5 ms·

As a user of snapchat, I've found unexpected value in the type of interaction it offers. My entire family is on it: we communicate visually daily where we never

As a user of snapchat, I've found unexpected value in the type of interaction it offers. My entire family is on it: we communicate visually daily where we never communicated before. We don't have to worry about making the communication high quality or meaningful because it's ephemeral; the fact that the communication is happening at all is high quality and meaningful. If it's replaced, whatever comes next will probably be informed by the human way in which snapchat communicates, and hopefully will build on the idea. Just think of it as a mobile translation of a core communication concept: simply looking at someone and talking to them, which is by nature visual and ephemeral. Snapchat captures some of the core emotions and psychology there that nothing else before it had. Just saying—the instinct is to see Snapchat as useless and valueless and an enigma of popularity and hive mentality. I don't think it is.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>We don't have to worry about making the communication high quality or meaningful because it's ephemeral; the fact that the communication is happening at all is high quality and meaningful. Wow. There is value in a service because it enables meaningless communication. Is this what it's come to? Perhaps it's a problem that your family didn't communicate before Snapchat. Perhaps it would be better to address that, rather than substitute meaningless communication, then call it good. Perhaps Snapchat is making you feel better now, but leaving you worse off in the long run--kind of like heroin. The more you use it, the emptier you feel. >Snapchat captures some of the core emotions and psychology there that nothing else before it had. How about actually taking time to visit with people and talk to them? How about having actual experiences with them? Do these capture core emotions? What is this idea that every human or social function has to have an app or be captured in a product (and monetized)? Why does the act of filling our human needs require interception and redirection for the sake of profit? Snapchat is just one in a sea of products (including media, celebrity worship, reality shows, etc.) aimed at making life a series of distractions from the emptiness and meaninglessness that haunt us. Of course, these very distractions in lieu of pursuing thoughtful, meaningful lives and quality relationships leave us feeling even emptier; thus ever hungrier for the next distraction. A vicious cycle if ever there was one. Snapchat is an empty tool of distraction, that happens to fit a culture which is pushing itself to crave ever more of the same. Period. Trying to credit it for filling some deep emotional need is like crediting the iceberg's mass for later slowing the Titanic's sinking. Snapchat isn't the solution for what ails us. It's the cause of it.
- nl 13y ago
  Wow. There is value in a service because it enables meaningless communication. Is this what it's come to? Err, it has always been thus. Even non-human social animals like chimpanzees use "meaningless communication" to reinforce social bonds. How about actually taking time to visit with people and talk to them? How about having actual experiences with them? Do these capture core emotions? What is this idea that every human or social function has to have an app or be captured in a product (and monetized)? Why does the act of filling our human needs require interception and redirection for the sake of profit? What gives you the right to be so judgemental? In the 19th century people thought civilisation was built letter writing, and latter the telephone call. Communication is the essence of society, and that communication can take many forms. Daring to impose your own views of how communication should be done is to attempt to impose your own view of society on others. Also: HN. Internet Forum. Why exactly aren't we taking time to visit with people and talk[ing]?
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >Even non-human social animals like chimpanzees use "meaningless communication" to reinforce social bonds. Reinforce, not supplant. Note that the grandparent mentioned that his family never communicated. Now they are happy with their "improved" meaningless communication. Generally speaking, what are we giving up and what are we gaining by redirecting more and more of our interactions and relationships through these new channels? Are we really supplementing meaningful interaction, or are we replacing it? >What gives you the right to be so judgemental? What gives me the right to an opinion? I suppose the same thing that gives you the right to a counter-opinion. >Daring to impose your own views of how communication should be done is to attempt to impose your own view of society on others Ditto. You think we're moving in the right direction. I do not. Why am I the one who is imposing views? Why isn't it you? Why isn't it the companies who seek to change the way we communicate for their own profit? In fact, you are the ones who are arguing for change. If anything, I am questioning the change that you are "imposing" on me. I would encourage you to be a little more thougthtful about your position. And, surely, you can think of moments in history when whole societies were moving in the wrong direction until a few "judgemental" people recognized it and "imposed their views" for the ultimate betterment of society as a whole? Do you really want to argue that we should all just go along like unthinking lemmings without questioning our direction? >HN. Internet Forum. Why exactly aren't we taking time to visit with people and talk[ing]? That's pedantic and trite. Surely you don't really believe that I am arguing that we should all unplug our telephones and abolish the Internet. Surely you don't believe that is the only remedy to the problem I presented.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

>We don't have to worry about making the communication high quality or meaningful because it's ephemeral; the fact that the communication is happening at all is high quality and meaningful. Wow. There is value in a service because it enables meaningless communication. Is this what it's come to? Perhaps it's a problem that your family didn't communicate before Snapchat. Perhaps it would be better to address that, rather than substitute meaningless communication, then call it good. Perhaps Snapchat is making you feel better now, but leaving you worse off in the long run--kind of like heroin. The more you use it, the emptier you feel. >Snapchat captures some of the core emotions and psychology there that nothing else before it had. How about actually taking time to visit with people and talk to them? How about having actual experiences with them? Do these capture core emotions? What is this idea that every human or social function has to have an app or be captured in a product (and monetized)? Why does the act of filling our human needs require interception and redirection for the sake of profit? Snapchat is just one in a sea of products (including media, celebrity worship, reality shows, etc.) aimed at making life a series of distractions from the emptiness and meaninglessness that haunt us. Of course, these very distractions in lieu of pursuing thoughtful, meaningful lives and quality relationships leave us feeling even emptier; thus ever hungrier for the next distraction. A vicious cycle if ever there was one. Snapchat is an empty tool of distraction, that happens to fit a culture which is pushing itself to crave ever more of the same. Period. Trying to credit it for filling some deep emotional need is like crediting the iceberg's mass for later slowing the Titanic's sinking. Snapchat isn't the solution for what ails us. It's the cause of it.

nl 13y ago
Wow. There is value in a service because it enables meaningless communication. Is this what it's come to? Err, it has always been thus. Even non-human social animals like chimpanzees use "meaningless communication" to reinforce social bonds. How about actually taking time to visit with people and talk to them? How about having actual experiences with them? Do these capture core emotions? What is this idea that every human or social function has to have an app or be captured in a product (and monetized)? Why does the act of filling our human needs require interception and redirection for the sake of profit? What gives you the right to be so judgemental? In the 19th century people thought civilisation was built letter writing, and latter the telephone call. Communication is the essence of society, and that communication can take many forms. Daring to impose your own views of how communication should be done is to attempt to impose your own view of society on others. Also: HN. Internet Forum. Why exactly aren't we taking time to visit with people and talk[ing]?
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Even non-human social animals like chimpanzees use "meaningless communication" to reinforce social bonds. Reinforce, not supplant. Note that the grandparent mentioned that his family never communicated. Now they are happy with their "improved" meaningless communication. Generally speaking, what are we giving up and what are we gaining by redirecting more and more of our interactions and relationships through these new channels? Are we really supplementing meaningful interaction, or are we replacing it? >What gives you the right to be so judgemental? What gives me the right to an opinion? I suppose the same thing that gives you the right to a counter-opinion. >Daring to impose your own views of how communication should be done is to attempt to impose your own view of society on others Ditto. You think we're moving in the right direction. I do not. Why am I the one who is imposing views? Why isn't it you? Why isn't it the companies who seek to change the way we communicate for their own profit? In fact, you are the ones who are arguing for change. If anything, I am questioning the change that you are "imposing" on me. I would encourage you to be a little more thougthtful about your position. And, surely, you can think of moments in history when whole societies were moving in the wrong direction until a few "judgemental" people recognized it and "imposed their views" for the ultimate betterment of society as a whole? Do you really want to argue that we should all just go along like unthinking lemmings without questioning our direction? >HN. Internet Forum. Why exactly aren't we taking time to visit with people and talk[ing]? That's pedantic and trite. Surely you don't really believe that I am arguing that we should all unplug our telephones and abolish the Internet. Surely you don't believe that is the only remedy to the problem I presented.