4 ms·

Respect the effort, but I think it's not going in quite the right direction. I don't think people need paternalistic restrictions on post frequency. People need

Respect the effort, but I think it's not going in quite the right direction. I don't think people need paternalistic restrictions on post frequency. People need to be liberated from engagement-optimizing algorithms and allowed to choose which activity is presented to them and in what order.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 5y ago
I think the idea of paternalism comes from seeing people harm themselves by undertaking actions they were manipulated into taking, and confusing that with actions they'd have done on their own, independently.
- civilized 5y ago
  What I object to is we skipped straight from exploitation to paternalism. Freedom was never an option on offer.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
I have WhatsApp/iMessage groups for immediate friends and family who I don’t mind getting real time updates from. Everyone else, I am okay with periodically contacting as desired via text/audio/video call. It seems pretty liberated, and I am not sure what more a social network website could offer. Outside of about 5 people, I have no interest in real time updates…I can wait to see photo albums next time I call or visit, like in the times before broadband. In fact I prefer it, so that there is a jumping off point for things to talk about.
- civilized 5y ago
  I have the family SMS group as well. I can't imagine having much use for a social network after all these years of social networks being awful, but maybe a truly different and more liberated one would offer some possibilities.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
CitrusFruits 5y ago
I don't think your first and second sentence are necessarily in conflict with each other. In fact, Slow Social has no algorithms for engagement-optimizing, it's part of the design of the application. That being said, you absolutely _could_ be right on the restrictions on post frequency. Perhaps its not something any sort of large user base might not want. However, as far as I know it hasn't been tried before, and I think that makes it worth a shot. Lastly, it's possible that restrictions on post frequency serve a segment of the population that might be underserved by current social media, and its something those people would thrive one. At this point we can't say for sure, but I'd love to find out.
- civilized 5y ago
  Slowing things down has the virtue of being a much easier means of social engineering than figuring out how to empower users to control the flow of content that comes to them. I only have some sketchy ideas of how exactly it would work. Definitely the starting point is to let users have a simple chronological option.
  - linuxdude314 5y ago
    How does slowing things down make social engineering easier? That’s a security term, and I’m not quite sure how it’s relevant to the OP.
    - psyc 5y ago
      I assume they mean herding cats.
    - civilized 5y ago
      Social engineering isn't just a security term. The use in security is inherited from a broader and pre-existing concept. It's about setting up conditions that influence people to behave in a desired way.
Barrin92 5y ago
I think 'the algorithm' truly is the bogeyman of our time. Have you considered that it is precisely people themselves who crave engagement and that it is the often reviled paternalism which liberates people from following their worst instincts?
- civilized 5y ago
  Paternalism isn't categorically bad but I see it as a last resort. People have never had the option to filter out garbage from their feeds. If they did, there might be little need for paternalism.
  - xpe 5y ago
    Paternalism? Call it that if you want -- just realize the word choice is loaded. Consider also: It can be useful to think of this as 'save me from my worst habits' or 'let my rational, planning self setup some guardrails for my self-defeating self'. Also, ask this: Is maximum freedom achieved by letting one act on their whims? Try defining freedom as 'the practical likelihood of achieving a goal' rather than 'the theoretical possibility' of doing so. What are the advantages of seeing freedom in such a light? When can constraints lead to better outcomes? Philosophers have a lot to say on these topics. I suggest moving past latching onto only one word (paternalism) that, for many people, can shut down critical and diverse thinking. Look at many perspectives and soak in the complexities.
- moffkalast 5y ago
  People crave engagement as much as they crave unhealthy food. Having a person stand behind you at all times with an infinite amount of the exact kind of burger you like isn't gonna help make you get thinner lol. And that's like the whole point of personalization algorithms.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    > isn't gonna help make you get thinner lol. sure as hell isn't but do you actually think the reason 65% of the American population is overweight is burger ads, rather than the simple fact that people unless very explicitly told not to will stuff their faces with cheap and delicious fast food? Do you think that requires coercion? Like in a world where McDonalds doesn't run ads, they all start working out and eat salads? The algorithm itself only exists to satisfy a never-ending demand by people, it's nothing else than an internet conveyor belt. When you walk into Twitter HQ and turn the algorithms off you think the people will greet you in the streets as liberators with flowers and open arms? You'll have a riot because Instagram and TikTok don't work any more
dansiemens 5y ago
I agree to some extent. The “medium is the message”; let the outcomes of post frequency be determined by the structure of the platform. Whether that structure should be more prescriptive than descriptive though is certainly up for debate.
skippyboxedhero 5y ago
One way to look at it is a restriction on post frequency, but the reason why modern social is so harmful is because unlimited post frequency means unlimited read frequency. It isn't restricted post frequency, it is restricted read frequency.
- CitrusFruits 5y ago
  Yeah, I definitely thought of this. It's kindof a chicken or the egg thing. Some of my friends had the suggestion of a weekly digest or something like that. In the end, I opted for this since, from my perspective, there's a sort of solace knowing that I'm only "expected" to write at most once a week.
  - civilized 5y ago
    I must be some sort of freak libertarian. People are always talking about how they want or need their lifestyle to force them to do this and that. I would always rather have the choice.
    - skippyboxedhero 5y ago
      It is a choice. The choice is: I will only write/read once a week, that is you making a choice about how you want to allocate time.
chrischen 5y ago
I agree. What I’d like is to be given control so that I can at least work on improving my social life and interactions. I want pro software but for socializing. Something like my calendar app, email app, Photoshop, etc. Imagine if our email app changed their goal from empowering users to engaging users. We’d have email apps that surfaced only engaging emails you received and buried the rest. It would maximize our short term app usage engagement to the detriment of long term goals (getting work done). Gmail shows it’s possible to meld good algorithms (spam detection) with good user empowering features, while also being an ad-supported model!
TameAntelope 5y ago
You say that, but what if they choose paternalistic restrictions on post frequency? "You must make all your choices yourself, and you must prefer that!" <- doesn't actually seem all that free, to me. People act like any one website must support all use cases, all the time, when in reality, opting in to the site is also a choice; literally nothing on the Internet is required, you can choose not to participate (and all of the consequences, good or bad, that come with that choice).
mrweasel 5y ago
Personally I believe that the era of Facebook style social media networks have come and gone. It’s on the road to becoming a niche product, like family newsletters, not completely dead, but also not completely alive. I can respect the work and the idea, but not many are going to sign up, the first mover types have been burned so badly by Facebook that they’re going to pass.
quickthrower2 5y ago
I like it. Think of it in inverse: no contact can send you more than one a week. You can safely add people you dint know well and not worry about them filling up your feed with shit. Also once a week is like blogging - you will get more thoughtful content.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

whatshisface 5y ago

I think the idea of paternalism comes from seeing people harm themselves by undertaking actions they were manipulated into taking, and confusing that with actions they'd have done on their own, independently.

civilized 5y ago
What I object to is we skipped straight from exploitation to paternalism. Freedom was never an option on offer.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I have WhatsApp/iMessage groups for immediate friends and family who I don’t mind getting real time updates from. Everyone else, I am okay with periodically contacting as desired via text/audio/video call. It seems pretty liberated, and I am not sure what more a social network website could offer. Outside of about 5 people, I have no interest in real time updates…I can wait to see photo albums next time I call or visit, like in the times before broadband. In fact I prefer it, so that there is a jumping off point for things to talk about.

civilized 5y ago
I have the family SMS group as well. I can't imagine having much use for a social network after all these years of social networks being awful, but maybe a truly different and more liberated one would offer some possibilities.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

CitrusFruits 5y ago

I don't think your first and second sentence are necessarily in conflict with each other. In fact, Slow Social has no algorithms for engagement-optimizing, it's part of the design of the application. That being said, you absolutely _could_ be right on the restrictions on post frequency. Perhaps its not something any sort of large user base might not want. However, as far as I know it hasn't been tried before, and I think that makes it worth a shot. Lastly, it's possible that restrictions on post frequency serve a segment of the population that might be underserved by current social media, and its something those people would thrive one. At this point we can't say for sure, but I'd love to find out.

civilized 5y ago
Slowing things down has the virtue of being a much easier means of social engineering than figuring out how to empower users to control the flow of content that comes to them. I only have some sketchy ideas of how exactly it would work. Definitely the starting point is to let users have a simple chronological option.
- linuxdude314 5y ago
  How does slowing things down make social engineering easier? That’s a security term, and I’m not quite sure how it’s relevant to the OP.
  - psyc 5y ago
    I assume they mean herding cats.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Social engineering isn't just a security term. The use in security is inherited from a broader and pre-existing concept. It's about setting up conditions that influence people to behave in a desired way.

Barrin92 5y ago

I think 'the algorithm' truly is the bogeyman of our time. Have you considered that it is precisely people themselves who crave engagement and that it is the often reviled paternalism which liberates people from following their worst instincts?

civilized 5y ago
Paternalism isn't categorically bad but I see it as a last resort. People have never had the option to filter out garbage from their feeds. If they did, there might be little need for paternalism.
- xpe 5y ago
  Paternalism? Call it that if you want -- just realize the word choice is loaded. Consider also: It can be useful to think of this as 'save me from my worst habits' or 'let my rational, planning self setup some guardrails for my self-defeating self'. Also, ask this: Is maximum freedom achieved by letting one act on their whims? Try defining freedom as 'the practical likelihood of achieving a goal' rather than 'the theoretical possibility' of doing so. What are the advantages of seeing freedom in such a light? When can constraints lead to better outcomes? Philosophers have a lot to say on these topics. I suggest moving past latching onto only one word (paternalism) that, for many people, can shut down critical and diverse thinking. Look at many perspectives and soak in the complexities.
moffkalast 5y ago
People crave engagement as much as they crave unhealthy food. Having a person stand behind you at all times with an infinite amount of the exact kind of burger you like isn't gonna help make you get thinner lol. And that's like the whole point of personalization algorithms.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  > isn't gonna help make you get thinner lol. sure as hell isn't but do you actually think the reason 65% of the American population is overweight is burger ads, rather than the simple fact that people unless very explicitly told not to will stuff their faces with cheap and delicious fast food? Do you think that requires coercion? Like in a world where McDonalds doesn't run ads, they all start working out and eat salads? The algorithm itself only exists to satisfy a never-ending demand by people, it's nothing else than an internet conveyor belt. When you walk into Twitter HQ and turn the algorithms off you think the people will greet you in the streets as liberators with flowers and open arms? You'll have a riot because Instagram and TikTok don't work any more

dansiemens 5y ago

I agree to some extent. The “medium is the message”; let the outcomes of post frequency be determined by the structure of the platform. Whether that structure should be more prescriptive than descriptive though is certainly up for debate.

skippyboxedhero 5y ago

One way to look at it is a restriction on post frequency, but the reason why modern social is so harmful is because unlimited post frequency means unlimited read frequency. It isn't restricted post frequency, it is restricted read frequency.

CitrusFruits 5y ago
Yeah, I definitely thought of this. It's kindof a chicken or the egg thing. Some of my friends had the suggestion of a weekly digest or something like that. In the end, I opted for this since, from my perspective, there's a sort of solace knowing that I'm only "expected" to write at most once a week.
- civilized 5y ago
  I must be some sort of freak libertarian. People are always talking about how they want or need their lifestyle to force them to do this and that. I would always rather have the choice.
  - skippyboxedhero 5y ago
    It is a choice. The choice is: I will only write/read once a week, that is you making a choice about how you want to allocate time.

chrischen 5y ago

I agree. What I’d like is to be given control so that I can at least work on improving my social life and interactions. I want pro software but for socializing. Something like my calendar app, email app, Photoshop, etc. Imagine if our email app changed their goal from empowering users to engaging users. We’d have email apps that surfaced only engaging emails you received and buried the rest. It would maximize our short term app usage engagement to the detriment of long term goals (getting work done). Gmail shows it’s possible to meld good algorithms (spam detection) with good user empowering features, while also being an ad-supported model!

TameAntelope 5y ago

You say that, but what if they choose paternalistic restrictions on post frequency? "You must make all your choices yourself, and you must prefer that!" <- doesn't actually seem all that free, to me. People act like any one website must support all use cases, all the time, when in reality, opting in to the site is also a choice; literally nothing on the Internet is required, you can choose not to participate (and all of the consequences, good or bad, that come with that choice).

mrweasel 5y ago

Personally I believe that the era of Facebook style social media networks have come and gone. It’s on the road to becoming a niche product, like family newsletters, not completely dead, but also not completely alive. I can respect the work and the idea, but not many are going to sign up, the first mover types have been burned so badly by Facebook that they’re going to pass.

quickthrower2 5y ago

I like it. Think of it in inverse: no contact can send you more than one a week. You can safely add people you dint know well and not worry about them filling up your feed with shit. Also once a week is like blogging - you will get more thoughtful content.