Hacker News Reader

I have lived with essentially 0 social media presence for about seven years now, and I can say with certainty that my life is better without it. Facebook et al create an atmosphere where a relationship is defined by clicking a button that says "like" on someone's picture or sending them happy birthday wishes when you're reminded to. I find that even if I haven't seen someone in years, giving them a call and meeting up with them produces far better results than tepid, meaningless banter mediated by a walled garden. "But what if they live far away?" you ask. Send them an email. Long form, asynchronous, high latency communication also produces far better results than consistent small talk on Facebook

I've had just about 0 social media activity as well. My wife deleted her account and I meant to as well, but only remember when I get a new friend request, which I promptly ignore.

I guess my question is: do you use it minimally or not at all? I stopped using FB before I could get a sense for the feeling it gave me. I gather that it gives people the feelings you describe, but I wonder if that is the reality or just what people say.

On the other hand, a guy I know (fellow biker) was killed in a wreck two weeks ago. This past Thursday we held a fundraiser at a local establishment where his wife works and raised several thousand dollars for his family.

Facebook was absolutely critical to the success of this event. It was put together very quickly and there's no other way we could have easily reached as many people -- and as far away -- as we did.

It's great that, as Facebook offers you no value, you've chosen not to use it. Commenting on that in order to encourage others to do the same is great, as frankly, Facebook is a toxic company and the more people move off the platform the better.

However, your experience is not universal and your comment, rather than criticising the platform itself, actively disparaged current users of it, which is unconstructive and offensive.

I have a very small sample dataset (just mine) for the statement I'm going to make - when I used Facebook it was pretty much exactly what OP said.

Unfortunately I saw myself in those descriptions. I need to find a constructive avenue for my argumentative impulse.

I hoped to strike a chord with people currently using it for the same reasons I did. My post is partially self-deprecating and doesn't attack anyone specific. I'm sure there's people using the platform with no issues, and I think it's fine to criticize something for the behavior its built to induce in people.

That's fair enough, but the wording of your statements do seem to broadly imply "if you use Facebook, you are either X, Y or Z negative stereotype" rather than "these people exist on Facebook".

He basically says he doesn't like it. You have to be pretty trigger-happy to be offended.

He does say that, that I agree with, I don't like it.

He goes on to further imply those using it have low self esteem, are jackasses, or rich people with complexes. That's an addition to the comment that doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Sure it does. Each type of social media appeals to a different type of person and determines the content you see. Yeah, the descriptions are a bit brash, but there's no need to squash discussion with accusations of offensiveness.

It is impossible to discuss the utility or value of Facebook without discussing the quality of the content it provides. As witness, the role of bots and misinformation, rabble-rousing, and white supremacist network coordination and recruiting in the 2016/2017 US election and aftermath.

His comment is both useful and germane.

I appreciate other opinions which is why HN is so much better place than Facebook. Yeah I trashed it, it was bad for me. And I have a feeling it is for many others the same. And you might be right that I'm just a cynical jaded ass, I won't rule that out either.

However I think opinions can be dissenting, and even incendiary like mine often are and still contribute to or spark meaningful discussion.

And this is a difference in opinion I'm fine with. If I wanted everyone to agree with me I would adopt a vastly different writing style.

Reading slacking's comments, I feel that slacking is the type of person that slacking complains about. By putting down all those lesser people who use facebook, slacking appears to me to be just another "person with low self esteem" with a "complex to show the world how great their lives are".

> unconsttuctive and offensive ️️️

Were we to say things only of universal import and of no offense, we would be silent, or only speak of mathematics.

Were we to say things only in broad abstract terms without addressing context, most of what we say would be meaningless.

It's difficult to discuss this. Facebook on paper is useful and technically marvelous. Society and humanity can certainly benefit from it.

The problem is that certain types of people - irrespective of intent - are poison to other people. The problem is that we can be our own worst enemy.

How can we build a social platform and protect the users from each other? To protect the users from themselves? Especially when the steps necessary might be diametrically opposed to the bottom line. No idea. I wonder if it's even possible to devise such a system.

I believe the real problem is in us. It is not just the fact that poisonous users exist. We should be immune. We aren't because we lack the self-awareness and lack the courage to break free from these platforms when/if they become unmanageable. We should be mindful of others. We are taught to celebrate freedom, but when have we celebrated sensitivity and mindfulness of others?

> offensive

if the shoe fits...

> Social media is all about making you feel bad.

> Its a platform for people with low self esteem to dream about what their lives could have been. For older folks to remember the past. For the average guy/gal to keep tabs on old flames.

It's amazing what a mirror Facebook is. Your Facebook description resembles very few other people's Facebook. Its nothing like mine.

I briefly worked on an app that had Facebook integration and got to see different people's feeds. Even straight white male programmer dudes like myself, each one had unrecognizably different content in their feeds. Mine is mostly baby pictures, art posts & science posts. Someone elses was entirely niche events and parties. Another was the most banal tabloid celebrity gossip. Another just seemed a random mix of every sort of media. Another was predominantly toxic right wing graphical text posts urging you to be afraid and lots of flags.

What I'm getting at here, is that I don't think Facebook itself is the problem. It's never the problem with a feed that you curate yourself.

I was with you until the last sentence. A feed we curate ourselves? Really? I never got to see most of what my friends posted over the years, so I can hardly be curating any of it, can I? :)

You follow people if you want to see some of their posts.

You unfollow people if you don't want to see any of their posts.

If you like something, Facebook shows you more posts like that.

If you hide something, Facebook shows you fewer posts like that.

No one does any of that for you. Its entirely you. The result is your feed.

I like all my social media feeds because I choose what's in them. It's not the slightest bit difficult.

It works the same on Twitter. It works roughly the same on Tumblr and every social network.

Every single grandstanding "I am quitting this self curated feed platform" post is ridiculous in the same way.

That would make sense if we only had a few friends. If you have a few hundred, you only see a small percentage of what they posted, regardless of your actions. Now I understand that my actions impact what I see, but I'm pretty sure it's way more nuanced than what you describe: what does it mean "like that"? I may like or read two posts and discussions about food, and Facebook infers it's about food, but I actually just liked the pictures of broccoli and don't want more food articles. I didn't curate anything, i just wanted to see the damn broccoli.

It's not "me" who decides what I see. I may just want the damn broccoli, but it may take a year or two before Facebook's AI figures that out. And I sure as hell will never figure out what THEY inferred about my preferences, because there isn't any "here's what _you_ decided to see" list that summarizes my inoccuous choices...

How many signals go to the feed? How many of these are my conscious choice? And I am what you could call an expert computer user who actually worked for one of those big tech companies so I can at least imagine some of that complexity and reason about it...

The liking and hiding emphasis features are trivial. They hardly matter. If Facebook's post emphasis algorithm was entirely random, very nuanced or specifically malevolent it wouldn't matter.

Only follow people whose posts you find enjoyable and you will find Facebook enjoyable. This is entirely up to you. If you stop enjoying someone's posts, you unfollow them.

Guaranteed 100% success rate. It's not difficult or tricky. There's no gotcha, there's no fee. Most people can figure this out. I'm not sure why this isn't intuitive for the OP or yourself.

> Social media is all about making you feel bad.

> Its a platform for people with low self esteem to dream about what their lives could have been. For older folks to remember the past. For the average guy/gal to keep tabs on old flames.

Do you think this about federated Facebook alternatives like Diaspora?

IMO, it's the psychological mind-games that fb uses to draw you in, and deters people from using it "just a little bit", that makes it so toxic.

the general concept of social networking does deserve a chance if it can be separated from gaming / preying on our psychological weaknesses.

My FB account's gone dormant since I've found a much better community on Instagram. You don't need to follow everyone you personally know like Facebook would expect you to. It's much more positive (not in the Black Mirror way) and there's a lot more substance in everyone's posts.

I kept it around for dating apps and keeping in touch with friends on their messenger. That's all.

This is a highly cynical view of Facebook and social media in general. I don't use Facebook very often, but I like seeing updates from family and friends. And Facebook is very useful for messaging and organizing events.

It is. But I don't like the idea of using a platform designed to hook you in. Everything is about "engagement". Facebook is not above messing with your mood and life outlook to get more eyeballs. If you engage more when you're really sad that's what you'll start seeing.

See this experiment: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everyt...

Facebook published a study on emotional manipulation. Creepy at the least