4 ms·

> In today's day and age, most people expect not to send or receive emails People who don't care about your shit expect not to send or receive emails, just eas

by GuiA 10y ago

> In today's day and age, most people expect not to send or receive emails People who don't care about your shit expect not to send or receive emails, just easy to digest posts in an infinite timeline while they're on the toilet. But people who care about what you have to send them (e.g. your grandma when you send her pictures of you and your boyfriend on vacation, your dad when you send him pictures of his grandchildren, a close friend when you tell her about your new job) are very happy to receive what you have to send to them and reply to it, no matter the medium. Yes, if you want to address 99% of your social network email is probably not as good as Facebook, but if you only care about the 10% that's closest to you, the technology doesn't matter. One of my best friends from high school still sends me paper letters, and I am ecstatic to receive them when I do.

webwanderings 10y ago
I agree with you. I clarified similar position in a followup[0]. However, let's not just confine ourselves to grandma and personal pictures. The issue is all encompassing content; some of lesser value, and some greater. You may think all of your shared content is of value, but the receiver may not feel the same. You have to judge (think) before you direct your message. It is of course an easy choice to send baby's pictures to the grandma, but when you have to target different pictures, you have to think about the target audience. Going one level deep, you may have a story to share instead of a picture. You are now hard pressed to email because you know others may have already seen it, or something else. Ultimately, the evolution of the web to the social media has happened due to human's lazy nature. We are not capable of directing messages of mass nature to one-on-one. We can direct messages of personal nature to one-on-one, but that's about it. For this reason, social media - versus email - has been able to make inroads into people's lives. Certainly, we feel that one-to-many is not the right approach, hence we form this or that group, to confine ourselves into self-created boundaries (groups have its own pros and cons). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345534

by GuiA 10y ago

webwanderings 10y ago

I agree with you. I clarified similar position in a followup[0]. However, let's not just confine ourselves to grandma and personal pictures. The issue is all encompassing content; some of lesser value, and some greater. You may think all of your shared content is of value, but the receiver may not feel the same. You have to judge (think) before you direct your message. It is of course an easy choice to send baby's pictures to the grandma, but when you have to target different pictures, you have to think about the target audience. Going one level deep, you may have a story to share instead of a picture. You are now hard pressed to email because you know others may have already seen it, or something else. Ultimately, the evolution of the web to the social media has happened due to human's lazy nature. We are not capable of directing messages of mass nature to one-on-one. We can direct messages of personal nature to one-on-one, but that's about it. For this reason, social media - versus email - has been able to make inroads into people's lives. Certainly, we feel that one-to-many is not the right approach, hence we form this or that group, to confine ourselves into self-created boundaries (groups have its own pros and cons). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345534