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

31–40 of 283 posts

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#31

Post by naravara »

asim wrote: post #22

Mastodon really isn't the answer. You frequent enough servers and you realise social media has taught people bad habits..not everything needs to be expressed online. Genuinely I think people need something else. The format fails. What's the alternative? I don't know. But I'm trying to figure it out. Why? Because walking away from it all isn't the right answer. Why? Because we leave behind all those people addicted to…

I think the challenge is that the addictive formats will naturally outcompete the healthy ones because they’re, well, addicting. They exert a force pulling people into their orbit and starving anything designed for healthier (less frequent) engagement.

I don’t think you can do it without pushing people away somehow. It wouldn’t have to be regulatory, but I don’t know how else. Social shame might work if you could convince people it’s dorky and cringe to be on it too much, but the insidious nature of it is that the social media itself starts to comprise a big chunk of people’s social universe so it’s self-reinforcing.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#32

Post by grishka »

I myself started making the same distinction when I talk about these things in English, except it's "social media" vs "social networks". Though I have no idea how to make that distinction in Russian, social "media" never caught on as a term there.

An extra annoying problem about social media for me is that while I can make most of the platforms give me a chronological feed of content authored only by people I follow, most other people see mine in an algorithmic feed. This includes people I have zero social connections with. For example, I just gave up trying to discuss politics on Twitter, because every time I post anything political, that tweet ends up in the feeds if hundreds of people who hold the radical version of opposite views, with predictable results. And there's nothing I can do. I can't opt out of being recommended.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#33

Post by dhruv3006 »

AdamN wrote: post #12
dhruv3006 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the main issues of reddit according to you?

I'll answer - too many bots and most communities don't demand high quality comments. I still use it though - it's my only social network (although I don't think it's really a social network since I have no durable social connections with anybody there and I presume most other people don't either).

Reddit does give a lot of value - despite the shortcomings.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#34

Post by Jeff_Brown »

Almondsetat wrote: post #17

IMHO, any social network that offers an "explore" section (i.e. a feed of strangers' posts) is doomed, independently of whether it is algorithmically filtered or chronologically. I ultimately dropped Mastodon because the "dumb" feed from my instance was already enough to waste my time. To prove this, just use Instagram or Facebook from your browser with the proper extensions and they'll stop being absolute worthless…

This feels like the most important comment here. Do other Mastodon users feel the same? The OP Madden me want to try Mastodon.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#35

Post by dhruv3006 »

creamyhorror wrote: post #4

I was always perturbed by the shift from calling them "social networks" to "social media". It signalled a friends-to-famous shift (plus ads) that I didn't particularly want. Why fill my personal feed with stuff I normally get on dedicated discussion/news sites? (Rhetorical; it's obvious why.) They still call it SNS (social networking service) in Japan. We need to keep moving to a new iteration of this - hopefully one…

I guess social networking service is actually a more appropiate name for the thing.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#36

Post by BorisMelnik »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #2

"Over time, my timeline contained fewer and fewer posts from friends and more and more content from random strangers. " It still baffles me that Facebook fills up my feed with random garbage I have no interest in. I barely use it now because their generated content gets in the way of the reason why I opened facebook to begin with. These algorithmic feeds clearly work for someone but its not what I am looking for, I w…

hey you know there is a feed on mobile, built into the app that only shows you your friends feed? not a fb employee or defending them just relaying info.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#38

Post by blfr »

Sure, the modern Twitter/X feed is not like the original reverse chronological timeline but the latter is still available right next to it. Maybe it's the power of the default but I find the algorithmic feed much better.

The chronological timeline is only manageable up to a point. I follow just under 2000 accounts on Twitter. They at least occasionally at least in some period in the past must have been posting interesting stuff or I wouldn't have followed them. But not all of them all the time. Algorithmic feed surfaces the good stuff, or at least popular, but lately it picks some very niche stuff successfully. Same on TikTok.

The modern feed is a clever generalization of the previous age tech. And sometimes you just like the previous gen more but there is a reason the new version got traction.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#39

Post by wussboy »

grishka wrote: post #32

I myself started making the same distinction when I talk about these things in English, except it's "social media " vs "social networks ". Though I have no idea how to make that distinction in Russian, social "media" never caught on as a term there. An extra annoying problem about social media for me is that while I can make most of the platforms give me a chronological feed of content authored only by people I follo…

Sure you can. You can not post political things on social networks. They're not doing any good anyway. They're not changing anyone's mind. They're not providing depth or width to the discussion. I don't say this to be insulting, but rather a realist.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#40

Post by JKCalhoun »

BorisMelnik wrote: post #36
PaulKeeble wrote: post #2

"Over time, my timeline contained fewer and fewer posts from friends and more and more content from random strangers. " It still baffles me that Facebook fills up my feed with random garbage I have no interest in. I barely use it now because their generated content gets in the way of the reason why I opened facebook to begin with. These algorithmic feeds clearly work for someone but its not what I am looking for, I w…

hey you know there is a feed on mobile, built into the app that only shows you your friends feed? not a fb employee or defending them just relaying info.

Too late. (And I don't do mobile anyway.)

I don't wish to sound like I am shooting the messenger here, but Meta just has way, way too much baggage for me to ever consider returning.

Post reply on HN