"Reality Internet" similar to "Reality TV". It is all trash and a waste of time.
Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
41–50 of 53 posts
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#42"Reality Internet" similar to "Reality TV". It is all trash and a waste of time.
Tabloid internet.
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#43Skinner boxes is my favorite euphemism
Accurate. Though if that's a euphemism, what's the harsher term you're masking? lol
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#44Reminds me of this article that had been submitted a couple times in recent months, "User Engagement" is code for "Addiction" https://medium.com/swlh/user-engagement-is-code-for-addictio... I hope we can come up with a new phrase that sticks for these. Some good ones have been posted here in the comments. Ideally, an altruistic entity will trademark them.
This might sound like a nit, but I'd call it habit-forming, not addictive. I watched friends go from obsessed with Facebook when it launched to mostly using it for sharing family photos, and this is at a time when there was a focus on user engagement. It just seems like people lost interest too easily for it to be actual addiction.
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#45A thing I've noticed, and I could be wrong about this, is that social networks have not done much to increase avenues for interaction between 2nd degree connections of two people (say a and b) without needing the active participation of the a and b themselves.
For instance, if we have the following undirected connections: {(a,b), (b,c), (a,d)}. There could be a mechanism to make the graph more dense by the way of increasing interactions between (c,d) without needing, for example, a to like c's content for it to then appear on d's feed. Done naively, this could result in a lot of unwanted content on someone's feed, but I wonder if there are ways around it.
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#46Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#47Is there now a gap for a new social platform that goes back to chronologically ordered content from those you choose to follow/friend rather than algorithmically curated content from other sources designed to lure you in?
There is, but anyone who would fund it would require it to be monetized in the same way. This situation will continue to persist until people are willing to pay for such a service, and subvert the advertising motive. And, even then, we have the example of cable to show us that ads will probably creep back in, and come to dominate it all over again. When people are willing to drive dump trucks full of money to your lo…
Unless the application is decentralized enough so there is no central server to pay for ...
EDIT: but I probably wouldn't use it either.
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#48Not my invention, but: "hive mine".
That's a good one, as it illustrates that users are the product.
Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#49Re: Social networks neither ‘social’ nor ‘networks’ – what should we call them?
#50"Scrolling media" is pretty good. It sounds enough like the existing term to catch on.
"Corpo networks"