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

Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

notes.ghed.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 137 posts

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#61

Post by toss1 »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #45

I flat reject any business (for personal business - landscaper, contractor, etc) who doesn't have a site that is NOT facebook. I'm just not dealing with that.

Yup, I don't touch any Meta properties, avoid them like the plague that they are. If your page is on FaceBook/Insta, or you require login to FB Messenger for your sales/customer service chat, I just NOPE right outta there...

IDK if I've managed to avoid having a shadow profile created about me, but it seems worthwhile to starve it.

If anyone has any 'inside' info about FB's data harvesting and/or further clues on minimizing or foiling it, I'm all ears.

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#62

Post by boringg »

dezsiszabi wrote: post #48
outime wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny that if I were to read your comment outside of this website, I could most likely identify it as a HN comment because it mentions barely-used sites popular in HN (such as Bluesky, Signal, Jitsi, IRC, etc), but skips mentioning actually popular ones everywhere else (like Snapchat, Facebook/Messenger, Instagram, TikTok, etc).

From these I barely heard about Bluesky and never used it. I have no clue about what Jitsi is, first time even reading this combination of letters :) The rest I know. And I do read Hacker News...

Second this Jitsi is unknown to me. Bluesky I only heard about because they did marketing push with limited spots to drive demand and it got good press coverage being an investment/board seat of Jack

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#63

Post by ihaveajob »

weinzierl wrote: post #16

I find it interesting, that social media and messaging apps are kind of thrown into one pot increasingly. My mental model has always been like: - Twitter, Bluesky, Mastodon - Slack, Discord, Zulip, IRC - WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Matrix - Zoom, Teams, Jitsi With mass communication to individual communication from top to bottom (and increasing freedom roughly from left to right). It seems these distinctions get blur…

I have a similar mental model, but Teams the way we use it is more of a replacement of Slack than Zoom. It's a huge app in terms of features, and it covers both segments, so it's not really a clean divide there.

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#64

Post by zarathustreal »

skydhash wrote: post #51
llm_trw wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When social media came online in the 00s it was just a way to keep track of your friends. That's it. You made friends, you added them to your network. It's insane to me that we're still using social media to mean whatever the fuck we have now. Today social media, including facebook, is all about a few broadcasting their messages to billions. Mastodon isn't much better. What happened to the social graph? Everyone is o…

> When social media came online in the 00s it was just a way to keep track of your friends. That's it. You made friends, you added them to your network. Current closest to that is Whatsapp( and Telegram). Even though Meta just added channels, but at its core, you only get access to your contacts updates. There are also groups which makes it more like IRC without the flexibility.

Wait, what? WhatsApp has “updates” like a news feed? I thought it was a group chat app?

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#65

Post by ziddoap »

outime wrote: post #37
weinzierl wrote: post #16

I find it interesting, that social media and messaging apps are kind of thrown into one pot increasingly. My mental model has always been like: - Twitter, Bluesky, Mastodon - Slack, Discord, Zulip, IRC - WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Matrix - Zoom, Teams, Jitsi With mass communication to individual communication from top to bottom (and increasing freedom roughly from left to right). It seems these distinctions get blur…

I find it funny that if I were to read your comment outside of this website, I could most likely identify it as a HN comment because it mentions barely-used sites popular in HN (such as Bluesky, Signal, Jitsi, IRC, etc), but skips mentioning actually popular ones everywhere else (like Snapchat, Facebook/Messenger, Instagram, TikTok, etc).

Edit: I was wrong, 40M MAU is peanuts and shouldn't even be considered an app really.

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#66

Post by vundercind »

skydhash wrote: post #51
llm_trw wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When social media came online in the 00s it was just a way to keep track of your friends. That's it. You made friends, you added them to your network. It's insane to me that we're still using social media to mean whatever the fuck we have now. Today social media, including facebook, is all about a few broadcasting their messages to billions. Mastodon isn't much better. What happened to the social graph? Everyone is o…

> When social media came online in the 00s it was just a way to keep track of your friends. That's it. You made friends, you added them to your network. Current closest to that is Whatsapp( and Telegram). Even though Meta just added channels, but at its core, you only get access to your contacts updates. There are also groups which makes it more like IRC without the flexibility.

Facebook keeps adding crap to WhatsApp, and my friend group keeps ignoring it. Direct and group messages. That’s all. Nobody even uses the status feature they added a long time ago. There are four main-menu icons on the bottom, not counting “settings”, and we don’t use three of them.

If they ever try to push the other stuff at the expense of the text-messaging-replacement, I expect we’ll all migrate to something else.

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#67

Post by [deleted] »

elondaits wrote: post #55
altdataseller wrote: post #33

Nobody would care if you own just a personal site, but if you’re a company (and not well know ) I sometimes check to see if you’re on LinkedIn, or have posted recently on Twitter. Because if you haven’t, that might be a sign you might be going out of business Maybe that’s unfair. But I would think twice before relying on your product for anything important

100%. I recently had to research scuba diving centers in a city I’ll visit soon, and part of my criteria was to check how recent their Google Maps comments were, and how active their Instagram was. Some diving centers are the center of a community of divers, who will follow and comment on their pictures… while other are more commercial endeavors for tourists that just post on a schedule and no one cares about it. Soc…

[deleted]

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#68

Post by Kon-Peki »

alistairSH wrote: post #53
blueflow wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, i don't need to see my aunts and uncles posting pictures of themselves LARP'ing what society considers a happy life. Not saying that they are not happy, but all the social media stuff feels so staged and unreal.

Heck, I'd be happy if it were my uncles in my feed. It's not, it's random strangers LARPing at what's obviously a very contrived lifestyle. "Hey look at me in my camper van - this is awesome - oh and I'm wearing a thong just in case the content isn't interesting enough" LOLWUT, I don't need that in my life. I only keep a FB/Insta account to stop somebody else squatting/stealing my name.

> I only keep a FB/Insta account to stop somebody else squatting/stealing my name.

There are probably thousands of people in the world with the same name as you.

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#69

Post by BLKNSLVR »

llm_trw wrote: post #41
criddell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social media is shouting at the void at best At best, social media is an additional way of keeping in touch with people you know and care about.

When social media came online in the 00s it was just a way to keep track of your friends. That's it. You made friends, you added them to your network. It's insane to me that we're still using social media to mean whatever the fuck we have now. Today social media, including facebook, is all about a few broadcasting their messages to billions. Mastodon isn't much better. What happened to the social graph? Everyone is o…

Social media (d)evolved into soapbox bullhorn.

But so did traditional media.

Re: Almost no one cares if your site is not on social media

#70

Post by dagw »

Dalewyn wrote: post #57
outime wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny that if I were to read your comment outside of this website, I could most likely identify it as a HN comment because it mentions barely-used sites popular in HN (such as Bluesky, Signal, Jitsi, IRC, etc), but skips mentioning actually popular ones everywhere else (like Snapchat, Facebook/Messenger, Instagram, TikTok, etc).

IRC is not a website. Speaks a lot as to the changing sands of time.

IRC is not a website.

Neither is WhatApp, Discord, Slack and many of the other ones mentioned (yes you can interact with them via a website, but the same is true for IRC)

Post reply on HN