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

Quit Social Media (2016)

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 281 posts

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#31

Post by motbus3 »

I won't advertise but I work for a company which holds a social media for cooking and recipes. Folks there are totally averse to those and based stuff.

It has been hard for the company. The owner decided the company will die before using ads (for many reasons). The paid plan is stupidly cheap and when people sign and use for a month they stick with the company for years.

But it is hard. Company laid off 80% of the team some time ago and is fighting to survive. I won't defend the owner or anyone, but things came to a point where people think they are not having consequences by giving infinite permission for being tracked all the time. They think if they are not logged they are not identified so they can't be exploited.

It sucks because no one appreciates that. Though I have my opinions about business and whatever I kinda appreciate for the company not running on money from ads and not collecting a single piece of user information which is not required for work.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#32

Post by [deleted] »

hyggetrold wrote: post #28
decasia wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to pay for social software on a coop model (like a food coop, etc) — we would be "members" and, theoretically, we pay a small monthly fee that covers the costs of hosting and platform development. I've tried to think about what I would want that to look like — spoiler, something different than the model of "posting + reactions" that is so familiar from twitter+fb — but then when I think about the barrier…

I can't remember the name of it, but over a decade ago I saw something like this - it was a single Linux server shared by (I think) hundreds of people. Really trying to do the multi-user paradigm. They advertised it as a private kind of social network, it was invite-only and I think you had to pay to help keep the server lights on. Hopefully by posting something incorrect, A Person On The Internet Who Knows Better wi…

[deleted]

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#33

Post by hoppyhoppy2 »

hyggetrold wrote: post #28
decasia wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to pay for social software on a coop model (like a food coop, etc) — we would be "members" and, theoretically, we pay a small monthly fee that covers the costs of hosting and platform development. I've tried to think about what I would want that to look like — spoiler, something different than the model of "posting + reactions" that is so familiar from twitter+fb — but then when I think about the barrier…

I can't remember the name of it, but over a decade ago I saw something like this - it was a single Linux server shared by (I think) hundreds of people. Really trying to do the multi-user paradigm. They advertised it as a private kind of social network, it was invite-only and I think you had to pay to help keep the server lights on. Hopefully by posting something incorrect, A Person On The Internet Who Knows Better wi…

Maybe SDF?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDF_Public_Access_Unix_Syste...

https://sdf.org/

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#34

Post by dimal »

jjordan wrote: post #8
benjaminwootton wrote: post #5

Isn’t it on the decline yet? Facebook is for boomers. Twitter is weird and we all realised how pointless it is to spend time falling out on there. Instagram feels a bit long in the tooth. LinkedIn is a parody of itself. Reddit feels like it’s growing but I think that avoids the worst of social media. TikTok and YouTube shorts seem popular but aren’t really social media. It’s just time wasting junk. All in all, social…

Twitter/X is fantastic for breaking news. For example during the first assassination attempt you would find new details on there that would then appear on MSM newscasts one to two hours later. It also helps immensely to curate lists of interests to help filter out the noise and politics.

Honest question, why is breaking news important? How exactly does knowing unsubstantiated details about an event immediately male one’s life better?

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#35

Post by ErikAugust »

freediver wrote: post #6

I would rephrase it to “quit ad-based social media”. The incentives are perverse, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the business model and there is an intermediary between the user and information/community they want to participate in. This leads to most problems we see in legacy, ad-based, social media. Most successful social circles are ones where there is a barrier to entry. In life we do not let everyo…

It’s not a coincidence that Facebook started out as a college-only social network. That was the real barrier to entry.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#36

Post by pram »

decasia wrote: post #26
freediver wrote: post #6

I would rephrase it to “quit ad-based social media”. The incentives are perverse, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the business model and there is an intermediary between the user and information/community they want to participate in. This leads to most problems we see in legacy, ad-based, social media. Most successful social circles are ones where there is a barrier to entry. In life we do not let everyo…

I would love to pay for social software on a coop model (like a food coop, etc) — we would be "members" and, theoretically, we pay a small monthly fee that covers the costs of hosting and platform development. I've tried to think about what I would want that to look like — spoiler, something different than the model of "posting + reactions" that is so familiar from twitter+fb — but then when I think about the barrier…

This is called a forum.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#37

Post by cal85 »

eterm wrote: post #10
jjordan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter/X is fantastic for breaking news. For example during the first assassination attempt you would find new details on there that would then appear on MSM newscasts one to two hours later. It also helps immensely to curate lists of interests to help filter out the noise and politics.

How is your life improved by getting that news minute by minute instead of an hour, or even a day, later?

It’s an excellent question, but I do think you can get valuable insights from seeing how a major political event unfolds in real time, as long as it’s something you’re interested in. It can help you to view the subsequent news bulletins with a critical eye and interest and it can give you a richer depth of understanding than you would otherwise get.

If it’s an event that you’re not particularly interested in, then there’s not much value in getting details in advance.

Another thing, it’s not just hours. Sometimes it’s months (or in rare cases years) before a recurring topic on social media finally makes it to the news, because it’s controversial/narrative-defying, so it takes them a long time to work out how to talk about it. I don’t want to mention specific examples because it would be distracting, but there are a few topics I see mentioned daily/weekly on the news today that were pretty much absent a few years ago, yet were heavily discussed on Twitter at the time, and I am very glad I was aware of them.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#38

Post by ryandv »

freediver wrote: post #6

I would rephrase it to “quit ad-based social media”. The incentives are perverse, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the business model and there is an intermediary between the user and information/community they want to participate in. This leads to most problems we see in legacy, ad-based, social media. Most successful social circles are ones where there is a barrier to entry. In life we do not let everyo…

I would rephrase it further to "quit ad-based media." The problems and conflicts of interest introduced by an ad-based revenue model were discussed long before the advent of the modern Web and social media; the relationship between the advertisement industry and mass media (television, radio) was already discussed in depth in the late 20th century [0]:

    The advertisers' choices influence media prosperity and survival.
    The ad-based media receive an advertising subsidy that gives them
    a price-marketing-quality edge, which allows them to encroach on
    and further weaken their ad-free (or ad-disadvantaged) rivals.

    Advertisers will want, more generally, to avoid programs with
    serious complexities and disturbing controversies that interfere
    with the "buying mood." They seek programs that will lightly
    entertain and thus fit in with the spirit of the primary purpose
    of program purchases - the dissemination of a selling message.
[0] https://archive.org/details/manfacturingconsentnahomchomsky/...

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#39

Post by MisterBastahrd »

nimbius wrote: post #22
solomonb wrote: post #12

He states: > What the market values is the ability to produce things that are rare and are valuable. > what the market dismisses are activities that are easy to replicate and produce a small amount of value. Well social media use is the epitome of an easy to replicate activity that does not produce a lot of value [...] by definition the market is not going to give those activieis a lot of value [...]." Yet in the yea…

perhaps a decade or more ago? not now. you will never become a streaming millionaire. talking heads like beast and pewdiepie employ literal armies of Hollywood editors and writers. For every organically grown insufferable content monster created on Youtube, ten more are vat-grown by a billion dollar industry designed to shepherd you into a fantasy consumerist lifestyle. These powerhouses of industry control the flow…

You are painfully unaware of the difference between being a Youtube video creator and being a streamer. Mr. Beast is not a streamer. He is a packaged video creator. PewDiePie is a reaction video creator who occasionally streams. They are not what people think of when they think of streamers.

To be a professional streamer usually takes a combination of talent and concentration that most people simply don't have. But to say that you can't become one? LOL.

The AVERAGE millionaire streamer on twitch is so painfully unedited that they end up getting banned a couple times a year for saying stupid things live on air. Twitch and their sponsors practically THROW money at them to spend an hour or two to sponsor content. There's an entire backend bounty system which is only available to partners which will pay you based on your audience size. I've seen a guy with 3K viewers get a $30K check for 3 hours worth of sponsored content.

Re: Quit Social Media (2016)

#40

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

freediver wrote: post #6

I would rephrase it to “quit ad-based social media”. The incentives are perverse, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the business model and there is an intermediary between the user and information/community they want to participate in. This leads to most problems we see in legacy, ad-based, social media. Most successful social circles are ones where there is a barrier to entry. In life we do not let everyo…

> > Most successful social circles are ones where there is a barrier to entry

This depends on the definition of success, the most successful as in impressive achievements goal reaching are the ones that are open to anybody who can get noticed and brought in. ANd in the social sense even open to the ones who are most capable of monopolizing the discourse and creating a buzz in the public square.

For example Trump did just that in 2016 and many tried to resist him, but in the end the GOP wants to be successful and opened itself to the guy who made the most noise in the public discourse and public square and made him the tip of the spear of the election effort.

Of course it feels pretty miserable knowing that you can be replaced at any time but I don't think there is an alternative or a solution thanks to a barrier to entry (or exit). Social groups that have a barrier to entry (and exit) such as marriage , when it deteriorates the barrier to entry (and exit) doesn't prevent the 2 people to just starting ignoring each other.

Post reply on HN