←back to thread

482 points ilamont | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.28s | source
Show context
ufmace ◴[] No.23806806[source]
I think there's a larger point in what he said. Basically all current social media ends up optimizing for creating outrage, spawning mobs, less thoughtful discussion and more vitriolic arguments, etc. It's becoming a real concern to me that this is going to drive us into some kind of civil war or something if we don't find some way to check it.

The outrage seems to be like a drug. Nothing generates engagement quite like it, even if it's toxic in the long-term. So all social media platforms that embrace it grow bigger until they become near-monopolies, and all that don't so far have had a hard time growing userbases, making money, and generally fade into irrelevance.

It would be a real service to society IMO if we could find a way to somehow generate enough engagement and energy to challenge the big players without the outrage culture.

replies(18): >>23806979 #>>23807125 #>>23807234 #>>23807533 #>>23807542 #>>23807768 #>>23807781 #>>23808156 #>>23808398 #>>23808440 #>>23808636 #>>23808913 #>>23809059 #>>23809984 #>>23810084 #>>23812315 #>>23812336 #>>23814401 #
1. agumonkey ◴[] No.23810084[source]
> Basically all current social media ends up optimizing for creating outrage, spawning mobs, less thoughtful discussion and more vitriolic arguments, etc

This is my impression too. What should we do or even think about it ? I tend to go slightly radical and cut socnet while allowing a few IRC and a bit of reddit.

I think our understanding of 'social' is incomplete, as if social bonds without simple and clear goals (important tasks to be done, or sharing moments with people we have deep bonds with) leads to degenerate noise tsunamis like we're seeing.