5 ms·

> Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter

> Perhaps this is unfair, but this just makes you sound a bit antisocial. You're actively trying to remove all of the personality from social media, and filter it down to just professional or single-interest posts. Does everyone have to be social via social networks nowadays in order to be considered “social”? Can’t we just be social, you know, face to face? And then just leave online media to news/facts? It’s so weird to me that in order to be considered “social” it’s not enough to just be social in person. Have we really come to that?

meowkit 5y ago
In a way, yes. I think about this a lot. My hypothesis is that social status is increasingly, and will be increasingly, dictated by your "follower" count. How many eyeballs you can attract. Even worse, in my opinion, it will be the primary driver of people's perceptions of you. Basically how good are you at getting attention? It seems a bit ridiculous to say, but I observe the "high status" or high follower count people networking more and more exclusively with each other. On the other side I see traditionally "high status" people developing their online persona - whether its a youtube channel, twitter account, substack, podcast, etc. We are in the middle of a societal restructuring (that much is obvious) in a way that the internet is now injecting itself right into the middle of social hierarchy and relationships.
- jader201 5y ago
  This sounds like a Black Mirror episode.
maximus-decimus 5y ago
If you only leave online media to news/facts, it's not a social network at all. It's an online news paper or a user manual. You don't have to be social online, but getting angry at people for socializing on a social network is definitely anti-social. People have spoken over the phone and have had pen pals for a very long time, so "we have come to that" a long time ago.
- jader201 5y ago
  Your confusing having social media/phone/pen pals as alternative vs. it being required to be social. I never implied that being social over social media is wrong. The GP, however, was implying that by not engaging in social media (or, using your examples, phone or pen pal) is antisocial, which I argue is wrong. If engaging in social media is the only way to be social — or, to put it another way, if by not using social media socially you’re considered anti-social — then Facebook et al. have won.
- GreenWatermelon 5y ago
  Not necessarily. IRL, If I don't enjoy hanging around someone, I just won't hang around them. same goes gor social media. If I have a few friends who share my interests, I'll keep following them, but some friend who keeps spouting stupid stuff? I'll avoid them IRL and on Social Media. If uncle Joe keeps talking about conspiracy theories in family gatherings, I'll keep away as much as possible. I hang withy friends on Discord. we talk daily and game together.
  - maximus-decimus 5y ago
    The conversation wasn't about filtering out people you don't like, it was about filtering out anybody who shares anything personal. The real life equivalent would be stopping to talk to your uncle because he tells you he likes Italian food or went on a trip to Europe and you only keep speaking to people who talk to you about global warming or stuff that actually "matters". That how the person treats his friends online and the argument is if it is anti-social to do that on social networks.
onion2k 5y ago
Does everyone have to be social via social networks nowadays in order to be considered “social”? Can’t we just be social, you know, face to face? And then just leave online media to news/facts? Of course you can. You just can't claim to have "a good social media experience" if that's what you're doing (as rg111 did). If you're removing all the social parts from social media then you're not have a "social media experience" at all. You're doing something else. That might be good, and you might enjoy it and find it useful, but it's not sociable if all you're doing is consuming filtered content about a topic you're interested in. Rejecting the social aspects of social media is, by definition, antisocial. That doesn't reflect on how sociable you are in other contexts though.

meowkit 5y ago

In a way, yes. I think about this a lot. My hypothesis is that social status is increasingly, and will be increasingly, dictated by your "follower" count. How many eyeballs you can attract. Even worse, in my opinion, it will be the primary driver of people's perceptions of you. Basically how good are you at getting attention? It seems a bit ridiculous to say, but I observe the "high status" or high follower count people networking more and more exclusively with each other. On the other side I see traditionally "high status" people developing their online persona - whether its a youtube channel, twitter account, substack, podcast, etc. We are in the middle of a societal restructuring (that much is obvious) in a way that the internet is now injecting itself right into the middle of social hierarchy and relationships.

jader201 5y ago
This sounds like a Black Mirror episode.

maximus-decimus 5y ago

If you only leave online media to news/facts, it's not a social network at all. It's an online news paper or a user manual. You don't have to be social online, but getting angry at people for socializing on a social network is definitely anti-social. People have spoken over the phone and have had pen pals for a very long time, so "we have come to that" a long time ago.

jader201 5y ago
Your confusing having social media/phone/pen pals as alternative vs. it being required to be social. I never implied that being social over social media is wrong. The GP, however, was implying that by not engaging in social media (or, using your examples, phone or pen pal) is antisocial, which I argue is wrong. If engaging in social media is the only way to be social — or, to put it another way, if by not using social media socially you’re considered anti-social — then Facebook et al. have won.
GreenWatermelon 5y ago
Not necessarily. IRL, If I don't enjoy hanging around someone, I just won't hang around them. same goes gor social media. If I have a few friends who share my interests, I'll keep following them, but some friend who keeps spouting stupid stuff? I'll avoid them IRL and on Social Media. If uncle Joe keeps talking about conspiracy theories in family gatherings, I'll keep away as much as possible. I hang withy friends on Discord. we talk daily and game together.
- maximus-decimus 5y ago
  The conversation wasn't about filtering out people you don't like, it was about filtering out anybody who shares anything personal. The real life equivalent would be stopping to talk to your uncle because he tells you he likes Italian food or went on a trip to Europe and you only keep speaking to people who talk to you about global warming or stuff that actually "matters". That how the person treats his friends online and the argument is if it is anti-social to do that on social networks.

onion2k 5y ago

Does everyone have to be social via social networks nowadays in order to be considered “social”? Can’t we just be social, you know, face to face? And then just leave online media to news/facts? Of course you can. You just can't claim to have "a good social media experience" if that's what you're doing (as rg111 did). If you're removing all the social parts from social media then you're not have a "social media experience" at all. You're doing something else. That might be good, and you might enjoy it and find it useful, but it's not sociable if all you're doing is consuming filtered content about a topic you're interested in. Rejecting the social aspects of social media is, by definition, antisocial. That doesn't reflect on how sociable you are in other contexts though.