[dead]
Is this the end of social networking?
351–360 of 503 posts
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#352[deleted]
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#353> [TikTok]'s addiction-based advertising machine is probably close to the theoretical maximum of how many advertisements one can pour down somebody’s throat. Well put. It's interesting that we pivoted in my adult lifetime from: 1. Myspace's emphasis on sharing things on your own webpage, essentially a hosted blog 2. Facebook's evolution from "hosted blog" to "friend update aggregator" to "chat client" to "friend upda…
> If we're lucky, that means a federated, open, mostly-ad-and-suggestion-free open source social media experience can fill the power vacuum for intimate, interpersonal, high-latency communication over the internet. I don't have as much hope for such a thing. To me, this trend is also a reflection of perhaps the societal devaluing of IRL social connections. In a world where encountering "new people" was novel, and typ…
> I don't have as much hope for such a thing. To me, this trend is also a reflection of perhaps the societal devaluing of IRL social connections.
I see it instead as a recalibration of traditional social interaction. We didn't used to be obsessed with the lives of 500 loosely related people. We cared very narrowly about our immediate friends and families. Occasionally someone would mention a funny anecdote about a friend of a friend. Without social media we go back to our evolutionary default. I've already embraced this way of living again and it's wonderful.
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#354Just today, a newsletter told me about a "slow" social network called "Be real". Never heard of it.
My message, though, is not that BeReal or anything new is going to be the future of sharing info on the net.
I think the future is looking a lot like the best of the past, with improvement.
Which is why I got this info on a newsletter, that directed me to a blog.
The missing pieces are "personal newsletter made easy" (for producing content), "newsletter discovery made non spammy", and "making all those services sustainable without ads".
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#355Just today, a newsletter told me about a "slow" social network called "Be real". Never heard of it. My message, though, is not that BeReal or anything new is going to be the future of sharing info on the net. I think the future is looking a lot like the best of the past, with improvement. Which is why I got this info on a newsletter, that directed me to a blog. The missing pieces are "personal newsletter made easy" (…
BeReal is buggy as hell, but it makes me happy and excited to see what friends and family are up to in a way I haven't for a decade or more
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today's chat systems are far more accessible to people with minimal to no technical background. Install an app on your phone and you're good to go. Almost anyone can and does use them. The level of technical knowledge required to connect to IRC or a BBS in the 80s was far higher, which meant that only a tiny fraction of people bothered.
on my university mainframe in the 1980s it was as simple as logging in and typing 'forum'. had most of the basic features of IRC.
The point is that today you are always online on your phone. Whatsapp, Viber or Messenger always work. No need to log onto a mainframe and type forum.
I feel that the point made is a good one. Given that we can share what we want directly via instant messengers that everyone has "turned on" all the time, value proposition of Facebook drops dramatically. Anything you want to share you can share directly and immediately get it to whoever you want to see it.
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
@dang has been explicit that they deem certain topics “inherent flame wars” and ban discussion because it upsets people. Certain ideas aren’t allowed here — even when calmly stated and cited with evidence. For example, citing the clip of the BLM founder saying she’s a “trained Marxist” would get you banned: HN was in flat out denial, even though it was her own words on film [1]. She is literally answering a question…
What's hilarious is that this is still up three hours after posting with not even a reply. So much for censorship. You're totally allowed to post that here, even while conflating one charity with a continent-wide protest movement, one leader's out of context quote with the goals of that movement, and one enforcement action by Amazon Smile with an accusation of "fraud". For those interested in whether there's any trut…
It was flagged and dead almost immediately then zmgsabst made another post [1] linking to the dead post and someone vouched for the dead post you see here.
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are ideas that are not allowed here. It would be more accurate to say that some ideas require more work here. The reasons why are open to debate.
@dang has been explicit that they deem certain topics “inherent flame wars” and ban discussion because it upsets people. Certain ideas aren’t allowed here — even when calmly stated and cited with evidence. For example, citing the clip of the BLM founder saying she’s a “trained Marxist” would get you banned: HN was in flat out denial, even though it was her own words on film [1]. She is literally answering a question…
To add to that, stating the fact that one of the tech titans of today, Bill Gates, was in cahoots with a convicted pedophile is either met with "this is just hearsay!" or "you're jumping to conclusions", when it's not ignored and down-voted altogether.
Even more important (not that many of us receiving our wages and dividends from probably pedophiles isn't important), the strong connection between Silicon Valley of days past, and, most importantly, from today, with the Military and Security Complex is also shunned.
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
@dang has been explicit that they deem certain topics “inherent flame wars” and ban discussion because it upsets people. Certain ideas aren’t allowed here — even when calmly stated and cited with evidence. For example, citing the clip of the BLM founder saying she’s a “trained Marxist” would get you banned: HN was in flat out denial, even though it was her own words on film [1]. She is literally answering a question…
What's hilarious is that this is still up three hours after posting with not even a reply. So much for censorship. You're totally allowed to post that here, even while conflating one charity with a continent-wide protest movement, one leader's out of context quote with the goals of that movement, and one enforcement action by Amazon Smile with an accusation of "fraud". For those interested in whether there's any trut…
Ignoring or de-facto shadow-banning is also a form of censorship.
Re: Is this the end of social networking?
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree. In my view group chats on apps like WhatsApp much more accurately mirror how humans actually communicate in real life. That is to say it's more like a spontaneous conversation rather than social media which is more like a narcissistic advertising board for your life.
I don’t remember my extended family sharing jokes and memes non-stop in real life…
My dad frequently shares jokes in real life, some of them I've heard more than once during all these years. When I was younger, late teens, early 20s, I thought them cumbersome, "come on, dad! you've told me that joke countless times", now, when I'm in early 40s, I cherish those retellings of jokes.