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

The End of Social Media

miikavonbell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: The End of Social Media

#21

Post by zhdc1 »

duxup wrote: post #11

Problems I see: - Most content produced by people on social media is not good and you probably don't want to see it. Serendipity of a bunch of crappy content "I had a bad day nobody ask me about it" is not something you want, but it is serendipity. - Social media isn't where you go to get info on Crocodiles, not sure how that would even work? That's Wikipedia. ... or if we're talking social media, YouTube (I searched…

Social media - at least, Twitter, but a couple of other sites before that - is still the go to source for breaking news.

It can take tens of minutes to hours for major news sites to report on a breaking event (e.g., the fall of Kabul). Meanwhile, you can get detailed - albiet in some cases very innacurate - information within minutes of it happening simply by watching for Tweets from people on the ground.

Re: The End of Social Media

#22

Post by brodouevencode »

moate wrote: post #19
animanoir wrote: post #17

I believe blogging will have a Renaissance since it has all the benefits from "social networks" but excluding the ads, the unnecessary "likes", and focus on the fundamentals which are sharing and discussing, just like forums, but blogs will be about individuals mainly.

IDK what blogs you're reading, but many of those sites are a confederation of ads with small islands of content interspersed between. Many bloggers are trying to do it as a way to gain income at this point, and the ads are either all over the site or inserted directly into the "content".

I think OPs original point was more of a circa-2005 blog, which would be nice. But your point is equally as valid. Try searching for a recipe for your favorite dish - the first two pages are blog posts each filled with incessant chatter about how the dish makes them feel. You have to scroll to the very bottom just to get the actual recipe.

Re: The End of Social Media

#23

Post by lotsofpulp »

zhdc1 wrote: post #21
duxup wrote: post #11

Problems I see: - Most content produced by people on social media is not good and you probably don't want to see it. Serendipity of a bunch of crappy content "I had a bad day nobody ask me about it" is not something you want, but it is serendipity. - Social media isn't where you go to get info on Crocodiles, not sure how that would even work? That's Wikipedia. ... or if we're talking social media, YouTube (I searched…

Social media - at least, Twitter, but a couple of other sites before that - is still the go to source for breaking news. It can take tens of minutes to hours for major news sites to report on a breaking event (e.g., the fall of Kabul). Meanwhile, you can get detailed - albiet in some cases very innacurate - information within minutes of it happening simply by watching for Tweets from people on the ground.

> albiet in some cases very innacurate

I would correct to most cases. Or that the information you get is without sufficient context to be of use.

Re: The End of Social Media

#24

Post by zhdc1 »

animanoir wrote: post #17

I believe blogging will have a Renaissance since it has all the benefits from "social networks" but excluding the ads, the unnecessary "likes", and focus on the fundamentals which are sharing and discussing, just like forums, but blogs will be about individuals mainly.

I'm skeptical. Blogs are difficult for subject matter experts (people skilled in a domain, and not necessarily skilled at making money off of the web) to monetize.

Re: The End of Social Media

#25

Post by moate »

animanoir wrote: post #20
moate wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK what blogs you're reading, but many of those sites are a confederation of ads with small islands of content interspersed between. Many bloggers are trying to do it as a way to gain income at this point, and the ads are either all over the site or inserted directly into the "content".

Well, like mine, which is completely about me and my thoughts with zero ads, and I share and discuss whatever I want https://safetyinsolitude.blogspot.com/ This is what I send to people if they want to know my digital self. So yeah, mentality needs to change to stop seeking revenue out of everything...

The issue is that some people want to blog for a living (and there's nothing wrong with that IMO) which leads the platforms to optimize for that. I don't think enough people are willing to spin up their own self-hosted blogs just to throw their thoughts into the aether. Not when points to what the internet has become exists and they can get the engagement/dopamine they want elsewhere.

That's not to say your prediction is wrong, just feels extremely unlikely, barring some massive regulatory upheaval changing the internet's current paradigm.

Re: The End of Social Media

#26

Post by mikeg8 »

zhdc1 wrote: post #21
duxup wrote: post #11

Problems I see: - Most content produced by people on social media is not good and you probably don't want to see it. Serendipity of a bunch of crappy content "I had a bad day nobody ask me about it" is not something you want, but it is serendipity. - Social media isn't where you go to get info on Crocodiles, not sure how that would even work? That's Wikipedia. ... or if we're talking social media, YouTube (I searched…

Social media - at least, Twitter, but a couple of other sites before that - is still the go to source for breaking news. It can take tens of minutes to hours for major news sites to report on a breaking event (e.g., the fall of Kabul). Meanwhile, you can get detailed - albiet in some cases very innacurate - information within minutes of it happening simply by watching for Tweets from people on the ground.

But do we really need to know breaking news, instantly? It becomes addicting; it especially was for me during the last administration. I’m completely fine finding out a few hours later about a breaking news story that doesn’t have a material effect on my immediate safety (ie wild fires). If Twitter’s biggest justification is that it lets you stay up to speed on news in real-time, I’d still agree we are better off without it, from a mental health perspective.

Re: The End of Social Media

#27

Post by zhdc1 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #23
zhdc1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media - at least, Twitter, but a couple of other sites before that - is still the go to source for breaking news. It can take tens of minutes to hours for major news sites to report on a breaking event (e.g., the fall of Kabul). Meanwhile, you can get detailed - albiet in some cases very innacurate - information within minutes of it happening simply by watching for Tweets from people on the ground.

> albiet in some cases very innacurate I would correct to most cases. Or that the information you get is without sufficient context to be of use.

Actually, I've found that they tend to be fairly accurate at reporting 'what' is happening - it's hard for several people at the same time to post unique, fake videos of people driving around with guns while others are posting corroborating textual accounts.

The 'why' part is a completely different matter. If there's any interpretation or time difference between the event and the post, scepticism is absolutely warranted.

Re: The End of Social Media

#28

Post by moate »

brodouevencode wrote: post #22
moate wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK what blogs you're reading, but many of those sites are a confederation of ads with small islands of content interspersed between. Many bloggers are trying to do it as a way to gain income at this point, and the ads are either all over the site or inserted directly into the "content".

I think OPs original point was more of a circa-2005 blog, which would be nice. But your point is equally as valid. Try searching for a recipe for your favorite dish - the first two pages are blog posts each filled with incessant chatter about how the dish makes them feel. You have to scroll to the very bottom just to get the actual recipe.

The Livejournal era has passed. You can't go back to that on a platform because platforms will continue to be for profit and nobody is going to pay for you to host their blog so you need ads to make the business viable.

The other option is everyone spinning up and hosting their own sites, which will not happen because Helen the mommy blogger has 2 kids to deal with and photos to edit and content to write so she does not also want to learn how to set up hosting and write HTML.

I'd like for certain things to "go back to the way they were" but that's just not how it works usually.

Re: The End of Social Media

#29

Post by fsiefken »

for a long while i was thinking my comments on facebook would raise the quality of interaction, but with the onslaught of disinformation my thoughtful and respectful comments (or so I think) seem to be futile and just fodder for the facebook network and the attention economy.

So I wrote a goodbye note on instagram and facebook, felt confirmation by reading Jaron Lanier. Got a new domain and configured jekyll.

Now I can blog and write my 'digital garden' notes on my own island and share it with a smaller circle of people outside of the regular social media which artificially disciplines my thoughts, responses and behavior like the panopticon (michel foucault). I'll keep an eye on facebook groups, will schedule some script to rss-ify some feeds from 'facebook friends' but that's it.

Re: The End of Social Media

#30

Post by zhdc1 »

mikeg8 wrote: post #26
zhdc1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media - at least, Twitter, but a couple of other sites before that - is still the go to source for breaking news. It can take tens of minutes to hours for major news sites to report on a breaking event (e.g., the fall of Kabul). Meanwhile, you can get detailed - albiet in some cases very innacurate - information within minutes of it happening simply by watching for Tweets from people on the ground.

But do we really need to know breaking news, instantly? It becomes addicting; it especially was for me during the last administration. I’m completely fine finding out a few hours later about a breaking news story that doesn’t have a material effect on my immediate safety (ie wild fires). If Twitter’s biggest justification is that it lets you stay up to speed on news in real-time, I’d still agree we are better off wit…

> do we really need to know breaking news, instantly?

There are good reasons, although I share your general concern. E.g., if you believe that you may be affected by an event, or if it's important/relevant enough that others will start to frame how it's perceived, it's generally good to find out about it as it's happening.

On the other hand, the vast majority of trending events aren't worth being concerned about for most people.

Post reply on HN