3 ms·

Can someone explain to me why sharing stuff with a whole bunch of people at once is something they want to do in the first place? Most of the things I do are c

Can someone explain to me why sharing stuff with a whole bunch of people at once is something they want to do in the first place? Most of the things I do are completely irrelevant for most of the people I know. If I do something that I think could be interesting for someone in my social circle, then I share it with that specific person. If I'm right and they do find it interesting then we might even have a conversation about it. This approach obviously requires more effort, but it strengthens individual connections and acts as a very effective filter/indicator for the importance of people in my life. Instead of creating the illusion that I have an active connection with tons of people because they are automatically kept up to date, I'm forced to acknowledge that some connections are past their prime and that that's okay. If there's stuff happening in my life that makes me think of people whom I haven't had contact with in a long time, then that's the moment to share that stuff with them.

erellsworth 4y ago
Social media has turned human relationships into commodities. It encourages attention seeking behavior and turns a lot of average people into personal brand ambassadors. The author of the article, for example, seems to view their group of family, friends, colleges, etc. not as just a set of personal connections, but as an audience. And when a human thinks they have an audience, they feel pressure to preform, and pressure to grow the audience.
notacoward 4y ago
> that's the moment to share that stuff with them Why not do that via social media? Sending separate emails to even a few people, let alone dozens who might be interested, gets cumbersome really fast. They won't follow a blog. What they will do, what they find easy and convenient, is hop on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr and see my Wonderful New Thing in their timeline. That even covers the case where I forgot to include someone, which becomes inevitable with enough content and enough friends. I don't see how that's anything but an improvement over other methods. You also seem to be ignoring the possibility of meeting people via social media. I met my wife on Usenet, which was the "social media" of the time. Also the person who got me my first job in my current state. I have met many people IRL who I first met on Twitter. I have many "mutuals" on Tumblr, each sharing stuff that the other enjoys. Those connections are not illusions, and they wouldn't happen without open sharing beyond the people I already know. Why are you even commenting here, if not for a similar purpose? I know bashing social media is The Thing To Do, but let's not get carried away. There is a reason such sites, including this one, exist. They provide value to people.
- Version467 4y ago
  I see a big difference in sharing stuff on social media sites where my friends and family, maybe coworkers see it and sharing stuff in online communities like HN, reddit, etc. I am commenting here and in other online communities, because the people there perceive me based on a specific interest. I'm not sharing a cute picture of my cat on hackernews, because the only thing I know about the people here is that they are generally interested in technology and technology adjacent topics. This is what I come here to discuss with them. This is different from my personal connections. I don't think of my friends as a list of interests, I think of them as a nuanced person with fears and desires and all those other things that make them who they are. Of course I'm happy to build connections in online communities, but there's a very clear point where the connection transforms from being centered around the shared interest of the online community into a connection centered around the lifes of two people. And some of those people might be very interested in that cat picture. But (and we might just differ here a lot) I have not once thought that more than a few people might be interested in a specific thing, let alone dozens(?). Do I know more than a few people interested in the same general topic? Sure. But just because I know 4 people who are interested in outdoor camping doesn't mean that all of them are interested in an article about new ultra-lightweight rain jackets made possible by a fancy compound-material. I don't think that forgetting to include people is inevitable. I have never felt that I forgot someone, because I only share 1:1 and I only do it when person x pops into my head regarding the thing I'm actively doing in that moment. Even if more than a few were actually interested in that article, I can't have an in depth conversation with all of them about it. I could have a shallow conversation with all of them, but then it's JUST about the article, not about the people I'm sharing it with. And then what's the point if it's not really about the people anymore? So I do see a lot of value in interest specific online communities, but I do not see how sharing on social media to people, with whom I already have a personal connection beyond a specific interest with, provides a value that 1:1 sharing does not.

erellsworth 4y ago

Social media has turned human relationships into commodities. It encourages attention seeking behavior and turns a lot of average people into personal brand ambassadors. The author of the article, for example, seems to view their group of family, friends, colleges, etc. not as just a set of personal connections, but as an audience. And when a human thinks they have an audience, they feel pressure to preform, and pressure to grow the audience.

notacoward 4y ago

> that's the moment to share that stuff with them Why not do that via social media? Sending separate emails to even a few people, let alone dozens who might be interested, gets cumbersome really fast. They won't follow a blog. What they will do, what they find easy and convenient, is hop on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr and see my Wonderful New Thing in their timeline. That even covers the case where I forgot to include someone, which becomes inevitable with enough content and enough friends. I don't see how that's anything but an improvement over other methods. You also seem to be ignoring the possibility of meeting people via social media. I met my wife on Usenet, which was the "social media" of the time. Also the person who got me my first job in my current state. I have met many people IRL who I first met on Twitter. I have many "mutuals" on Tumblr, each sharing stuff that the other enjoys. Those connections are not illusions, and they wouldn't happen without open sharing beyond the people I already know. Why are you even commenting here, if not for a similar purpose? I know bashing social media is The Thing To Do, but let's not get carried away. There is a reason such sites, including this one, exist. They provide value to people.

Version467 4y ago
I see a big difference in sharing stuff on social media sites where my friends and family, maybe coworkers see it and sharing stuff in online communities like HN, reddit, etc. I am commenting here and in other online communities, because the people there perceive me based on a specific interest. I'm not sharing a cute picture of my cat on hackernews, because the only thing I know about the people here is that they are generally interested in technology and technology adjacent topics. This is what I come here to discuss with them. This is different from my personal connections. I don't think of my friends as a list of interests, I think of them as a nuanced person with fears and desires and all those other things that make them who they are. Of course I'm happy to build connections in online communities, but there's a very clear point where the connection transforms from being centered around the shared interest of the online community into a connection centered around the lifes of two people. And some of those people might be very interested in that cat picture. But (and we might just differ here a lot) I have not once thought that more than a few people might be interested in a specific thing, let alone dozens(?). Do I know more than a few people interested in the same general topic? Sure. But just because I know 4 people who are interested in outdoor camping doesn't mean that all of them are interested in an article about new ultra-lightweight rain jackets made possible by a fancy compound-material. I don't think that forgetting to include people is inevitable. I have never felt that I forgot someone, because I only share 1:1 and I only do it when person x pops into my head regarding the thing I'm actively doing in that moment. Even if more than a few were actually interested in that article, I can't have an in depth conversation with all of them about it. I could have a shallow conversation with all of them, but then it's JUST about the article, not about the people I'm sharing it with. And then what's the point if it's not really about the people anymore? So I do see a lot of value in interest specific online communities, but I do not see how sharing on social media to people, with whom I already have a personal connection beyond a specific interest with, provides a value that 1:1 sharing does not.