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

Quit Social Media (2016)

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 281 posts

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#101

Post by michaelt »

ryandv wrote: post #78
tropdrop wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly this changed somewhat with the clickbait-based model – now, I would disagree that advertisers "want, more generally, to avoid programs with serious complexities and disturbing controversies." I think this does describe legacy advertisers (and TikTok, for different reasons) – we might remember Tumblr's hyper-specific LGBTQ-friendly (often NSFW) communities being completely liquidated in the transfer of T…

As possible counterpoint consider the departure of several advertisers from X following the Musk acquisition, whose controversial online antics and positions (irrespective of one's potential value judgments of them) were deemed bad for business and a damper on the "buying mood." In general though it is true that ragebait and sensationalism do tend to drive "engagement" and thus ad revenue (often to the detriment of s…

Well, this is the kind of argument you can make in both directions.

A site is full of ragebait, hot takes and pictures of boobs? The ad economy has pushed them towards things that get a lot of engagement. Clicks are money!

A site is devoid of ragebait, hot takes and pictures of boobs? The ad economy forces everything to be brand-safe and censored.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#102

Post by andrepd »

freediver wrote: post #6

I would rephrase it to “quit ad-based social media”. The incentives are perverse, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the business model and there is an intermediary between the user and information/community they want to participate in. This leads to most problems we see in legacy, ad-based, social media. Most successful social circles are ones where there is a barrier to entry. In life we do not let everyo…

Not sure about "paid", but there are plenty of examples of communities with barriers to entry which are successful and long-lived, e.g. private trackers (the forums in whatcd were excellent), very niche/technical interest communities, etc.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#103

Post by heresie-dabord »

freediver wrote: post #6

I would rephrase it to “quit ad-based social media”. The incentives are perverse, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the business model and there is an intermediary between the user and information/community they want to participate in. This leads to most problems we see in legacy, ad-based, social media. Most successful social circles are ones where there is a barrier to entry. In life we do not let everyo…

> the incentives are perverse

The thing called Social Media is an unconstrained grift-circus peddling pure Barnumium. [1]

It attracts movers/actors who enjoy the incentives, as well as followers/gawkers who have trouble seeing that their time and reality have been stolen.

From The Fine Article:

"Finally [...] he quit, explaining: 'I decided, after 15 years, to live in reality.'”

---

[1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#104

Post by protocolture »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #14
Kye wrote: post #9

(2016) Especially important because most of his commentary focuses on the dominant social media paradigm of the time. Mastodon barely existed when this post went live, Mike Masnick was years from writing the paper that inspired Bluesky[0], and it would be strange if someone whose whole thing is getting away from social media kept up on new developments. This post is an interesting historical artifact, but shouldn't b…

Mastodon and Bluesky are still such minor players (even though I enjoy these projects and am optimistic about their future) that I don’t see anywhere where this doesn’t pass for contemporary commentary.

It depends what the product is for you.

If the product is the social graph, masto isnt even on the radar.

If the product is the discussion framework without the advertising or social graph. If you can find 15 people to have the same interactions with manually its a superior player.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#105

Post by skeeter2020 »

strken wrote: post #68
seqizz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also do not let people into the friend circle just because they have money (I hope). IMHO healthiest "social media" I could think is interest groups. They eventually need some kind of donation from one or more people, but with no or minimal barriers.

Barriers to entry don't have to be financial. One can imagine a community of artists who require you to mail them a traditional media sketch before they'll let you in. One of the clubs I know of requires you to go on three hikes before they'll make you a member and give you access to their website. In both cases there's a small financial barrier (being able to pay for postage or your share or petrol money) but a size…

There are a lot of things where effort is inherent in the derived value, or even the primary value. It's a solid proxy for how much you care, which is so important. A trivial example: I sent someone at work who loves to share candy a giant back of gummies; HR came after me because "tax reasons" (incorrectly in this case) and wanted to "gross up" their paycheque with a spot bonus. Which do you think is more impactful: the trip I took to the store, thinking of this person and mailing it to them, or the $26 pre-tax "bonus" they'd get in 2 weeks?

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#106

Post by tyleo »

uejfiweun wrote: post #44

I quit social media, but the problem is that in the modern dating world a lot of people care whether you have an Instagram and that sort of thing. I truly hate social media, but I find myself considering remaking it just to improve my dating life. It's kind of a depressing situation, to be honest.

Some other comments are along these lines but I’ll offer an anecdote.

In college I was wearing a Halo biking shirt in the computer lab. A female friend remarked, “no one is going to date you if you wear that shirt.” Another friend nearby heard and quipped back, “or only the right girls will date him wearing that shirt.”

You should view your preferences more as a filter. While you should be open to new experiences which may change those presences, if something makes you truly unhappy, you are better finding a partner who won’t force that in your life.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#107

Post by [deleted] »

michaelt wrote: post #101
ryandv wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As possible counterpoint consider the departure of several advertisers from X following the Musk acquisition, whose controversial online antics and positions (irrespective of one's potential value judgments of them) were deemed bad for business and a damper on the "buying mood." In general though it is true that ragebait and sensationalism do tend to drive "engagement" and thus ad revenue (often to the detriment of s…

Well, this is the kind of argument you can make in both directions. A site is full of ragebait, hot takes and pictures of boobs? The ad economy has pushed them towards things that get a lot of engagement. Clicks are money! A site is devoid of ragebait, hot takes and pictures of boobs? The ad economy forces everything to be brand-safe and censored.

[deleted]

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#108

Post by ryandv »

michaelt wrote: post #101
ryandv wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As possible counterpoint consider the departure of several advertisers from X following the Musk acquisition, whose controversial online antics and positions (irrespective of one's potential value judgments of them) were deemed bad for business and a damper on the "buying mood." In general though it is true that ragebait and sensationalism do tend to drive "engagement" and thus ad revenue (often to the detriment of s…

Well, this is the kind of argument you can make in both directions. A site is full of ragebait, hot takes and pictures of boobs? The ad economy has pushed them towards things that get a lot of engagement. Clicks are money! A site is devoid of ragebait, hot takes and pictures of boobs? The ad economy forces everything to be brand-safe and censored.

Sure. Chomsky et al continue in the cited chapter,

    In addition to discrimination against unfriendly media institutions,
    advertisers also choose selectively among programs on the basis of their
    own principles. With rare exceptions these are culturally and politically
    conservative.
There are two options; either Chomsky et al are incorrect in their assertion, or they are correct.

If they are incorrect, then non-conservatives are of equal power and culpability in discriminating for or against which content they will sponsor. This would seem to be your position, and points to a state of affairs in which content and communities exist in disjoint bubbles which thrive off of entirely separate streams of ad revenue, up to the principles of the advertisers that choose to direct funding at particular media institutions.

Otherwise, if they are correct, then your assertion that this argument can be made "in both directions" is shown to be false by supposition, and the ad economy pushes users towards conservative content - in which case, one had best boycott and abstain from ad-driven media and social media unless they want to finance conservative thought.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#109

Post by JKCalhoun »

malfist wrote: post #51
elpocko wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>thinking with people on the Internet is has dropped away down What? Also, congrats for being less tolerant. I like that.

Google's autocorrect "corrects" words it thought you meant, sometimes words later so you don't see it. I put arguing, but Google decided I meant thinking

That's some spooky shit right there. Is this a Chrome thing?

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#110

Post by simgt »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #60
benjaminwootton wrote: post #5

Isn’t it on the decline yet? Facebook is for boomers. Twitter is weird and we all realised how pointless it is to spend time falling out on there. Instagram feels a bit long in the tooth. LinkedIn is a parody of itself. Reddit feels like it’s growing but I think that avoids the worst of social media. TikTok and YouTube shorts seem popular but aren’t really social media. It’s just time wasting junk. All in all, social…

Instagram is a must if you want to get any real benefit out of using dating apps in 2024. The only way to talk to anybody without paying is to look at the profile, get their instagram url, and talk over there. I'm an old millennial who basically only uses HN for social media, and unfortunately IG is a must have.

Just pay for a subscription to a dating app if you can afford it. It's money well spent when you really want to meet a partner and are struggling to do so IRL. As long as you go for one that doesn't have the Tinder UX of course...
Post reply on HN