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

261–270 of 283 posts

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#261

Post by rezonant »

j16sdiz wrote: post #251
rezonant wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ap…

Chrome added that _after_ sb discovered meta abusing it.

Yep, that's why I said since then

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#262

Post by socalgal2 »

lukeschlather wrote: post #179

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…

oMg thank you for pointing this out. I knew instagram had this as it’s top center. (X has to too). I didn’t know fb had it. So much better!

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#263

Post by dizhn »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #227
dizhn wrote: post #223

Recently I realized something. Back in the day in the early 2000s people were talking about this thing called social media that didn't really exist but would be the future. (That and micro transactions) I never got what was so hot about it. Looking back I am realizing that the techno elite did not coopt something that used to be nice. This whole narrative control and private information funnel was designed from the b…

Good news! Microtransactions really were the future. https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2022/05/30/noony-nokuni

They used to be hung up on the fact that the transaction cost of a microtransaction (5 cents to read the new york times for a day) was the show stopper. Boy did they solve that issue. :)

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#264

Post by UnreachableCode »

joelthelion wrote: post #167
UnreachableCode wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the alternative? I don't know. Real world connection and a strong foundation of core friends, perhaps?

We still need a way to meet people with similar niche interests. This isn't served well IRL.

How? If you like playing Warhammer, go to Games Workshop. If you like climbing, go to a bouldering gym. I appreciate that there are probably some counter examples. But part of this, in my mind, needless demand for tech spaces to meet other hobbyists is catering to an over-reliance on technology. Yes, there are reasons you might want to screen people or groups - for instance, women looking for safety. But surely the existing tools for such a problem are good enough? Instagram and Facebook groups? Or Reddit or Hacker News? The problem is people become chronically attached to these services and convince themselves they need them to function socially. Which is complete myth.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#265

Post by rapnie »

Aurornis wrote: post #220
rapnie wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 indic…

Nah, you generalize things too much. A chatroom is whatever you make of it. Generally speaking all the social communication patterns we have in the offline world, have equivalents in online communication. A chatroom is but a channel to convey these patterns. A chatroom doesn't have behavioral norms attached to it. The assumption that this is the case, may be a large contributor to many social media problem areas.

Another example. A project chatroom, and the agreement is that comms are async. But there are moments where multiple members are real-time in the chat. It may well happen that you say "Since we chatting now @JohnDoe, we have a decision to make on this and that". John Doe answers "For sure, let's do that", so you give a follow-up with elaboration. Only to suddenly find John unresponsive for 5 days.

That is a ridiculous situation if you depicted that to happen to you offline in a face to face setting.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#266

Post by malfist »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #195
malfist wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 writi…

So its a real survey but we're not allowed to see it? Can't see methodology can't see the actual numbers, can't see their margin of error or the questions.

I'm sorry, but science doesn't happen in the dark. "Trust me" isn't the path to data

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#267

Post by theodric »

ericmay wrote: post #56
theodric wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy they've been able to build a $1,660,000,000,000 company on the back of me logging in once every two months, scrolling 3 posts, getting disgusted with slop, and closing the tab. Gives me hope that my harebrained ventures may also succeed!

I don't buy it. You use it more than that - otherwise you'd just delete your account.

You overestimate the amount of a crap I give about cleaning up accounts I don't use! It also helps prevent someone from credibly impersonating me, which is something that has happened to a few people I know.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#269

Post by rsolva »

ageedizzle wrote: post #239
rsolva wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see social networks that facilitates real life, face-to-face encounters to a much larger extent that the current state of affairs. The Fediverse has the pieces to this puzzle, but I do not know of one project that combines them in the right way yet. We do have Mobilizon for events, we have Mastodon and all the other similar projects for sharing and commenting, but we need something that puts the piece…

What sets Bonfire apart from other federated social media networks?

It is modular and built to be adapted to the different needs of online communities. They also have a more fine-grained boundaries system that allows to post only to pre-defined groups (or Circles in Diaspora / Google+ lingo) etc. I don't think they have an Events module yet, but technically speaking, this could be implemented.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#270

Post by joelthelion »

UnreachableCode wrote: post #264
joelthelion wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still need a way to meet people with similar niche interests. This isn't served well IRL.

How? If you like playing Warhammer, go to Games Workshop. If you like climbing, go to a bouldering gym. I appreciate that there are probably some counter examples. But part of this, in my mind, needless demand for tech spaces to meet other hobbyists is catering to an over-reliance on technology. Yes, there are reasons you might want to screen people or groups - for instance, women looking for safety. But surely the e…

Not everyone lives close to a major city hub.

Also, depending on your interests, you may not want to meet people IRL right away. Talking to anonymous strangers is often a good way to learn more about sensitive subjects without taking too much risk.

But yeah, I'm with you, we rely too much on these services at the moment.

Post reply on HN