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

Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

susam.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 283 posts

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#131

Post by aspenmayer »

grishka wrote: post #53
wussboy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you can. You can not post political things on social networks. They're not doing any good anyway. They're not changing anyone's mind. They're not providing depth or width to the discussion. I don't say this to be insulting, but rather a realist.

My point is that I just want to be able to discuss any topic with my followers without self-policing lest a bunch of anonymous accounts butts into the conversation and completely derails it.

Twitter has settings for who can reply to tweets, which are configurable per post. You can make it so that only people you follow can reply.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#132

Post by skirge »

keyraycheck wrote: post #5
PaulKeeble wrote: post #2

"Over time, my timeline contained fewer and fewer posts from friends and more and more content from random strangers. " It still baffles me that Facebook fills up my feed with random garbage I have no interest in. I barely use it now because their generated content gets in the way of the reason why I opened facebook to begin with. These algorithmic feeds clearly work for someone but its not what I am looking for, I w…

While number of active users still grows, one have to ask a question, who is left on facebook aside from dopamine junkies and bots. The only reason why I didn’t delete facebook is messenger, where I chat with old folks.

it's like wondering why pubs or restaurants exists if I'm not visiting them everyday, but they do because they have other businesses (birthday parties, company events etc.). Look at Facebook for business.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#133

Post by xoxxala »

burkaman wrote: post #113
thaumasiotes wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s like saying you’re not a drinker because you have a glass of wine every once in a while. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/20110... > Take a 2002 Times/CNN poll on the eating habits of 10,000 Americans. Six percent of the individuals surveyed said they considered themselves vegetarian. But when asked by the pollsters what they had eaten in the last 24 hours, 60% of the self-described "vege…

I wonder what the breakdown between meat/poultry and fish was. I know it isn't the dictionary definition, but I think the common definition of "vegetarian" in the US includes people who only eat fish. I don't know anyone that uses "pescatarian" in conversation or identifies as that, even if it's accurate.

Like humanity in general, there is a lot of variety. My dad has been a pescetarian for 30+ years, so I'm aware of the term and use it at least two or three times a year. Personally, I'm a flexitarian and eat a reduced animal flesh diet. I know quite a few vegetarians, and they don't all eat the same diet (one does eat eggs on a weekly basis and still calls himself a vegetarian, which is somewhat controversial according to the other vegetarians that I talk to). Most vegetarians I know don't consume fish or dairy.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#134

Post by thaumasiotes »

Aurornis wrote: post #115
thaumasiotes wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s like saying you’re not a drinker because you have a glass of wine every once in a while. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/20110... > Take a 2002 Times/CNN poll on the eating habits of 10,000 Americans. Six percent of the individuals surveyed said they considered themselves vegetarian. But when asked by the pollsters what they had eaten in the last 24 hours, 60% of the self-described "vege…

> Six percent of the individuals surveyed said they considered themselves vegetarian In any casual poll like this, every number has a large margin of error. When 6% of respondents select an answer, some of those were mis-clicks, people who misread the answers, or people who were just clicking through randomly. The latter happens a lot when bad UX means the only way to see the results is to take the poll. So the more…

> So the more likely explanation is not that people were calling themselves vegetarian but also eating meat recently, it’s that around half of those reporting vegetarians were either mis-clicks or people blindly clicking things. It happens a lot in online polls.

No, you're just making things up. For one thing, these are telephone polls, not online polls.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#135

Post by lizknope »

steveBK123 wrote: post #54
PaulKeeble wrote: post #2

"Over time, my timeline contained fewer and fewer posts from friends and more and more content from random strangers. " It still baffles me that Facebook fills up my feed with random garbage I have no interest in. I barely use it now because their generated content gets in the way of the reason why I opened facebook to begin with. These algorithmic feeds clearly work for someone but its not what I am looking for, I w…

Instagram followed a similar trajectory for me. For a while, as a photography hobbyist, it was a far more "active" social community for photography enthusiasts than whatever came before (Flickr, Smugmug, photo.net, various niche forums). I made photography friends thru it that I met in person even when traveling overseas. This lasted maybe 2 years. Then all the "normies" got on it and my feed started to just be casua…

10 years ago Instagram was great. I would see 10 posts from friends, 1 ad, and 0 posts from people I didn't know.

I gave up about 4 years ago as I was seeing 1 post from a friend, 3 ads, and then lots of random stranger posts.

My friends gave up too.

I have tons of private groups chats and share stuff with people I care about there.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#136

Post by uhoh-itsmaciek »

Brog_io wrote: post #102
steveBK123 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instagram followed a similar trajectory for me. For a while, as a photography hobbyist, it was a far more "active" social community for photography enthusiasts than whatever came before (Flickr, Smugmug, photo.net, various niche forums). I made photography friends thru it that I met in person even when traveling overseas. This lasted maybe 2 years. Then all the "normies" got on it and my feed started to just be casua…

You might like Foto https://fotoapp.co/

+1 for Foto. I was also using Instagram through a photography lens and fell off when it got totally unsuitable for that. Foto is pretty good so far.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#137

Post by UnreachableCode »

asim wrote: post #22

Mastodon really isn't the answer. You frequent enough servers and you realise social media has taught people bad habits..not everything needs to be expressed online. Genuinely I think people need something else. The format fails. What's the alternative? I don't know. But I'm trying to figure it out. Why? Because walking away from it all isn't the right answer. Why? Because we leave behind all those people addicted to…

> What's the alternative? I don't know.

Real world connection and a strong foundation of core friends, perhaps?

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#138

Post by lizknope »

bravoetch wrote: post #89

My family has moved to group chats. It's great.

Same here. My father is 1 of 8 children and my mom is 1 of 12 children. I have tons of aunts, uncles, 30 first cousins, and they have lots of kids that I know as well. It's lots of birthday pics, graduations, weddings, vacations, and especially when some of us get together.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#139

Post by syphia »

asim wrote: post #22

Mastodon really isn't the answer. You frequent enough servers and you realise social media has taught people bad habits..not everything needs to be expressed online. Genuinely I think people need something else. The format fails. What's the alternative? I don't know. But I'm trying to figure it out. Why? Because walking away from it all isn't the right answer. Why? Because we leave behind all those people addicted to…

I've known many people who met through games. They offer something similar, in the sense that you can meet new people and learn about them.

The synchronous nature of multiplayer games leaves most of this expression implicit rather than explicit, though, so for some people it doesn't fit the same need. It's a kind of role-play.

I think most people are, for lack of a better metaphor, blood-sucking vampires for honest, explicit, and carefully-crafted communication. People are pleased when I offer it, but they struggle to offer it back, so I learn to not bother. Most relationships degenerate into expressing things better left unsaid, or being entirely superficial.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#140

Post by terminalshort »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #2

"Over time, my timeline contained fewer and fewer posts from friends and more and more content from random strangers. " It still baffles me that Facebook fills up my feed with random garbage I have no interest in. I barely use it now because their generated content gets in the way of the reason why I opened facebook to begin with. These algorithmic feeds clearly work for someone but its not what I am looking for, I w…

It's literally what got me off Facebook for good. I used it less and less over the years, but would still log in once every couple weeks or so. At least it was always 100% content posted by friends or friends of friends, or at least something that was interacted with by someone I know. Then it seems like overnight they flipped a switch and it was 10% content from people I know and 90% completely irrelevant slop. I logged in one more time after that, and then never again.
Post reply on HN