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

151–160 of 283 posts

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#151

Post by hotOrNot »

blfr wrote: post #38

Sure, the modern Twitter/X feed is not like the original reverse chronological timeline but the latter is still available right next to it. Maybe it's the power of the default but I find the algorithmic feed much better. The chronological timeline is only manageable up to a point. I follow just under 2000 accounts on Twitter. They at least occasionally at least in some period in the past must have been posting intere…

I find the algorithmic feeds literally horrible on twitter. Algorithmic feeds only work with video content/short form I feel like

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#152

Post by brookst »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #149
squidsoup wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foto is good, provided you want a community exclusively made up of other photographers. If you want greater reach for your work, Instagram unfortunately is still the only option. The worst thing about Instagram today for photographers and artists, is that to succeed, you have to effectively become an influencer and share reels of yourself and your process.

> If you want greater reach for your work, Instagram unfortunately is still the only option. Wasn't people wanting reach what supposedly ruined Instagram in the first place? Seems like wanting it both ways if you want reach for yourself, but not for "influencers"

I mean I want to enjoy some wine, doesn’t mean I’m a hypocrite for disliking alcoholics and drunk driving.

It’s OK to believe both 1) social media can be a useful service for connecting with friends and interesting people, and 2) social media has feedback mechanisms that reward unpleasant and abusive behavior.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#153

Post by squidsoup »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #149
squidsoup wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foto is good, provided you want a community exclusively made up of other photographers. If you want greater reach for your work, Instagram unfortunately is still the only option. The worst thing about Instagram today for photographers and artists, is that to succeed, you have to effectively become an influencer and share reels of yourself and your process.

> If you want greater reach for your work, Instagram unfortunately is still the only option. Wasn't people wanting reach what supposedly ruined Instagram in the first place? Seems like wanting it both ways if you want reach for yourself, but not for "influencers"

There was a time on Instagram when artists could grow their reach organically, on the merit of their work alone, but I don’t think that’s possible today without engaging in reels and positioning yourself as an influencer, which most artists I would imagine find abhorrent.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#154

Post by malfist »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #134
Aurornis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You say that, the the psychology today deliberately does not link to the study. It links to several studies but not the one they're writing about. The most they identify it as is a 2002 Times/CNN survey.

If you have the actual study please share it. Right now, I doubt the veracity of psychology today's claims.

In fact I've done more digging since posting this and the only other people talking about this survey is citing psychology today as their source. I can find no primary sources.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#156

Post by shermantanktop »

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.

I get it, I hear that too, but it’s wrong.

Vegetarian = no meat, no chicken, no fish, no crustaceans, no dead animals, no meat/fish broth, no lard. Nothing derived from a dead animal. Or as my little sister used to ask: “did this have a face?”

But that’s what “vegetarian” means to me. I guess that’s a “strict vegetarian”?

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#157

Post by a123b456c »

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 not complicated. That random garbage increases advertising revenues. Maybe not from every user, but certainly in the aggregate.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#158

Post by cmrdporcupine »

The failure of Mastodon to thrive even when Twitter itself became very vulnerable unfortunately tells me that people actually want this pathologically bad behaviour. Lots of friends who slagged Twitter and Facebook etc for its anti-social aspects turned around and tried Mastodon for a few days and then came back to me with a "there's nothing happening there" and it's "boring" etc because they were fundamentally expecting to be force fed entertainment just like Twitter. Lots of comments on hackernews to that effect, too.

That's fine. I never liked Twitter anyways, but I do think it's interesting how two faced we can be about this.

The engagement hackers found a market and met it. Not good, but true.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#159

Post by pks016 »

I was active on FB, Insta, Goggle +, and Orkut during their early days. My brother and I were the first few people from our circle to have these social media account.

Looking back, the incentives have changed. Back then, there was some openness, rawness, and genuine curiosity about people and things. And of course, the signal-noise ratio was much higher.

Influencer culture ruined everything, consciously or subconsciously. I still use Insta for photography. But, it's a sinking ship. Insta could have made a different app for reels.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#160

Post by renewiltord »

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 funny how everyone experiences their own Eternal September. Remember that there are 1.5 billion Indians. They’re on FB too and influencing the algorithm with what they want to see.
Post reply on HN