13 ms·

The Horrible Future of Social

285 points by netherland 14y ago

Apocryphon 14y ago
I think this short film neatly illustrates the cheapening of social experiences with too much tech: http://vimeo.com/49425975 http://vimeo.com/49425975
jaredcwhite 14y ago
Exaggeration to make a point. A worthy point, although one I'm not entirely in agreement with. I enjoy the "lifecasts" of others in some respects because otherwise I wouldn't know anything about what they're up to. I'm lucky if I can have a meaningful, real-world conversation with a single-digit handful of folks over the course of a week. Dozens? Hundreds? No way. But if I can see them post a joke or a beautiful photo or just a kvetch about a bad day, I have a connection with them that I simply wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, it can get absurd. Yes, sex check-ins might be in vogue at some point. But we don't have to throw the baby out because the bathwater has gotten quite murky. (P.S. That came out a bit too hard on the original author. I really enjoyed the read, thanks!)
jscheel 14y ago
It's a bold step to say that it's bad for people to cheapen their life experiences. While I personally agree with the author, other people choose to live their life in a way that is meaningful to them, in their own ways. Who am I to say their facebook, foursquare, twitter, etc. interactions are meaningless and without value? These are subjective measurements. The real question is: are people getting value out of these interactions because they are told to get value out of them, and if so, is it done disingenuously? Case in point, a gambling company (or certain gaming companies starting with the letter Z... I kid, I kid) tend to focus on the compulsive nature of humans in a predatory way. This is where true marketing responsibility comes into play: am I creating a system of measurably-destructive behavior in my users? You can measure the detrimental impact of a user's addition, you cannot measure the meaningfulness of a tweet to it's tweeter.
- snom380 14y ago
  I think the right question to ask is whether the service is improving peoples lives or not. Social networks are useful and improves life in many ways, but their mission is to maximize sharing, user engagement to drive ad revenue, regardless of whether this is good for the users or not.
EliRivers 14y ago
"You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site." No really, no. Everything described already exists (except the sex-cred, and the geo-tagging is rather manual); simply not on the open internet.
- xb95 14y ago
  Yeah, I was going to say, I know of at least one web site with lots of people on it where people do most of this. There is no explicit rating of people though, but there is certainly implicit: you see how many "likes" they get, how many followers, comments, etc. You know who's "good" at your kink and who's new, etc. In this particular site, it's actually pretty well done. I think that they accomplish a great "this is a useful service for a portion of the population that areinterested in whips and chains" without crossing into "oh wow, this is totally creepy". That said... I think that the author's overall point re: the desecration of meaningful things by turning them into cheap online experiences is totally valid. I am also depressed by the direction the world is going, and continually contemplating what I can do about it.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > "You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site." He's giving the Internet more credit than it deserves.
- thenomad 14y ago
  Yeah. The attempted cold-read really killed the article for me, both because I didn't agree, and because frankly, having an article seemingly attempt a carny fortune-telling trick on me didn't make me want to read on!
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure the sex-cred and other stuff already exists as well. There are active user-driven communities for swingers and kinky people much as there are for every other specialist hobby/lifestyle.
  - illuminate 14y ago
egypturnash 14y ago
I really don't need to know who's the local Mayor of Anal.
- ftwinnovations 14y ago
  I didn't, yet now that you mentioned it, I'm kind of curious.
Detrus 14y ago
Here is a whole gamified dating concept video http://designtaxi.com/news/353161/The-Future-Of-Dating/ http://designtaxi.com/news/353161/The-Future-Of-Dating/ Such extrapolations rarely come to pass. Yes there might be new crazy services and some people will use them. But will a significant proportion of the population use them often? Will it change the world? Did foursquare? Did Twitter? No. Some things just stay in their bubbles. There will be new crazed trends that come along and everyone will forget check ins, social networks, gamification and do them. Reality shows used to be the new thing. So are there run a startup reality shows today? Bitcoins are a new currency. Will people start their own currencies and governments in 15 years? Instead of startups you start governments! Then 3D printers can make military drones and these governments fight each other! Fortunately most trends just don't get very far. There is a constant stream of new trends to divert people's attention.
- bduerst 14y ago
  Hindsight is 20/20. Motorola invested millions in Iridium, thinking that the new cell phones were just a passing fad, but Nokia managed to flood the mobile market faster than Motorola could put up satellites. It's a case example of project execution failure. That said, Sex.ly probably won't take off :)
Cieplak 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr
- abozi 14y ago
  Funny. Because I specifically remember 3 instances where I walked by people (in two different countries in fact!) and saw them checking Grindr.
- rdl 14y ago
  I think fetlife is the more-straight, more bdsm-focused Grindr.
nostromo 14y ago
Meh. This is a touch over-the-top. You know what Facebook is to me nowadays? It's another flavor of Gmail. Sometimes I send and receive messages there. It's plumbing. Sometimes I turn the spigot on for some updates, then turn it off and go about my day. I think pro-social and anti-social pundits are both wrong about the upside and downside of social. Social is neither the next giant leap forward, nor is it the downfall of humanity. It's kinda like Gmail.
- noilly 14y ago
  Agreed. In its current incarnation, social is merely a utility. Network effect inertia ~ Natural monopoly
- fideloper 14y ago
  I agree - I think users would simply not use it, as many choose to not actively engage in Facebook. That is not to discount the age issue. Youngsters are conceivably less ready to think of the longer-term consequences of using such a "social network". But still. Plumbing.
- bhanks 14y ago
  I agree completely. Social media is what you make of it. If you don't like it just unplug.
- coffeemug 14y ago
  Social is neither the next giant leap forward, nor is it the downfall of humanity. It's kinda like Gmail. The printing press is neither the next giant leap forward, nor is it the downfall of humanity. It's kinda like hand-copied books.
  - jiaaro 14y ago
    Except the part where he uses gmail and facebook exactly the same way, with exactly the same amount of effort, and exactly the same amount of cost, and to exactly the same effect…
  - njl 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jonny_eh 14y ago
I think this Collegehumor sketch is relevant: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6415974/foursquare-for-sex http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6415974/foursquare-for-sex
qdot76367 14y ago
Most any article that says we're moving /toward/ some sort of new technology based sex solution is most likely missing many examples of it having happened well before the author even thought of the topic. http://bedposted.com/ http://bedposted.com/ http://ijustmadelove.com http://ijustmadelove.com Lesson: Sex is probably smarter and faster than you. (I say this having run a site on sex and technology for near 8 years now. I now accept being constantly comfortably behind the curve.)
- qdot76367 14y ago
  And for a user-centric analysis of experience on ijml (versus the fevered rant of the original post), check out this alt.chi paper: http://altchi.org/login.php?action=showsubmission&id=117&#38 http://altchi.org/login.php?action=showsubmission&id=117...;
- rsl7 14y ago
  I think you missed the point. The author is not trying to make a point about sex, but rather uses that as an example of something he thinks is currently out of scope for social networking fads.
  - qdot76367 14y ago
    Yeah, realized I totally missed forest for trees with my comment, and I do agree with the general message of the article. That said, it's easy to miss the forest when you're being whacked over the head with the trees.
te_chris 14y ago
The author doth project their personal insecurities too much. If people want to form a social network around sex (and hell, there's already heaps, adult friend finder and clones, sex forums etc etc) then I think it's fantastic that the internet allows such varied forms of sexual expression and discourse.
- RegEx 14y ago
  Downvoted for A) Use of antiquated language solely for the sake of making yourself seem smarter. B) A needless insult to the author.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    I was insulted by the implication that I should be ashamed of sex or of talking about it, or that I'm supposed to consider this lofty magical think that has to be a big secret and people can't be open about. I'm also guessing that I'm supposed to be 'repulsed' at the hypothetical software, that it might let two men talk to each other too, eh? Ironically the solution to both are the same. People have different opinions, societies tend to have evolving, and shifting views about social networks or social behavior just like they have about sex in the past. Going around being all judgement of either set of behaviors is not productive.
    - RegEx 14y ago
      I thought the sexual lead in to the main point of the article was rather silly myself, we don't disagree there. However, that's no reason to call the author insecure.
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        That's fine, whatever. I just find this the next in a long line of preachy, "Everyone does this; everyone must stop doing this." line of rational.
  - mung 14y ago
mtraven 14y ago
This is pretty much Jaron Lanier's argument in You Are Not a Gadget (reviewed here: http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-you-are-not-gadget.html http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-you-are-no... ). They both have a point; systems which reduce human relations to very simpleminded database formalisms cheapen them. But they ignore that the human spirit is (or so we should hope) strong enough to survive Facebook if it is strong enough to survive the other insults and depredations it has been subject to throughout history. Facebook may slap a reductive meaning onto the word "friend", but I haven't noticed that truly interfering with real friendship.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Jaron Lanier is a cynical charlatan. It takes a pretty negative worldview to say that the relationships people have on Facebook are the sum total of the nature of human relations, that the entire social phenomenon is a lowest-common denominator operation. The human spirit doesn't have to be strong enough, even without hope. "Facebook killing the human spirit" is an instance of a phenomenon that has never happened.
  - mtraven 14y ago
    Well, I agree that he is about 80% wrong, but I don't think he's a charlatan -- I'm pretty sure he's sincere in his beliefs.
iamwil 14y ago
This app actually already exists in the app store.
jcfrei 14y ago
I've noticed an interesting pattern among some people I encountered. Usually the ratio of activity on facebook (not just "sharing", but also instant messaging and status updates) is inversely proportional to their social activity in reality. Exceptions aside, it seems facebook always has been and always will be to large part a substitute for social activities/interactions in reality, which we would have liked to happen but couldn't make happen, whether it's because of social anxiety, shyness or geographical distances. people with richer social lifes need to cater to these needs less, whereas people with fewer real life social activities resort to facebook to get their fix.
- sapien 14y ago
  It's especially problematic since Facebook's newsfeed algorithm seems to promote posts by exactly those who interact with me a lot on Facebook, which is correlated with living on Facebook a lot, which is (as you said) correlated with how much real life they have to talk about! Missing out on my acquaintances' big life events is one reason I've been experimenting with http://WikiSapien.com/ http://WikiSapien.com/
  - jcfrei 14y ago
    interesting project - is it yours (judging by your username)? and if so, how's it any different from facebook? do you put more intimate information on it and befriend less people?
    - sapien 14y ago
      It's different in that it's not a social network: I don't want friending, I don't want engagement, Facebook also does personal communication in a great way. I just want it to be a good source of basic information on who someone is; answer their question and get them on their way. Another difference is that (partially due to optimizing for engagement) elsewhere it is easy to find someone's most recent actions, but it's also easy to miss out on bigger long term things. I dont want it to be chronologically sorted in such an extreme way. As I say: find out who someone is, and not just what they had for lunch.
ZenoArrow 14y ago
For me, commenting on the sex angle in the article misses the point. The author was kind enough to put the relevant text in bold, specifically 'cheapens the experience of something very important'. I'd argue that this is already happening with something very important, our human friendships. Facebook and sites of its ilk encourage us to build shallow relationships with many and fool ourselves into thinking we're sharing something of merit. I believe in personal responsibility, so I'm not saying Facebook, Twitter, etc... are forced upon people, we can choose to leave them alone if we see fit and plenty of people do just that. It's our job to fit technology around our own wants and needs, not be led by technology. Anyway, interesting article, thank you to the author.
- RegEx 14y ago
  Facebook tries to monetize the difficulty of letting relationships go. I realize this, so I don't accept friend requests from former friends/acquaintances. You're only my friend on Facebook if we're actually friends. I have 15 Facebook friends, and I care about all of them.
  - fudged71 14y ago
    As someone with hundreds of 'friends', I'm curious about how you use the site differently than me. How often do you log in? Do you participate every time you log in? Do you have a group chat with all your friends? And how weird is it to have all the activity from your friends' posts elsewhere (comments/likes on public posts) in your news feed? It would seem like if your friends did it as much as my friends do, you'd see more strangers on facebook than friends.
    - RegEx 14y ago
      I get on a few times a day for a few minutes at a time, but I'll stay on for 20-30 minutes if I'm having a good chat with someone. I've found that most of my friends prefer to text. If I don't see anything new in my feed, I don't stick around.
aneth4 14y ago
There will always be those who proclaim outrage and lament change. Change always causes loss, but we often gain more. Naysayers may help us keep track of what is lost, but best to ignore them otherwise. Because of agriculture, we don't know how to hunt and gather. Because of home theaters we don't go to the movies. Because of air flights we are separated from our families and miss much of what we fly over. Indeed. The sky is falling.
lemiffe 14y ago
I absolutely loved (and was repulsed by the reality of) this segment: "Our daily existence transformed into database entries in some NoSQL database on some spinning disk in some rack in suburban Virginia."
- icebraining 14y ago
  It's as true as how photographs stole the souls of 19th century Native Americans.
- rbranson 14y ago
  Imagine the horror when you find out all the worldly financial assets you've accrued over your entire life are just a few database entries dispersed over a few databases on some spinning disk in some rack in some datacenter somewhere?
  - X-Istence 14y ago
    Now if only they would have some disk corruption in my favour :P
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gizmo686 14y ago
>You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site. Thanks, I was not aware that I found that hypothetical sight repulsive. What I do find repulsive is the idea that I should repulsed by something which "utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important", When I am not the one who determined that the 'thing' in question is very important. What you described in your imaginary site sounds like a product for people wishing to engage in casual sex. It provides a service to record previous partners, and presumably help find new ones. It also provides a service as a background check for partners by showing you reviews from others they were with, as well as "heads up"s. Planned support for Geotags, which seems good as sex tends to be a geographically bound activity (in-airplane geo-tags seem unnecessary though). If I want to link the physical act of sex, which I do for physical pleasure, with the emotional experience of a strong, personal relationship, than I would probably not use a service designed around the premise that I would be having sex casually, with many partners. But why should I want to make that connection?
spartango 14y ago
Notably, a lower-tech version of this social dynamic (particular the sexual version) appeared in a high school in California this year[1]. We think of these things as incredibly immature and disrespectful, but it appears that they happen anyway. [1]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133713n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133713n
- gwillen 14y ago
  These stories are perennial in the media. They are inevitably exaggerated or outright fake. Remember, their sources are kids who are bored and want to be on TV.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    Yep, like http://www.snopes.com/risque/school/bracelet.asp http://www.snopes.com/risque/school/bracelet.asp or "rainbow parties". Kids also enjoy pranking the media.
abozi 14y ago
relax mate. I don't think the majority of humanity is so dumb enough to be bought into the whole social hype, each time someone creates another "Facebook for ABC" online. Sure, it doesn't help when senseless media and VCs hype it up even more so, but most of us don't really buy into it. FB, Twitter etc should be just natural extensions to our real social life (plus a little bit more). Taking things too far as you did on your blog assumes that we'll just buy ourselves into these crap.
petegrif 14y ago
Sounded pretty cool. Just one gripe. He forgot the 'like' button.
gmisra 14y ago
It's all a matter of perspective, e.g an accurate sexual behavior network would be of tremendous value to epidemiologists and public health practitioners, not to mention when people need to notify former partners about disease diagnoses. The core argument here appears to be the "cheapening" of experience driven by "social", without any acknowledgement that social also enables new experiences. Sure, facebook has cheapened the value of remembering a friend's birthday, but it has also enabled more immediate involvement with friend's who you don't get to see that often (geography, parenting, loner-ism, etc). "Social" changes all kinds of things. It's consequences are far-reaching, and we're just barely starting to figure them out. The advent of the automobile "cheapened" travel experiences, but also made travel accessible to the masses, not to mention a slew of modern conveniences. As a society we're still trying to find the right balance for how we use cars (greenhouse gases, near-surface pollution, exurban isolation, etc). People who write "cars are ruining society" essays don't actually contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way. To be dismissive of all things social based on such a small sample of human experience feels short-sighted (and out of place in a technology-oriented discussion community). Aside: The closing reference to Philip Larkin is amusing, as he was a racist and misogynist. He decried the "backward" steps post-WWII society was taking with regards civil rights.
grellas 14y ago
That which is shallow but useful can have its legitimate place in life, though it lacks character: a daily commute on the freeway might suck, and might not match the joy and invigoration of a brisk walk on a beautiful day, but it has its place if you need to get to work miles away and if your area lacks public transportation to get you there efficiently; living in the suburbs might suck compared to the excitement of an upscale urban environment but millions of people manage just fine with the tradeoffs that suburban living entails and get by just fine without the excitement; so too social networking sucks when compared to any one of countless ways of interacting that are intimate, personal, intellectually stimulating, or whatever, and for which the strictures of the social network have no room, but all sorts of people nonetheless get by very well interacting at the social networking level for the utilitarian goals for which they use such services, not caring one whit about intimacy or other elements that make the experience a fundamentally shallow one. Social may be shallow but it has its place and, as long as we have freedom, you can use it or not according to taste. One can find fault with it but that does not mean it has a "horrible future." Criticism of this sort is thus misplaced, in my view, in spite of the limitations of the venue.
- siganakis 14y ago
  I think that the bigger problem is when people begin using "social networking" while they are actually doing the intimate, stimulating, exciting things in real life - either looking for validation or because its easier to bury your head in your phone than it is to participate in social interactions. For example, checking Facebook while out at dinner with friends, or uploading photos of a party while you are at the party. What could possibly be happening on the internet that is more important than being out with friends? Fair enough if you want to check facebook while you are waiting on a train killing time, but when you are actually doing the things you hope to be reading about on Facebook/Twitter/Intagram, something seems very wrong.
  - lathamcity 14y ago
    I was watching some video the other day where Jon Stewart made a random appearance. All the people around him had their phones out taking pictures of him instead of actually experiencing him being there. It was like proving to other people that they'd had an awesome experience was more important than actually having that experience. Or like they were going through life as tourists, making sure they checked every box and shared it all with other people to make them jealous. "Been within five feet of a major celebrity - check".
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zabuni 14y ago
1) Isn't this grindr for straight people? 2) Coming from my first point, a much better article about the potential pitfalls of socializing parts of our inner lives (with real live examples) can be seen here: http://narrative.ly/2012/10/lost-in-space/ http://narrative.ly/2012/10/lost-in-space/ It's not as negative, but there still is a hell of a lot to not look forward to.
lnanek2 14y ago
I guess it's a nice thing about the internet that people can be disgusted by casual sex like the author and not realize there's a vibrant set of sites and people who are totally into it. He can have his own set of internet sites he visits, etc.. The various sex social networks are pretty damn useful if you want to help sort out who on the internet will actually meetup and who is just an online scammer, which are endless on less complex sites like craigslist, so they really have a powerful utility for people looking to get laid casually.
- illuminate 14y ago
  I must be in the minority for not thinking he was referring to Adult Friendfinder, Fetlife, or Grindr with this. I saw it more as Zyngafication. Pop-ups and badges and er, ahem, viral aspects and "achievements".
conroe64 14y ago
The Horrible Future of Blogging. I give you, the professional complainer...
peteforde 14y ago
If he'd described a social gamification platform for serial killers or rapists, I'd be "disgusted". Truth is that I had a girlfriend that was tracking her orgasms on a freaking leaderboard in 2004. I'm not sure I was shocked by it then. Frankly, I don't mind people checking in on their phones in social situations so long as they are discreet and I'm not talking with them at the very moment. I can appreciate why others might feel differently, but I'm secretly relieved that I've been given implicit permission to check my email, too. You can pretend like that's a horrible way to live, but I do just fine socially. I'm glad I'm addicted to email and not smoking cigarettes.
Mizza 14y ago
If you sympathize with the author, you may enjoy reading _The Society of the Spectacle_ by Guy Debord, a classic criticism of society in the era of mass media. I think it would be very good if more people from around these parts read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
taybin 14y ago
Or you do what I do. Grow older, have a kid, and only login in to sporadically see the photos your wife posts of your child. I've tuned it out. I suspect other people as they get older will too.
jeremymcanally 14y ago
I see this every time I go to Disney World (I live nearby). It's almost impossible to enjoy a single ride or fireworks show without a ton of people videoing the whole thing or taking horrible pictures of it with a smart device of some sort. Rather than enjoying it and capturing some deep memory of a moment with their family, they have their face stuck in a digital device capturing a crude facsimile of the experience that they will likely never look at ever again. I will never forget when a dad was trying to get a good shot of Cinderella Castle and totally missed out on their daughter meeting a princess (I think Tiana from Princess and the Frog was walking over to her character spot or something) for the first time. Hugely important moment for his daughter completely and utterly squandered in chasing this lifecasted copy of life. She was excitedly jumping up and down and waving to and got a big hug from the princess, and her dad was swatting her off at first, then completely ignoring her. I've lived here (Orlando) for two years and it's only getting worse. I've almost given up on being able to ride Pirates of the Carribbean and being able to experience it the way the Imagineers wanted you to. The constant flash and glowing screens from people posting pictures of the Jack Sparrow animatronic on Facebook completely ruin it. Fireworks are an exercise in frustration as some joker always sticks his iPad in the air to try to capture a picture. When the first one looks terrible (as they all do), he tries over and over and over. By the time he's frustrated enough that he's not getting good pictures, the show is over and he's just missed the whole thing. It's depressing to think how many other experiences people are cheapening and/or missing out on simply because they feel some weird compulsion to SHARE the experience with others rather than LIVE it.
- icebraining 14y ago
  That's just a phase 'till lifecasting becomes commonplace.
- takluyver 14y ago
  The bit about fireworks resonates especially: unless you've got good equipment and know how to use it, photos/videos of fireworks are almost always rubbish. The whole point is that they're huge, loud, dramatic and fleeting - none of which you can easily record.
- rjbond3rd 14y ago
coffeemug 14y ago
I was more amused than repulsed by the description, and I thought quite a few people would probably end up using this product if it existed. To paraphrase George Costanza, if I were a different person, I could see myself using it. What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important. It doesn't cheapen anything. Making love is just for fun for most young people, and then most of them grow up to be pleasantly surprised to discover a depth to life that they were unaware of before. A product like this doesn't change the attitude people have towards sex in the first place. Of course some people never discover that same depth, or perhaps discover something else that others don't see. That's fine too. The attitude of "I see depth to life that the morons [watching football/using social/smoking marijuana/insert activity here] don't see" is really the 21st century version of the inquisition. A lot less bloody, perhaps, but still very counterproductive to social (pun intended!) development.
- theorique 14y ago
  Good points. What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important. Translation: I see other people doing something in a way that I don't like. This is wrong and their values are wrong. This makes me feel funny. They should not do as they do. Instead, they should do as I do. Then they will be right, like me.
  - bloaf 14y ago
    It will truly be a brave new world when people are expected to not stand up for their own values. “Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference which is an elegant name for ignorance.” ― G.K. Chesterton
    - theorique 14y ago
      Big difference between saying "I find that unpleasant and I prefer not to participate in it" and "that is a terrible thing and no one should participate in it". In the case of an activity which harms no one, I prefer to skew toward the former. Standing up for your own values is fine and good. The part I was objecting to was the OP (1) making the assumption in his article in his article that everyone reading also shared his values and (2) suggesting that those values ought to apply for everyone, not just himself.
ludicast 14y ago
He's right * 100. Some of us can't understand being "internet social" just to get us more fake friends with fake laughs. Your grandpa didn't need to update his status every 10 minutes and he was the fucking man.
Reebz 14y ago
This article is hugely exaggerated. Once all is said and done, you're simply attaching more relevant data to a photo which helps remember important moments. My grandparent's photo albums and scrapbooks have now been replaced by my TimeHops and SnapJoys.
danboarder 14y ago
"In the old world products were scarce - this meant that companies who provided product could profit from the demand. In the digital world, where abundance is key (creating a digital copy costs next to nothing) it is a customer's attention that has become scarce. This means that the customer now holds the value - not the company." - Chris Saad Some people did see this commoditisation of human behavior coming back in 2005 and promoted the idea of the 'Attention Economy' which had a goal of putting people back in control of the content they create and view online with tools like the Attention Recorder from Attention Trust (now defunct, but you can read about it here http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Trust http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Trust ). The current idea of social is to capture much more than eyeballs and clicks of course, with checkins for places, Runkeeper and many other health apps for tracking/sharing activities, and so on... nearly everything we do is a potential data point for commercialization that a startup will want to capitalize on. This is fine if the user clearly understands the relationship. I expect it was too early when the 'Attention Economy' ideas emerged but now perhaps we'll see projects that resurrect some of that early work and build on it to empower users of social tools to take control of both their attention and the data points they are sharing. addl reading: http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Economy http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Economy
theorique 14y ago
You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site. But not because of some prudish reasons, not even because it had to do with sex. No. You were repulsed because sex.ly violates something very deep and fundamental about humanity. But what, in particular? Mind read much? My feeling upon reading this was hardly the horror that the writer anticipated. Probably more of a "meh, it takes all kinds". I can see this being a private, niche site for swingers or exhibitionists. Most people probably wouldn't go for it. But that doesn't make it wrong or horrible or the emblem of what is, in the author's mind, wrong with social media. Reduction ad absurdum fail.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  These websites already exist. Fetlife, Adult Friend Finder, Bedpost and others. That isn't even counting all of the sub-reddits dedicated to this in some way shape or form. Honestly I wasn't repulsed, I was intrigued and interested in seeing how this social network sets itself apart from the rest of them. Not sure why the author tried to tell me that I was repulsed when I wasn't.
  - theorique 14y ago
    Good point. Yes, such sites do exist, and they serve a niche demographic of people who are interested in 'alt' sexuality. People who do their own thing and don't hurt anyone else The aggressive moralizing in the OP biased me against any otherwise good message in his blog post.
D_Alex 14y ago
Sex.ly for YC '13!
rglover 14y ago
This reminds me of One of my favorite moments in the past couple of years is when I went to see Joanna Newsom in concert. Just before she sat down to perform, the host for the theatre said "now, I want you all to put your cameras down and your cell phones. Really enjoy the music. You can tell everyone how it was after the show. Seriously, this a real experience and you don't want to miss it taking pictures." Everyone in the audience put away their phones/cameras almost immediately. The result? You could actually see people enjoying the music; not just bragging about being there.
FredBrach 14y ago
"No. What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important." I would say: it "logical-ize" it - in the computing meaning of the "term". And here come the question: is it good? Maybe no because the logic of such an app is a cheap one but maybe yes because it becomes more logical in the sense of rational. "What is so attractive with this logic is that.. it is logic" - Triumph of the Nerds
imsofuture 14y ago
This is ~6 years too late.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dools 14y ago
I often think the same thing about cheaply available photography. What was tourism like before cameras? Whatever he's talking about has already happened.
lockes5hadow 14y ago
I thought this was called adultfriendfinder?
JacksonGariety 14y ago
This article addresses a simple fact of life, where there is energy, people will try to create something there. Lots of people are making things for the internet. "The horrible future of social" isn't bad. It means the internet is so great that we have all kinds of people making all kinds of things. If it truly has no value, people won't use it. This is the reason McDonald's exists, it isn't new or unique to social.
allaun1 14y ago
Wow, While trying to see reactions to the word hate, I saw ALOT of whatever statements. o.0 Anyway, I didn't hate the idea. In fact, it seems kind of interesting. I really do believe his reaction is completely cultural. Sex is doesn't need to be kept a secret. And his reaction seems to be that. Privacy is rather outmoded concept, at least when you can find anything about anyone at at anytime. Given a month and some meager resources, you could find a lot about a person. Humans aren't random. We are completely traceable, to a point where anything we do is predictable on a scatter plot.
zerostar07 14y ago
I find it funny when people protest about the way social sites cheapen life experiences. Somehow it is assumed that people have an innate need for privacy. Privacy is mostly social conditioning (have you seen kids playing?). Social sites bring forward that repressed part of the human nature because they give incentives, but the drive is always there. Its just human nature, revealed. People say that they are repulsed when the curtain is lifted but who says that that isn't social conditioning too?
- illuminate 14y ago
  "Somehow it is assumed that people have an innate need for privacy." It makes me sad that someone with your attitude will probably end up an employee of a Social site, if you aren't already.
  - zerostar07 14y ago
    Nice ad hominem and public display of self righteousness, care to respond in a civil grown up and rational manner?
    - illuminate 14y ago
      It is not an ad hominem to be disappointed that some still believe that the desire for control over one's own privacy is an entitlement, not a right. I am not "uncivil, immature, and irrational" simply because your personal opinion differs from mine.
someone_welsh 14y ago
I generally recommend watching "black mirror" - a funny 3 episode satirical tv thing which is about this very topic. it's worth people's time
replayzero 14y ago
I liken online social experience to that of looking a window. A window has two main viewing states. You can either look 'at' a window, or you can look 'through' a window. huh? What the hell does this have to do with social networking? Social networking is not the beginning of social. Experience is the beginning of social, social is just a way to share and solicit experiences. So with this in mind, what are the different types of 'experience' going on in the window analogy. Looking "through" the window is being in the moment, looking through the glass and seeing the world without the frame, taking experiences as they come and letting them exist inside of you as memories, allowing them to shape you and then letting that change in character effect others. Through is just living and being. Looking "at" the window is seeing the glass, seeing the frame and putting all experience through a context. The context here is the social capital or the commodification of that experience for in order to enhance perception of self. 'At' is translating all experience into trade-able emotional commodity. If you live in the 'at' state you live in a "what used to need to be seen, now needs to be shared to be believed." Experiences become worthless unless A) you can prove that they happened, B) that you can show it to someone. Just my thoughts
tehwalrus 14y ago
the closing comments are much like Dylan Moran's rant about cameras (warning, typical foul language): Would you please - stop - taking - pictures - on your tiny - annoying (whispering) fucking camera. This is happening to you in real time, you are having the experience. It's not much point to verify that you were at the event when you're actually here. (quote taken from http://funnycomedianquotes.com/funny-dylan-moran-jokes-and-quotes.html?p=9 http://funnycomedianquotes.com/funny-dylan-moran-jokes-and-q... but I can't seem to link directly to it.) The quote as I remember it live was slightly different, something about not living your life because you were too busy filming it for youtube.
maked00 14y ago
Way to go, I am sure some crass go getter is staking this concept out as we speak.
wasulahewa 14y ago
Might not have the same specs but close, http://www.guyskeepscore.com/ http://www.guyskeepscore.com/
axx 14y ago
I'm so going to build sex.ly!
otakucode 14y ago
Heh. The author is completely wrong. Sex is not something important. It is a basic human bodily function, alongside eating and sleeping. For nearly the entirety of our evolution, sex was used primarily for bonding, its reproductive role is rare in comparison. It most certainly is a prudish view that sex should be hidden away out of some misguided belief that it makes it 'special'. We could treat eating the same way. Never admit you eat, or if you do only speak of it in terms of immature titillation and euphemisms. When you do eat, never do it with anyone else, not even friends you consider very close, because that would somehow taint everything. There is at least one culture that adopted this exact view, their views on eating mirroring our with regards to sex. Eating with someone you are not married to was considered highly taboo, while having sex with various people for fun was understood as something so fundamentally human that restricting access to it would be impossible. And ignoring whatever moral implications the culture you grew up in pounded into you as a child, just consider the basic biological matters. Abstinence is horrendously dangerous to health. Ever read a news story about how 'sex reduces the chance of heart attack by one half', 'frequent orgasms extend life', etc? Those stories are interpreting fact from a prudish perspective that limits sex severely. View the exact same facts from a perspective of frequent sex as part of basic human interaction and the headlines would read 'abstinence doubles the chance of heart attack', 'orgasm starvation cuts years off life', etc. There is good biological evidence that human beings evolved having sex after nearly every meal, along with sleeping in two blocks rather than one. The real kicker is the origin and reason behind why we believe sex should be hidden and that it is somehow 'special'. That was invented in the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that, no one in the lower class even had private bedrooms. Families slept, and screwed, in common rooms. They had to import views on sex from cultures with dowries, and children being viewed as the property of their fathers making sex a property crime against the father. And we preserve a remarkable amount of this framework even though we don't recall where it came from. None of their motivations exist any longer. We have effective birth control, and we have evidence for the suffering attempts to destroy sex cause. Eventually, hopefully, as a culture we'll grow up enough to ask ourselves what evidence we have that sex is somehow 'special' and what consequences such a view inflicts on people.
cherkoff 14y ago
http://www.guyskeepscore.com/ http://www.guyskeepscore.com/

285 points by netherland 14y ago

I think this short film neatly illustrates the cheapening of social experiences with too much tech: http://vimeo.com/49425975 http://vimeo.com/49425975

jaredcwhite 14y ago

Exaggeration to make a point. A worthy point, although one I'm not entirely in agreement with. I enjoy the "lifecasts" of others in some respects because otherwise I wouldn't know anything about what they're up to. I'm lucky if I can have a meaningful, real-world conversation with a single-digit handful of folks over the course of a week. Dozens? Hundreds? No way. But if I can see them post a joke or a beautiful photo or just a kvetch about a bad day, I have a connection with them that I simply wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, it can get absurd. Yes, sex check-ins might be in vogue at some point. But we don't have to throw the baby out because the bathwater has gotten quite murky. (P.S. That came out a bit too hard on the original author. I really enjoyed the read, thanks!)

jscheel 14y ago

It's a bold step to say that it's bad for people to cheapen their life experiences. While I personally agree with the author, other people choose to live their life in a way that is meaningful to them, in their own ways. Who am I to say their facebook, foursquare, twitter, etc. interactions are meaningless and without value? These are subjective measurements. The real question is: are people getting value out of these interactions because they are told to get value out of them, and if so, is it done disingenuously? Case in point, a gambling company (or certain gaming companies starting with the letter Z... I kid, I kid) tend to focus on the compulsive nature of humans in a predatory way. This is where true marketing responsibility comes into play: am I creating a system of measurably-destructive behavior in my users? You can measure the detrimental impact of a user's addition, you cannot measure the meaningfulness of a tweet to it's tweeter.

snom380 14y ago
I think the right question to ask is whether the service is improving peoples lives or not. Social networks are useful and improves life in many ways, but their mission is to maximize sharing, user engagement to drive ad revenue, regardless of whether this is good for the users or not.

EliRivers 14y ago

"You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site." No really, no. Everything described already exists (except the sex-cred, and the geo-tagging is rather manual); simply not on the open internet.

xb95 14y ago
Yeah, I was going to say, I know of at least one web site with lots of people on it where people do most of this. There is no explicit rating of people though, but there is certainly implicit: you see how many "likes" they get, how many followers, comments, etc. You know who's "good" at your kink and who's new, etc. In this particular site, it's actually pretty well done. I think that they accomplish a great "this is a useful service for a portion of the population that areinterested in whips and chains" without crossing into "oh wow, this is totally creepy". That said... I think that the author's overall point re: the desecration of meaningful things by turning them into cheap online experiences is totally valid. I am also depressed by the direction the world is going, and continually contemplating what I can do about it.
stcredzero 14y ago
> "You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site." He's giving the Internet more credit than it deserves.
thenomad 14y ago
Yeah. The attempted cold-read really killed the article for me, both because I didn't agree, and because frankly, having an article seemingly attempt a carny fortune-telling trick on me didn't make me want to read on!
anigbrowl 14y ago
I'm pretty sure the sex-cred and other stuff already exists as well. There are active user-driven communities for swingers and kinky people much as there are for every other specialist hobby/lifestyle.
- illuminate 14y ago

egypturnash 14y ago

I really don't need to know who's the local Mayor of Anal.

ftwinnovations 14y ago
I didn't, yet now that you mentioned it, I'm kind of curious.

Detrus 14y ago

Here is a whole gamified dating concept video http://designtaxi.com/news/353161/The-Future-Of-Dating/ http://designtaxi.com/news/353161/The-Future-Of-Dating/ Such extrapolations rarely come to pass. Yes there might be new crazy services and some people will use them. But will a significant proportion of the population use them often? Will it change the world? Did foursquare? Did Twitter? No. Some things just stay in their bubbles. There will be new crazed trends that come along and everyone will forget check ins, social networks, gamification and do them. Reality shows used to be the new thing. So are there run a startup reality shows today? Bitcoins are a new currency. Will people start their own currencies and governments in 15 years? Instead of startups you start governments! Then 3D printers can make military drones and these governments fight each other! Fortunately most trends just don't get very far. There is a constant stream of new trends to divert people's attention.

bduerst 14y ago
Hindsight is 20/20. Motorola invested millions in Iridium, thinking that the new cell phones were just a passing fad, but Nokia managed to flood the mobile market faster than Motorola could put up satellites. It's a case example of project execution failure. That said, Sex.ly probably won't take off :)

Cieplak 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr

abozi 14y ago
Funny. Because I specifically remember 3 instances where I walked by people (in two different countries in fact!) and saw them checking Grindr.
rdl 14y ago
I think fetlife is the more-straight, more bdsm-focused Grindr.

nostromo 14y ago

Meh. This is a touch over-the-top. You know what Facebook is to me nowadays? It's another flavor of Gmail. Sometimes I send and receive messages there. It's plumbing. Sometimes I turn the spigot on for some updates, then turn it off and go about my day. I think pro-social and anti-social pundits are both wrong about the upside and downside of social. Social is neither the next giant leap forward, nor is it the downfall of humanity. It's kinda like Gmail.

noilly 14y ago
Agreed. In its current incarnation, social is merely a utility. Network effect inertia ~ Natural monopoly
fideloper 14y ago
I agree - I think users would simply not use it, as many choose to not actively engage in Facebook. That is not to discount the age issue. Youngsters are conceivably less ready to think of the longer-term consequences of using such a "social network". But still. Plumbing.
bhanks 14y ago
I agree completely. Social media is what you make of it. If you don't like it just unplug.
coffeemug 14y ago
Social is neither the next giant leap forward, nor is it the downfall of humanity. It's kinda like Gmail. The printing press is neither the next giant leap forward, nor is it the downfall of humanity. It's kinda like hand-copied books.
- jiaaro 14y ago
  Except the part where he uses gmail and facebook exactly the same way, with exactly the same amount of effort, and exactly the same amount of cost, and to exactly the same effect…
- njl 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jonny_eh 14y ago

I think this Collegehumor sketch is relevant: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6415974/foursquare-for-sex http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6415974/foursquare-for-sex

qdot76367 14y ago

Most any article that says we're moving /toward/ some sort of new technology based sex solution is most likely missing many examples of it having happened well before the author even thought of the topic. http://bedposted.com/ http://bedposted.com/ http://ijustmadelove.com http://ijustmadelove.com Lesson: Sex is probably smarter and faster than you. (I say this having run a site on sex and technology for near 8 years now. I now accept being constantly comfortably behind the curve.)

qdot76367 14y ago
And for a user-centric analysis of experience on ijml (versus the fevered rant of the original post), check out this alt.chi paper: http://altchi.org/login.php?action=showsubmission&id=117&#38 http://altchi.org/login.php?action=showsubmission&id=117...;
rsl7 14y ago
I think you missed the point. The author is not trying to make a point about sex, but rather uses that as an example of something he thinks is currently out of scope for social networking fads.
- qdot76367 14y ago
  Yeah, realized I totally missed forest for trees with my comment, and I do agree with the general message of the article. That said, it's easy to miss the forest when you're being whacked over the head with the trees.

te_chris 14y ago

The author doth project their personal insecurities too much. If people want to form a social network around sex (and hell, there's already heaps, adult friend finder and clones, sex forums etc etc) then I think it's fantastic that the internet allows such varied forms of sexual expression and discourse.

RegEx 14y ago
Downvoted for A) Use of antiquated language solely for the sake of making yourself seem smarter. B) A needless insult to the author.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I was insulted by the implication that I should be ashamed of sex or of talking about it, or that I'm supposed to consider this lofty magical think that has to be a big secret and people can't be open about. I'm also guessing that I'm supposed to be 'repulsed' at the hypothetical software, that it might let two men talk to each other too, eh? Ironically the solution to both are the same. People have different opinions, societies tend to have evolving, and shifting views about social networks or social behavior just like they have about sex in the past. Going around being all judgement of either set of behaviors is not productive.
  - RegEx 14y ago
    I thought the sexual lead in to the main point of the article was rather silly myself, we don't disagree there. However, that's no reason to call the author insecure.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      That's fine, whatever. I just find this the next in a long line of preachy, "Everyone does this; everyone must stop doing this." line of rational.
- mung 14y ago

mtraven 14y ago

This is pretty much Jaron Lanier's argument in You Are Not a Gadget (reviewed here: http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-you-are-not-gadget.html http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-you-are-no... ). They both have a point; systems which reduce human relations to very simpleminded database formalisms cheapen them. But they ignore that the human spirit is (or so we should hope) strong enough to survive Facebook if it is strong enough to survive the other insults and depredations it has been subject to throughout history. Facebook may slap a reductive meaning onto the word "friend", but I haven't noticed that truly interfering with real friendship.

rhizome 14y ago
Jaron Lanier is a cynical charlatan. It takes a pretty negative worldview to say that the relationships people have on Facebook are the sum total of the nature of human relations, that the entire social phenomenon is a lowest-common denominator operation. The human spirit doesn't have to be strong enough, even without hope. "Facebook killing the human spirit" is an instance of a phenomenon that has never happened.
- mtraven 14y ago
  Well, I agree that he is about 80% wrong, but I don't think he's a charlatan -- I'm pretty sure he's sincere in his beliefs.

iamwil 14y ago

This app actually already exists in the app store.

jcfrei 14y ago

I've noticed an interesting pattern among some people I encountered. Usually the ratio of activity on facebook (not just "sharing", but also instant messaging and status updates) is inversely proportional to their social activity in reality. Exceptions aside, it seems facebook always has been and always will be to large part a substitute for social activities/interactions in reality, which we would have liked to happen but couldn't make happen, whether it's because of social anxiety, shyness or geographical distances. people with richer social lifes need to cater to these needs less, whereas people with fewer real life social activities resort to facebook to get their fix.

sapien 14y ago
It's especially problematic since Facebook's newsfeed algorithm seems to promote posts by exactly those who interact with me a lot on Facebook, which is correlated with living on Facebook a lot, which is (as you said) correlated with how much real life they have to talk about! Missing out on my acquaintances' big life events is one reason I've been experimenting with http://WikiSapien.com/ http://WikiSapien.com/
- jcfrei 14y ago
  interesting project - is it yours (judging by your username)? and if so, how's it any different from facebook? do you put more intimate information on it and befriend less people?
  - sapien 14y ago
    It's different in that it's not a social network: I don't want friending, I don't want engagement, Facebook also does personal communication in a great way. I just want it to be a good source of basic information on who someone is; answer their question and get them on their way. Another difference is that (partially due to optimizing for engagement) elsewhere it is easy to find someone's most recent actions, but it's also easy to miss out on bigger long term things. I dont want it to be chronologically sorted in such an extreme way. As I say: find out who someone is, and not just what they had for lunch.

ZenoArrow 14y ago

For me, commenting on the sex angle in the article misses the point. The author was kind enough to put the relevant text in bold, specifically 'cheapens the experience of something very important'. I'd argue that this is already happening with something very important, our human friendships. Facebook and sites of its ilk encourage us to build shallow relationships with many and fool ourselves into thinking we're sharing something of merit. I believe in personal responsibility, so I'm not saying Facebook, Twitter, etc... are forced upon people, we can choose to leave them alone if we see fit and plenty of people do just that. It's our job to fit technology around our own wants and needs, not be led by technology. Anyway, interesting article, thank you to the author.

RegEx 14y ago
Facebook tries to monetize the difficulty of letting relationships go. I realize this, so I don't accept friend requests from former friends/acquaintances. You're only my friend on Facebook if we're actually friends. I have 15 Facebook friends, and I care about all of them.
- fudged71 14y ago
  As someone with hundreds of 'friends', I'm curious about how you use the site differently than me. How often do you log in? Do you participate every time you log in? Do you have a group chat with all your friends? And how weird is it to have all the activity from your friends' posts elsewhere (comments/likes on public posts) in your news feed? It would seem like if your friends did it as much as my friends do, you'd see more strangers on facebook than friends.
  - RegEx 14y ago
    I get on a few times a day for a few minutes at a time, but I'll stay on for 20-30 minutes if I'm having a good chat with someone. I've found that most of my friends prefer to text. If I don't see anything new in my feed, I don't stick around.

aneth4 14y ago

There will always be those who proclaim outrage and lament change. Change always causes loss, but we often gain more. Naysayers may help us keep track of what is lost, but best to ignore them otherwise. Because of agriculture, we don't know how to hunt and gather. Because of home theaters we don't go to the movies. Because of air flights we are separated from our families and miss much of what we fly over. Indeed. The sky is falling.

lemiffe 14y ago

I absolutely loved (and was repulsed by the reality of) this segment: "Our daily existence transformed into database entries in some NoSQL database on some spinning disk in some rack in suburban Virginia."

icebraining 14y ago
It's as true as how photographs stole the souls of 19th century Native Americans.
rbranson 14y ago
Imagine the horror when you find out all the worldly financial assets you've accrued over your entire life are just a few database entries dispersed over a few databases on some spinning disk in some rack in some datacenter somewhere?
- X-Istence 14y ago
  Now if only they would have some disk corruption in my favour :P

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

gizmo686 14y ago

>You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site. Thanks, I was not aware that I found that hypothetical sight repulsive. What I do find repulsive is the idea that I should repulsed by something which "utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important", When I am not the one who determined that the 'thing' in question is very important. What you described in your imaginary site sounds like a product for people wishing to engage in casual sex. It provides a service to record previous partners, and presumably help find new ones. It also provides a service as a background check for partners by showing you reviews from others they were with, as well as "heads up"s. Planned support for Geotags, which seems good as sex tends to be a geographically bound activity (in-airplane geo-tags seem unnecessary though). If I want to link the physical act of sex, which I do for physical pleasure, with the emotional experience of a strong, personal relationship, than I would probably not use a service designed around the premise that I would be having sex casually, with many partners. But why should I want to make that connection?

spartango 14y ago

Notably, a lower-tech version of this social dynamic (particular the sexual version) appeared in a high school in California this year[1]. We think of these things as incredibly immature and disrespectful, but it appears that they happen anyway. [1]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133713n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133713n

gwillen 14y ago
These stories are perennial in the media. They are inevitably exaggerated or outright fake. Remember, their sources are kids who are bored and want to be on TV.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Yep, like http://www.snopes.com/risque/school/bracelet.asp http://www.snopes.com/risque/school/bracelet.asp or "rainbow parties". Kids also enjoy pranking the media.

abozi 14y ago

relax mate. I don't think the majority of humanity is so dumb enough to be bought into the whole social hype, each time someone creates another "Facebook for ABC" online. Sure, it doesn't help when senseless media and VCs hype it up even more so, but most of us don't really buy into it. FB, Twitter etc should be just natural extensions to our real social life (plus a little bit more). Taking things too far as you did on your blog assumes that we'll just buy ourselves into these crap.

petegrif 14y ago

Sounded pretty cool. Just one gripe. He forgot the 'like' button.

gmisra 14y ago

It's all a matter of perspective, e.g an accurate sexual behavior network would be of tremendous value to epidemiologists and public health practitioners, not to mention when people need to notify former partners about disease diagnoses. The core argument here appears to be the "cheapening" of experience driven by "social", without any acknowledgement that social also enables new experiences. Sure, facebook has cheapened the value of remembering a friend's birthday, but it has also enabled more immediate involvement with friend's who you don't get to see that often (geography, parenting, loner-ism, etc). "Social" changes all kinds of things. It's consequences are far-reaching, and we're just barely starting to figure them out. The advent of the automobile "cheapened" travel experiences, but also made travel accessible to the masses, not to mention a slew of modern conveniences. As a society we're still trying to find the right balance for how we use cars (greenhouse gases, near-surface pollution, exurban isolation, etc). People who write "cars are ruining society" essays don't actually contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way. To be dismissive of all things social based on such a small sample of human experience feels short-sighted (and out of place in a technology-oriented discussion community). Aside: The closing reference to Philip Larkin is amusing, as he was a racist and misogynist. He decried the "backward" steps post-WWII society was taking with regards civil rights.

grellas 14y ago

That which is shallow but useful can have its legitimate place in life, though it lacks character: a daily commute on the freeway might suck, and might not match the joy and invigoration of a brisk walk on a beautiful day, but it has its place if you need to get to work miles away and if your area lacks public transportation to get you there efficiently; living in the suburbs might suck compared to the excitement of an upscale urban environment but millions of people manage just fine with the tradeoffs that suburban living entails and get by just fine without the excitement; so too social networking sucks when compared to any one of countless ways of interacting that are intimate, personal, intellectually stimulating, or whatever, and for which the strictures of the social network have no room, but all sorts of people nonetheless get by very well interacting at the social networking level for the utilitarian goals for which they use such services, not caring one whit about intimacy or other elements that make the experience a fundamentally shallow one. Social may be shallow but it has its place and, as long as we have freedom, you can use it or not according to taste. One can find fault with it but that does not mean it has a "horrible future." Criticism of this sort is thus misplaced, in my view, in spite of the limitations of the venue.

siganakis 14y ago
I think that the bigger problem is when people begin using "social networking" while they are actually doing the intimate, stimulating, exciting things in real life - either looking for validation or because its easier to bury your head in your phone than it is to participate in social interactions. For example, checking Facebook while out at dinner with friends, or uploading photos of a party while you are at the party. What could possibly be happening on the internet that is more important than being out with friends? Fair enough if you want to check facebook while you are waiting on a train killing time, but when you are actually doing the things you hope to be reading about on Facebook/Twitter/Intagram, something seems very wrong.
- lathamcity 14y ago
  I was watching some video the other day where Jon Stewart made a random appearance. All the people around him had their phones out taking pictures of him instead of actually experiencing him being there. It was like proving to other people that they'd had an awesome experience was more important than actually having that experience. Or like they were going through life as tourists, making sure they checked every box and shared it all with other people to make them jealous. "Been within five feet of a major celebrity - check".

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

zabuni 14y ago

1) Isn't this grindr for straight people? 2) Coming from my first point, a much better article about the potential pitfalls of socializing parts of our inner lives (with real live examples) can be seen here: http://narrative.ly/2012/10/lost-in-space/ http://narrative.ly/2012/10/lost-in-space/ It's not as negative, but there still is a hell of a lot to not look forward to.

lnanek2 14y ago

I guess it's a nice thing about the internet that people can be disgusted by casual sex like the author and not realize there's a vibrant set of sites and people who are totally into it. He can have his own set of internet sites he visits, etc.. The various sex social networks are pretty damn useful if you want to help sort out who on the internet will actually meetup and who is just an online scammer, which are endless on less complex sites like craigslist, so they really have a powerful utility for people looking to get laid casually.

illuminate 14y ago
I must be in the minority for not thinking he was referring to Adult Friendfinder, Fetlife, or Grindr with this. I saw it more as Zyngafication. Pop-ups and badges and er, ahem, viral aspects and "achievements".

conroe64 14y ago

The Horrible Future of Blogging. I give you, the professional complainer...

peteforde 14y ago

If he'd described a social gamification platform for serial killers or rapists, I'd be "disgusted". Truth is that I had a girlfriend that was tracking her orgasms on a freaking leaderboard in 2004. I'm not sure I was shocked by it then. Frankly, I don't mind people checking in on their phones in social situations so long as they are discreet and I'm not talking with them at the very moment. I can appreciate why others might feel differently, but I'm secretly relieved that I've been given implicit permission to check my email, too. You can pretend like that's a horrible way to live, but I do just fine socially. I'm glad I'm addicted to email and not smoking cigarettes.

Mizza 14y ago

If you sympathize with the author, you may enjoy reading _The Society of the Spectacle_ by Guy Debord, a classic criticism of society in the era of mass media. I think it would be very good if more people from around these parts read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

taybin 14y ago

Or you do what I do. Grow older, have a kid, and only login in to sporadically see the photos your wife posts of your child. I've tuned it out. I suspect other people as they get older will too.

jeremymcanally 14y ago

I see this every time I go to Disney World (I live nearby). It's almost impossible to enjoy a single ride or fireworks show without a ton of people videoing the whole thing or taking horrible pictures of it with a smart device of some sort. Rather than enjoying it and capturing some deep memory of a moment with their family, they have their face stuck in a digital device capturing a crude facsimile of the experience that they will likely never look at ever again. I will never forget when a dad was trying to get a good shot of Cinderella Castle and totally missed out on their daughter meeting a princess (I think Tiana from Princess and the Frog was walking over to her character spot or something) for the first time. Hugely important moment for his daughter completely and utterly squandered in chasing this lifecasted copy of life. She was excitedly jumping up and down and waving to and got a big hug from the princess, and her dad was swatting her off at first, then completely ignoring her. I've lived here (Orlando) for two years and it's only getting worse. I've almost given up on being able to ride Pirates of the Carribbean and being able to experience it the way the Imagineers wanted you to. The constant flash and glowing screens from people posting pictures of the Jack Sparrow animatronic on Facebook completely ruin it. Fireworks are an exercise in frustration as some joker always sticks his iPad in the air to try to capture a picture. When the first one looks terrible (as they all do), he tries over and over and over. By the time he's frustrated enough that he's not getting good pictures, the show is over and he's just missed the whole thing. It's depressing to think how many other experiences people are cheapening and/or missing out on simply because they feel some weird compulsion to SHARE the experience with others rather than LIVE it.

icebraining 14y ago
That's just a phase 'till lifecasting becomes commonplace.
takluyver 14y ago
The bit about fireworks resonates especially: unless you've got good equipment and know how to use it, photos/videos of fireworks are almost always rubbish. The whole point is that they're huge, loud, dramatic and fleeting - none of which you can easily record.
rjbond3rd 14y ago

coffeemug 14y ago

I was more amused than repulsed by the description, and I thought quite a few people would probably end up using this product if it existed. To paraphrase George Costanza, if I were a different person, I could see myself using it. What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important. It doesn't cheapen anything. Making love is just for fun for most young people, and then most of them grow up to be pleasantly surprised to discover a depth to life that they were unaware of before. A product like this doesn't change the attitude people have towards sex in the first place. Of course some people never discover that same depth, or perhaps discover something else that others don't see. That's fine too. The attitude of "I see depth to life that the morons [watching football/using social/smoking marijuana/insert activity here] don't see" is really the 21st century version of the inquisition. A lot less bloody, perhaps, but still very counterproductive to social (pun intended!) development.

theorique 14y ago
Good points. What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important. Translation: I see other people doing something in a way that I don't like. This is wrong and their values are wrong. This makes me feel funny. They should not do as they do. Instead, they should do as I do. Then they will be right, like me.
- bloaf 14y ago
  It will truly be a brave new world when people are expected to not stand up for their own values. “Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference which is an elegant name for ignorance.” ― G.K. Chesterton
  - theorique 14y ago
    Big difference between saying "I find that unpleasant and I prefer not to participate in it" and "that is a terrible thing and no one should participate in it". In the case of an activity which harms no one, I prefer to skew toward the former. Standing up for your own values is fine and good. The part I was objecting to was the OP (1) making the assumption in his article in his article that everyone reading also shared his values and (2) suggesting that those values ought to apply for everyone, not just himself.

ludicast 14y ago

He's right * 100. Some of us can't understand being "internet social" just to get us more fake friends with fake laughs. Your grandpa didn't need to update his status every 10 minutes and he was the fucking man.

Reebz 14y ago

This article is hugely exaggerated. Once all is said and done, you're simply attaching more relevant data to a photo which helps remember important moments. My grandparent's photo albums and scrapbooks have now been replaced by my TimeHops and SnapJoys.

danboarder 14y ago

"In the old world products were scarce - this meant that companies who provided product could profit from the demand. In the digital world, where abundance is key (creating a digital copy costs next to nothing) it is a customer's attention that has become scarce. This means that the customer now holds the value - not the company." - Chris Saad Some people did see this commoditisation of human behavior coming back in 2005 and promoted the idea of the 'Attention Economy' which had a goal of putting people back in control of the content they create and view online with tools like the Attention Recorder from Attention Trust (now defunct, but you can read about it here http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Trust http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Trust ). The current idea of social is to capture much more than eyeballs and clicks of course, with checkins for places, Runkeeper and many other health apps for tracking/sharing activities, and so on... nearly everything we do is a potential data point for commercialization that a startup will want to capitalize on. This is fine if the user clearly understands the relationship. I expect it was too early when the 'Attention Economy' ideas emerged but now perhaps we'll see projects that resurrect some of that early work and build on it to empower users of social tools to take control of both their attention and the data points they are sharing. addl reading: http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Economy http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Economy

theorique 14y ago

You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site. But not because of some prudish reasons, not even because it had to do with sex. No. You were repulsed because sex.ly violates something very deep and fundamental about humanity. But what, in particular? Mind read much? My feeling upon reading this was hardly the horror that the writer anticipated. Probably more of a "meh, it takes all kinds". I can see this being a private, niche site for swingers or exhibitionists. Most people probably wouldn't go for it. But that doesn't make it wrong or horrible or the emblem of what is, in the author's mind, wrong with social media. Reduction ad absurdum fail.

X-Istence 14y ago
These websites already exist. Fetlife, Adult Friend Finder, Bedpost and others. That isn't even counting all of the sub-reddits dedicated to this in some way shape or form. Honestly I wasn't repulsed, I was intrigued and interested in seeing how this social network sets itself apart from the rest of them. Not sure why the author tried to tell me that I was repulsed when I wasn't.
- theorique 14y ago
  Good point. Yes, such sites do exist, and they serve a niche demographic of people who are interested in 'alt' sexuality. People who do their own thing and don't hurt anyone else The aggressive moralizing in the OP biased me against any otherwise good message in his blog post.

D_Alex 14y ago

Sex.ly for YC '13!

rglover 14y ago

This reminds me of One of my favorite moments in the past couple of years is when I went to see Joanna Newsom in concert. Just before she sat down to perform, the host for the theatre said "now, I want you all to put your cameras down and your cell phones. Really enjoy the music. You can tell everyone how it was after the show. Seriously, this a real experience and you don't want to miss it taking pictures." Everyone in the audience put away their phones/cameras almost immediately. The result? You could actually see people enjoying the music; not just bragging about being there.

FredBrach 14y ago

"No. What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important." I would say: it "logical-ize" it - in the computing meaning of the "term". And here come the question: is it good? Maybe no because the logic of such an app is a cheap one but maybe yes because it becomes more logical in the sense of rational. "What is so attractive with this logic is that.. it is logic" - Triumph of the Nerds

imsofuture 14y ago

This is ~6 years too late.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

dools 14y ago

I often think the same thing about cheaply available photography. What was tourism like before cameras? Whatever he's talking about has already happened.

lockes5hadow 14y ago

I thought this was called adultfriendfinder?

JacksonGariety 14y ago

This article addresses a simple fact of life, where there is energy, people will try to create something there. Lots of people are making things for the internet. "The horrible future of social" isn't bad. It means the internet is so great that we have all kinds of people making all kinds of things. If it truly has no value, people won't use it. This is the reason McDonald's exists, it isn't new or unique to social.

allaun1 14y ago

Wow, While trying to see reactions to the word hate, I saw ALOT of whatever statements. o.0 Anyway, I didn't hate the idea. In fact, it seems kind of interesting. I really do believe his reaction is completely cultural. Sex is doesn't need to be kept a secret. And his reaction seems to be that. Privacy is rather outmoded concept, at least when you can find anything about anyone at at anytime. Given a month and some meager resources, you could find a lot about a person. Humans aren't random. We are completely traceable, to a point where anything we do is predictable on a scatter plot.

zerostar07 14y ago

I find it funny when people protest about the way social sites cheapen life experiences. Somehow it is assumed that people have an innate need for privacy. Privacy is mostly social conditioning (have you seen kids playing?). Social sites bring forward that repressed part of the human nature because they give incentives, but the drive is always there. Its just human nature, revealed. People say that they are repulsed when the curtain is lifted but who says that that isn't social conditioning too?

illuminate 14y ago
"Somehow it is assumed that people have an innate need for privacy." It makes me sad that someone with your attitude will probably end up an employee of a Social site, if you aren't already.
- zerostar07 14y ago
  Nice ad hominem and public display of self righteousness, care to respond in a civil grown up and rational manner?
  - illuminate 14y ago
    It is not an ad hominem to be disappointed that some still believe that the desire for control over one's own privacy is an entitlement, not a right. I am not "uncivil, immature, and irrational" simply because your personal opinion differs from mine.

someone_welsh 14y ago

I generally recommend watching "black mirror" - a funny 3 episode satirical tv thing which is about this very topic. it's worth people's time

replayzero 14y ago

I liken online social experience to that of looking a window. A window has two main viewing states. You can either look 'at' a window, or you can look 'through' a window. huh? What the hell does this have to do with social networking? Social networking is not the beginning of social. Experience is the beginning of social, social is just a way to share and solicit experiences. So with this in mind, what are the different types of 'experience' going on in the window analogy. Looking "through" the window is being in the moment, looking through the glass and seeing the world without the frame, taking experiences as they come and letting them exist inside of you as memories, allowing them to shape you and then letting that change in character effect others. Through is just living and being. Looking "at" the window is seeing the glass, seeing the frame and putting all experience through a context. The context here is the social capital or the commodification of that experience for in order to enhance perception of self. 'At' is translating all experience into trade-able emotional commodity. If you live in the 'at' state you live in a "what used to need to be seen, now needs to be shared to be believed." Experiences become worthless unless A) you can prove that they happened, B) that you can show it to someone. Just my thoughts

tehwalrus 14y ago

the closing comments are much like Dylan Moran's rant about cameras (warning, typical foul language): Would you please - stop - taking - pictures - on your tiny - annoying (whispering) fucking camera. This is happening to you in real time, you are having the experience. It's not much point to verify that you were at the event when you're actually here. (quote taken from http://funnycomedianquotes.com/funny-dylan-moran-jokes-and-quotes.html?p=9 http://funnycomedianquotes.com/funny-dylan-moran-jokes-and-q... but I can't seem to link directly to it.) The quote as I remember it live was slightly different, something about not living your life because you were too busy filming it for youtube.

maked00 14y ago

Way to go, I am sure some crass go getter is staking this concept out as we speak.

wasulahewa 14y ago

Might not have the same specs but close, http://www.guyskeepscore.com/ http://www.guyskeepscore.com/

axx 14y ago

I'm so going to build sex.ly!

otakucode 14y ago

Heh. The author is completely wrong. Sex is not something important. It is a basic human bodily function, alongside eating and sleeping. For nearly the entirety of our evolution, sex was used primarily for bonding, its reproductive role is rare in comparison. It most certainly is a prudish view that sex should be hidden away out of some misguided belief that it makes it 'special'. We could treat eating the same way. Never admit you eat, or if you do only speak of it in terms of immature titillation and euphemisms. When you do eat, never do it with anyone else, not even friends you consider very close, because that would somehow taint everything. There is at least one culture that adopted this exact view, their views on eating mirroring our with regards to sex. Eating with someone you are not married to was considered highly taboo, while having sex with various people for fun was understood as something so fundamentally human that restricting access to it would be impossible. And ignoring whatever moral implications the culture you grew up in pounded into you as a child, just consider the basic biological matters. Abstinence is horrendously dangerous to health. Ever read a news story about how 'sex reduces the chance of heart attack by one half', 'frequent orgasms extend life', etc? Those stories are interpreting fact from a prudish perspective that limits sex severely. View the exact same facts from a perspective of frequent sex as part of basic human interaction and the headlines would read 'abstinence doubles the chance of heart attack', 'orgasm starvation cuts years off life', etc. There is good biological evidence that human beings evolved having sex after nearly every meal, along with sleeping in two blocks rather than one. The real kicker is the origin and reason behind why we believe sex should be hidden and that it is somehow 'special'. That was invented in the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that, no one in the lower class even had private bedrooms. Families slept, and screwed, in common rooms. They had to import views on sex from cultures with dowries, and children being viewed as the property of their fathers making sex a property crime against the father. And we preserve a remarkable amount of this framework even though we don't recall where it came from. None of their motivations exist any longer. We have effective birth control, and we have evidence for the suffering attempts to destroy sex cause. Eventually, hopefully, as a culture we'll grow up enough to ask ourselves what evidence we have that sex is somehow 'special' and what consequences such a view inflicts on people.

cherkoff 14y ago

http://www.guyskeepscore.com/ http://www.guyskeepscore.com/