3 ms·

Most social networks make posting (or whatever specific terminology is being used) equivalent to talking at someone. The correct model would foster conversation

Most social networks make posting (or whatever specific terminology is being used) equivalent to talking at someone. The correct model would foster conversation and thus impact engagement. Small social groups discuss topics. Offering a topic for conversation implicitly earns a response. Rarely do groups of friends get together to declare simple and unrelated one-liners. An "ideal" social network might be more related to group sms than Twitter or Mastodon.

fleddr 4y ago
I agree. A group of actual (traditional) friends is not the same thing as a bunch of online people that have something in common. For a group of real life friends, online conversations are often/best handled in a chat-like experience. Here in Europe it's mostly WhatsApp. There's also differences in what you expect from content. When one of my real friends share that they took their family to a zoo and had a great day, that's mildly interesting. I know these people. When an online stranger (or digital only "friend") shares this same thing, I couldn't care less. I'm happy for them, and it's part of normal conversation, but it's not a very interesting type of information to read in large quantities every single day. There has to be some higher shared purpose, the more specific the better.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  " There has to be some higher shared purpose, the more specific the better." I have no idea if this is true but it's an interesting point that sounds right. I suppose the answer might come down to the individual purpose of group interaction. I'll definitely give this some thought. Thanks for the input.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    To me that has always been the promise of the internet: to connect with people on topics I'm passionate about as such a thing is highly constrained in the real world. It's a brand new capability, a super power. The opposite is true for generic chitchat online. Instead of more powerful, it is less powerful compared to the real world equivalent. You don't gain anything.
baandang 4y ago
A problem though is how real world social networks operate. People love to gather with a bunch of strangers over coffee or at restaurants but have absolutely nothing to do with each other besides sitting in close proximity. Everyone wants to design an online social network as if there is all this spirited high brow debate going on at the local Starbucks when in reality it is a bunch of people shoulder to shoulder ignoring each other. If people really wanted interaction it would be trivial in the real world. Online social networks let people indulge in their want to talk AT strangers. This is absolutely a feature and not a bug of the software. Even within myself, the idea of a 19th century style salon sounds really cool but I would never show up to one physically. An online salon with more than a handful of people would be cool but it would break down quickly as it scales up past 20 or so participants until it basically approaches Twitter.

fleddr 4y ago

I agree. A group of actual (traditional) friends is not the same thing as a bunch of online people that have something in common. For a group of real life friends, online conversations are often/best handled in a chat-like experience. Here in Europe it's mostly WhatsApp. There's also differences in what you expect from content. When one of my real friends share that they took their family to a zoo and had a great day, that's mildly interesting. I know these people. When an online stranger (or digital only "friend") shares this same thing, I couldn't care less. I'm happy for them, and it's part of normal conversation, but it's not a very interesting type of information to read in large quantities every single day. There has to be some higher shared purpose, the more specific the better.

shanebellone 4y ago
" There has to be some higher shared purpose, the more specific the better." I have no idea if this is true but it's an interesting point that sounds right. I suppose the answer might come down to the individual purpose of group interaction. I'll definitely give this some thought. Thanks for the input.
- fleddr 4y ago
  To me that has always been the promise of the internet: to connect with people on topics I'm passionate about as such a thing is highly constrained in the real world. It's a brand new capability, a super power. The opposite is true for generic chitchat online. Instead of more powerful, it is less powerful compared to the real world equivalent. You don't gain anything.

baandang 4y ago

A problem though is how real world social networks operate. People love to gather with a bunch of strangers over coffee or at restaurants but have absolutely nothing to do with each other besides sitting in close proximity. Everyone wants to design an online social network as if there is all this spirited high brow debate going on at the local Starbucks when in reality it is a bunch of people shoulder to shoulder ignoring each other. If people really wanted interaction it would be trivial in the real world. Online social networks let people indulge in their want to talk AT strangers. This is absolutely a feature and not a bug of the software. Even within myself, the idea of a 19th century style salon sounds really cool but I would never show up to one physically. An online salon with more than a handful of people would be cool but it would break down quickly as it scales up past 20 or so participants until it basically approaches Twitter.