All true. 25 or 30 years ago I would manually visit specific people’s web sites to see what new stuff they posted. That was not as inconvenient as you might think. The density of information I wanted on the 100 or so sites I had bookmarked was higher than now by far. Blogs used to handle notifications well. Now, I basically depend on X and even on Facebook to shout out when I have a new book or open source project I…
The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
11–20 of 44 posts
Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#12I suspect the follow button exists primarily to train the advertising algorithm -- how much more would you pay to show a political ad to someone who "followed" Nikki Haley or show your Honda Civic aftermarket parts to someone who "follows" Honda vs just a demographic match.
Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#13More broadly, the whole premise of a social media platform that serves as a place “where everyone is” has become increasingly unattractive to me. It never works out like I expect (or want)—with the trade-offs necessary for monetizing the platform, and the inevitable mechanisms for retention and engagement that follow, it just hasn’t ever come anywhere near the promised potential for a “connected society” or “digital town square” or even just a place where my friends are. The experience is even more aggravating when returning from an extended break. It makes the internal culture that develops on platforms feel jarring, alienating. Facebook in particular felt very artificial, invasive, and perplexing. I honestly don’t believe any of these services could have launched in their current states, it almost requires some level of indoctrination or conditioning, to ease its users into a place where they no longer notice how utterly bizarre a lot of the behaviors on display seem.
Lastly, social networks are never quite universal enough to obviate the need for maintaining other channels, so their relative ubiquity has very little actual upsides as a means for socializing and networking (while there are plenty of downsides). I still have to maintain a functional email account, messaging app(s), Slack/Teams/Notion collab space, streaming media services, feed reader, etc.…and for the purposes of communicating with my extended network of contacts, reading the news, discussing current events, or consuming entertainment—I find social networks to be among the worst options for each individual purpose. That’s, of course, why they have largely lost the thread on the fundamental ideas of social networking, and are instead just advertising machines. It might be possible to develop a service that could do both, facilitate healthy and active social connections while delivering value to advertisers for a profit—but why bother? In the absence of antitrust enforcement, and with the network effects already in-place, what incentives do Facebook, Twitter, et al have to do anything else besides crank up the dial on “engagement” and harvest everyone’s data?
Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#14Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#15Nobody likes promotional emails, so even if they don't go to spam they tend to just pile up unread until someone does a purge and unsubscribes. Once again, spammers and oversharers ruin things for everyone by forcing others to post less good content more often, or risk being swamped in others' feeds. The only actionable advice I can think of is to mute people on social networks who post more than some threshold of comfort, because some people just cannot shut up. It's a pity there isn't an easy way to filter by 'standard deviations of normal engagement' to only see the greatest hits of high-volume posters.
This follow/subscription problem is worst for musicians and video artists, unless they're naturally aggressive self-promoters. Social network dynamics are fascinating but also demoralizing to watch.
Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#16So... the recommendation system works like it's supposed to? Giving you content you want to see. I'm not sure what the complaint is here, besides that platforms strong arm their creators into creating more engaging content to retain their viewers. Everyone's taste shifts from time to time, so I think it's reasonable to expect platforms to show you what content you're likely in the mood for watching at the moment. It'…
Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#17I'm starting to view social media more and more negatively over time. Maybe I'm just getting old. Maybe getting old is good?
Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#18Of course, this is disappointing to creators. 'They subscribed voluntarily, but the algorithm hides our content!'
As a casual user--the algorithm is more correct than I. I don't care about 90%+ of my subscriptions.
Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#19All true. 25 or 30 years ago I would manually visit specific people’s web sites to see what new stuff they posted. That was not as inconvenient as you might think. The density of information I wanted on the 100 or so sites I had bookmarked was higher than now by far. Blogs used to handle notifications well. Now, I basically depend on X and even on Facebook to shout out when I have a new book or open source project I…
I don't think age has anything to do with it. I'm in my 40s. I haven't used twitter, facebook, instagram, or whatever's cool now in at least a year. At this point, I feel like I wouldn't even know how to get started. Luckily, I'm not trying to build a personal brand.
Re: The follow lie, and why it's worse than ever
#20…five minutes later I get an email saying I’m also subscribed to another newsletter as well?
> You subscribed to Untangled with Charley Johnson by Charley Johnson because it was recommended by 12 Challenges
No thank you!