

The Horrible Future of Social - netherland
http://ted.io/the-horrible-future-of-social.html

======
jeremymcanally
I see this every time I go to Disney World (I live nearby). It's almost
impossible to enjoy a single ride or fireworks show without a ton of people
videoing the whole thing or taking horrible pictures of it with a smart device
of some sort. Rather than enjoying it and capturing some deep memory of a
moment with their family, they have their face stuck in a digital device
capturing a crude facsimile of the experience that they will likely never look
at ever again.

I will never forget when a dad was trying to get a good shot of Cinderella
Castle and _totally_ missed out on their daughter meeting a princess (I think
Tiana from Princess and the Frog was walking over to her character spot or
something) for the first time. Hugely important moment for his daughter
completely and utterly squandered in chasing this lifecasted copy of life. She
was excitedly jumping up and down and waving to and got a big hug from the
princess, and her dad was swatting her off at first, then completely ignoring
her.

I've lived here (Orlando) for two years and it's only getting worse. I've
almost given up on being able to ride Pirates of the Carribbean and being able
to experience it the way the Imagineers wanted you to. The constant flash and
glowing screens from people posting pictures of the Jack Sparrow animatronic
on Facebook completely ruin it. Fireworks are an exercise in frustration as
some joker always sticks his iPad in the air to try to capture a picture. When
the first one looks terrible (as they all do), he tries over and over and
over. By the time he's frustrated enough that he's not getting good pictures,
the show is over and he's just missed the whole thing.

It's depressing to think how many other experiences people are cheapening
and/or missing out on simply because they feel some weird compulsion to SHARE
the experience with others rather than LIVE it.

~~~
Xcelerate
I was at a dance club the other night. I saw a couple sitting in the corner.
They didn't dance at all. They just sat there looking depressed. A little
later I noticed they had their phones out and were taking photos of each other
as though they were having a big time partying. Then they put their phones
away and left.

~~~
sojacques
This is the world we live in. A world where being seen enjoying something
matters more than actually doing it. People's need for social validation is so
strong it sometimes saddens me.

The positive point is that we (as in, hackers) are on the side of building
things and solving (although sometimes artificial) problems, so we can at
least make what we can to benefit from people's behavior.

~~~
rsl7
Me: we have to get home before the hurricane.

My wife: hold on, I have to get a picture of WAWA.

Me: ... why?

My wife: I checked in!

Me: But why do you need a picture?

My wife: so the timeline looks good!

Me: ...

------
grellas
That which is shallow but useful can have its legitimate place in life, though
it lacks character: a daily commute on the freeway might suck, and might not
match the joy and invigoration of a brisk walk on a beautiful day, but it has
its place if you need to get to work miles away and if your area lacks public
transportation to get you there efficiently; living in the suburbs might suck
compared to the excitement of an upscale urban environment but millions of
people manage just fine with the tradeoffs that suburban living entails and
get by just fine without the excitement; so too social networking sucks when
compared to any one of countless ways of interacting that are intimate,
personal, intellectually stimulating, or whatever, and for which the
strictures of the social network have no room, but all sorts of people
nonetheless get by very well interacting at the social networking level for
the utilitarian goals for which they use such services, not caring one whit
about intimacy or other elements that make the experience a fundamentally
shallow one.

Social may be shallow but it has its place and, as long as we have freedom,
you can use it or not according to taste. One can find fault with it but that
does not mean it has a "horrible future." Criticism of this sort is thus
misplaced, in my view, in spite of the limitations of the venue.

~~~
siganakis
I think that the bigger problem is when people begin using "social networking"
while they are actually doing the intimate, stimulating, exciting things in
real life - either looking for validation or because its easier to bury your
head in your phone than it is to participate in social interactions.

For example, checking Facebook while out at dinner with friends, or uploading
photos of a party while you are at the party. What could possibly be happening
on the internet that is more important than being out with friends?

Fair enough if you want to check facebook while you are waiting on a train
killing time, but when you are actually doing the things you _hope_ to be
reading about on Facebook/Twitter/Intagram, something seems very wrong.

~~~
lathamcity
I was watching some video the other day where Jon Stewart made a random
appearance. All the people around him had their phones out taking pictures of
him instead of actually experiencing him being there. It was like proving to
other people that they'd had an awesome experience was more important than
actually having that experience. Or like they were going through life as
tourists, making sure they checked every box and shared it all with other
people to make them jealous. "Been within five feet of a major celebrity -
check".

~~~
greggman
Isn't it kind of cynical to assume the reason they are taking a picture is
because they want to brag about it to their friends? I have I'm guessing
10-20k pictures I've taken in the last 12 years. I've taking probably > 1k
pictures with my phone this year. I've shared less than 2% of them.

I happen to enjoy looking back at all these photos. They bring back memories
of various events in my life. IMO, memories I'd likely not think of without
something (like a photo) to trigger the memory.

Take more pictures not less.

Also I don't see a problem with sharing. It's not a substitute for face to
face time but it's connecting with people MORE not less. Go back 25 years and
you could rarely connected with anyone unless you were with them. Now you can
connect all the time by sharing your experiences. Some people do it brag, most
do it to share and connect. At least in my experience.

~~~
calbear81
I don't disagree that people are not doing it to brag but perhaps as someone
else mentioned the memory that has been captured is now not as fulfilling or
vivid or "memorable" as it should have been if the phone wasn't such a
distraction.

Going back 25 years, I think you'll find that people rarely connected in as
wide of a network but the circle of friends they did connect with was possibly
on a much more fulfilling and deeper level and they got significantly more out
of it than a shallow network of thousands of "friends".

I too feel that it's easier than ever to connect with friends on Facebook but
somehow the convenience has also made the friendship feel more superficial.
Whereas before I had to make an effort to write a birthday card or give
someone a call, today, I simply click and write "have a great birthday".
Engaging with Facebook has almost become like tending a farm in Farmville, I
see alerts, I do routine actions that keep up the appearances of being
"social" and that's it. It's sad that I think back now and I don't even
remember how my friends sound because we interact in person and on the phone
so much less.

------
nostromo
Meh. This is a touch over-the-top.

You know what Facebook is to me nowadays? It's another flavor of Gmail.
Sometimes I send and receive messages there. It's plumbing. Sometimes I turn
the spigot on for some updates, then turn it off and go about my day.

I think pro-social and anti-social pundits are both wrong about the upside and
downside of social. Social is neither the next giant leap forward, nor is it
the downfall of humanity. It's kinda like Gmail.

~~~
photorized
Except FB (well, plus mobile), has managed to change people's behaviors. Your
flight is delayed, you are sitting at the airport lounge - and everyone is
monkeying with his or her device. No more talking to strangers.

Gmail hasn't done that.

~~~
potatohead00
No, Gmail didn't do that - but people still avoided social interaction in
those kinds of situations by reading magazines/newspapers/books or playing
gameboy, etc.

------
te_chris
The author doth project their personal insecurities too much. If people want
to form a social network around sex (and hell, there's already heaps, adult
friend finder and clones, sex forums etc etc) then I think it's fantastic that
the internet allows such varied forms of sexual expression and discourse.

~~~
RegEx
Downvoted for A) Use of antiquated language solely for the sake of making
yourself seem smarter. B) A needless insult to the author.

~~~
majormajor
You're objecting to paraphrasing a quote from Shakespeare? I generally don't
think people are trying to show off when they're referring to something that's
in as many high school curriculums as Hamlet...

And it's a quote that provides a nice succinct way to convey a certain
meaning, that I'm not sure I disagree with in this case.

~~~
RegEx
I actually missed the Hamlet reference to be honest. Now it seems much less
obnoxious. Thanks for clearing that up. My apologies to the parent for that
portion of my comment.

------
EliRivers
"You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site."

No really, no. Everything described already exists (except the sex-cred, and
the geo-tagging is rather manual); simply not on the open internet.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm pretty sure the sex-cred and other stuff already exists as well. There are
active user-driven communities for swingers and kinky people much as there are
for every other specialist hobby/lifestyle.

~~~
illuminate
There are online communities, but not the sort of gamification he referred to.

------
ZenoArrow
For me, commenting on the sex angle in the article misses the point. The
author was kind enough to put the relevant text in bold, specifically
'cheapens the experience of something very important'.

I'd argue that this is already happening with something very important, our
human friendships. Facebook and sites of its ilk encourage us to build shallow
relationships with many and fool ourselves into thinking we're sharing
something of merit.

I believe in personal responsibility, so I'm not saying Facebook, Twitter,
etc... are forced upon people, we can choose to leave them alone if we see fit
and plenty of people do just that. It's our job to fit technology around our
own wants and needs, not be led by technology.

Anyway, interesting article, thank you to the author.

~~~
RegEx
Facebook tries to monetize the difficulty of letting relationships go. I
realize this, so I don't accept friend requests from former
friends/acquaintances. You're only my friend on Facebook if we're _actually_
friends. I have 15 Facebook friends, and I care about all of them.

~~~
fudged71
As someone with hundreds of 'friends', I'm curious about how you use the site
differently than me. How often do you log in? Do you participate every time
you log in? Do you have a group chat with all your friends?

And how weird is it to have all the activity from your friends' posts
elsewhere (comments/likes on public posts) in your news feed? It would seem
like if your friends did it as much as my friends do, you'd see more strangers
on facebook than friends.

~~~
RegEx
I get on a few times a day for a few minutes at a time, but I'll stay on for
20-30 minutes if I'm having a good chat with someone. I've found that most of
my friends prefer to text.

If I don't see anything new in my feed, I don't stick around.

------
jcfrei
I've noticed an interesting pattern among some people I encountered. Usually
the ratio of activity on facebook (not just "sharing", but also instant
messaging and status updates) is inversely proportional to their social
activity in reality. Exceptions aside, it seems facebook always has been and
always will be to large part a substitute for social activities/interactions
in reality, which we would have liked to happen but couldn't make happen,
whether it's because of social anxiety, shyness or geographical distances.
people with richer social lifes need to cater to these needs less, whereas
people with fewer real life social activities resort to facebook to get their
fix.

~~~
sapien
It's especially problematic since Facebook's newsfeed algorithm seems to
promote posts by exactly those who interact with me a lot on Facebook, which
is correlated with living on Facebook a lot, which is (as you said) correlated
with how much real life they have to talk about! Missing out on my
acquaintances' big life events is one reason I've been experimenting with
<http://WikiSapien.com/>

~~~
jcfrei
interesting project - is it yours (judging by your username)? and if so, how's
it any different from facebook? do you put more intimate information on it and
befriend less people?

~~~
sapien
It's different in that it's not a social network: I don't want friending, I
don't want engagement, Facebook also does personal communication in a great
way. I just want it to be a good source of basic information on who someone
is; answer their question and get them on their way. Another difference is
that (partially due to optimizing for engagement) elsewhere it is easy to find
someone's most recent actions, but it's also easy to miss out on bigger long
term things. I dont want it to be chronologically sorted in such an extreme
way. As I say: find out who someone is, and not just what they had for lunch.

------
qdot76367
Most any article that says we're moving /toward/ some sort of new technology
based sex solution is most likely missing many examples of it having happened
well before the author even thought of the topic.

<http://bedposted.com/> <http://ijustmadelove.com>

Lesson: Sex is probably smarter and faster than you. (I say this having run a
site on sex and technology for near 8 years now. I now accept being constantly
comfortably behind the curve.)

~~~
rsl7
I think you missed the point. The author is not trying to make a point about
sex, but rather uses that as an example of something he thinks is currently
out of scope for social networking fads.

~~~
qdot76367
Yeah, realized I totally missed forest for trees with my comment, and I do
agree with the general message of the article.

That said, it's easy to miss the forest when you're being whacked over the
head with the trees.

------
otakucode
Heh. The author is completely wrong. Sex is not something important. It is a
basic human bodily function, alongside eating and sleeping. For nearly the
entirety of our evolution, sex was used primarily for bonding, its
reproductive role is rare in comparison. It most certainly is a prudish view
that sex should be hidden away out of some misguided belief that it makes it
'special'.

We could treat eating the same way. Never admit you eat, or if you do only
speak of it in terms of immature titillation and euphemisms. When you do eat,
never do it with anyone else, not even friends you consider very close,
because that would somehow taint everything. There is at least one culture
that adopted this exact view, their views on eating mirroring our with regards
to sex. Eating with someone you are not married to was considered highly
taboo, while having sex with various people for fun was understood as
something so fundamentally human that restricting access to it would be
impossible.

And ignoring whatever moral implications the culture you grew up in pounded
into you as a child, just consider the basic biological matters. Abstinence is
horrendously dangerous to health. Ever read a news story about how 'sex
reduces the chance of heart attack by one half', 'frequent orgasms extend
life', etc? Those stories are interpreting fact from a prudish perspective
that limits sex severely. View the exact same facts from a perspective of
frequent sex as part of basic human interaction and the headlines would read
'abstinence doubles the chance of heart attack', 'orgasm starvation cuts years
off life', etc. There is good biological evidence that human beings evolved
having sex after nearly every meal, along with sleeping in two blocks rather
than one.

The real kicker is the origin and reason behind why we believe sex should be
hidden and that it is somehow 'special'. That was invented in the Industrial
Revolution. Prior to that, no one in the lower class even had private
bedrooms. Families slept, and screwed, in common rooms. They had to import
views on sex from cultures with dowries, and children being viewed as the
property of their fathers making sex a property crime against the father. And
we preserve a remarkable amount of this framework even though we don't recall
where it came from. None of their motivations exist any longer. We have
effective birth control, and we have evidence for the suffering attempts to
destroy sex cause. Eventually, hopefully, as a culture we'll grow up enough to
ask ourselves what evidence we have that sex is somehow 'special' and what
consequences such a view inflicts on people.

------
coffeemug
I was more amused than repulsed by the description, and I thought quite a few
people would probably end up using this product if it existed. To paraphrase
George Costanza, if I were a different person, I could see myself using it.

 _What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely
cheapens the experience of something very important._

It doesn't cheapen anything. Making love is just for fun for most young
people, and then most of them grow up to be pleasantly surprised to discover a
depth to life that they were unaware of before. A product like this doesn't
change the attitude people have towards sex in the first place. Of course some
people never discover that same depth, or perhaps discover something else that
others don't see. That's fine too.

The attitude of "I see depth to life that the morons [watching football/using
social/smoking marijuana/insert activity here] don't see" is really the 21st
century version of the inquisition. A lot less bloody, perhaps, but still very
counterproductive to social (pun intended!) development.

~~~
theorique
Good points.

 _What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely
cheapens the experience of something very important._

 _Translation:_ I see other people doing something in a way that I don't like.
This is wrong and their values are wrong. This makes me feel funny. They
should not do as they do. Instead, they should do as I do. Then they will be
right, like me.

~~~
bloaf
It will truly be a brave new world when people are expected to not stand up
for their own values.

“Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference which is an elegant name for
ignorance.” ― G.K. Chesterton

~~~
theorique
Big difference between saying "I find that unpleasant and I prefer not to
participate in it" and "that is a terrible thing and no one should participate
in it". In the case of an activity which harms no one, I prefer to skew toward
the former.

Standing up for your own values is fine and good. The part I was objecting to
was the OP (1) making the assumption in his article in his article that
everyone reading also shared his values and (2) suggesting that those values
ought to apply for everyone, not just himself.

------
theorique
_You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site. But not
because of some prudish reasons, not even because it had to do with sex. No.
You were repulsed because sex.ly violates something very deep and fundamental
about humanity. But what, in particular?_

Mind read much?

My feeling upon reading this was hardly the horror that the writer
anticipated. Probably more of a "meh, it takes all kinds".

I can see this being a private, niche site for swingers or exhibitionists.
Most people probably wouldn't go for it. But that doesn't make it _wrong_ or
_horrible_ or the emblem of what is, in the author's mind, wrong with social
media.

 _Reduction ad absurdum_ fail.

~~~
X-Istence
These websites already exist. Fetlife, Adult Friend Finder, Bedpost and
others. That isn't even counting all of the sub-reddits dedicated to this in
some way shape or form.

Honestly I wasn't repulsed, I was intrigued and interested in seeing how this
social network sets itself apart from the rest of them. Not sure why the
author tried to tell me that I was repulsed when I wasn't.

~~~
theorique
Good point. Yes, such sites do exist, and they serve a niche demographic of
people who are interested in 'alt' sexuality. People who do their own thing
and don't hurt anyone else

The aggressive moralizing in the OP biased me against any otherwise good
message in his blog post.

------
lemiffe
I absolutely loved (and was repulsed by the reality of) this segment: "Our
daily existence transformed into database entries in some NoSQL database on
some spinning disk in some rack in suburban Virginia."

~~~
rbranson
Imagine the horror when you find out all the worldly financial assets you've
accrued over your entire life are just a few database entries dispersed over a
few databases on some spinning disk in some rack in some datacenter somewhere?

~~~
X-Istence
Now if only they would have some disk corruption in my favour :P

------
mtraven
This is pretty much Jaron Lanier's argument in You Are Not a Gadget (reviewed
here: [http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-you-are-
no...](http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-you-are-not-
gadget.html) ). They both have a point; systems which reduce human relations
to very simpleminded database formalisms cheapen them.

But they ignore that the human spirit is (or so we should hope) strong enough
to survive Facebook if it is strong enough to survive the other insults and
depredations it has been subject to throughout history. Facebook may slap a
reductive meaning onto the word "friend", but I haven't noticed that truly
interfering with real friendship.

~~~
rhizome
Jaron Lanier is a cynical charlatan. It takes a pretty negative worldview to
say that the relationships people have on Facebook are the sum total of the
nature of human relations, that the entire social phenomenon is a lowest-
common denominator operation. The human spirit doesn't have to be strong
enough, even without hope. "Facebook killing the human spirit" is an instance
of a phenomenon _that has never happened_.

~~~
mtraven
Well, I agree that he is about 80% wrong, but I don't think he's a charlatan
-- I'm pretty sure he's sincere in his beliefs.

------
peteforde
If he'd described a social gamification platform for serial killers or
rapists, I'd be "disgusted".

Truth is that I had a girlfriend that was tracking her orgasms on a freaking
leaderboard in 2004. I'm not sure I was shocked by it then.

Frankly, I don't mind people checking in on their phones in social situations
so long as they are discreet and I'm not talking with them at the very moment.
I can appreciate why others might feel differently, but I'm secretly relieved
that I've been given implicit permission to check my email, too. You can
pretend like that's a horrible way to live, but I do just fine socially.

I'm glad I'm addicted to email and not smoking cigarettes.

------
gizmo686
>You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site.

Thanks, I was not aware that I found that hypothetical sight repulsive. What I
do find repulsive is the idea that I should repulsed by something which
"utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important",
When I am not the one who determined that the 'thing' in question is very
important.

What you described in your imaginary site sounds like a product for people
wishing to engage in casual sex. It provides a service to record previous
partners, and presumably help find new ones. It also provides a service as a
background check for partners by showing you reviews from others they were
with, as well as "heads up"s. Planned support for Geotags, which seems good as
sex tends to be a geographically bound activity (in-airplane geo-tags seem
unnecessary though).

If I want to link the physical act of sex, which I do for physical pleasure,
with the emotional experience of a strong, personal relationship, than I would
probably not use a service designed around the premise that I would be having
sex casually, with many partners. But why should I want to make that
connection?

------
Mizza
If you sympathize with the author, you may enjoy reading _The Society of the
Spectacle_ by Guy Debord, a classic criticism of society in the era of mass
media. I think it would be very good if more people from around these parts
read this.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle>

------
Detrus
Here is a whole gamified dating concept video
<http://designtaxi.com/news/353161/The-Future-Of-Dating/>

Such extrapolations rarely come to pass. Yes there might be new crazy services
and some people will use them. But will a significant proportion of the
population use them often? Will it change the world? Did foursquare? Did
Twitter?

No. Some things just stay in their bubbles. There will be new crazed trends
that come along and everyone will forget check ins, social networks,
gamification and do them.

Reality shows used to be the new thing. So are there run a startup reality
shows today? Bitcoins are a new currency. Will people start their own
currencies and governments in 15 years? Instead of startups you start
governments! Then 3D printers can make military drones and these governments
fight each other!

Fortunately most trends just don't get very far. There is a constant stream of
new trends to divert people's attention.

~~~
bduerst
Hindsight is 20/20. Motorola invested millions in Iridium, thinking that the
new cell phones were just a passing fad, but Nokia managed to flood the mobile
market faster than Motorola could put up satellites. It's a case example of
project execution failure.

That said, Sex.ly probably won't take off :)

------
Cieplak
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr>

~~~
abozi
Funny. Because I specifically remember 3 instances where I walked by people
(in two different countries in fact!) and saw them checking Grindr.

------
jscheel
It's a bold step to say that it's bad for people to cheapen their life
experiences. While I personally agree with the author, other people choose to
live their life in a way that is meaningful to them, in their own ways. Who am
I to say their facebook, foursquare, twitter, etc. interactions are
meaningless and without value? These are subjective measurements. The real
question is: are people getting value out of these interactions because they
are told to get value out of them, and if so, is it done disingenuously? Case
in point, a gambling company (or certain gaming companies starting with the
letter Z... I kid, I kid) tend to focus on the compulsive nature of humans in
a predatory way. This is where true marketing responsibility comes into play:
am I creating a system of measurably-destructive behavior in my users? You can
measure the detrimental impact of a user's addition, you cannot measure the
meaningfulness of a tweet to it's tweeter.

~~~
snom380
I think the right question to ask is whether the service is improving peoples
lives or not. Social networks are useful and improves life in many ways, but
their mission is to maximize sharing, user engagement to drive ad revenue,
regardless of whether this is good for the users or not.

------
egypturnash
I really don't need to know who's the local Mayor of Anal.

~~~
ftwinnovations
I didn't, yet now that you mentioned it, I'm kind of curious.

------
danboarder
"In the old world products were scarce - this meant that companies who
provided product could profit from the demand. In the digital world, where
abundance is key (creating a digital copy costs next to nothing) it is a
customer's attention that has become scarce. This means that the customer now
holds the value - not the company." - Chris Saad

Some people did see this commoditisation of human behavior coming back in 2005
and promoted the idea of the 'Attention Economy' which had a goal of putting
people back in control of the content they create and view online with tools
like the Attention Recorder from Attention Trust (now defunct, but you can
read about it here <http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Trust> ).

The current idea of social is to capture much more than eyeballs and clicks of
course, with checkins for places, Runkeeper and many other health apps for
tracking/sharing activities, and so on... nearly everything we do is a
potential data point for commercialization that a startup will want to
capitalize on. This is fine if the user clearly understands the relationship.

I expect it was too early when the 'Attention Economy' ideas emerged but now
perhaps we'll see projects that resurrect some of that early work and build on
it to empower users of social tools to take control of both their attention
and the data points they are sharing.

addl reading: <http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Economy>

------
gmisra
It's all a matter of perspective, e.g an accurate sexual behavior network
would be of tremendous value to epidemiologists and public health
practitioners, not to mention when people need to notify former partners about
disease diagnoses.

The core argument here appears to be the "cheapening" of experience driven by
"social", without any acknowledgement that social also enables _new_
experiences. Sure, facebook has cheapened the value of remembering a friend's
birthday, but it has also enabled more immediate involvement with friend's who
you don't get to see that often (geography, parenting, loner-ism, etc).

"Social" changes all kinds of things. It's consequences are far-reaching, and
we're just barely starting to figure them out. The advent of the automobile
"cheapened" travel experiences, but also made travel accessible to the masses,
not to mention a slew of modern conveniences. As a society we're still trying
to find the right balance for how we use cars (greenhouse gases, near-surface
pollution, exurban isolation, etc). People who write "cars are ruining
society" essays don't actually contribute to the conversation in a meaningful
way. To be dismissive of all things social based on such a small sample of
human experience feels short-sighted (and out of place in a technology-
oriented discussion community).

Aside: The closing reference to Philip Larkin is amusing, as he was a racist
and misogynist. He decried the "backward" steps post-WWII society was taking
with regards civil rights.

------
jaredcwhite
Exaggeration to make a point. A worthy point, although one I'm not entirely in
agreement with. I enjoy the "lifecasts" of others in some respects because
otherwise I wouldn't know anything about what they're up to. I'm lucky if I
can have a meaningful, real-world conversation with a single-digit handful of
folks over the course of a week. Dozens? Hundreds? No way. But if I can see
them post a joke or a beautiful photo or just a kvetch about a bad day, I have
a connection with them that I simply wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, it can get
absurd. Yes, sex check-ins might be in vogue at some point. But we don't have
to throw the baby out because the bathwater has gotten quite murky. (P.S. That
came out a bit too hard on the original author. I really enjoyed the read,
thanks!)

------
Reebz
This article is hugely exaggerated. Once all is said and done, you're simply
attaching more relevant data to a photo which helps remember important
moments. My grandparent's photo albums and scrapbooks have now been replaced
by my TimeHops and SnapJoys.

------
allaun1
Wow, While trying to see reactions to the word hate, I saw ALOT of whatever
statements. o.0 Anyway, I didn't hate the idea. In fact, it seems kind of
interesting. I really do believe his reaction is completely cultural. Sex is
doesn't need to be kept a secret. And his reaction seems to be that. Privacy
is rather outmoded concept, at least when you can find anything about anyone
at at anytime. Given a month and some meager resources, you could find a lot
about a person. Humans aren't random. We are completely traceable, to a point
where anything we do is predictable on a scatter plot.

------
rglover
This reminds me of One of my favorite moments in the past couple of years is
when I went to see Joanna Newsom in concert. Just before she sat down to
perform, the host for the theatre said "now, I want you all to put your
cameras down and your cell phones. Really enjoy the music. You can tell
everyone how it was after the show. Seriously, this a real experience and you
don't want to miss it taking pictures."

Everyone in the audience put away their phones/cameras almost immediately. The
result? You could actually see people enjoying the music; not just bragging
about being there.

------
ludicast
He's right * 100. Some of us can't understand being "internet social" just to
get us more fake friends with fake laughs.

Your grandpa didn't need to update his status every 10 minutes and he was the
fucking man.

------
lnanek2
I guess it's a nice thing about the internet that people can be disgusted by
casual sex like the author and not realize there's a vibrant set of sites and
people who are totally into it. He can have his own set of internet sites he
visits, etc.. The various sex social networks are pretty damn useful if you
want to help sort out who on the internet will actually meetup and who is just
an online scammer, which are endless on less complex sites like craigslist, so
they really have a powerful utility for people looking to get laid casually.

~~~
illuminate
I must be in the minority for not thinking he was referring to Adult
Friendfinder, Fetlife, or Grindr with this. I saw it more as Zyngafication.
Pop-ups and badges and er, ahem, viral aspects and "achievements".

------
taybin
Or you do what I do. Grow older, have a kid, and only login in to sporadically
see the photos your wife posts of your child.

I've tuned it out. I suspect other people as they get older will too.

------
jonny_eh
I think this Collegehumor sketch is relevant:
<http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6415974/foursquare-for-sex>

------
zerostar07
I find it funny when people protest about the way social sites cheapen life
experiences. Somehow it is assumed that people have an innate need for
privacy. Privacy is mostly social conditioning (have you seen kids playing?).
Social sites bring forward that repressed part of the human nature because
they give incentives, but the drive is always there. Its just human nature,
revealed. People say that they are repulsed when the curtain is lifted but who
says that that isn't social conditioning too?

~~~
illuminate
"Somehow it is assumed that people have an innate need for privacy."

It makes me sad that someone with your attitude will probably end up an
employee of a Social site, if you aren't already.

~~~
zerostar07
Nice ad hominem and public display of self righteousness, care to respond in a
civil grown up and rational manner?

~~~
illuminate
It is not an ad hominem to be disappointed that some still believe that the
desire for control over one's own privacy is an entitlement, not a right.

I am not "uncivil, immature, and irrational" simply because your personal
opinion differs from mine.

------
Apocryphon
I think this short film neatly illustrates the cheapening of social
experiences with too much tech: <http://vimeo.com/49425975>

------
JacksonGariety
This article addresses a simple fact of life, where there is energy, people
will try to create something there. Lots of people are making things for the
internet.

"The horrible future of social" isn't bad. It means the internet is so great
that we have all kinds of people making all kinds of things.

If it truly has no value, people won't use it.

This is the reason McDonald's exists, it isn't new or unique to social.

------
zabuni
1) Isn't this grindr for straight people?

2) Coming from my first point, a much better article about the potential
pitfalls of socializing parts of our inner lives (with real live examples) can
be seen here:

<http://narrative.ly/2012/10/lost-in-space/>

It's not as negative, but there still is a hell of a lot to not look forward
to.

------
spartango
Notably, a lower-tech version of this social dynamic (particular the sexual
version) appeared in a high school in California this year[1]. We think of
these things as incredibly immature and disrespectful, but it appears that
they happen anyway.

[1]<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133713n>

~~~
gwillen
These stories are perennial in the media. They are inevitably exaggerated or
outright fake. Remember, their sources are kids who are bored and want to be
on TV.

~~~
illuminate
Yep, like <http://www.snopes.com/risque/school/bracelet.asp> or "rainbow
parties". Kids also enjoy pranking the media.

------
replayzero
I liken online social experience to that of looking a window.

A window has two main viewing states.

You can either look 'at' a window, or you can look 'through' a window.

huh? What the hell does this have to do with social networking?

Social networking is not the beginning of social. Experience is the beginning
of social, social is just a way to share and solicit experiences.

So with this in mind, what are the different types of 'experience' going on in
the window analogy.

Looking "through" the window is being in the moment, looking through the glass
and seeing the world without the frame, taking experiences as they come and
letting them exist inside of you as memories, allowing them to shape you and
then letting that change in character effect others. Through is just living
and being.

Looking "at" the window is seeing the glass, seeing the frame and putting all
experience through a context. The context here is the social capital or the
commodification of that experience for in order to enhance perception of self.

'At' is translating all experience into trade-able emotional commodity.

If you live in the 'at' state you live in a "what used to need to be seen, now
needs to be shared to be believed."

Experiences become worthless unless A) you can prove that they happened, B)
that you can show it to someone.

Just my thoughts

------
conroe64
The Horrible Future of Blogging. I give you, the professional complainer...

------
abozi
relax mate. I don't think the majority of humanity is so dumb enough to be
bought into the whole social hype, each time someone creates another "Facebook
for ABC" online. Sure, it doesn't help when senseless media and VCs hype it up
even more so, but most of us don't really buy into it. FB, Twitter etc should
be just natural extensions to our real social life (plus a little bit more).
Taking things too far as you did on your blog assumes that we'll just buy
ourselves into these crap.

------
dools
I often think the same thing about cheaply available photography. What was
tourism like before cameras? Whatever he's talking about has already happened.

------
someone_welsh
I generally recommend watching "black mirror" - a funny 3 episode satirical tv
thing which is about this very topic. it's worth people's time

------
iamwil
This app actually already exists in the app store.

------
wasulahewa
Might not have the same specs but close, <http://www.guyskeepscore.com/>

------
aneth4
There will always be those who proclaim outrage and lament change.

Change always causes loss, but we often gain more. Naysayers may help us keep
track of what is lost, but best to ignore them otherwise.

Because of agriculture, we don't know how to hunt and gather. Because of home
theaters we don't go to the movies. Because of air flights we are separated
from our families and miss much of what we fly over.

Indeed. The sky is falling.

------
cherkoff
<http://www.guyskeepscore.com/>

------
maked00
Way to go, I am sure some crass go getter is staking this concept out as we
speak.

------
tehwalrus
the closing comments are much like Dylan Moran's rant about cameras (warning,
typical foul language):

    
    
      Would you please - stop - taking - pictures - on your 
      tiny - annoying (whispering) fucking camera. This is 
      happening to you in real time, you are having the 
      experience. It's not much point to verify that you 
      were at the event when you're actually here.
    

(quote taken from [http://funnycomedianquotes.com/funny-dylan-moran-jokes-
and-q...](http://funnycomedianquotes.com/funny-dylan-moran-jokes-and-
quotes.html?p=9) but I can't seem to link directly to it.)

The quote as I remember it live was slightly different, something about not
living your life because you were too busy filming it for youtube.

------
petegrif
Sounded pretty cool.

Just one gripe. He forgot the 'like' button.

------
lockes5hadow
I thought this was called adultfriendfinder?

------
axx
I'm so going to build sex.ly!

------
imsofuture
This is ~6 years too late.

------
D_Alex
Sex.ly for YC '13!

------
FredBrach
"No. What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and
absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important."

I would say: it "logical-ize" it - in the computing meaning of the "term". And
here come the question: is it good? Maybe no because the logic of such an app
is a cheap one but maybe yes because it becomes more logical in the sense of
rational.

"What is so attractive with this logic is that.. it _is_ logic" - Triumph of
the Nerds

