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!

[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!

[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.

Ironically

[Waffle Iron]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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.