231–240 of 527 posts
I believe many of the problems in our current social media landscape could be solved by eliminating the "feed" and instead displaying posts, updates, and pictures from friends, family, and those we know in real life. This approach might conflict with the profit models of big tech social media and could go against what most people have become accustomed to. Personally, I would love a smaller social network where I can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It is like alcohol: perfectly fine in reasonable doses, but harmful to people that get addicted.
“Perfectly fine” is a bit of a stretch. No amount of alcohol is good for health. WHO now say even small amounts increase risk of cancer and liver disease.
I do have an Instagram account, and use that to follow the Slackwyrm comic (and ignore people asking me to give them my "desirable" id.)
I did try Blind, but quickly gave up on that mess of an app. 1 day of using it and it just was rage bait after rage bait. Maybe next time I'm job hunting - a friend stated that it was very useful for her negotiations.
Most of my WA group chats are archived & no notifications - no pressure to read them immediately. Left every group chat except close friends and family anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the EU should flex their regulatory muscle and forbid algorithmic feeds on by default unless the networks break european society as the US is broken.
I don’t know how much of a difference it would make, as then we just become the algorithm. I quit Facebook over a decade ago, because others used it to go “look at my shiny car/wife/house”, and I would use it to lose friends and alienate people. These online environments do not foster any kind of human connection.
If it wasn’t for the algorithmic feed showing “recommended” posts from accounts I don’t follow and the constant ads, I would have a perfectly healthy and pleasant experience with Instagram.
I really wish they’d let us pay to get rid of ads and configure the algorithm to e.g. only recommend from accounts I follow.
I believe many of the problems in our current social media landscape could be solved by eliminating the "feed" and instead displaying posts, updates, and pictures from friends, family, and those we know in real life. This approach might conflict with the profit models of big tech social media and could go against what most people have become accustomed to. Personally, I would love a smaller social network where I can…
I think the EU should flex their regulatory muscle and forbid algorithmic feeds on by default unless the networks break european society as the US is broken.
Imagine there's a toggle you can flip in the Settings of Instagram that was labeled "free oxy", and every morning and evening Meta would FedEx an oxy pill into your mailbox. Everyone would tell eachother about it, and few would be able to resist the temptation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could you _possibly_ believe a company like meta would use a new technology to act in your interests rather than theirs?
it's obvious meritocracy in institutions is dead. people with half baked ideas float to the top for no reason now
Merit will get you a 401(k) and a job where you have a nice coffee station and some bean bags to sit on, and a ping pong table. Lord knows, the ping pong table proves you've got merit. But does your boss really have more merit than you? It seems to me that the higher up the corporate ladder you go, the less actual merit people exhibit, and the less they notice it among their underlings (as opposed to loyalty or ass-kissing), but the more they claim to believe in it.
I'm not arguing against merit. I'm a capitalist. I'm just pointing out that the people who so often tout merit are the same people who get most of their tax credits from backroom deals with politicians, and don't seem to earn their keep by the sweat of their own brow. Merit would imply the ability to do both equally well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is an important and often overlooked phenomenon actually. Studies of Internet engagement are filled with these skewed distributions that follow something like a Pareto principle, or I've heard it termed the 90-9-1 distribution in engagement where 90% of users just lurk a bit, 9% contribute casually, and then 1% are contributing like half of the content on the platform. It would follow logically that what…
These percentages are similar to those that one sees for alcohol consumption or problematic gambling. The business model of the casinos and the drug dealers and the alcohol venders is the same - you need a huge pool of unproblematic recreational users to find the problematic users who generate the bulk of your profits. The same model works for video games and social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Perfectly fine” is a bit of a stretch. No amount of alcohol is good for health. WHO now say even small amounts increase risk of cancer and liver disease.
This is nonsense. Drinking in moderation is beneficial or at worst harmless. Every two years the "science" changes. Anyone that pays too much attention to what it says is a fool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know how much of a difference it would make, as then we just become the algorithm. I quit Facebook over a decade ago, because others used it to go “look at my shiny car/wife/house”, and I would use it to lose friends and alienate people. These online environments do not foster any kind of human connection.
Blue sky allows you to have many different kinds of feeds and I can say the difference in adrenaline level and mood is palpable depending on the feed I use. News items - frustration at the state the world is in. Urban bicycle feed: annoyance at the atrocities of the inept drivers. Feed with cycle side trip pictures: fun. Rust projects, Electronics: the curiosity of learning. Also: Bluesky has an absolutely amazing fe…