Even if those 300 people wanted to set aside the time to listen to every audience member, it'd be meaningless: no one would remember anything meaningful from most of the 300 different speakers.

In any case, it should be obvious that group dynamics and the need for structure are modified by group size. A very large online community can never be intimate, and perfectly healthy communities can be irreparably damaged simply be in influx of people.

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

#147

Post by GreenWatermelon »

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.

Not necessarily. IRL, If I don't enjoy hanging around someone, I just won't hang around them. same goes gor social media. If I have a few friends who share my interests, I'll keep following them, but some friend who keeps spouting stupid stuff? I'll avoid them IRL and on Social Media.

If uncle Joe keeps talking about conspiracy theories in family gatherings, I'll keep away as much as possible.

I hang withy friends on Discord. we talk daily and game together.

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

#148

Post by GreenWatermelon »

rm445 wrote: post #106
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…

Interesting. What you say makes some sense for keeping sane where the Internet is one big room of people shouting, but for preference I'd prefer the total opposite. I would love to be part of small social media groups with bonds of friendship and tolerance. Trends, food, non-extreme politics, in proportion to their magnitude in everyone's lives, varying with people's interests but not magnified by one-issue echo cham…

You're pretty much looking for discord servers with people sharing your hobbies.

And while they might not be small, servers corresponding to niche reddit subs might tickle your interest.

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

#149

Post by bckr »

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…

Louis Menand's The Free World, a history of public thought in the cold war era, recently taught me about the relationship of the masses and totalitarianism.

The relationship appears to be : destroy classes & traditional relationships -> produce masses & the mob -> totalitarianism arises out of the masses' anxiety and the mob's despotic idiocy.

Something like how too many chickens in a big barn can't form hierarchies and so live in a perpetual panic, except along comes a Big Chicken who makes everyone feel better because they finally know their place again.

I hope something different and less awful happens. But the early results are worrying.

Can we just pull the plug on this experiment, please?

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

#150

Post by bckr »

joelbluminator wrote: post #110
Ambolia wrote: post #108

The lies and conspiracy theories were always there. The difference now is that there are lies and conspiracies in different directions rather than a consensus of lies and conspiracy theories. Of course it remains to be seen if it's possible to create a consensus of a nation without centralized media like we had until now. If it's not, we will have to get used to the population fragmenting into different groups with d…

> we will have to get used to the population fragmenting into different groups with different chains of trust This is becoming harder to do with the current culture wars. If each group would have respected the other that would have been possible, but it seems each group (especially the radical left if we are being honest) wants the other to comply to a new set of rules and philosophies. In schools, in the workplace a…

I think "the radical left" is mostly reacting to upbringings that quashed personal expression, which phenomenon has been documented in the USA for centuries. So, they (and I, past tense) are reactive, unselfawarely using the tools they learned from their oppressors to try to do the opposite.

And boy ever is the USA's right wing oppressive, but the oppression is in private, at home, in church, and in religious schools. What we're seeing is a breaking open and spilling over in a reverse direction of this oppression: an equal and opposite force.

Yes, the "radical left" could really learn to be more respectful, but the examples of how to do so will be hard to find. Mr. Rogers comes to mind.

Post reply on HN