291–300 of 378 posts
They went full circle and now they are back to passive TV zapping , but now it's called doomscrolling on tiktok and watching mr beast It wasn't good while it lasted, in fact in retrospect we will see it was one of the most insane, narcissistic periods of modernity. good riddance I really hope people re-re-discover forums
Me too. The value captured in forums is very high. It is relevant for years.
My Facebook feed is about 40% sponsored posts, 30% suggested posts, 30% group posts (usually from very large groups), and then maybe 1% actual friends (and it’s usually just something that they’ve shared or commented on, almost never actual content). If we could go back to the days when 80% of the stuff you see is from friends with the remaining being ads, I would happily use FB more frequently and I’m sure most of m…
Same for me. Lately my feed is full of Formula One and Debbie Harris of Blondie fame, neither of which is an actual interest of mine. And basically no content from people I care about.
Deep into the ad topics I managed to find a place where I could search for topics and indicate that I would not like to be targeted for those, and that seemed to have done something. But it replaced one topic with another.
It's crazy how they managed to ruin their own product. They're rapidly bleeding real users and it's totally their own fault. Facebook used to thrive with close social interaction mixed with some suggested content that seemed to be actually relevant. Now it's just anonymous filler content and they don't even show relevant posts anymore.
The only reason I'm still on Facebook is because our local town's official communication is through Facebook (sad, I know) and the neighborhood is active there as well. Otherwise I would have happily deleted my account a long time ago.
> "How does a brand show up in somebody's DMs or Discord server if they're not invited?" Haberman said. But in many ways, that's the point. People can still go on Instagram to check on their favorite celebrities and influencers, but young people don't want brands and marketers infiltrating the closed communities where they spend most of their time. All people don’t want brands in their closed communities! Anecdotally…
If I e.g. comment on a photo that my brother posted, I absolutely don't want any of his other random acquaintances to also see that. And also the other way around, if my friends comment something on my photo I don't want my brother to see that.
Private groups are the only way to avoid that. Or maybe a system like G+ had with the Circles, so I could e.g. share tech things only with my techie friends without bothering my aunt with it.
I posted a lot on facebook in high school. Had maybe 50 friends there, like my classmates, soccer team etc. Posted at least once a day what I was doing, same did everyone else, and we discussed in during lunch next day. Or I would post a general "going to the soccer field, just join in", and we'll be a group there. Then joining university and getting new groups of friends, it didn't feel relevant to "spam" everyone w…
My idea is that a profile should indeed be sliced. Personal, professional, specific niches (cooking, tech, whatever) and that we have a reliable labeling system that accurately detects the "channel", preferably fully automated. The signal to noise ratio would improve drastically and you could once again get value out of a social network.
Likewise I propose the same for moderation. Let me pick my comfort level. Ranging from "give it to me raw" to "I need to call my therapist because I saw a micro aggression" and everything in between.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laziness is poor framing. Can the masses be "lazy" or is it pointless moralizing in the face of unfettered propaganda and behaviour manipulation?
That's a pretty interesting question, the tough as nails salesman closing deals everyday would consider nearly the entire population is lazy as all heck, whereas the hermit fisherman would consider the opposite, that nearly all are needlessly agitated. Placing the bar at the 50th percentile isn't very inspiring for the passing reader though.
If you have X problem, that is your problem.
If Y% of population has X problem, as X grows large enough, eventually everybody is affected by the side effects of said problem.
I posted a lot on facebook in high school. Had maybe 50 friends there, like my classmates, soccer team etc. Posted at least once a day what I was doing, same did everyone else, and we discussed in during lunch next day. Or I would post a general "going to the soccer field, just join in", and we'll be a group there. Then joining university and getting new groups of friends, it didn't feel relevant to "spam" everyone w…
This makes me wonder if something like Google+ "circles" or the idea of maintaining a finsta could translate into a way to bring back posting on social media. I think what Google+ got wrong is that connections are a 2-way street, you may not realize your new friend _wants_ the day-to-day updates and soccer game invites, because to you they may just be someone you met at work. Imagine if you could have a list of feeds…
I'm into photography and people started creating "best photographers" circles, one of them had 700 posters in it. You could follow the entire circle with a single click after which your feed is pretty much done.
A handful of circles would be massively followed which means whoever was lucky to get in early, ruled the platform or niche.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH i don't get the point of mastodon. Social media is primarily "media", broadcasting, so they must be megaphones, which by necessity includes large scale commercial and entertainment activity. Mastodon's purpose of small cozy chats is better served by ... chat which is more self-selective and fit for the niches or countercultures
True. And Mastodon's paranoid safety culture is why they could have just used chat.
Zuckerberg is really damn good. He really positions Facebook to take advantages of this.