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

Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 511 posts

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#131

Post by baggachipz »

ThunderBee wrote: post #116
defmetrix wrote: post #65

The only social media I really use is linkedin and X. I find linkedin useful for following companies and colleagues, and im pretty picky about who I accept or request as a friend. I also find X to be insightful, but I only use it to follow people for stock research.

X is excellent for following niche research interests but they’ve been pushing quite hard to force political news/opinions into the feeds which is really annoying.

It's run by a guy who literally did a nazi salute. One of their most prolific users is named "catturd". I'm astonished that anybody in research or science still remains there.

Edit to add: The owner of the platform contributed millions of dollars, endorsements, and manipulation of the platform to elect a regime which actively works to dismantle scientific and research funding and institutions. By continuing to use the platform, these people are contributing to the destruction of their work and careers.

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#132

Post by Ajedi32 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #25
mbesto wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very critical of social media but this is far too of a myopic take. There is a ton of real life social benefit to these platforms. Simplest example - someone posts a picture/video of them in a city that I also am in and now I know they live there / traveling there and I can meet up with them.

I fell out of touch with my relatives in New England and got back in touch because I got back on Facebook so something social does come out of it once in a while.

Yes the social aspect does definitely still exist, it's just half buried by all the other nonsense.

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#133

Post by IAmBroom »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #115
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be using social media wrong because all I see on my timeline are funny pics and niche porn.

Are you on the correct site/app?? :-P

Rule 34, bro.

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#135

Post by trollbridge »

armchairhacker wrote: post #71
trollbridge wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never appreciated the low-effort handwaves of claiming that HN, old-school Internet forums, USENET, etc. are "social media", simply because they aren't. HN's primary medium is text, often headlined by a link to some other site. That isn't social media. HN makes it quite difficult (technically impossible, but you can link out) to embed media such as videos and pictures, which makes it fundamentally different than…

HN has comments which are social media. I don’t get why people care, because social media isn’t intrinsically bad; I always say “mainstream social media” or “toxic social media” to clarify what I’m referring to. > HN makes it quite difficult (technically impossible, but you can link out) to embed media such as videos and pictures, which makes it fundamentally different than "social media". What’s the difference? Subm…

Comment threads are not “social media”, no matter how badly anyone wants to redefine that they are. They date back to the 1970s on USENET and mailing lists.

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#136

Post by armchairhacker »

close04 wrote: post #70

Why is nobody here defining social media, put down the clear criteria? "I say this, I am tired of people saying that" isn't productive if everyone has their own interpretation of what's being discussed.

Social media is any website whose purpose is socialization i.e. “small-talk” style discussion, with many (50+) members.

If it’s a larger site that contains socialization, like blog comments, the blog itself may not be social media but the comments can be. I define TikTok, Twitch, and part of YouTube as social media because the videos themselves are casual and therefore quality as small-talk (if you only visit YouTube for large videos or videos without commentary, you’re not visiting the social media part).

A 1-on-1 or small group chat isn’t social media, but a large group chat, Discord, or other invite-only platform is. Because when these get large enough, they have the parasocialization, shock, and constant activity of open social medias (even some self-promotion, but it’s more authentic and IMO not an issue).

Some people argue text doesn’t count because it’s not “media”, but I don’t think it matters, because in practice people share media on text forums and I don’t think there’s much difference anyways (e.g. name dropping a movie, is that sharing media?).

I define Stack Exchange as not social media, because it actively strongly discourages socialization. Video game lobbies are social media iff users heavily socialize in the chat (the clans in Warcraft, Eve, and Clash of Clans may qualify; large Minecraft server chats may quality).

Ultimately, I define social media based on parasocialization, with tendency to promote and consistently provide high-dopamine text and other media. Someone else can define it as “a parasocial dopamine sink with notifications and ‘friends’” like Twitter, or “a parasocial dopamine sink that encourages your real name” like Facebook”. I include sites like HN because I think, while they’re significantly better, they’re still “social” in a way regular communication isn’t, and can still have most of the negative effects (you can engage positively with HN, but you can engage positively even with TikTok and Facebook, if you use it selectively productively).

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#137

Post by harrall »

nancyminusone wrote: post #85
malfist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theory about cable television is fascinating. I never really watched TV growing up, but every time I visit my parents now that they're retired, one of them always has a 24 hour news going and it's just non stop "you should be afraid" and "you should be angry" told to you by pretty faces smiling the whole time. Social media is totally that today too. I quit facebook in 2016 and reddit in 2023 over similar fears.…

I do find it amusing how on the internet the X and Y can be governments or corporations, or the hosted platform itself. Seems like something a competent "we control everything" organization should be able to prevent. But as long as you do nothing but come back for another helping of rage, I guess they're fine with it.

Cuz the actual nuanced reality is that it’s structural. (Most) corporations don’t want to control the world but they do have their own self-interests, but because there are so many corporations there’s always some corporation controlling some facet.

For another example of a structural problem, California has been trying to add housing for the past few years but it has been one piecemeal solution after another. People who own homes don’t want their lives to change, cities like how they are laid out already, parking requirements exist to prevent developers from skimping at the time, environmental reviews are meant to protect the environment… at no point was anyone thinking “I want a housing problem that leads to job flight and homelessness” — everyone is just solving their own problem at the time but together it creates a major structural obstacle.

The people at YouTube don’t actually care about controlling the narrative. They just want to make money while removing problematic content, but they’re not exactly sure what problematic content is and Google tends to invest in algorithms more than support, but the end result is channels get randomly removed sometimes.

The world’s problems are hard because not because people are generally malicious, but because everyone is just doing their own thing. That’s why the only fixes are structural, but structural solutions are really hard.

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#138

Post by Quarrelsome »

walthamstow wrote: post #92
UltraSane wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"one of them always has a 24 hour news going " Why didn't you say which one? I bet it is Fox.

It doesn't matter which one. My mother mainlines BBC News which is state-owned, establishment-centrist, has no adverts or profits, but has the same effect of dialing up the viewer's fear of the outside world.

sadly forces in the BBC also value "engagement". Idk how we got here, it never used to be like this.

This is why cultural stories now are higher than before on the main site. It used to be the case that news was _just_ news. Politics, crime, economics, health, environment, etc. Now culture stories, like puff pieces about the royals or entertainment end up on the front page.

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#139

Post by janmarsal »

masfuerte wrote: post #74
p1dda wrote: post #43

[flagged]

What do you think it means? One meaning of anti-social is "hostile toward society". Do you think this doesn't describe social media?

traditionally anti-social behavior meant fighting, keying cars, spraying graffitis etc. A kid with antisocial personality disorder can be a danger to other kids due to their reckless behavior.

social alienation caused by the internet and the social media usually manifests in asocial behavior like withdrawing from the society. in the recent years people have started calling this anti-social behavior, and they often get corrected by pedantic people such as myself.

what BBC meant by "anti-social" in this article is unclear.

Re: Anti-social: It's fads, not friends, which now dominate social media feeds

#140

Post by armchairhacker »

chownie wrote: post #93
close04 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And no, HN is not social media in any normal sense of the word. The pedantry involved in that comparison is extremely tiresome. For an arbitrary definition of "normal"? The last remark is unwarranted and can only have a chilling effect on the conversation. Or outrage bait, a typical sign on social media. Why is it not social media? It exhibits the same signs as seen on any social media platform. Can you define soci…

Is it not clear at this point that the real issue is how lacking the term "social media" even is? We have people here arguing that BBSs were social media, it will not be long until email is considered social media. At this point it's a vague term meaning "a place where you talk to another person online" and nothing more than that. I'm solidly of the opinion especially after seeing so many arguments of this form on HN…

“Social network” is a better term. I think “parasocial network” is better; the former implies small group chats while the latter doesn’t.

Except “mainstream social media”, because everyone knows what you’re talking about, including some who’d be confused by “mainstream parasocial network” because they don’t know what parasocial means.

Post reply on HN