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

The Evaporative Cooling Effect in Social Networks (2010)

blogs.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: The Evaporative Cooling Effect in Social Networks (2010)

#61

Post by JumpCrisscross »

_yb2s wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 100% sure their opinions on everything are objectively correct and final The internet isn’t great for nuance. When commenting or communicating online, I’ve often tightened up my language for succinctness.

The problem is that the world itself is just too complex that without nuance, you're not talking about anything meaningful- so what's the point? On HN this is particularly challenging because we get a mix of experts and non-experts (and people that have different levels of pedanticness) - so almost any possible statement is going to be attacked for both lacking nuance or being too detailed (and frequently both at the…

> problem is that the world itself is just too complex that without nuance, you're not talking about anything meaningful- so what's the point?

To get someone to do something.

There are very few corners of the internet conducive to debate. (Here is one of the exceptions.)

Re: The Evaporative Cooling Effect in Social Networks (2010)

#62

Post by brokenmachine »

rcpt wrote: post #34
numpad0 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like we must be using different internets. I can't shake off the thought that this statement might be more truthful than it deserves to be. Some of social media accounts are closer to what you have described, some are more like what I have. The Dead Internet Syndrome must be not spreading uniformly, but there must be significant disparity across fields and bubbles, deepening divides between common folks with…

Reddit you have control over your timeline. The comments can be good to. Just stick to your interests. Twitter turned into garbage when Elon decided to make it pay-to-play. Giving Blue Checks ranking boosts and extra power when they block others ruined every reply section. On any even vaguely political tweet you now have to scroll forever through a bunch of illustrated profile pics hurling insults before you can get…

>Twitter turned into garbage when Elon decided to make it pay-to-play.

Twitter has been garbage for a long time before that.

Re: The Evaporative Cooling Effect in Social Networks (2010)

#63

Post by Groxx »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #55
Groxx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being a difficulty in general in any multi-billion-person environment: seems very likely yes. It's not a tautology for a site to bias for it though. That's a decision.

How do you know for sure they are biased ‘for it’ instead of being roughly on the ball, reflecting the natural gradient?

By the massively higher amount of spam and scams on Facebook, compared to IRL.

I don't step outside on any random day and get immediately blasted in the face by dozens of One Weird Tricks and AI-generated images of Jesus crossed with shrimp.

Re: The Evaporative Cooling Effect in Social Networks (2010)

#64

Post by MichaelZuo »

Groxx wrote: post #63
MichaelZuo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know for sure they are biased ‘for it’ instead of being roughly on the ball, reflecting the natural gradient?

By the massively higher amount of spam and scams on Facebook, compared to IRL. I don't step outside on any random day and get immediately blasted in the face by dozens of One Weird Tricks and AI-generated images of Jesus crossed with shrimp.

Have you thought this through?

There’s probably over a million literally deranged people on Facebook.

Even if you only come across a tiny fraction of them, that’s still way more then you could possibly ever encounter in real life, in one physical community, due to simple probability and population density…

Re: The Evaporative Cooling Effect in Social Networks (2010)

#65

Post by user_7832 »

zanderwohl wrote: post #53
joshdavham wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe you are confusing "effective" with "ugly" Oh no, I truly believe it’s ugly.

What makes it ugly? It's very functional, straightforward, and minimal. No huge padded tailwind components or anything.

Have you tried upvoting, or favouriting a post on mobile? It’s borderline impossible without zooming in like crazy, and I still have to check it I saved or accidentally flagged someone’s work.

Re: The Evaporative Cooling Effect in Social Networks (2010)

#66

Post by Groxx »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #64
Groxx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the massively higher amount of spam and scams on Facebook, compared to IRL. I don't step outside on any random day and get immediately blasted in the face by dozens of One Weird Tricks and AI-generated images of Jesus crossed with shrimp.

Have you thought this through? There’s probably over a million literally deranged people on Facebook. Even if you only come across a tiny fraction of them, that’s still way more then you could possibly ever encounter in real life, in one physical community, due to simple probability and population density…

And building a thing where you massively increase their reach is a decision, yes.

As an example, it could be Nextdoor-y[1], bound to physical location rather than global. And that's not a stretch either: it's what Facebook was in the early days. They decided to change it, to become what it is now.

[1]: I do not in any way mean to imply Nextdoor is doing things right, just showing that "social network structure" is a decision, not some kind of inevitability.

Re: The Evaporative Cooling Effect in Social Networks (2010)

#67

Post by MichaelZuo »

Groxx wrote: post #66
MichaelZuo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you thought this through? There’s probably over a million literally deranged people on Facebook. Even if you only come across a tiny fraction of them, that’s still way more then you could possibly ever encounter in real life, in one physical community, due to simple probability and population density…

And building a thing where you massively increase their reach is a decision, yes. As an example, it could be Nextdoor-y[1], bound to physical location rather than global. And that's not a stretch either: it's what Facebook was in the early days. They decided to change it, to become what it is now. [1]: I do not in any way mean to imply Nextdoor is doing things right , just showing that "social network structure" is a…

Huh? Facebook was never bound to physical location…

Even Harvard kids doing exchange programs overseas signed up for it in the first year of operation.

Post reply on HN