Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Deleting WhatsApp, [...], has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.

This practical application of your advice depends on where a particular person sits in their social hierarchy.

E.g. an influential person that's a "hub" or "connector" in their social circle can switch from WhatsApp to Signal ... or insist on email only ... or insist on no email and only hardcopy snail mail (Donald Knuth) -- and others will follow their lead or accommodate them.

On the other hand, if you're one of the folks at the "spokes" or "edges" of social graphs... being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you.

The above difference in social influence happens in Asia countries where many use WhatsApp beyond personal relationships for business to sell items or find work. If the business contacts you depend on for getting income use WhatsApp, you deleting WhatsApp just means you get $0 because they'd rather deal with other vendors who don't force them the hassle of switching to Signal. Power and leverage in social graphs matter.

> because others don't care to switch to reach you.

I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case. Contrary to popular belief is that you don't miss out on anything.

Business contacts are another matter, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels. Same principle applies. If they don't make the effort, it wasn't a good contact anyway, although there are side effects because convinience is important. A bit of excentricity isn't a deal breaker, on the contrary.

Clout chasing is exactly the angle social media tries to satisfy.

>I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case.

That's a common counterargument that's similar to "then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they?!?" -- but oversimplifies the complexity of social life. It's not a simple binary dichotomy between "very good friends" and "no friends".

People also have an in-between status of "weak ties" that are mutually beneficial : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties

These types of relationships are more fragile and easier to "lose" by putting up barriers to communication. It's not realistic to impose a condition of "either you follow me to the Signal network or you weren't really my friend at all" on the whole world. Everybody doesn't have same weight of importance to everyone else and that's ok. Dunbar's Number may also be relevant here.

>, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels.

No they don't if you're one of hundreds of "disposable vendors" in Asia or other parts of the world using WhatsApp for business. The other business professional (with more leverage) just ignores your excentricity and works with others who don't inconvenience them.

>, although there are side effects

If the "side effects" are $0 income, that's a really big deal. It seems like you swept this aside.

>Clout chasing

It's not about about chasing "clout". Unfortunately, I used the word "influential" and I forgot that it has been tainted by recent phenomenon of "social media influencer". I couldn't think of a better word for "significant connector node on a social graph" other than "influential". (I think it's irony that by Donald Knuth insisting on USPS snail mail for correspondence -- and people actually getting past that friction to contact him -- that actually proves he has clout.)

In any case, I think your perspective is shaped by your experience in Western Europe so you really can't empathize with how some people (farmers, etc) depend on WhatsApp for their livelihood. They don't use it like a TikTok type of social network.

Remember Klout?

This is an excellent point.

I’m no influencer, but i do have a big family and lots of very close friends. I’m very lucky.

Many people are isolated and struggle to make and maintain friendships — especially over the last year. They don’t have the luxury of being able to take a stand.

>being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you.

I disagree. It accomplishes at least one thing -- WhatsApp isn't tracking/recording your messages any more. That's what I would care about.

So you prevent them from recording your conversations with friends by having no conversations and no friends.

>So you prevent them from recording your conversations with friends by having no conversations and no friends.

You're absolutely right. Because there's no such thing as other messaging apps, email, social media platforms, SMS/MMS, telephone, written correspondence or discussion over a beer/coffee/meal. Only WhatsApp exists.

Gee, I wish someone would invent some or all of of those things -- I'm so lonely! /s

You aren't asking your contacts to delete WhatsApp as well in solidarity or to fully "switch", you are asking them to simply use Signal to communicate with you. If you mention you are uncomfortable using WhatsApp, and they aren't willing to use Signal to message you, they likely aren't worth talking to.

I deleted Facebook/Messenger awhile ago, and asked that people use Signal to communicate with me. All of the people I cared to speak to use Signal to message me, and many of them have used it for other purposes as well. That hasn't precluded them from using whatever they were using before. This only applies to the personal sphere of my life, conducting business with WhatsApp may be a different issue entirely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com