Live data from Hacker News

Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

susam.net

191–200 of 283 posts

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#191

I was always perturbed by the shift from calling them "social networks" to "social media". It signalled a friends-to-famous shift (plus ads) that I didn't particularly want. Why fill my personal feed with stuff I normally get on dedicated discussion/news sites? (Rhetorical; it's obvious why.) They still call it SNS (social networking service) in Japan. We need to keep moving to a new iteration of this - hopefully one…

If it's media, it should be regulated like media.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the main issues of reddit according to you?

I think one of the main flaws of Reddit is that upvotes that happen on a user's front page and upvotes that come from 'within' the subreddit are treated equal (at least as far as I know). It degrades the "does this post fit the subreddit's theme/topic?"-signal and makes the average user work against the moderation team rather than supporting them. This was exacerbated when they started showing posts from subreddits t…

I've never heard this raised before but its an interesting idea. Lemmy/Piefed are pretty open to features and changes. At the moment this wouldnt be a good idea because a lot of communities are to small to be browsing specifically but as the platform grows I can see this being a really good change to the algorithm .

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#193
post #100

I will admit, one thing the crowd attention model does exceptionally well is surface the best comments on content. Whether it's HN, Instagram, YouTube, etc... the top comments are usually the "best", depending on how best is defined in the given context. On the silly Instagram meme videos my algo serves up, the top comments are invariably hilarious, often funnier than the actual content, and as you scroll it's impres…

> the top comments are invariably hilarious, Sadly that is all that reddit is, now. Have a serious question? Expect multiple top replies to be some sort of [un]funny joke answer. It's a wasteland and devalues the platform when everyone competes for Internet Points. /r/aviation is just one example of being full of this crap. Oddly enough, I don't see it as much in gaming subreddits, even the more generic ones.

reddit lacks consistent moderation and the worst is location based subreddits, where all dissenting takes are effectively hidden.

Yet one can imagine a limited set of filters that could in theory fix this:

    - eliminate obvious bots
    - eliminate low content / metoo / naysaying
    - eliminate memes
    - detect and promote high quality controversial posts equally to unilaterally upvoted ones

And perhaps let subreddits conditionally opt in or out of each of ^, but have to declare which. We know at least half of ^ is easy, and now LLMs open new doors to potentially new automations, but its likely not cost effect yet.

still i suspect the largest barrier is merely that all the popular social media sites are actively captured by ad-driven development / leaders. That cant last forever, people are sick of it.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#194
post #163

I’m quite literally experiencing a physical reaction whenever I need to browse some algorithmic timeline. Even YouTube, what used to be a couple of related videos is now a wall full of “recommendations” - the unskippable ads on every video are more relevant than the actual videos… Mastodon and related (for me Loops mainly) are a breath of fresh air and I wish more people can (re)learn to enjoy that.

YouTube recommendations are very well tuned for me. You need to mark videos "not interested" and downvote stuff you don't actually like, as well as stopping videos when you've decided you're not interested. This and other aspects WILL improve your recommended feed. So if your recommended feed sucks, well that's on you there bud, you can influence it completely.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cit…

That poll is not published. But if you doubt the veracity of Psychology Today, it's easy enough to verify that Time/CNN sponsored it and published on the results: https://time.com/archive/6666859/should-we-all-be-vegetarian...

You can find other Time articles that cover their methodology, which involves paying a polling (or consulting) firm to run the poll.

> It links to several studies but not the one they're writing about.

Which one do you think is "the one they're writing about"? The Psychology Today piece opens with a description of the current state of affairs.

You might or might not have noticed that immediately after the mention of the Time poll, Psychology Today links to a survey published by the USDA finding that, among self-described vegetarians, 64% reported eating meat within the last 24 hours. Why do you doubt the Time poll?

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never used the explore function of any social media app ever. I never want it, I have never found it useful. If I want random submitted content by strangers I go to message boards/forums/etc. That was a great space reddit filled for years, now HN for me. Social media is at its best when it’s just stuff from people I choose to follow or know.

> Social media is at its best when it’s just stuff from people I choose to follow or know. How do you discover new people? I'd say some people I followed I discovered them thanks for the feed

Suggestions from friends? The network of people even without a feed is extremely vast on its own. You'd be surprised how far "a friend of a friend" can go.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#197

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.

Time didn't break down their results between meat/poultry and fish, but they did break them down between "red meat" and poultry/fish; 37% of vegetarians had eaten red meat within the last day.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#198
I have never used mastodon, but why is it so much better than X (twitter)? I also follow a small group of people on X that I find interesting and I get a chronological feed of their posts in the “following” tab. I know that the “For You” tab abyss is right there. I opened it once, was shocked by all the crap the system assumed I would like, and never went back. The good thing is that nobody forces me to use it. I am perfectly fine in the “following” feed and not exposed at all to recommender systems trying to grab my attention. Only the ads in the feed annoy me - and they are so bad that I wonder how X makes any money.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#199
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'm glad you said so. So many people take the wrong lessons from social media, and just keep trying to rebuild it more-or-less as-is and inherit most of the flaws that made it awful in the first place. What People fail to understand is that in a very narrow sense, it's better to think of social media like alcohol. It feels good to get a buzz and relax, but the next day you're worse off. Drinking a lot of the time mak…

Alcohol is bad health wise but probably is used to reduce the harm of social imposed stress between people.

So, If I think about it "like alcohol", it would mean "what is the root cause of not being able to keep contact with people". It might be that common social mixing places are probably much fewer than hundred of years ago - be it the local bar, gathering after a day of work in the field, public bathhouse, etc. Many of activities in the modern world seem very individual - maybe that is the problem, and people being social try to replace it and get tricked into worse things.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#200
post #185

The funny thing about Facebook is that it's got a perfectly good social network in there, I think the only one that exists. In the menu is "Feeds" which is what you want. It only shows friends and followed things. If they made that the default when you go to facebook.com I don't think I'd have any complaints feature-wise, though an ad-free option would be nice. It's a genuine social network. Of course, then there's t…

Wow, I did not know about this Feeds page despite being a daily FB user for 20 years (yes, to the ridicule of most people, I know). Thanks for pointing this out. I wish this was the default homepage or at least a way to set it as default.

Each feed has a unique URL, so you can bookmark it in your browser. For people using Facebook via native mobile apps, my recommendation would be to stop and use a browser.
Post reply on HN