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

131–140 of 281 posts

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#131

Post by efields »

Where does one advertise these days if not social media? Where does one learn about local goings-on outside of their _immediate_ circle of family/close friends/colleagues if not social media?

With a small local business, social media gives an audience. If you're selling anything visually captivating, it performs well in these spaces. We sell cut flowers on the side, so…

I don't ask these questions out of support of Instagram or Facebook, but I stop in there regularly because I don't know to learn a little bit about the greater community around me. My life is busy enough with work/family.

The cost of all this is being exposed to a lot of attention bait and I honestly don't like how I feel using it sometimes. But we've built up the social media ecosystem as a pillar of society at this point.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#132

Post by Nasrudith »

watwut wrote: post #79
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…

We do not filter real world friends based on them paying for arbitrary product.

Not being a part of the scene I can't say first hand but I believe we literally do and they're called cover charges at clubs. Then there are the insufferably vain 'green bubble bad' people.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#133

Post by Nasrudith »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #11
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…

I don't know how you can possibly say TikTok isn't social media. That seems like a rather absurd claim. What's your justification?

I don't use it but I find that claim a bit odd. Would you consider YouTube social media technically? I personally wouldn't even though it has social components with comments and personal channels.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#134

Post by hiatus »

gilbetron wrote: post #128
mattgreenrocks wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t buy it. We’re probably past peak social media at this point. And the outer reality will always have a higher status than any of the inner ones.

We might be past peak "bulk" social media, where people would be public, more or less, with their posts/videos. Now everything is closing and many people have "group chats" as they realize that free-for-all chatting/posting doesn't work.

Private spaces where small groups collect may be social media by its definition, but it feels starkly different from something like posting on a facebook wall or making a public linkedin post where the audience largely consists of strangers.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#135

Post by mountainb »

benjaminwootton wrote: post #17
ClassyJacket wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you can possibly say TikTok isn't social media. That seems like a rather absurd claim. What's your justification?

I haven’t used it much but I think the main feed is very algorithmic, so you swipe for your dopamine without paying much attention to the profile. Because of that it’s not really tied to your identity in quite the same way. It also seems quite professionalised in that the big content producers fill the feed. There’s also something about it being video which makes it feel harmful but in a different way than a text bas…

The "new" reddit constantly tries to promote brainrot to you when you are in the main feed. You can evade this by never using the main feed. No one wants to let you just read what you want to read.

This is one of the reasons why I have returned to print media. Unfortunately, a lot of magazines and newspapers are also really bad now also. The Wall Street Journal has fallen off a cliff, turning into something between Cosmopolitan and Business Insider, and I am cancelling my subscription this year. The Economist has done a good job keeping up the quality level. The fact that something is in print does not necessarily make it better if all the writers have brainrot or the content is optimized for digital engagement first.

The internet has become a medium for poor people to watch unlimited user-generated episodes of Maury and Jerry Springer. The only internet I really want to use is to work, buy products, and read my email. Getting older is bad enough without the computer trying to make me dumber on top of that.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#136

Post by pcthrowaway »

submeta wrote: post #99

I did, deleted Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (now X). And it helped me a lot to gain back my inner peace. My meditation was deeper, more profound, I genuinely gained back my inner peace. The constant bombardement with posts made to boost the ego of people is toxic for the consumer of these images / texts. But then, in the context of the Gaza conflict, I realized that X is a very good source to follow intellectuals, th…

Agree with everything in your comment except I assume Reddit is better than X (I don't use X for other reasons, but occasionally see things posted from there on Reddit or Instagram).

But worth noting, you've presumably been using HN since 2016 which is also "social media" :P

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#137

Post by keiferski »

pot4shhash wrote: post #125
AlienRobot wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sickening, honestly. IA is a tool to help you access websites that literally can't be accessed ever again otherwise. It's a noble and beautiful project. Some people use it just to get free stuff, to commit piracy, to infringe upon copyright. It's a perversion of what it was meant for.

Piracy is a service problem. A paywall literally says “you might like this but pay me first to see what it is.” Substack has a “let me read it first” button and I’ve never seen an archive link to that even though there are plenty of private articles. The concept of gift links exists, but these websites footaxe themselves by limiting their most viral content —- ostensibly the best and cheapest marketing they could get…

Substack's "let me read it first" is just a way to close the subscription popup, it has nothing to do with reading otherwise paywalled content.

The thing is, having had some of my own content "go viral" before - it's not worth much. Most people will read it for a minute and move on. A tiny percentage will subscribe and an even tinier percentage will give you any money. So from the point of view of a creator, it makes a ton of sense to put up paywalls on things – but only once you've already gotten a bit of an audience and distribution method figured out.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#138

Post by permo-w »

keiferski wrote: post #82
kikokikokiko wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the company you work for REALLY does behave like that, you SHOULD DEFINITELY advertise it. Companies like this must be acknowledged and celebrated. The owner must be a really good person.

Unfortunately people love to complain about ads, but rarely actually get their wallets out when an alternative payment method is presented. Case in point: the frequent archive.org links to get around paywalls.

you mean archive.is?

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#139

Post by rchaud »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #124
gilbetron wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that it is becoming a new reality. You can tune out, but you can't turn it off, and it (and society) will continue without it. And I say this as someone who thinks we should largely turn it off. Society will adapt, which means society is becoming something different.

I don’t buy it. We’re probably past peak social media at this point. And the outer reality will always have a higher status than any of the inner ones.

You don't have to buy it.

But when a Presidential candidate (who will pick up roughly half the popular vote) is openly spreading social media misinformation, and the owner of Twitter is offering million dollar lotteries to influence the vote, it's fair to say enough people "buy it".

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#140

Post by rchaud »

synergy20 wrote: post #53
ryandv wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rephrase it further to "quit ad-based media." The problems and conflicts of interest introduced by an ad-based revenue model were discussed long before the advent of the modern Web and social media; the relationship between the advertisement industry and mass media (television, radio) was already discussed in depth in the late 20th century [0]: The advertisers' choices influence media prosperity and survival.…

in the old days even you paid to subscribe,the newspaper and journal and cable TV etc still carried commercials, they're always there,just getting much worse nowadays

everybody saw the exact same ads though, and due to regulation, it was impossible for newspapers to do things like broadcast outright misinformation as advertisements. Deepfake Musk and Bezos praising some shitcoin on a YouTube ad is par for the course, but would be logistically impossible on a traditional cable news channel or newspaper.
Post reply on HN