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

71–80 of 137 posts

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

#71

Post by skydhash »

Lucasoato wrote: post #46
mrtksn wrote: post #39

I don't know if views are a good measure of anything anymore. I find that narrative control from position of authority is much more interesting. So, on Twitter I have a very small following(~470 followers) and rarely anyone interacts with me but I also have a large-ish account on a prominent but relatively obscure Turkish social media website Eksi Sozluk with even less followers but that website has strict account cr…

> [...] that website has strict account creation procedures(it can take years to have your account accepted and your posts becoming public) and as a result it is viewed as a "reference" since spam floods are harder to organise as you will lose your hard earned account [...] It's curious that making a social network harder to access can (apparently) boost the quality of its posts.

Private trackers are a good examples of that. And Subreddits with karma rules. If your users have an attribute that is tied to credibility and status, and moderation can remove it, people will usually be civil.

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

#72

Post by llm_trw »

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.

Currently there is nothing close to what myspace and facebook were like pre-2010. Telegram and WhatsApp are ways to chat to people, not see what they have been doing, or indeed what you have been doing yourself.

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

#73

Post by Aurornis »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #50

What I've noticed from working on the Cybershow over the past year is that the digital world is split cleanly into two realms that never touch each other. I avoid social media, and have never gone near Facebook, Linked-In or that stuff. But I do recognise and respect the audience out there who should not be ignored. So Helen does the "social media". I do the old fashioned web, email reaching out to other bloggers, pu…

> I hadn't realised that SM platforms basically no longer allow links

This isn’t really true in general: You can post all the links you want on most social media, though there are tenuous theories that including links will get you less promotion on certain platforms.

What is very true is that most social media users don’t like to click on links. They read the headline, look at the included image (if any), and assume they understand the whole story from that context. They jump to the discussion to comment about it or see what others are saying without leaving the site.

For people who just want to scroll and see a lot of different things, leaving the site to go in depth on 1 or 2 links doesn’t really fit their preferred social media operating style.

This holds even on sites like Reddit or HN, where you can some times jump into a comment section and immediately recognize that half the commenters haven’t read the article at all.

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

#74

Post by Engineering-MD »

weinzierl wrote: post #49
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).

Oh, I agree so much, but I am not sure about your examples either: Snapchat - does it even exist anymore? It had its time, but personally I don't know anyone still there. Same with Facebook Messenger, which has completely been replaced by WhatsApp in my (non-nerd) circles. I thought about including TikTok but it would be more in the - YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, PeerTube category. To me, these are borderline social media…

I think to label YT, TikTok etc as pure consumption is not accurate entirely. I get your point, but on the ways they specifically differ from television is the ability to make reaction/response or whatever else videos. So for some at least it’s not pure consumption (even though it is for many users)

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

#75

Post by echelon_musk »

ziddoap wrote: post #65
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).

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

It is absolutely barely used.

I say this as someone who used it exclusively for 5+ years before giving up and using WhatsApp.

There is hardly even a comparison between Signal and WhatsApp.

Downloads != users.

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

#76

Post by m3kw9 »

Links on social media depend on heavily on the algorithm, same as what he said about google, the reach a fraction of googles so unless your post went viral and gets retweeted/reposted it will have the OPs observation. Or you have a lot of followers and they their primary way to know of new articles is from the X for ex. Daring fireball, I only click into the site if Gruber posts it. Ever since he stop posting, I’ve never went back to check.

I wouldn’t give up on it but I would try some minimum effort to build up an audience

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

#78

Post by calrain »

I feel that posting on Social Media is flexing with people you think are important.

But your customers and those people that are truly important probably aren't in your Social Medial circles.

Social Media is becoming so overloaded with noise from so many sources, it will be interesting to see when there are basically no important contacts to be made there.

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

#79

Post by outime »

ziddoap wrote: post #65
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).

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

Compared to the other examples, it's rarely used. For instance, Messenger has 3B MAU whereas Signal has 40M, which is just a bit over 1% of Messenger's user base, yet Messenger wasn't mentioned in OP among others which is my point.

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

#80

Post by [deleted] »

echelon_musk wrote: post #75
ziddoap wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is absolutely barely used. I say this as someone who used it exclusively for 5+ years before giving up and using WhatsApp. There is hardly even a comparison between Signal and WhatsApp. Downloads != users.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN