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

211–220 of 283 posts

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#211

Post by TrailingArbutus »

The problem is that a functional social network is a bad business model.

A chronological feed has a "stop" point. You catch up, you feel satisfied, and you close the app. Meta’s revenue depends on you never feeling caught up. That’s why the "Feeds" tab is buried three menus deep—it’s there so they can say it exists, but hidden so you stay stuck in the algorithmic slop.

Even if they made it the default, you’re still left with the trust issue. You aren’t the customer; you’re the data being mined. At this point, the brand is probably too far gone for a simple UI tweak to fix the underlying rot.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#213

Post by simonask »

jMyles wrote: post #207
baxuz wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is this code for, "I want the cops to stop people from doing things online I don't like" or "we need more regularity / predictability"?

Traditional (so-called “legacy”) media have legal rights and obligations in most countries. They are required to live up to certain standards, for example by distinguishing between opinion and fact, by disclosing political affiliations, and so on.

Journalist is more than a job title, and so is editor.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#215

Post by rezonant »

anonymars wrote: post #209
Zak wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Meta not being a particularly trustworthy entity > For people using Facebook via native mobile apps, my recommendation would be to stop and use a browser Related (2025): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44169115

Thankfully, since then, Chrome and all other major browsers now ask the user for permission before letting websites send requests to localhost or any local IP addresses. Obviously some users may click through that, but it prevents the behavior from being invisible to the user at least, and gives them a way to say no.

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/local-network-access

PS: I still recommend never installing Meta apps on your phone.

PPS: There are legitimate uses of this functionality, so as a web dev I'm happy the functionality wasn't silently blocked. This gives an opportunity to explain to the user why the permission is needed if the use is legitimate. Would be nice if it could be further scoped though.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#217

Post by grishka »

dredmorbius wrote: post #210
grishka wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you're probably looking for is closer to a closed discussion group or mailing list than "social media", which is presently universally-readable, algorithmically-targeted, feed-based, advertising-supported, and increasingly, saturated with AI slop (which itself has replace clickbait and ragebait). Which reminds me of Kitman's Law: Pure drivel tend to drive off the TV screen ordinary drivel. From Marvin Kitman htt…

I want my posts universally-readable and universally-interactable (that's why I don't like the idea of locking my accounts). I also want to be able to explore the social graph — looking at who follows who, what that friend of a friend posts, etc. It all forms an integral part of what social networks are.

What I absolutely do not want is the platform having any of its own agency. I want a social network that ideally works as a dumb pipe. I especially don't want my content surfaced in front of the kinds of people who would've never found it through their own exploration.

It should come as no surprise, then, that I have a lot of faith in the fediverse.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#219

Post by morissette »

sitkack wrote: post #84
morissette wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m down to 3 hours a week of social media woot!

Does that include HN?

Absolutely lol - as a human in tech; I like to try and live like it is 1999 - and the 1999 where I wasn’t inside writing Perl but 1999 like when I was outside roller blading, skateboarding, bmxing, before I had a cell phone.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#220

Post by Aurornis »

rapnie wrote: post #186
Aurornis wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like in a chat room when you ask someone something with an explicit mention of their handle, only to see the presence indicator pass it by without any response. Asking someone a question online does not obligate them to take time to answer it, or even explain why they don’t feel like doing so. You’re not in a conversation with everyone who is online, so the comparison to in person conversations doesn’t hold. > Not…

It depends on the context and situation. You are right for some random public channel. I am talking about for instance chatrooms where a small remote team joins for the express purpose to collaborate closely, and I often find these weird deviations from how you would behave offline in similar setting to be very detrimental for communication and productivity killers. Part of it is about setting expectations and foster…

> I am talking about for instance chatrooms where a small remote team joins for the express purpose to collaborate closely

I am too.

A chat room is not equivalent to a face to face conversation. You’re not in an always-on social engagement with those people.

If you need to switch to having face to face conversational norms, you need to request a time for that.

It’s not reasonable to expect that someone’s online indicator means you are entitled to request that they drop what they’re doing and respond to you. Online does not mean not busy.

Post reply on HN