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

Minimum Viable Self

kneelingbus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#71

Post by bredren »

WJW wrote: post #62
jonnyone wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Online provides a forum for people to get the sort of attention we might like. "Look what I can do!" or "Look at me!" Still, one of my gripes about social media is that there are so many people who lurk. There's a lot to learn from lurking. My mother watches Tik Tok videos and doesn't post herself, but cooks more now than ever based on the ideas she sees on there. You can learn about a cultural trend, a social cause…

> I don't like that Burning Man curator's quote calling their saying a form of "inclusivity" when it doesn't include the lurker. Indeed. If you explicitly provide no space for spectators, that just means you radically reduce the set of people who want to participate at all. There are plenty of lurking-friendly spaces elsewhere so I don't think that Burning Man needs to change the policy or anything, but to pretend th…

Just to clarify for those who have not been to the burn, “participating” does not mean orgies, drugs and going to parties.

The most valuable currency at Burning Man is ability. Participation can be thought more of as creative skill sharing with no expectation of compensation.

People who show up in fancy costumes ready to party stick out more than they blend in. This reality is distorted by social media, because sweaty dirty people doing shit doesn’t get likes the way glittery revealing clothes do.

> In general, all cultures where some sort of patriarchal/matriarchal hierarchy is the norm (ie the tribe elders get to decide for everyone what is best) would fare pretty poorly at Burning Man I think.

This idea is being challenged right now, as Marian and the rest of the board behind The Burning Man Organization have failed to handle the void left by the passing of Larry Harvey and complexity introduced by Covid.

Interestingly, the financial stewardship of the event and those who participate the most (qualify for presale based on previous participatory contributions) have been the key underpinnings of a corrosion in support for what is known as “the org.”

Burning Man as “owned” by this “non profit” group is not happening for the second year in a row in 2020. This is sensible but disagreements with how the board has handled people’s money and “donations” along with political failures around setting expectations has led to an upstart event is being organized in its place.

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#72

Post by xtiansimon »

WJW wrote: post #69
xtiansimon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> “I don't like that Burning Man curator's quote calling their saying a form of "inclusivity" when it doesn't include the lurker.” > “Indeed. If you explicitly provide no space for spectators…” I think of this very differently. Burning Man has grown organically with the dawn of the Information Age. It is a product of it. No matter how you use the Internet, when it comes to learning and engagement, look at the origin…

> It’s a virtuous cycle, no? If you are “lurking” then you are not contributing to the cycle but only benefiting from it. Not participating is a mistake, and failure. Not necessarily. Your argument contains the premise that the choice is between lurking and contributing and indeed if that were the case then contributing is the more beneficial one and lurking should be discouraged. However the premise is false, becaus…

> “ If one non-participant switches to being a lurker, the total amount of knowledge about (and enjoyment from) the thing in question will increase, while the enjoyment of the creators stays the same.”

I see what you’re doing here. If I signaled I was inviting an argument of this type, that was not my intention.

Peace out.

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#73

Post by stadium »

username90 wrote: post #58
stadium wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook didn't and explicitly banned any sort of apps tat could log who saw your stuff. Except for Cambridge Analytica, the "who unfriended me" apps, and a plethora of other apps that extracted and exploited Facebook data.

How is that relevant at all? When people talk about privacy they care a million times more if their friends see what they do than if some big organization sees what they do. What I'm talking about is people getting a list of who viewed their content, that is they can see who viewed their beach pictures etc.

It is relevant because Facebook is leaky by design, and it's misinformation to state that Facebook banned apps that gathered information on usage.

Why should they allow apps permissions to siphon off any info in the first place? Instead they ban them after being caught and plead ignorance.

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#74

Post by WJW »

xtiansimon wrote: post #72
WJW wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a virtuous cycle, no? If you are “lurking” then you are not contributing to the cycle but only benefiting from it. Not participating is a mistake, and failure. Not necessarily. Your argument contains the premise that the choice is between lurking and contributing and indeed if that were the case then contributing is the more beneficial one and lurking should be discouraged. However the premise is false, becaus…

> “ If one non-participant switches to being a lurker, the total amount of knowledge about (and enjoyment from) the thing in question will increase, while the enjoyment of the creators stays the same.” I see what you’re doing here. If I signaled I was inviting an argument of this type, that was not my intention. Peace out.

I didn't mean to go for an argument but am sorry if I did and hope you have an excellent rest of your weekend!

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#75

Post by tayo42 »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #59
tayo42 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I find kind of bazaar with Instagram stories. What's the point of showing who sees it. But also people keep clicking to look so they can't be that bored by the content. I also think likes are pretty passive. Idk for me if I share something and all I get are likes, idk it feels weird it's very one way. I'd rather people comment and well do something social or nothing then just a like button click.

Heads up, you were after "bizarre" not "bazaar". A bazaar is a stall lined street/market; that said I could see with influencer culture being as it is maybe instagram is a bizarre bazaar!

I seem to always make strange typos when posting from my phone lol

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#76

Post by [deleted] »

thanhhaimai wrote: post #16
F_J_H wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I simply don't inhabit it, and I don't feel that I'm missing out. I've wondered about this - but how do you know what you are missing out on? For example, if you were active on twitter or LinkedIn and carefully cultivated those profiles, who knows what life changing connections you may have made? (I've seen several people comment on getting jobs, business partners, fellow hobbyists, etc. on twitter.) *edit: missed…

I've not asked the question "what I am missing out" for like almost a decade. It came from the realization that I constantly and always "miss out" on 99.99% of things that happened in the universe. Whatever more Twitter I read won't move the needle of the statistics. Rarely it happens that my success depends on things I "miss out". On the other hand, usually that my success depends on how well I take advantage of the…

[deleted]

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#77

Post by F_J_H »

lugged wrote: post #15
F_J_H wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I simply don't inhabit it, and I don't feel that I'm missing out. I've wondered about this - but how do you know what you are missing out on? For example, if you were active on twitter or LinkedIn and carefully cultivated those profiles, who knows what life changing connections you may have made? (I've seen several people comment on getting jobs, business partners, fellow hobbyists, etc. on twitter.) *edit: missed…

Spending all that time on social also comes at a cost. Personally, one I'm not comfortable paying. What are you missing out on by focusing everything through the lens of the Twitterverse? Better yet, what is it doing to your psychology?

I feel there are people who have found healthy balance between not using Twitter at all and "focus everything through the lens of the twitterverse".

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#79

Post by lugged »

F_J_H wrote: post #77
lugged wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending all that time on social also comes at a cost. Personally, one I'm not comfortable paying. What are you missing out on by focusing everything through the lens of the Twitterverse? Better yet, what is it doing to your psychology?

I feel there are people who have found healthy balance between not using Twitter at all and "focus everything through the lens of the twitterverse".

So you only look at some topics through the hyper polarized lens of Twitter and Facebook?

Literally all of the conversations that get traction on those sites are the extreme and polarized views.

The fact you may have normalised those views to the point you think of them as healthy scares me a lot.

Both moderation and moderate views dont work on twitter. They're invisible.

Also, while maybe you can find a balance, that doesn't mean everyone can, your participation enables the unhealthy participants as well.

Re: Minimum Viable Self

#80

Post by eporomaa »

okareaman wrote: post #10

I know very few people who want attention from strangers when they go out in public. Most of us want to be left alone while we go about our business. Online provides a forum for people to get the sort of attention we might like. "Look what I can do!" or "Look at me!" Still, one of my gripes about social media is that there are so many people who lurk. The lurkers are there to look at people attempting to get attentio…

>I know very few people who want attention from strangers when they go out in public.

How do you define attention? From what I can tell almost everyone wants attention from strangers in some form. I know very few people who deliberately dress to not be seen.

Post reply on HN