3 ms·
It's almost impossible to promote art and music organically these days without being involved in social media. It's different than traditional sinful addictions
by winternett 5y ago
It's almost impossible to promote art and music organically these days without being involved in social media. It's different than traditional sinful addictions in that way...
Product designers don't realize that each user has a different purpose for using social media, and totally different goals, while the basic narrative is that all of social media is dedicated towards selling products and building online celebrity status.
The real problem is that social media sites try to dominate the world without creating sub-communities for specialization, and they have also devalued and underestimated the value of being able to build followers in hopes of a focus on engagement and paid ad revenue. Social sites usually focus on one front page, and one script/method for success on them, and that's a massive failure to the different reasons users use them.
Social sites start out fair, with orderly time lines and visibility of individual accounts, but as year over year profit and user base increases becomes their focus, they grow corrupt and too big to change. They stop developing useful features and turn towards profit.
It's a cycle they repeat until their user base wakes up to the reality of it all and realizes all of their content will be deleted if they quit. It is a cycle of abuse and loss compounded by lost time... More like the year I spent wound up in GTA4 than like drinking Tequila and smoking Newports.
- unraveller 5y agoSocial sites were always on a quest to attract those with the greatest promotional capability, from start to finish. If the sites were about fairness they'd limit everyone/everything to not exceed the average reach. They should really be called Promotional Networks. Their incentive structure is not set up to advance any intellectual specialisation except through a lens of promotion. Consider the fact that the biggest platforms must go "external" to find fact-checker organisations, it proves my point that no great intellecting is happening within the platform. It's ironic given that fact-checking is itself employed in an act of phoney self-promotion, to not-so-subtly suggest intellectual pursuits must be occurring here, excessively so, since "corrections" are needed.