TechCrunch Argues Social Media News Feeds 'Need to Die' (techcrunch.com)

"Feeds need to die because they distort our views and disconnect us from other human beings around us," argues TechCrunch's Romain Dillet: At first, I thought I was missing out on some Very Important Content. I felt disconnected. I fought against my own FOMO. But now, I don't feel anything. What's going on on Instagram? I don't care. Facebook is now the worst internet forum you can find. Twitter is filled with horrible, abusive people. Instagram has become a tiny Facebook now that it has discouraged all the weird, funny accounts from posting with its broken algorithm. LinkedIn's feed is pure spam.

And here's what I realized after forgetting about all those "social" networks. First, they're tricking you and pushing the right buttons to make you check your feed just one more time. They all use thirsty notifications, promote contrarian posts that get a lot of engagement and play with your emotions. Posting has been gamified and you want to check one more time if you got more likes on your last Instagram photo. Everything is now a story so that you pay more attention to your phone and you get bored less quickly -- moving pictures with sound tend to attract your eyes... [F]inally, I realized that I was missing out by constantly checking all my feeds. By putting my phone on 'Do Not Disturb' for days, I discovered new places, started conversations and noticed tiny little things that made me smile.
He concludes that technology has improved the way we learn, communicate, and share information, "But it has gone too far...

"Forget about your phone for a minute, look around and talk with people next to you."

Comments

Yes, they do!

[DaMattster]

Social Media Newsfeeds need to die an ugly death! They do distort reality and are really psychologically toxic.

Re:Yes, they do!

[PopeRatface]

With luck, Social Media will die along with it.

Re:Yes, they do!

[justthinkit]

Interesting how GP post gets a +5 and P post gets a -1.

"ICE car exhaust needs to die: +5. ICE cars need to die: -1"

Re:Yes, they do!

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I have seen some very useful or pleasant things on my FB feed, and it's consistently from only a handful of people. So I have unfollowed nearly everyone in my friend list except those handful of people and it's working OK for me.

But I agree. Instead of the feed I'd rather see thumbnails of the people I follow, ordered in some combination of how frequently they post, how often I read them, and some randomness, with ability for me to move those profile up and down the list. Then I'd hover over their profile and see what they posted, and maybe click on something. That would be ideal. Maybe someone can make a firefox/chrome extension...?

Re:Yes, they do!

[thinkwaitfast]

When you figure it out, it's easy to manipulate rating systems. I used to do this for fun on reddit. I got bored and haven't done it in a while, but on a thread I was able to do things like get both top and bottom scores using the same comment, get massively high scores and massively low scores. A lot ha to do with understanding how memes and beliefs (the sacred cows) are used. Timing is also very important.

It was fun and I could get just about any karma I wanted, but also somewhat scary in how easy it was to swing opinion...almost like people had none of their own and had to be told what to think.

Re:Yes, they do!

[Rob Y.]

Or at least they need to start being actual news feeds. Only showing you stuff you asked to see - or at least, if it must include ads, clearly labeling them as ads.

And this shit about every shopping site you visit haunting you on Facebook for the next month has got to go. There needs to be some kind of "FaceOff" movement - where huge numbers of Facebook users agree to stop using the site on certain days to demonstrate that Facebook is nothing without us. And then, maybe voting on a set of demands for what Facebook can and can't do if it wants us to keep using it.

A good start might be to limit the number of posts you can comment on in a day (other that posts from your known friends) - and maybe the sheer number of comments too. Something to keep the trolls in check.

Re:Yes, they do!

[amiga3D]

I solved the overload problem by simply taking all the social media apps off my phone. Now, unless I decide to sit down at a computer I can not get immersed in the cult. I will usually sit down and look through twitter feeds for the day, make a few tweets and retweets and then move on. I ditched Facebook entirely and got rid of 90 percent of my SPAM. I'm astounded at all the people standing, walking and leaning on something furiously tapping away at their phones. Mine is in my pocket most of the time now.

Re:Yes, they do!

[Dayze!Confused]

Same here. And I sleep better at night too! I occasionally check, but realize every time that the notifications are just spam, someone I might have followed commented on a post I know something about? Fuck that. Now those occasions are getting fewer and further between. Some day I will go through and figure out which websites I have Facebook authentication with and remove it. Once that is done, download all my FB data and delete the account.

Re:Yes, they do!

[Cyberax]

Or at least they need to start being actual news feeds. Only showing you stuff you asked to see - or at least, if it must include ads, clearly labeling them as ads.

Nope. "The stuff you asked to see" is THE problem with the social media. You just become insulated in your bubble and it just keeps being reinforced. The old time news used to include all kinds of opinions.

Re:Yes, they do!

[markdavis]

>"I solved the overload problem by simply taking all the social media apps off my phone. Now, unless I decide to sit down at a computer I can not get immersed in the cult."

+1 good job! I wish more people would at LEAST do that- get rid of social media on their phones. People can be so incredibly rude and mindless with their eyes constantly glued to a phone all day long.

Myself, I have never even HAD any social media accounts (other than Slashdot and a few forums, which I only access from home on my desktop computer, at a time of my choosing). Why? Because I knew in advance it was something that was full of strife, pettiness, and nonsense coupled with severe privacy invasion and distraction.

And Email- that doesn't go to my phone, either. I have a work account and a few home accounts, and I access them from desktops when I am ready and want to, a few times a day.

I would hate to feel compelled to constantly look at my phone or respond to crap. My sanity is worth more to me than that... looks like it is for you, too. :)

Re:Yes, they do!

[amiga3D]

Yes, I enjoy twitter much more now. All things in moderation.

Re:Yes, they do!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

With luck, Social Media will die along with it.

Let us hope.

It's funny, because "social media" is about the least "social" thing I've ever seen. As far as I can tell, Facebook and Twitter exist primarily to give friends, family, and strangers a new place to fight over trivial shit.

Facebook's motto should be, "We're Here To Make You Feel Inferior", and Twitter's motto should be, "Twitter: The Confetti of the Internet".

Re:Yes, they do!

[jellomizer]

It is called crossing a line.
Most extreamest come up because they take a good idea or at least a good intent and then bring it too far, thus become annoying at best or a bunch of murderers at worse.
Because the world is far more complex for these simple answers, that has to be absolute.

Re:Yes, they do!

[TheRaven64]

Here's a first step: Stop referring to advertising platforms[1] as 'social media'. This is probably the most impressive advertising success in recent decades. A set of companies have managed to get a positive-sounding term attached to their product to such an extent that all mainstream media use it. It's as if tobacco companies had managed to get 'happiness products' used as the generic term for all of their wares.

[1] I'm being generous here: psychological manipulation platforms might be a better term: their sole reason for existing is to build a detailed psychological profile that can be used to manipulate you. The most benign use of this is to try to influence you to favour a particular brand over another.

Re:Yes, they do!

[zidium]

Teach me!

Re:Yes, they do!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Here's a first step: Stop referring to advertising platforms[1] as 'social media'. This is probably the most impressive advertising success in recent decades.

An excellent point. These services are little more than advertising channels that people can participate in (to their detriment).

Re:Yes, they do!

[jedidiah]

I had my FB feed nicely split into various groups based on subject and location. I could check in on various groups based on how I met them or topic. It greatly improved the signal/noise ratio. Of course FB promptly buried this.

Re:Yes, they do!

[wyHunter]

And you might as well call it 'antisocial media.' How is it being social sitting and staring at a screen rather than talking to people in person? Yes, I know you can connect with folks far away - but it's all in your head, on a screen, not real.

Re:Yes, they do!

[thinkwaitfast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Yes, they do!

[Rick Schumann]

So-called 'social media' in general needs to die. It is a CANCER for our species. It does not 'bring people together', it gives then reasons to stay apart, encouraging the absolute worst behavior that humans can exhibit, de-humanizing everyone, turning everyone into just words on a screen, totally disregarding the 'social contract' that keeps our civilization glued together. Watch this last weeks' episode of The Orville and you'll see the logical extrapolation of what so-called 'social media' could do to our species and to our world, it's pretty goddamned ugly. Eschew 'social media' and be social with people in the real world instead.

Re:Yes, they do!

[kaatochacha]

just to let you know, I'm stealing your mottos. Thanks!

Re:Yes, they do!

[kaatochacha]

social media or The Orville. I'm not sure which is worse.

Re:Yes, they do!

[Dread_ed]

Social mining is my term.

Put humans in a sandbox. Time every finger flick, every pause, every hover, every click. Record the same. Xor and diff similar aggregates after contradictory stimulus is posted to their wall and is subsequently hovered or clicked. Do the same with reinforcing stimulus. Record every word of every post. Analyze it over the years, creating a timeline of views and ideas. Look for word choice additions and changes after specifically crafted content is consumed. Get intentional. Record A is exposed to posts with X, Y and Z. Record B is exposed to posts with B, C, and A. In addition to all of the other metrics, examine their tone, mood, and content generated post exposure. Rate records according to their ability to be influenced, reactivity, introversion, tilt, etc. Correlate this to educational background, location, family size, marital/relationship status, self-admitted medical data, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Build a predictive index. Test it. Test it again. Break it intentionally. Rebuild it from the broken parts. Now grow it in a neural network. Rinse, repeat, from the top, now with machine learning.

I'm not even trying to be evil with this and it looks evil as fuck. If FB's objective was directed more toward domination instead of softselling their "services" as an advertiser we would all be strapped into chairs wearing VR headsets awaiting our weekly intermittent release to perform fellatio on Zuckerberg. Thank god for greedy fucks. They have to leave us some autonomy or we couldn't go out and earn their money for them.

Re:Yes, they do!

[painandgreed]

Or at least they need to start being actual news feeds. Only showing you stuff you asked to see - or at least, if it must include ads, clearly labeling them as ads.

Nope. "The stuff you asked to see" is THE problem with the social media. You just become insulated in your bubble and it just keeps being reinforced. The old time news used to include all kinds of opinions.

The old time news maybe, but probably not today's news. Most people are into listening to the echo chamber of their choice as far as mainstream news sources go. If they are interested in getting actual news from relatively unbiased news sources, they're already doing it and will be using those sources in their feeds also.

Re:Yes, they do!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

just to let you know, I'm stealing your mottos. Thanks!

Use them freely and with abandon. :)

Cheers

Re:Yes, they do!

[Hognoxious]

The old time news used to include all kinds of opinions.

No it didn't.

Ironically

[Waffle Iron]

A news feed is telling me that news feeds must die.

Re:Ironically

[Jzanu]

Inception! This is an actual problem that is fairly well researched but ignored by many for the sake of profit and others for the sake of more comfortable ignorance.

Re: Ironically

[Zero__Kelvin]

There is no irony since you did not get it from a social media news feed, and it did not say all news feeds, but rather social media ones.

Re: Ironically

[Waffle Iron]

Ironically, you're arguing that this is not a social media website by using the very features that define a social media website.

Re: Ironically

[Zero__Kelvin]

Slashdot existed more than a decade before the first social media site. The true irony here is that you are posting on Slashdot, a site for people with strong technical knowledge, and are so clueless about technology that you think you are using a social media site.

Re: Ironically

[Waffle Iron]

Slashdot was one of the first social media websites. Just because it existed before the term was coined doesn't change that. The Wikipedia article defines social media as having the following four characterisics:

1. Social media are interactive Web 2.0 Internet-based applications.
2. User-generated content, such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through all online interactions, are the lifeblood of social media.
3. Users create service-specific profiles for the website or app that are designed and maintained by the social media organization.
4. Social media facilitate the development of online social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals or groups.

How does Slashdot compare?

1. Lame, but true.
2. Lame, but probably a slightly quality user content overall than Facebook, Twitter etc.
3. Lame, but true (user journals).
4. Lame, but true (friends and foes).

In summary, this is a lame social media site.

Re: Ironically

[sound vision]

I ran the world's first social media site back in about 1997, when I put a guestbook on my Geocities page.

Re: Ironically

[Known Nutter]

While Slashdot may (barely) meet wikipedia's technical definition, language evolves and I think a reasonable person would agree that, today, "social media" means social networking services such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, G+ (?), and instagram and not a news aggregator with a comments section.

When someone says " social media" nobody thinks "slashdot" -- nobody.

Re: Ironically

[RhettLivingston]

Given the choice of whether Slashdot is more news aggregator or more social media, I have to go with more social media. News aggregators don't typically have such an extremely low amount of aggregated news. Slashdot does because it attempts to post only the news worthy of discussion.

On a tech news aggregation site such as phys.org, arstechnica, cnet, etc. I rarely read the comments. They aren't the point.

The comments / discussions aren't an afterthought here, they are the point.

Re: Ironically

[Zero__Kelvin]

Slash, the code which powers slashdot.org literally cannot be a Web 2.0 based application, since it predates Web 2.0 by a decade. While they eventually tacked on a few features that nobody ever uses that is lipstick on a dirty, dirty pig. Nobody logs in to slashdot to post about their life, where they are, how much they enjoyed their "beautiful chocolate cake"photos, or anything else for that matter, about the social aspects of their life. In fact you can use Slashdot for your whole life without ever even creating a frigging account. Just as abcnews.com and npr.org are not social media, slashdot is not either. The reason every one of your points starts with lame is because that is what describes any attempt to argue in favor of the idea that Slashdot is a social media site.

Re: Ironically

[Zero__Kelvin]

You aren't given the choice. The fact that a lot of people go here for the comments is immaterial. There is no social aspect; in fact you would have a better chance of arguing that it is anti-social media. You can't use a social media platform without creating an account. The purpose of the site isn't to gather data on the user and their likes, habits, and whatever else they can sell. Shit, they don't even care what we like.

Re: Ironically

[RhettLivingston]

No good social site has as its purpose taking advantage of its users. The net has been a social media platform since before it was the web. Both newsgroups and BBSs were more effectively social and enjoyable than most social media platforms today. I would call most "social media" sites today anti-social because they've taken the substance out of the social exchange / discourse.

Re: Ironically

[Zero__Kelvin]

I see your confusion here. You are trying to (mis)define a social media site as something it is not. Social Media is at it's core about monetizing data extracted from users and user interactions. Users are not the customer, they are the commodity. It is an understandable if somewhat naive mistake. The target user of social media is people who don't understand this, while the target user of Slashdot is those who do understand.

Re:Ironically

[rtb61]

I think the broadness of news feed counts. Slashdot small more select, not a sole source, definitely different to the dominate affect of very large social media sites. Perhaps different rules and regulations for different numbers of active users. Really corporations should do zero censoring, the government only with the approval of the public and all done via courts to prove publicly the censoring was valid and certainly not corporate for profit censorship or corporations monitoring the public for their politics and targeting them when the person does not support the politics of the corporation. So open discussion of censoring and privacy invasion and data collection and corporate targeting you individually for what ever reason, we need some rules, just like they needed road rules to be implemented to reduce the numbers of deaths on roads.

Re: Ironically

[Wallace487]

Slashdot does not meet two social media requirements that I have not added to the wikipedia article yet. 1) Must have an app on both iOS an Android 2) Must allow photo uploads from the app.

Re: Ironically

[jedidiah]

Slashdot is a news aggregator. At best it's a more anonymous version of the classic BBS. A key difference with actual social media is that I know those people and they know me.

Even a classic BBS was far less anonymous because the audience was smaller and more localized. Even then it really wasn't "social media".

It was not a place to collect and interact with social contacts.

Neither is Slashdot.

Re: Ironically

[Kielistic]

There is no social aspect

I have an account with a karma ranking that affects how others see my posts. I can set other users to friend or enemy and affect how I see their posts.

You can't use a social media platform without creating an account.

You can go read Twitter all you want without an account. I guess it's not a social media platform?

You might be able to argue Slashdot to be some kind of proto social media network but you cannot outright deny it has social features.

Re: Ironically

[Zero__Kelvin]

Shut the fuck up you ignorant dickwad. Go send an anonymous tweet on instatwat and then suck on a big fat social feature dicksickle.

This isn't a tech miracle...

[AmazingRuss]

"Forget about your phone for a minute, look around and talk with people next to you." ... I was ignoring those people long before I got a phone. Now I can pretend to look at the phone, and it's less rude.

Re:This isn't a tech miracle...

[DogDude]

The phone helps mask your social disorders/psychological issues. Good for you!

Re:This isn't a tech miracle...

[AmazingRuss]

Since when is "I don't know you, and I don't care to" a psychological disorder?

Re:This isn't a tech miracle...

[brantondaveperson]

and it's less rude.

No it isn't.

Re:This isn't a tech miracle...

[jareth-0205]

The phone helps mask your social disorders/psychological issues. Good for you!

Try living in a city, and therefore interacting with several thousand people every single day. See how long you can keep that up.

Not everyone is a needy extrovert.

Re:This isn't a tech miracle...

[AmazingRuss]

Oh well... less boring then.

Re:This isn't a tech miracle...

[jedidiah]

> Since when is "I don't know you, and I don't care to" a psychological disorder?

Since all of the girls in the psych department are from the sorority affiliated with the jock frat.

Psychology is not much more than the imposition of an orthodoxy and that orthodoxy is based on what people in the psych department think of themselves.

Re:This isn't a tech miracle...

[Dread_ed]

"Psychology is not much more than the imposition of an orthodoxy and that orthodoxy is based on what people in the psych department think of themselves."

Or is it based on what people in the psych department think other people think about them, eh?

What Social Media?

[mschwanke97402]

Despite the G+ next to my *REAL* name, I don't have any Social Media account. Facebook tried to force one on me but I claimed it as mine only long enough to delete it. No SnapChat or Instagram either.

I prefer face to face, voice phone and occasional texting to other real people.

Article is more nuanced than title may imply

[bettodavis]

In a few words: it's not a Luddite manifesto.

It simply recommends shutting down all social media and smartphone use for a weekend, to reduce "Tech Fatigue" (or ennui) and re-discover the joys or at least, different things of life already around you. Like conversations with family, friends, movies, a book, everything that is already there but easily ignored with the excuse of 'looking at something' in your phone.

Oh, and the amazing fact that you won't really miss anything of value by shutting them down for a while. After all, we lived for millenia without them. The feeds and news will still be there whenever you return.

Re:Article is more nuanced than title may imply

[JaredOfEuropa]

Oh, and the amazing fact that you won't really miss anything of value by shutting them down for a while

If anything of real value comes along, you'll still hear about it on the regular news, from friends or collegues, or whatever. That's why I rarely bother with news feeds on social media. Social media are useful for other stuff, like staying in touch with friends and whatnot, and perhaps to discuss current affairs with others. But they are not a good source nor a good filter for news.

Re:Article is more nuanced than title may imply

[jedidiah]

> In a few words: it's not a Luddite manifesto.

It's not? It sounds a lot like Orthodox Sabbath to me.

I'm not the first one to draw this parallel. There are already gentiles that have cast unplugging for the weekend in those terms.

Things have changed

[willoughby]

News used to be stories about what has happened - events - and what it might mean. IOW, stuff you didn't already know. Today "news" is about what people are talking about because those things generate more clicks. Thus the top "news story" on the NBC News website atm is about a Trump approval survey rating drop and events in Catalonia are reduced to a sidebar.

News headlines used to be written to inform in a condensed manner. Now a "news" headline is a riddle to entice you to click.

"News" today is very different from what it used to be a few decades ago, and I don't envision it changing for the better.

And now for a list of other things I don't like...

Re:Things have changed

[JaredOfEuropa]

And now for a list of other things I don't like...

Will #7 amaze me? Else I'm not going to bother...

Re:Things have changed

[Anonymous Coward]

The news is intended to control, to sway, to emotionalize.

The Internet has connected, educated, and levelled.

The 1% need their power back, and social media is the way. We have moved from a small them (whether a few channels or a few papers) controlling us, to us controlling us.

And core to it all is misinformation.

There is no greater disaster than when the truth slips out. Like the truth that Trump has 41+M Twitter followers that have no middle man between them and the big man. So MSM has been on a continuous frothing-at-the-mouth attack against probably the best president we've ever had. With best defined as least corrupted and least corruptible.

Whole new categories of lies -- the Trump-Russia supposed connection -- have had to be invented. While entire mountains of corruption -- pizzagate, Hillary's email server, Hillary's lack of health, and the public's general hatred of Hillary -- have had to be studiously avoided by MSM.

BigT is gaining 350K to 500K followers...every week. I wonder why...hmmm...let me check Facebook to find out.

While we're at it, check out Stefan Molyneux. Over 3,000 talks to date. Average length of around an hour. All subjects. Revelations out the whazoo. And invariably all of it making the left look very bad indeed. But you won't hear about it on social (1%-controlled and censored) media. Commie media.

Anyone need a slightly used soapbox?

Re:Things have changed

[DogDude]

Excellent job, Comrade! Great post!

Re:Things have changed

[Arzaboa]

Its sad how things have changed.

Its the frequency folks check "news" that drove this. Most people feel its important to check news to stay current and informed. Once they had access to it every day, they clicked daily. Once websites worked for clicks, it happened hourly. Once they got paid for it, they have new headlines every time you refresh.

"Don't chop down my cheery tree!" - Martha Washington

Re:Things have changed

[jedidiah]

I've been aware of Catalonia's status since the 80s, so I am far less inclined to get hysterical about the situation. In general, I have ceased to be interested in allowing the media to lead me around by the nose on any subject. I have no interest in their adrenal overload nonsense (trolling).

Re:Things have changed

[jedidiah]

The great thing about social media is that people that hated Hillary could have told you that they hated Hillary even before the primaries started.

In general you can get a lot of information (on the web at large, not just "social media") from people who's intent or agenda is orthogonal to what they're cluing you in about.

Re:Things have changed

[Dread_ed]

You aren't just whistling Dixie, are you?

I can remember hearing news stories about Trump in the lead up to the election that were all about someone's reaction to what he said. The only problem is that what Trump said was never quoted. Then the news stories about someone else's reaction to the person who reacted to Trump's statements were out. Again no direct quote of the original statement was ever made.

On that day I realized the news in this country looks more like an angsty but popular teenage girl's diary than responsible journalism.

no signal

[Idisagree]

I pose two question:

Can you really disconnect permanently from all forms of "social media" and survive properly in today's world?

Would you want to?

Re:no signal

[JaredOfEuropa]

Yes, and yes.

Re:no signal

[Jzanu]

Social media use is a generational trend, not a societal one. In 5 years all social media could die off for any reason and nothing in the world would actually change. 24 news would need to find new filler or scale back and either solution would work fine. Otherwise it is just the kids born after the development of smart phones and tablets who can not understand a world reliant instead on productive communications, limited by context and the need to solve problems or plan for the future. Minutia of celebrity gossip belongs on the daily broadsheets in a check-out lane of a grocery store, not absorbing any portion of time for general work or actual social activities.

Re:no signal

[Known Nutter]

Admittedly, it is difficult to disconnect permanently from all forms of social media when one has never connected with any of them in the first place. I understand that "I don't use social media" has become the new "I don't own a TV" but it still needs to be said. Despite numbers provided by corporate overlords indicating the contrary, many, many people live and die without ever having touched social media. That shit is a disease that is poisoning intelligent and thoughtful discourse.

Fuck Facebook, fuck "staying in touch" with friends, fuck your newsfeed, fuck your wall, fuck your clickbait, fuck Twitter, fuck your tweet, fuck your status, fuck your 140 character political POV, fuck your cat pictures, love your dog, fuck your selfie, fuck your duck lips, fuck your iPhone, fuck it all. It's all useless, pointless, self-serving, ego-teasing nonsense that provides zero value unless you find value in zombies staring at little screens.

So, yes and yes.

Re:no signal

[thinkwaitfast]

/. is the only social media (if you consider it such) that I read, have no problems going without and am somewhat prospering in today's world

Re:no signal

[richy freeway]

I did 4 years ago and I'm surviving just fine. No Twitter, no Facebook, no Instagram. Nothing.

Haven't missed it for a moment.

Re:no signal

[Arzaboa]

Yes and Yes. They're going to think I'm cool again for not using social media eventually.

Re:no signal

[Calydor]

And I would need you to be specific about what qualifies as Social Media.

Is it Facebook, Twitter, Reddit et al? In which case sure, I use Reddit to check a few comments about computer games and Facebook for a comments-enabled version of one newspaper. I'll survive.

Is it all internet forums? Like Slashdot? Okay, gonna start getting a little boring.

Is it chatrooms where you hang out with your friends from around the world, eg. Discord? Now it's starting to get painful.

Is it all modern communications - internet, phones, anything that isn't face to face talking? Then we're screwed.

Re:no signal

[brantondaveperson]

That marvellous rant would have been better if you'd written 'fuck your dog', instead of chickening out and replacing it with 'love'.

This whole anti-social-media nonsense is no more than the anti-rock'n'roll reactionary nonsense of the ninteen-fifties. Social media is perfectly fine, it's only the old farts who think it's destroying the world. Young people deal with it without an issue.

Re:no signal

[n329619]

Can you really disconnect permanently from all forms of "social media" and survive properly in today's world?

Would you want to?

I tried to post a reply of "yes and I don't really mind" but only to eat my own irony as you need to be on slashdot (social media?) to post this reply.

Addiction

[DogDude]

People are addicted to their phones/social media. I think that most people are not engaged enough to be able to interact with the Internet safely. It's a wildly powerful tool for good or stupid, and most people choose stupid, because they're lazy.

AdBlock

[AlexDelphino]

A quick block of the newsfeed div never felt so liberating.

Or...

[McFortner]

Perhaps people just need to learn to think for themselves and verify what they read? Nah, that can't be it....

Re: Or...

[sound vision]

The problem with social media is that it makes it easier for people to remain ignorant. You get all the effects of filter bubble, plus you get the *impression* of being informed by this omniscient, worldwide information tool. It's like it was purpose-built to exacerbate the Dunnig-Kreuger effect in people.

Some of us are online....

[Anonymous Coward]

Explicitly so we DON'T have to converse with friends or family!!!

And apparently they feel the same judging by how they spend their time nose in their phone or computer pretending they are listening when you try to talk to them.

This would seem like a win win situation, until you realize that both Obama and Trump's presidencies can be directly attributed to to tech savvy campaigns and riling up people online.

Re:Some of us are online....

[Arzaboa]

You should be talking to these people you think you hate. You'll find you have a whole lot more in common with them than hating each other because you don't talk.

Re:Some of us are online....

[Arzaboa]

That's great and all, but when we all do that, we alienate the folks that need to be shown a path forward out of their hatred. Your hatred for them is just as bad as their hatred for other groups, and you are the educated one. It takes educated people to show those that have quit thinking and learning, new ways and new motivations.

Re:Some of us are online....

[wakawakka]

After listening to S-Town, I misunderstood that John B Mclemore was dead, apparently that is not the case :)

Re:Some of us are online....

[Dread_ed]

Yeah, you can't smell yourself because you have been steeping in your own ugly juices for way too long.

You stink of hatred...and of irony. You are what you dislike in others. You just think it's about their ideology. It's really about how you don't accept yourself exactly how you are.

If you could you would see how hilarious your diatribe is. You make mountains out of molehills. Most of all, you make everything about you, that's why someone else's actions and words about someone else are so upsetting to you. You make it personal because you don't know, down to your bones, who you really are.

In identifying your "Self" with external ideologies and people you have no choice to react with flight or fight when those external phantom "Selves" are attacked, demeaned, or worst of all, proven to have feet of clay.

My sincere hope is for you to learn who you are. For you to know who you truly are. To do this you need to go back and think about your past. Remember all of those times you failed miserably. Those time you attempted to do something of worth, something that inspired you, especially as a young person, and something happened to stop you. I want you to get connected to what you were up to when you were interrupted. What was the motivation? Who were you being? I can guarantee you that you were being exemplary. You were demonstrating love, admiration, or sacrifice, or dedication; something along those lines.

Then something happened. Your aims were not achieved. You were stopped, or you failed. In that moment, you got connected to the failure. You took that failure to mean something about yourself. You related to yourself as that failure. You still do. You still talk down to yourself about it. It comes up at night, when you try to sleep. It comes up during the day to stop you when you try to do something of true value.

This is not who you are. It's a lie. The you that is you is who you were being when you began, not when you failed. Get connected to who you were being before you failed, before life happened. That is who you truly are. Then realize that every single negative thought you have had about yourself, every time you have debased or talked down to yourself, every time you have thought you aren't good enough...all of it is a lie. None of it is true, and none of it is about who you truly are.

Once you can identify who you truly are, most of this "stuff" that so infuriates you will no longer be such a burden. Mirth, joy, love, and happiness are within you, and you get to bring them with you wherever you go. Even to a Trump rally honoring Sean Hannity's supreme court seat and Dick Cheney's Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes, even there.

The worst one of all

[DontBeAMoran]

I don't use any of these, yet there's one I absolutely hate: Pinterest.

It's nearly impossible to search for images without a huge part of the results linking to Pinterest. Pinterest, of course, don't let you do anything without a fucking account.

I wish Google would add a "Remove Pinterest results" button, or at least let us save permanent search filters to our account, applied to every search we make.

Re:The worst one of all

[Scott Tracy]

I have no idea what you are searching for (I had to do a bunch of image searches just to get any Pinterest results), but a simple "-pinterest" as your last keyword will solve your problem.

Re:The worst one of all

[Whibla]

I had the irritation of not being able to view a pinned item (an infographic that some AC on /. had linked to) maybe a week or so ago.

In the end I relented and signed up, though I did question my judgement at the time.

Since then they've sent me one e-mail a day, with maybe half to a dozen pins in it. A couple were actually, genuinely, interesting to me. Most, just eye candy, took a minute of my day to glance at, and dismiss, much like I do with the majority of arrivals in my general inbox. To be fair I'm not sure this is a unbearable hardship, or an unfair trade.

May I ask, am I missing something? What is your complaint against Pinterest, or the source of your hatred against it?

Re:The worst one of all

[DontBeAMoran]

You can't view anything on their website without having an account, as you yourself have demonstrated.

Having an account to post? Sure. Requiring an account to view? With so many results on Pinterest, that's like a separate Internet just like Facebook.

Re:welcome aboard kid

[DontBeAMoran]

I thought all the weird musicians were on SoundCloud?

Re:social media is garbage

[DontBeAMoran]

Zuckerberg called them "dumb fucks".

Here's the quote for the "(citation needed)" readers:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks

Not the feeds, the notifications

[Nemosoft Unv.]

It's not the feeds themselves, it's the continuous barrage of push notifications. Ever noticed how many sites want to enable them? I just say no.

At one point I realized that WordFeud was one of my greatest productivity killers. Every few minutes it goes bleep and you pick up your phone to place a word. Kil-ling! Nothing gets done! So I disabled all notifications, sounds and vibrate; the only thing left is the LED. Now I work for a while and when I take a break I'll see the LED flashing (or not) and have a little distraction. Then put the phone down and continue working. Do this for all your apps: WhatsApp, Instagram, Telegram, email, et cetera and you'll find peace and quiet. And yet, nobody has complained yet that I was late with replying, or that I missed a funny must-see video.

So instead of push, pull.

Re:Not the feeds, the notifications

[PrimaryConsult]

Pretty much what I do, and it bothers me that others can't seem to do the same. And while I didn't seek this "feature" out, my current phone does not have a notification LED, making it even less intrusive.

TFA is about taking a break -- email ?

[redelm]

The original article was about surfacing for air -- not being a slave to the machine, eyes glued on social media (/.?) and ears pricked for an alert chime. The same could be said for email or SMS.

Possibly a good idea, I dunno. I use the _ORIGINAL_ social media, USENET . And some with this newcomer, /. . Never had much of a problem with addiction.

Re:TFA is about taking a break -- email ?

[havana9]

The first thing is that most of those social media are a covert way to fulfill you advertising. Normally the reaction of too much advertising is for people to ditch it. Like some pay TV service with ads or when you are watching free to air channel and see twice the same ad in ten minutes you change channel, but to avoid this social media are applying all techinues to make you hooked and are using you and your friends accomplicdes on locking people in the advertising system. The applications are made also to hook you. Mailing list, usenet don't have this the applications to read and write emails and news articles are also made to work in an offline and batch fashion, you could esily allot time to read and answer them and of course non advertising is presentand when is present is called spam. If I carry a cellphone, guess what you couls send me and SMS or even if you need to talk to me urgently dial my number and make a phone call. I have found that when I said this to my friends it actually worked. I turn off the phone at night and put in charge when I am home, because for true emegencies I have a VOIP landline withj an unlisted number and an hardware answering machine.

The opposite of all those things

[SuperKendall]

Twitter is filled with horrible, abusive people

Gee, that's funny, MY twitter feed is not. Perhaps that's because I choose not to follow or pay attention to horrible, abusive people. You don't have to look at mentions people!!! You can choose to ignore anything you find annoying.

First, they're tricking you and pushing the right buttons to make you check your feed just one more time.

Why do you let them press those buttons? No need to turn on notifications if you find it drawing you in too often. Choose when you wan too look. to very hard.

Posting has been gamified and you want to check one more time if you got more likes on your last Instagram photo.

Why do you care about likes if you are not financially dependent on them? The world is lots easier if you put out things you enjoy, and if other people happen to enjoy them also - great! If not, also fine.

By putting my phone on 'Do Not Disturb' for days, I discovered

You can discover and do all those same wonderful things even while connected. It's called "self control".

First? Are you kidding?

[fyngyrz]

BBS's were far ahead of you in the we-exchange-news-bytes class. Far.

Back-and-forth's in radio, and prior to that, newspapers, predated any network-based social media by a very long time as well.

There were probably rock carving sequences that qualify prior to that.

Etc.

Nothing new here - other than the media in use.

Re:First? Are you kidding?

[Arzaboa]

What is mostly new is the accessibility of all of this to the masses. We all at least had to read a book or a few manuals. We paid for our radios and BBS knowledge in tech manuals. Its much easier to be anonymous these days. In the day of BBS's, you could usually figure out who the troll was because there were only so many people that had a 2400, or 9600 baud modem and you knew them all. Now you can have 40 profiles and manipulate all of them for the masses.

Most folks "entrance fee" to mass communication was going to school where they were forced to learn "this internet stuff."

--
"Its a brave new world" - H. Finn

New versus New

[gamehersgarden]

Pycho seeking control and conformity.

Good luck with that

[Solandri]

Before the Internet, this sort of "news" was called gossip. And we've been trying to stamp it out for thousands of years, without success.

At some point you accept that it's an innate part of human nature. And rather than trying to stamp it out, work instead towards reducing and mitigating the damage it causes. But any policies attempting to stop cold fundamental human behavior is destined to fail.

Why stop...

[JustNiz]

Why stop at just their news feeds?

They're only popular because they're new

[MpVpRb]

Methinks that after the novelty and fashion wears off, they will be abandoned, or evolve into something more useful

I'm studying glassblowing. I slog through the river of FB crap to see posts by other glassblowers, showing stuff they made. This is a tiny bit useful, since I can ask the poster, or my teacher.. How was that done"

pushing the right buttons

[n329619]

First, they're tricking you and pushing the right buttons to make you check your feed just one more time.

I have been pushing the left buttons for my whole life. No wonder it's not working.

ahh..

[SuperDre]

So when does he shut his own website, as that's also just 'social media'....

social media feeds are dead "ad feeds" anyway.

[gok9ok]

I knew Facebook has been restricting pages non-advertised posts for a while now but now they're testing to remove them once in for all and create 2 feeds. Meaning your main feed will have ads and friends posts only. I don't know if this has been shared but here For me this is bullshit. It already means social media feeds are dying because they're literally becoming ad spots. Instagram is the same, it doesnt allow company accounts to be shown in feed unless they pay for it. I don't believe there will be a kill switch for users to stop it either if you want to use fb you will have to go through ads.

Re:Hey, look, a snowflake

[jedidiah]

> People who are too insecure to tolerate other people are... snowflakes.

Pretty much.

Although this problem isn't just limited to social media. It's a problem with all media. Some people are perfectly content to cocoon themselves inside an echo chamber of their choosing.

They don't need "social media" for this. Social media just puts it all on display. I can see just how deranged my liberal friends are and how little real commitment to liberal ideals they really have.

The level of diversity in what I see is entirely up to me (or them). I can filter them without saying a word or they can make a big public spectacle about shutting out anyone they disagree with.

Re:Hey, look, a snowflake

[kilfarsnar]

They don't need "social media" for this. Social media just puts it all on display. I can see just how deranged my liberal friends are and how little real commitment to liberal ideals they really have.

It is a bit depressing, if not surprising, that we find that most people will defenestrate their ideals for expediency. On the right, people are suddenly all for big government intervention when it's their own ass on the line. And on the left, their defense of free speech is gone once they hear stuff they don't like.

Remember usenet?

[therealbev]

The closer facebook approaches usenet, the better it is. Unfortunately it's nowhere near close enough.