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

41–50 of 283 posts

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#41

Post by lapcat »

wussboy wrote: post #39
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.

Why do you assume that there needs to be a purpose other than discussing a topic that you're interested in?

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#42

Post by ericmay »

keyraycheck wrote: post #5
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…

While number of active users still grows, one have to ask a question, who is left on facebook aside from dopamine junkies and bots. The only reason why I didn’t delete facebook is messenger, where I chat with old folks.

“Who is left on Facebook besides dopamine junkies and bots?”

“I only use it in this limited circumstance”

You are on Facebook. That’s who. It’s like saying you’re not a drinker because you have a glass of wine every once in a while. Sure you’re not an addict (probably) but you still drink.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#43

Post by wussboy »

naravara wrote: post #31
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 con…

And the social media companies, who have essentially unlimited resources, would fight it tooth and nail

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#44

Post by MinimalAction »

pvtmert wrote: post #25

Unrelated to the topic described in the blog itself, I overall like the theme of `susam.net`. The name itself reminded me of a sesame seed in Turkish for a while. (I think author had recently mentioned one of the recent posts that they wanted to get susam.com but that was already taken by a Turkish company selling some spices...) The content (that shows up in HN) is also good. Since I am on mobile device, I cannot te…

Agreed! I thought this site was generated in Hugo for some reason. Never knew Lisp was used until I saw that GitHub you linked.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#45

Post by wussboy »

lapcat wrote: post #41
wussboy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you assume that there needs to be a purpose other than discussing a topic that you're interested in?

Politics is a complex topic. If you want to learn more, social media is not the way to do it. Well reasoned books and essays are. If you want to convince others of your positions, social media is not the way to do it. Personal relationships in real life are.

What's left?

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#46

Post by tolerance »

SecretDreams wrote: post #19
adithyassekhar wrote: post #11

This might be controversial. Please disagree with me. When these were social networks, I remember my friends and later myself too, changed our profiles to public, send requests to random strangers, messaged them to like our pictures. We were teenagers and we were competing on who's more famous by having a bigger number next to our friends list or likes. There was no influencer culture back then yet everyone was tryin…

> They saw what people were doing and only supported them. People did what people did. Imagine the government saw the fentanyl crisis and started making fentanyl to support the habits of its citizens. Not every single trend humans take on should be encouraged. We can be dumb as individuals, as well as collectively. At least in bursts.

Between the history of crack cocaine in inner cities, safe injection sites and the current trajectory of American governance, I’m flummoxed by your incredulous posture here.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#47

Post by theodric »

ericmay wrote: post #42
keyraycheck wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While number of active users still grows, one have to ask a question, who is left on facebook aside from dopamine junkies and bots. The only reason why I didn’t delete facebook is messenger, where I chat with old folks.

“Who is left on Facebook besides dopamine junkies and bots?” “I only use it in this limited circumstance” You are on Facebook. That’s who. It’s like saying you’re not a drinker because you have a glass of wine every once in a while. Sure you’re not an addict (probably) but you still drink.

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!

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#48

Post by thaumasiotes »

ben_w wrote: post #30
naravara wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take poorly directed targeting advertisements as a performance indicator for how well my data privacy efforts are working. When the ad targeting has you dead to rights is when you need to worry.

To an extent, sure, but I think also a sign their analytics were never as good as they claimed. For example, so far as I know my name is strongly gendered male, so why the boob surgery ads?

> my name is strongly gendered male, so why the boob surgery ads?

Probably so you can suggest it to your partner.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#49

Post by cyanydeez »

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…

People seek novelty. Real social networks do not change as fast as that.

Re: Attention Media ≠ Social Networks

#50

Post by lapcat »

wussboy wrote: post #45
lapcat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume that there needs to be a purpose other than discussing a topic that you're interested in?

Politics is a complex topic. If you want to learn more, social media is not the way to do it. Well reasoned books and essays are. If you want to convince others of your positions, social media is not the way to do it. Personal relationships in real life are. What's left?

Again, you seem to insist on an ulterior motive, completely discounting the value or pleasure of conversation. In contrast, reading is a solitary activity. Have you heard of book clubs? People read books, and then they get together to discuss the books.

Hacker News itself is all about reading articles, and then discussing the articles with others. "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

Post reply on HN