3 ms·

I think there is a larger question about the role that celebrities, influencers, meme accounts, thirst trap accounts, or any other account that is incentivized

I think there is a larger question about the role that celebrities, influencers, meme accounts, thirst trap accounts, or any other account that is incentivized to post play on social media. You immediately saw the energy and positivity drop as these groups arrived to threads. Perhaps it was a mix of egotism, phoniness, and shallow attempts at engagement, but you also saw engagement and follows rise with that group. The head of Instagram has said that news is going to be less of a priority for them, which coincides with Canadian legislation demanding pay for links and upcoming US legislation that is expected to be similar. I would love to see them deprioritize these financially motivated accounts and try to focus more on local and more genuine interactions, otherwise they will just fall into the same trap Twitter has been stuck in for years. Ultimately, these accounts drive engagement but perhaps there is a cost to the long-term health or viability of the platform when taking this approach. Given Meta has seemingly no need to monetize Threads, I hope they try new approaches that are healthier for the platform and better for their users rather than cheap engagement.

jfengel 3y ago
I'm interested in the contrast between the news producers, who want you to pay for content, and the flood of people desperate to attract your attention without anything of value. It feels like there is a certain amount of worthwhile stuff, despite vast numbers of people seeking ways to create it. You'd think with billions of people trying we'd get more things worth actually looking at. Is is because a lot of people just really have nothing to contribute to the world?
- one_level_deep 3y ago
  == Is is because a lot of people just really have nothing to contribute to the world?== Perhaps they simply have a different definition of “contribute”? Seems there are plenty of things for other people to look at given the download and signup data.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    There are plenty of things to look at, though it seems to be a constant maw that is never satisfied. And on the other hand there are "influencers" and "content producers" and "digital marketers" who want to slip into that gap, but know full well that their contribution is not of any value. They're trying to be middle men in a world that's overconnected already. They plagiarize and copy and SEO and use generated content in the hopes of snagging a fraction of a cent simply by being in the way. I don't mean that as personally derogatory as it sounds. I don't know them or their story. But I've seen many thousands of human lives spent in quiet desperation and wish that there was a better way to use the mind they were born with.
- dazc 3y ago
  'Is because a lot of people just really have nothing to contribute to the world?' We all have something to contribute but, like a single ant in a column of ants moving from one hole to another, that thing may be minor and not newsworthy.
- graycat 3y ago
  > It feels like there is a certain amount of worthwhile stuff, despite vast numbers of people seeking ways to create it. You'd think with billions of people trying we'd get more things worth actually looking at. Have thought that this was a problem so have been working on a solution. At some point intend to announce on HN. I'm supposed to do a "Show HN"?
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Yep, that's how it's done. Good luck!
- ddq 3y ago
  Why should contribution to “the world”, the gargantua of global culture, history, and economy, be the yardstick of worth? I believe almost everyone has something valuable to contribute to their friends, family, neighborhood, or community. We can step away from the chaotic, nebulous global village and focus on the tangible human connections of actual village systems, where “the defining trait of a village is that it’s group of people where the average interaction over time is with people you’ve seen before.” https://www.marginalia.nu/log/82_killing_community/ https://www.marginalia.nu/log/82_killing_community/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36296882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36296882
  - jfengel 3y ago
    In this case I'm thinking of people who are trying to make a living. If it were up to me everyone would automatically receive enough money to stay alive, and nobody would have to grasp at straws like that. It would be interesting to see what they would create. Meantime I am distressed by that grasping, which I understand to be necessary, or at least desperate. I wonder if they could do better creating something, anything, more useful than vast quantities of the lowest possible effort.
    - ddq 3y ago
      Employment, housing, and healthcare should not be inexorably interlinked. Losing your job puts your housing and healthcare at immediate risk, and activism can look like unprofessional behavior or a brand risk. Chilling effect.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
> I would love to see them deprioritize these financially motivated accounts and try to focus more on local and more genuine interactions, otherwise they will just fall into the same trap Twitter has been stuck in for years. Meta goes farther than Twitter ever did, as they actually deprioritize the more news-like content. After all, why pay for less engaging content when you have users tripping over themselves to game engagement for free? Ignoring long term health (and the health of the society they inhabit) seems to have worked out for Meta so far.
- martinflack 3y ago
  > Meta goes farther than Twitter ever did, as they actually deprioritize the more news-like content. I think an interesting experiment would be to also prioritize some "news-ish" "good news" of the type that wouldn't quite make major TV news broadcasts. The type of stuff that John Krasinski was doing with Some Good News during the pandemic.
- FormerBandmate 3y ago
  Threads is literally just textual Instagram and TikTok. I don’t get the feeling Twitter users ever really used those, and Threads is much closer to those
akira2501 3y ago
> and try to focus more on local and more genuine interactions It's amazing to me that people expect one of the largest companies on the planet to be capable of doing this with any measure of success. Meanwhile, there's tons of groups of people who meet under the banner of shared interest, probably right now, right in the town you live in. You can just go do that if that's what you _actually_ want.

jfengel 3y ago

I'm interested in the contrast between the news producers, who want you to pay for content, and the flood of people desperate to attract your attention without anything of value. It feels like there is a certain amount of worthwhile stuff, despite vast numbers of people seeking ways to create it. You'd think with billions of people trying we'd get more things worth actually looking at. Is is because a lot of people just really have nothing to contribute to the world?

one_level_deep 3y ago
== Is is because a lot of people just really have nothing to contribute to the world?== Perhaps they simply have a different definition of “contribute”? Seems there are plenty of things for other people to look at given the download and signup data.
- jfengel 3y ago
  There are plenty of things to look at, though it seems to be a constant maw that is never satisfied. And on the other hand there are "influencers" and "content producers" and "digital marketers" who want to slip into that gap, but know full well that their contribution is not of any value. They're trying to be middle men in a world that's overconnected already. They plagiarize and copy and SEO and use generated content in the hopes of snagging a fraction of a cent simply by being in the way. I don't mean that as personally derogatory as it sounds. I don't know them or their story. But I've seen many thousands of human lives spent in quiet desperation and wish that there was a better way to use the mind they were born with.
dazc 3y ago
'Is because a lot of people just really have nothing to contribute to the world?' We all have something to contribute but, like a single ant in a column of ants moving from one hole to another, that thing may be minor and not newsworthy.
graycat 3y ago
> It feels like there is a certain amount of worthwhile stuff, despite vast numbers of people seeking ways to create it. You'd think with billions of people trying we'd get more things worth actually looking at. Have thought that this was a problem so have been working on a solution. At some point intend to announce on HN. I'm supposed to do a "Show HN"?
- jfengel 3y ago
  Yep, that's how it's done. Good luck!
ddq 3y ago
Why should contribution to “the world”, the gargantua of global culture, history, and economy, be the yardstick of worth? I believe almost everyone has something valuable to contribute to their friends, family, neighborhood, or community. We can step away from the chaotic, nebulous global village and focus on the tangible human connections of actual village systems, where “the defining trait of a village is that it’s group of people where the average interaction over time is with people you’ve seen before.” https://www.marginalia.nu/log/82_killing_community/ https://www.marginalia.nu/log/82_killing_community/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36296882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36296882
- jfengel 3y ago
  In this case I'm thinking of people who are trying to make a living. If it were up to me everyone would automatically receive enough money to stay alive, and nobody would have to grasp at straws like that. It would be interesting to see what they would create. Meantime I am distressed by that grasping, which I understand to be necessary, or at least desperate. I wonder if they could do better creating something, anything, more useful than vast quantities of the lowest possible effort.
  - ddq 3y ago
    Employment, housing, and healthcare should not be inexorably interlinked. Losing your job puts your housing and healthcare at immediate risk, and activism can look like unprofessional behavior or a brand risk. Chilling effect.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

> I would love to see them deprioritize these financially motivated accounts and try to focus more on local and more genuine interactions, otherwise they will just fall into the same trap Twitter has been stuck in for years. Meta goes farther than Twitter ever did, as they actually deprioritize the more news-like content. After all, why pay for less engaging content when you have users tripping over themselves to game engagement for free? Ignoring long term health (and the health of the society they inhabit) seems to have worked out for Meta so far.

martinflack 3y ago
> Meta goes farther than Twitter ever did, as they actually deprioritize the more news-like content. I think an interesting experiment would be to also prioritize some "news-ish" "good news" of the type that wouldn't quite make major TV news broadcasts. The type of stuff that John Krasinski was doing with Some Good News during the pandemic.
FormerBandmate 3y ago
Threads is literally just textual Instagram and TikTok. I don’t get the feeling Twitter users ever really used those, and Threads is much closer to those

akira2501 3y ago

> and try to focus more on local and more genuine interactions It's amazing to me that people expect one of the largest companies on the planet to be capable of doing this with any measure of success. Meanwhile, there's tons of groups of people who meet under the banner of shared interest, probably right now, right in the town you live in. You can just go do that if that's what you _actually_ want.