"What Tim Berners Lee doesn’t know or understand -
Social media is like fentanyl or cocaine for the masses."
First, I've a similar expression I've used for years which is Social Media is addictive electronic heroin.
I agree strongly with your comment and from my observations I've little doubt what you say is essentially correct. The evidence is everywhere; whenever I'm out and about I inevitability come across people staring transfixed at their phones, some whilst walking, others motionless, and still others walk across busy roads oblivious to traffic. These people are so engaged they really haven't a clue what else is going on around them.
(OK, critics would argue engaging in Social Media isn't all that people do on their phones and clearly that's true. But I'd counter that by saying Social Media is a large aspect of a broader addiction to electronic tech.)
Unless HN counts as one, I've no Social Media accounts—not even a Google account—so it's not surprising I'm a little curious about what so occupies those who do.
This raises questions about why so many engage in Social Media and I reckon you've answered that to a tee, it also raises the matter of why people like me find Social Media repulsive yet I've still no problem participating in forums such as HN.
Clearly, Social Media is having a large impact on human behavior and much of it negative but where's the proof and what's to be done about it? Social Media is now so entrenched that regulating it is essentially impossible.
It seems to me we need much more research into the effects of Social Media on human behavior before we can arrive at any definitive conclusions, and the most likely way to determine that is through a large longitudinal study—and that might take years.
Unless there's watertight scientific evidence that certain aspects of Social Media are having negative effects on behavior then nothing will happen to correct the problems—as commercial pressures to maintain the status quo will just quash any attempt to correct the situation.
I could give many reasons for why I made that point but it'd only start point-scoring over each issue. That said, whilst Social Media has many problems HN isn't perfect either.
That common problem is the voting system—likes/dislikes, up/downvoting. There are multiple problems here and there's much to say about it, but perhaps the worst is that it's polarizing. Frankly, I'd like to see it either eliminated or the rules substantially modified. For instance, downvoters are anonymous and they affect the outcome without ever having to say why they disagree†. That's not a good system, if one disagrees one ought to have the guts to argue why.
Of course, those who run the show would disagree as fewer people would participate.
† On HN, if, say, a poster receives 10 upvotes and 10 downvotes neither the poster nor others are aware of the fact. Effectively, a controversial topic where opinion is split down the middle turns out to look like it's a matter of little interest to anyone. That doesn't make much sense.
If your views are mainstream with those empowered to down vote and you tend towards noncontroversial opinions and "flow with the crowd" or can pretend to do so, HN probably is better than Reddit.
Although Reddit is a very low bar.
If you like your opinions strong and you think for yourself and you resent being signaled which way to respond and think, you'll be down voted and treated with condescending comments by those who like echo chambers of agreement.
"…you'll be down voted and treated with condescending comments by those who like echo chambers of agreement."
It's not the downvoting that's the problem it's that they often do so anonymously without comment. For example, as I've mentioned my post above stands at zero votes after oscillating as high as +3 (although it might have been higher without me knowing about it).
I believe in debate and if they disagree that's completely fine but I want them to explain why as by doing so things move forward. HN's system doesn't encourage that.
In this instance I neither know why they downvoted nor how many votes there were in total. In politics this matters. If say I get 3 votes for and 3 against it's reasonable to assume I've made a reasonably balanced commentent on a rather unimportant matter. If I get zero votes after 3k have voted for and 3k against then the matter is important to many but neither I—the poster— nor readers are adware of the fact.
FYI, my comment above typifies the issue. It currently stands at zero votes but I saw it as high as +3 not long after posting. It's anyone's guess how many voted for and against.
When votes oscillate around zero I take it that my comment is pretty neutral, essentially a statement of fact. Shooting the messenger is a well-known phenomenon.
Incidentally, something I've noted is that I'll often get downvoted days after the main activity stops. Vote stats therefore should be timestamped. It occurred to me HN could do an analysis of voters together with their actual posts. Anonymous stats like that could tell us much about why Social Media is in such a mess.
First, I've a similar expression I've used for years which is Social Media is addictive electronic heroin.
I agree strongly with your comment and from my observations I've little doubt what you say is essentially correct. The evidence is everywhere; whenever I'm out and about I inevitability come across people staring transfixed at their phones, some whilst walking, others motionless, and still others walk across busy roads oblivious to traffic. These people are so engaged they really haven't a clue what else is going on around them.
(OK, critics would argue engaging in Social Media isn't all that people do on their phones and clearly that's true. But I'd counter that by saying Social Media is a large aspect of a broader addiction to electronic tech.)
Unless HN counts as one, I've no Social Media accounts—not even a Google account—so it's not surprising I'm a little curious about what so occupies those who do.
This raises questions about why so many engage in Social Media and I reckon you've answered that to a tee, it also raises the matter of why people like me find Social Media repulsive yet I've still no problem participating in forums such as HN.
Clearly, Social Media is having a large impact on human behavior and much of it negative but where's the proof and what's to be done about it? Social Media is now so entrenched that regulating it is essentially impossible.
It seems to me we need much more research into the effects of Social Media on human behavior before we can arrive at any definitive conclusions, and the most likely way to determine that is through a large longitudinal study—and that might take years.
Unless there's watertight scientific evidence that certain aspects of Social Media are having negative effects on behavior then nothing will happen to correct the problems—as commercial pressures to maintain the status quo will just quash any attempt to correct the situation.