Hacker News Reader

Comment by negamax | Hacker News Reader

Gluttony cannot be solved by making a better dish, only way to solve it is to moderate eating.

What does a world without social networks look like? I don't think we want that anymore. Because social networks do serve a required function.

For Twitter, I love the fact that I can follow some people that I look upto and get their real time musings.

For Facebook, it's about connecting to friends and people I know and being able to reach out without phone numbers etc.

We are trying to solve this problem the wrong way. So again, gluttony cannot be solved by making a better dish, only way to solve it is to moderate eating

View on HN

Food can be (and there are those that are) designed to optimize for the desire to eat more. Slot machines payouts are designed to encourage people to play one more time. There are games that are famous for eliciting "one more turn... oh my god it's 5 a.m. already".

When a stimulus reliably elicits a particular response on a large enough population, you can reasonably say that it's the stimulus and not the individual's failure to apply moderation/critical thinking/what-have-you.

No it's definitely individual failure. If I get fat by eating burgers and sweets everyday. It's my fault.

What required function do social networks fill? Your wording implies objective requirements exist in the general sense which can only be fulfilled by social networks.

The two things you've said are access to "real time musings" which is absolutely not a requirement in the objective sense, and connecting to friends and people, which is a requirement that can be easily fulfilled by other applications.

Phones and email are still completely viable methods for communicating with anyone. Chat programs such as Signal or Apple Messenger or WhatsApp really only add the additional functionality of group SMS. Otherwise standard SMS is fine.

I think your point about moderating your eating is a good and valid point though.

Let's take the metaphor further. Let's say social networks as they exist today are like restaurants that serve 3500 calorie meals. Sure, a person could choose to pay $30 for a 3500 meal and then moderate their consumption and take the rest home in a doggy bag, but that clearly is not what is happening. Instead what is happening is people are eating the whole dish. And on top of that, the restaurant is adding a ton of stuff that makes the food taste more addictive, and other stuff that makes you not feel full so that you'll want to order that dessert too.

And to beat the metaphor to death, I just don't go to restaurants anymore, I make my meals at home.

Your analogy assumes the problem is overconsumption of social media. But what about concentration? 3-4 companies control ~90% of global social media. I don't think people would be as worried if that control was spread more evenly across hundreds of smaller companies.

Control is a misleading phrase in that context - it isn't the same sort of control as Murdoch over his empire or the infamous Sinclair Media scripted message.

They aren't the same type of control at all, implying it is deeply disingenuous like claiming beating your kids with a baseball bat and scolding them doesn't make a difference because it is just punishing them either way.

> They aren't the same type of control at all, implying it is deeply disingenuous

I implied no such thing. I nor the parent post didn't even mention traditional media. And I freely admit, it's not the same type of control. But it is control. They control what type of speech is allowed, what gets amplified, what gets suppressed, and what gets banned.

To go with your analogy, they don't beat their kids, but they do ground them, take away their allowance, or make them go to bed without supper, until they learn to behave. And the owners of social media get to define what 'behave' means.

A private Discord channel is the best social media.

You invite certain people, people can share things, text or even voice chat. You can curate, you have more control of what comes down stream.

I have thought about this before. I believe internet lacks enough echo chambers. In real world, people automatically segregate based on their income bracket, community, values, lifestyle, job, family (kids or not?), healthcare, accessibility to various things, etc. People have all sorts of stereotypes and things they expect other people to conform to based on visible factors. This isn't possible online. There is too little information and our stereotypes will never be correct (too big number). It shocks people. In real life, oh that's a catholic person. Of course I would expect them to say this. Too much difference in opinions leads to defensiveness rather than acceptance. You cannot accept 180 degrees but you can accept 10 degrees slightly left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com