2 ms·

Lots of good points here. I particularly like the "dark triad" bit, though I think a lot of nuance around different types of likes/upvotes/whatever is missing.

Lots of good points here. I particularly like the "dark triad" bit, though I think a lot of nuance around different types of likes/upvotes/whatever is missing. It makes a difference whether those are shown to others and/or used to sort others' feeds. That last point is very close to montenegrohugo's about algorithmic feeds, with which I completely agree. Algorithmic feeds, especially those which show content from people/groups I don't even follow, definitely deserve a place in the Dark Tetrad. To illustrate these points, consider HN itself. Yes, HN uses an algorithm to determine story prominence. Yes, it has upvotes. Yes, it uses relative timestamps. OTOH, the upvotes are not shown to others and it doesn't have infinite scroll. I also wouldn't consider it a "feed" like Twitter or Facebook. On the third hand, even the features HN does have arguably contribute to echo chambers and audience pandering. I think this well illustrates that it's not easy to determine good vs. bad social media, and it would be hard to argue here that all social media are bad. ;)

wilsocr88 6y ago
Great points. I suppose, in the end, that social media are like any mind-altering substance. But, it seems to me that we're not fully aware of just how "mind-altering" they really are. There are certain things that are so addictive and damaging that we ban them, because they make people unable to function. That's the conversation, I guess: Where's that line?
bscphil 6y ago
Size plays a huge and underappreciated role here. Hacker News is small enough that if you wanted to you could read the comments on everything that interested you from the first two or three pages every day. It might take you an hour or so, depending on how many interests you have. Probably not worth your time, but not debilitating either. Metafilter is sort of an experiment of taking this to its logical extreme: anyone on the site (IIRC) is allowed to post directly to the front page, but you're a member of the community and expected to post thoughtful stuff that's going to be worth the time of most site members. Most social media platforms do the exact opposite, and intentionally at that. The whole point is that there's (practically) no end to how much you can consume, you can ruin your life on one site alone. Notably, HN and Metafilter don't have ads, but the incentives are clearly very different for almost any other social network.

wilsocr88 6y ago

Great points. I suppose, in the end, that social media are like any mind-altering substance. But, it seems to me that we're not fully aware of just how "mind-altering" they really are. There are certain things that are so addictive and damaging that we ban them, because they make people unable to function. That's the conversation, I guess: Where's that line?

bscphil 6y ago

Size plays a huge and underappreciated role here. Hacker News is small enough that if you wanted to you could read the comments on everything that interested you from the first two or three pages every day. It might take you an hour or so, depending on how many interests you have. Probably not worth your time, but not debilitating either. Metafilter is sort of an experiment of taking this to its logical extreme: anyone on the site (IIRC) is allowed to post directly to the front page, but you're a member of the community and expected to post thoughtful stuff that's going to be worth the time of most site members. Most social media platforms do the exact opposite, and intentionally at that. The whole point is that there's (practically) no end to how much you can consume, you can ruin your life on one site alone. Notably, HN and Metafilter don't have ads, but the incentives are clearly very different for almost any other social network.