I hate social media with a passion. In 2000 using msn, yahoo messenger and chat rooms was a joy. Browsing the web was such fun, exploring and finding new information and websites.
In 2005 MySpace became all the rage and something shifted. It was the start of the "me" generation. Facebook amplified this and it became all the rage to ask "are you on Facebook?" at parties. Everything was new and exciting but we also had no idea what we were about to get into. The feed became an addictive creation that twitter then took to some next level. The "For you" tab is a joke. It's a way to continue to drive clicks, likes, retweets. All of this needs to end now. I honestly don't have the answer but I know part of it is probably less technology, less staring at screens and almost zero social media consumption. I so badly want to escape.
Well, quit, and be done with it. The problem with addicts is that some of them somehow think it is the responsibility of the society to outlaw whatever they are addicted to. Nope. The "me" generation tells you: get your act together and stop making others responsible for your decisions.
Sadly we've enfeebled the other options. Not being on social (at least the messaging platforms) media makes it tough to maintain social relationships. It can be done, of course, but with friction. It's also how a lot of orgs communicate with the world, annoyingly.
There are so many people wanting to escape, but then also again claiming this.
But it is an excuse: there are so many electronic good alternatives for friend cycles to stay connected if they want where you still can keep off social media..
And tbh, we did this well before even without those, and there was even a time we did this without mobile phones but just landline and mail... Just try it for a while, it really still works.
If social relationships cannot be maintained without social media, I have no doubt, it is the wrong social relationships "maintained".
> there are so many electronic good alternatives for friend cycles to stay connected if they want where you still can keep off social media..
Network effects just don't work like this. I suspect thinking that they do is related to the kinds of friendships the commenter has - small, intense, long term group friendships; and proximity friendships.
Personally I don't have the social capital to pull the dozens of people I keep in regular contact with off their preferred platform and into a new one. Very few people do. And I value those relationships far more than I hate the platforms that maintain them.
> If social relationships cannot be maintained without social media, I have no doubt, it is the wrong social relationships "maintained".
This is a value judgement, and not an argument. I have strong relationships with friends and former partners, as well as family, that I've maintained for decades through platforms like messenger - which is awful but ubiquitous - with real people who live across the world. We do meet when possible, but it's often years apart, and there's no one 'core group'. These are real world, profound friendships with people I met in person, lived or worked or studied with for years and care about.
I completely agree with the characterisation of the harms wrought by social media. But prior to social media, more than a very few distant friendships were all but impossible to maintain. And when you lost contact with an old friend, you could never be quite certain if they had lost interest, were too busy, or had perhaps died or suffered some great setback in life.
Not to get into a back and forth - but that's not remotely true. Our values are soft things next to the concrete realities of life. The need to eat, our health, social contacts, the hard limits on our healthy lifespan. Values are the ways of being we develop to bring our desires into alignments with the aspects of reality we can't control.
Moreover - what you're describing is virtue ethics, which is only one of many ethical systems. Hold hard to your values and be evaluated based on your adherence to them. Personally I'm more of a soft utilitarian - it's the results of my decisions that matter, not how they adhere to an abstract value. But we all fight the chaos in our own way.
>Our values are soft things next to the concrete realities of life. The need to eat, our health, social contacts, the hard limits on our healthy lifespan.
All of the above can (and have) yield in order to uphold some values, including the ultimate sacrificing of one's life (much less health or social contacts).
Plus, utilitarians have virtue ethics too. They just consider utility the virtue to uphold, downstream from that decision it's not different than plain old virtue ethics. After all the utility can only ultimately be judged by a value judgement (what we consider of higher utility). There's no neutral raw utility without a desired (value judgement) end result.
> If social relationships cannot be maintained without social media, I have no doubt, it is the wrong social relationships "maintained".
I'm a person who abstains from social media. My family has not. They can contact me individually, and some do infrequently, but they complain that I'm extra work and the rest of my family is more connected because they post content once and everybody sees it. So, I'm missing out on the healthy part of social media -- as anti-social-media as I am, I must acknowledge that there is some good to it. Your insistence that my family is the "wrong social relationship" to maintain is missing the baby for the bathwater.
If I want to use WhatsApp or Messenger as a messaging tool, nothing forces me to follow any toxic feeds. I can just use WhatsApp and Messanger as a plain inbox and do not have to care about reading the FB feed. I am not so sure about Twitter, but I guess you can also use the DM features without having to dive headlong into flamey feeds.
Asking out of curiosity: is Twitter the medium of choice in your social circle? Everyone I know uses messengers to communicate, and while I know lots of my friends use Instagram, you don’t have to to participate.
People used to be able to maintain large remote friend circles before the telegram was invented. If they could do it by snail mail, you can do it with a phone and no social media.
They disconnected their phone number and switched to social media? Or did they discontinue their postal address and switch to social media? I am sort of confused what you are trying to say.
They're spending their time on social media (instead of meeting friends and going out as much), they preferentially make their arrangements when going on and keeping touch on social media, they will often actively snub or forget people outside social media, and even if you manage to get time with them face to face, they're likely to discuss social media drama or just stare at their social media smartphone screen.
OK, but given the behaviour you describe, why do you miss them, then? Sounds like these people dont add anything to your life, or at least dont really want to add something, which is also reason enough to not care.
Where I life: Nobody except journalists actually uses twitter for anything. FB is the social network for people my age, but has lost a lot of traction in the recent years. Most people that still use it share "funny" nonesense, but the amount of genuine personal postings has gone down. Instagram is not my age-group, so I couldn't really say, but at least I have never felt pressure to join. I call most of my friends on the phone, with very little exceptions. To sum it up: If I wouldn't read about the downfall of society because of social media on HN, I probably wouldn't have noticed. Likely a US specific problem, which is fine, after all, you guys pushed most of this social poison, so it seems fair that you get most of the fallout as well.
>The problem with addicts is that some of them somehow think it is the responsibility of the society to outlaw whatever they are addicted to. Nope.
On the other hand, the problem is with "everyone for themselves" solutions is that they're not enough to address an issue that affects you (and society in general in systemic ways) even if you personaly don't use the medium.
You're claiming that something I dont care about is affecting my life in subtle ways I dont realize. When I ask you to back that up, you effectively say I am too stupid to get it on my own. Well, my point stands: You are claiming things and have nothing to back that up, and expect to be taken seriously?
Credit card companies have created a system where if you don't use them you are a loser, that's an example of what can happen. I can't prove OPs point about whether it affects you or not but in principle it might not, you might benefit from that status quo.
Can you explain, how is someone a "loser" if they don't use a credit card? Buying stuff on credit was never standard around where I live. Yet, for internet purchases, sure, but for most other things, we actually never adopted credit cards. We finally have debit cards, which is nice for the occasional internet purchase. But I see no extra pressure in my society to actually own and use a credit card.
>You're claiming that something I dont care about is affecting my life in subtle ways I dont realize.
You don't need to care about something for it to affect you. Do you need a citation for this too?
I'm claiming (actually merely stating, this is more like "water is wet" that some claim that needs support, it's almost a tautology) that systemic/social effects (what most people do, even if you don't do them) affect people in a society even if they don't participate.
Specially that the majority people using social media also affects people not using them. Because even if you dont use them, your friends, kids, relatives, colleages, etc, do.
The effect ranges from people simple things like people driving the car in the same roads as you while checking their feed, people staring at their screens when you go out with them, to friends/spouses/relatives/colleagues/kids being addicted, depressed, manipulated, misinformed, and generally affected in multiple ways by social media in many ways that then brush of to you (except if you live in a desert), to others expecting you to be participating there and treating you weirdly if you don't, and several other ways besides.
It's the same way for many other things that are seemingly "individual" choice. You might not care about alcohol or drugs for example, but if somebody in your circle does, or even someone you have the misfortune to meet, it can just as well affect you (or their friends, relatives, violent crime rates, the health system, road safety, etc.).
I don't quite get how you perceive GitHub as toxic social environment, but to each their own... All I sometimes get is a rejected PR, which is definitely not toxic but just the reality of things.
I get your grief with Mailing lists though. The forced move from lists to web forums was pretty much a downer for me. Actually, I left every community which did that. I am too old to browser a bunch of web forums each day. If the new kids like that, let 'em play with eachother...
Twitter I can delete. I don't browse facebook, I try not to browse instagram - but these platform's messaging facilities, along with whatsapp, google chat, signal, telegram and more are used daily by my friends and family to communicate.
Sure you can simply cut off those who don't use your preferred platform. But I've seen what happens to people who do that - when the first facebook backlash occurred back in the late 2000s. They disappear from the real world 'social graph' of their non-local friends.
Of course it would be better if everyone used one, encrypted messaging app. But thats not likely to happen any time soon. Of course social media is a poison, as OP pointed out. But its utility for low effort passive relationship maintenance with my old friends from college, jobs, school etc is an essential part of my social life. I suspect thats true for millions of people.
I had friends before Facebook. I had a lot of Facebook friends. I left Facebook in 2016, and I went back to having basically the same friends as before. It's fine.
Some of those Facebook people were good folks that I miss, sure, but my life is my own now.
edit: also, low effort friends aren't friends, they're either trophies you're keeping or else tasks you don't actually need. Friends are the people in your life. Your college buddies are your college buddies, you're only supposed to see them at reunions and occasionally at the hardware store. Stop living the paradigm that the corporate platforms make the most money from and start living your life. Get the hell off.
I lost touch with my mother's half of the family when I left Facebook ten years ago. Poof, gone. It was the only thing bringing us together. For me it's worth that cost to separate from social media, but it isn't for everyone.
But did it have to be that way? Relationships are a garden you can choose to water without the aid of social media. When I quit Facebook I made a short list of people to occasionally reach out to individually, and in so doing have lost no social connections I wanted to retain. But I also have zero problem with texting, emailing, or even calling someone I haven't interacted with in years to say hello and see how they've been. I appreciate that for many, the idea of doing that will give them some anxiety.
I'm not here to judge em, but it doesn't sound very close-knit family. I'm out of touch with most of all my families, and I'm not particularly sad about most of em either. I'm sad about who some of them used to be, but I'm not at all concerned about not being in touch with who they are.
> But its utility for low effort passive relationship maintenance with my old friends from college, jobs, school etc is an essential part of my social life.
Phones continue to exist. Not to mention email! If someone doesn't warrant a phone call, or even email, are they truly your friend? Is that really a relationship?
As someone old enough to remember the days before social media existed, I find it hard to conceive of social media as "essential". Convenient? Sure. Addictive? Yes, certainly. But essential? No. Humanity indisputably survived and thrived without it. Indeed, the argument can be made that we were happier without it.
I don't understand this "be my true friend or screw you" advice that is repeatedly given here. I have people in my life like a guy from Barcelona I used to work with 20 years ago, or a cool couple I've met in Istanbul. They are not my BFFs at all, but it's very nice to see what they are up to, what their life is like in those cities, occasionally like and comment, and hang out in person once I return to those cities. Is that bad? Am I supposed to call them on the phone to get a verbal update on their life, or they are not my "true friends"? Have 1:1 sessions in Signal to discuss what exactly? Their Facebook photos?
Spoken by someone who is extremely repulsed by the current Facebook/Insta, but it was a very unique and useful tool in my life.
> I don't understand this "be my true friend or screw you" advice that is repeatedly given here.
That wasn't the advice. The advice is that if you want to maintain a relationship with someone, make a little effort to do so. Social media has made people ultra-lazy.
> Am I supposed to call them on the phone to get a verbal update on their life, or they are not my "true friends"? Have 1:1 sessions in Signal to discuss what exactly? Their Facebook photos?
I mentioned email, but your reply mentions everything except email.
Anyway, as far as what you're supposed to discuss, yes, you'll want to get an update on their life. "Hi, wondering how you've been. What's new with you?" Not that difficult.
It's almost as if social media has created learned helplessness, and we've forgotten how to be human.
> That wasn't the advice. The advice is that if you want to maintain a relationship with someone, make a little effort to do so. Social media has made people ultra-lazy.
exactly. Today people won't even comment on something, ask you something. They just see the posts/stories, or at max, click 'like' or one of the reactions.
You don't need to communicate every day or write long essays, but leaving a comment on a photo, or asking "did you like it?" if a friend post that they were watching a movie/etc, is not a lot of effort.
What if they didn’t give out email in the first place? What if they came back a few months later with “we’re good. Didn’t check email for a while. Can you use FB instead?”
The point is you shouldn’t dictate how someone you are interested in staying in touch to use certain tools.
> What if they didn’t give out email in the first place?
Ask for it?
> What if they came back a few months later with “we’re good. Didn’t check email for a while. Can you use FB instead?”
I'm not going to play hypotheticals. You can imagine a possible worst case scenario for anything. Confront that problem if it occurs, but what if it doesn't occur? You seem to be arguing that someone shouldn't even bother trying to leave social media, because there's a small chance that something inconvenient might happen. It's fatalistic and defeatist.
> Sure you can simply cut off those who don't use your preferred platform. But I've seen what happens to people who do that - when the first facebook backlash occurred back in the late 2000s. They disappear from the real world 'social graph' of their non-local friends.
Nah.
I closed twitter and anything meta except whatsapp (for family), in which I have a big large text as the profile icon to search for me in signal. I have exactly the same social life as before, and this has been going on for years. Don't let the FOMO win.
> Sure you can simply cut off those who don't use your preferred platform. But I've seen what happens to people who do that - when the first facebook backlash occurred back in the late 2000s. They disappear from the real world 'social graph' of their non-local friends.
Everyone is at least on Whatsapp, Signal or Line. Just ask for their number... if you don't think it's worth asking, that's probably because they're not your friends at all.
This is not true, at least outside the US. The varieties of service people use to communicate vary much more than this. Line for example, isn't used by a single person I know. Many won't use whatsapp (as a Facebook company). Signal is strange and intimidating to non technical people and so on.
> if you don't think it's worth asking, that's probably because they're not your friends at all.
I'm specifically talking about good friends, non geeks, I've known for decades. They're comfortable with their platforms of choice. This kind of inflexible - my way or the high way communication style you're advocating, isn't a healthy or effective way of maintaining very long term friendships.
I had to create a FB account because our neigbourhood uses is heavily to communicate and coordinate and FB marketplace is the best place here for used items. But that's it, my timeline is basically all ads and scams (the line is blurry there) with the occasional group post I actually like to see. It's an ok situation for me I would say.
Maybe you get the scams because from Facebook's demographic model of you, you fall in to the lonely and weird categories targeted by scammers? It can only go on what you've given it after all.
Well google chat, signal and telegram are unaffected by this and you can still use whatsapp after deleting your facebook profile. Source: deleted my facebook profile and am currently (unfortunately) forced to use whatsapp for some family coordination bs.
I don't have Facebook. That went like 10 years ago. I still have twitter but deleted an account with 3k followers and returned to follow just the things I care about quietly. Still that scrolling behaviour gets me. My consumption is drastically lower than it was but at the same time I think it can be better and part of that is reframing how we get the information we're consuming on social media.
"For you" tab of GitHub is a worst. GitHub has been forced and withdrawn it repeatedly and is still waiting for an opportunity to force it. Eventually GitHub will delete the "Following" tab and force the "For you" tab again.
Tbh it's about as useful as the trending page is. Which is not very useful. These things could be so much better but GitHub is just copycatting at this point. It used to be a leader in great UX.
Check out Discord. All the social media that you mention are all about "look at me", with a competition of getting the most likes and comments.
Discord is basically small independent servers, where discussions and information primes over users. If you have some toxic people, they just get kicked out.
I run a server with a bit more than 1000 members, most of them teenagers. I'm always surprised how nice and friendly they are to other strangers on the net.
I think discord works well but at the same time isn't for my generation. I was reluctant to adopt slack and used it for work/oss community building but found it just wasn't a fit for me. I'm still someone who enjoys email and async comms. I also prefer conversating in small groups. So having this kind of fixed limit feels right. Like 20 people or less. Totally private.
I also don't really want to talk to strangers. I'd like it to be network driven starting with real people I know or have met IRL.
Exactly. While my usage of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook is somewhat sporadic, often with months in between, I find they serve their purpose well when needed. I've seen some toxicity on Twitter, it's not pervasive enough that I can't ignore it. As for Facebook, I predominantly use it as a tool for staying informed about my connections, checking their updates and occasionally even ensuring their well-being.
I fail to see how an absolute withdrawal from social media has benefits over trying to manage and cultivate a more mindful approach.
I'm sure there's no one size that fits all, but we've replaced it with small groups.
For example, my family is in a discord channel. My SO's family is in a group text. My local motorcycle buddies are in a group text. My college friends from way back are on Slack. My expat coworkers from my last job are on Slack. My high school pals I'm still in touch with are on Discord.
And I get feed news on Mastodon, which is non-algorithmic. And it's great.
I still have accounts on those other sites for DM purposes, but I've deleted most of my past content and the rest is inoffensive stuff parked there just in case someone looks for a job or something.
I definitely miss out on the day-to-day of a lot of people I know, and that's a loss. But I still feel I have a net gain for my own mental health.
This. So you're highlighting what I feel and see. The need to manage small groups in a singular way. Maybe that's not even worth it but it's all spread across different platforms. I don't really know if a bridge for them all in one place is useful or whether it's just about having the one place to have these private groups.
It's an honest question. I tried using Facebook many years ago, but I found it extremely boring, and only served for me to dismay at what some people I respect posted online. So I abandoned it, didn't even bother deleting my account. I just never went back there.
I never even created a Twitter account. Only time I ever browse it is when someone sends me a link to something there. I look at it and leave. I always thought the idea and implementation was repulsive.
I am always puzzled why people use those sites. Doubly so when they voice displeasure at doing so, such as yourself.
I really wish there was a... "casual" or "slower" replacement for Twitter. I created a Twitter account and followed my favorites, unfortunately I keep getting "outrage" tweets recommended. Funny, it's like it's own little microsphere where people vent about trans, climate, "men are superior to women", all these 4chan-esque topics. It's not even about about being correct, it's just about short "gotcha!" posts that sound good but are riddled with logical fallacies and ludicrous points if you think about it for a second.
I, on the other hand, go to HN to complain apparently. :-)
The problem with Mastodon viz Twitter is that all the important people, including politicians in particular, are still in the latter, often in order to attack each other on daily basis. I bet some of them actually love the polarizing algorithm as it only benefits them.
That is not a problem, but a feature as I see it. If "more casual" and "slower" doesn't fit these people, let them have their fighting arena at Twitter.
If you want the day-to-day opinions of politicians and other "important people", I suspect you don't want something calmer and slower than Twitter, you just want a better block list.
And its very slow growth over many years to 'just' a couple of million users (which growth hacking megaplatform enthusiasts have been deriding it for) contributes to this more healthy culture, imho. Yes, all the usual social dynamics exist that are also present in any other platform. But handled differently, better maybe.
It's funny. The most "Twitter-esque" replies I see on Mastodon come from mastodon.social, which thanks to now being the "default server" in several apps seems to be facing somewhat of an Eternal September.
There tends to be some drama around different attitudes to moderation on other servers but other than that they're usually fairly well-behaved and predictable by comparison. Twitter on the other hand seems to have opened some kind of hell portal giving 4chan a run for its money.
It takes a bit of work, honestly. I slowly shifted my timeline from tech/dev centric to a niche that feels comfortable and not outrage-based, but it needs pruning like a garden. The best way is to signal to the algorithm that i'm not interested in certain kinds of tweets when it pops up again. Also try not to open/see the replies of those tweets as viewing it is also a signal. It's a cost/benefit thing, me personally have found a lot of value in keeping adjacent tweets coming to my timeline.
Twitter/Reddit/HN are too toxic for me to visit every morning, so I started allowing myself to visit these sites 1-2 per week before 5 pm. Evenings are fine as I’m already done with my work.
People are actually kind when you see each other’s faces. It’s bizarre how big the difference is.
Just use the "following" tab. One of the best changes since musk is that now it's a prominent button and it remembers that setting, instead of tricking you into using the algorithm.
Not for me - on the iOS app it will still randomly switch to the "For You".
It worrying how long it takes to realise it's happened. But after reading the several tweets from conspiracy nuts and right wing fruit cakes you notice.
Holding me back from posting updates of what I had for breakfast is the problem of private key sharing with services that I can use in order to post updates of what I had for breakfast.
A client or service will inevitably be compromised. And with it, the private keys of some, or assumed all, using it, whether stored by the service or logged on entry by a compromised system.
Private keys should be chained, master->subkey, with subkey the public key of the service __or a solution like that or that ends in the same result. When (not if) a service or key is compromised, the key can be blacklisted and/or any key co-signed by a compromised service blacklisted.
Enough outrage against the outrage. If any other content would have worked then media and social media would use it. The algorithms reflect what people spend time on. My recommendations are motorcycles, computers, video games, watches, etc. Still a useless time-sink comprised of mostly thinly veiled advertising but nothing rage inducing.
Nobody else is responsible you click on political stuff. Nobody is responsible you join every moral crusade that gets started. Even on HN where there is no personalized algorithm, even on technical issues, most people vote and comment with their moral/political sensibilities a lot of the time.
>I now believe the future will be far more irresponsible and stupid than I once did.
>I am increasingly worried that human success and failure are ruled by taste — the demand side, in economic terms.
>If there are fewer beautiful and charming residential post-World War II neighborhoods, it is because most people do not want to live in them. If there are fewer movies today with the dramatic impact and compositional rigor of “Citizen Kane,” it is because people do not very much want to see them. It is not that it is too difficult or expensive to make another “Citizen Kane.”
Even without the Algorithm, Twitter would be awful.
Quite simply: when was the last time you went in Twitter to see an intelligent argument that opposes yours? Never, because such a thing simply requires more than 280 characters, and multiple cited sources.
280 chars with a single source is enough for a "look how bad my enemies are" hot take, however.
It's a shame, because getting off social media fully is hard now - so much actual research and professional interaction requires it as well. But eurgh.
Having used Twitter threads and a Mastodon instance with a limit of 8000 characters, I have to say that the latter actually makes me less verbose. Due to the per-message character limit and the widespread use of quote-retweeting I felt like I had to make sure every tweet was defensible in isolation so tweet threads just turn into the most mundane one-liners so there's still enough room in each to provide context. Twitter's threading UI also only supports standalone tweet threads and does nothing to help with composing multi-tweet replies so those often go out of order eventually and people will reply to individual tweets rather than the end of each sub-thread.
I get the sense it’s not really possible to win an argument on public social media. Even if the other person has no rebuttal, they’ll at best slink away and someone else will just take their place. Ad infinitum.
> Encouragingly, the recently passed EU Digital Services Act (2022)
mandates that large online platforms offer a non-algorithmic way of viewing content, such as a reverse-chronological feed [Vincent, 2022]. This development may soon make it possible to replicate our methodology across multiple platforms of interest. We hope our study will inspire future efforts in this direction.
Breaking away from the anti-social-media consensus that's bubbled up here, I haven't seen any discussion about how much the baser human psyche craves tribalism & self-grouping more than anything else.
As shown in the paper itself, regardless of the political tribe, there's a persistent positive feeling that comes with reinforcing the viewpoints of the in-group.
(page 4) It should also be noted that the personalized tweets are self-reported to be rated slightly higher than the chronological tweets, with political tweets being the exception. In short, when politics is filtered out, the Algorithm is doing its job well.
> 1.3 Tweet value to reader
> For each tweet, we also have users assess whether they value seeing that tweet or not (“When you use Twitter, do you want to be shown tweets like [@author-handle]’s?”, where users choose between “Yes”, “No”, and “Indifferent”). We find that overall, tweets shown by the algorithm are rated slightly higher (0.05 SD, p = 0.024). Interestingly, however, when restricting to political tweets, those recommended by the personalized algorithm lead to significantly lower user value than those in the chronological timeline (−0.14 SD, p = 0.004).
Dataset-wise, it's heavily skewed towards left-&-far-left Democrats (page 12, Tables 5 & 6), & young people (page 13, Table 4).
This is pretty unsurprising for anyone who has used twitter. The entire way it's set up is that you have clusters of mutual followers who form communities, and they engage in fairly innocuous ways, and then because the site is public-by-default you get inter-group conversations where someone from one of these communities will see something posted by one of the other communities and at this point the two communities go to war. It's like if 1 in every 100 posts on Reddit appeared on a different sub-reddit. Think of the engagement when a /r/conservative post just pops up on /r/politics. Reddit has obviously seen what happens there and has made big moves to stop that happening, but at twitter that's the default way the site works. It's fantastic for engagement and no one at twitter wanted to kill the golden goose.
Having said that, this study is quite unfortunate in its timing - it managed to time it's data collection at the exact point in time where Elon Musk was forcing his employees to manually boost his tweets so that he could get more views than Biden [1]. So basically while the twitter algo had been pretty stable for the last decade they managed to time their data collection over the exact week where the moron decided to start messing with it to stroke his own ego.
Elon said in a recently interview that his new most important metric is to reduce regret time spent on site. An example he gave is that people should get push notifications about tweets they wouldn't regret clicking.
I don't know how twitter has me profiled, but these days it sends me onlyfans models, Matt Wallace, J.K. Rowling, Ed Krassenstein, Bitcoin influencers as recommended tweets to read.
Funny thing is, I don't follow anyone and nobody follows me, I just have a twitter account to occasionally (once a week?) read what Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and some musicians I like are tweeting about. I'm a liberal leaning centrist, I don't care about American politics much, or bitcoin, or onlyfans... I'm so curious how it decided to start serving me all this content that is so outside of who I am.
Also for those curious, this research is out of Berkeley and Cornell:
> "I don't know how twitter has me profiled, but these days it sends me onlyfans models, Matt Wallace, J.K. Rowling, Ed Krassenstein, Bitcoin influencers as recommended tweets to read."
Sounds like Musk has replaced the personalized recommendation algorithm with "Just recommend Elon's likes to everyone".
It's a joke, but I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if he did something like this. His fallacy as a product thinker is that he imagines everybody wants what he wants.
This works for Tesla which sells essentially a single product (the 3/Y are the same car while S/X sales are a blip). His product intuition for a car has been good. But his intuition for what people want out of Twitter is completely wrong because he doesn't seem to grasp that there are a hundred thousand different Twitters — each country and user group and subculture has their own idea of what it is and how they want to use it.
This is likely the problem. Social networks seem to put your account in a weird “starter” bucket if you don’t engage with it in the way it expects.
You’re probably getting pushed some weird version of the algorithm that some PM once devised when tasked with getting inactive users or new users engaging better.
So because they couldn't decide what to push on this account, they just spam notifications with random stuff? Seems at odds with the outlined goal of "reduce regret time spent on site".
At that stage, the only way to regret less is not to play the game. And "following nobody and not being followed" is one step away from not playing at all.
You get the blue checks if you're not following anybody. Same as if you expand any any popular tweet. From what I've seen these are typically angry and weird people
This is eerily similar to my (short-lived) experience on twitter- same usage (occasionally logging on to read Elon tweets and a few others), exactly the same sorts of recommendations.
Twitter just wasn't entertaining enough for me, if I'm in the mood for that sort of entertainment I'd rather read Hackernews or watch youtube.
That feed anecdotally looks similar to the accountless (not logged in) feed. Makes sense, "no follows" is pretty similiar to "no account".
BTW accountless twitter got better under Elon: it's now possible to just bookmark one's follows offsite, and poll their page every so often, without as aggressive login walls as under Jack. Also nitter.net seems to have survived the API armageddon quite nicely and is good for accountless twitter with even fewer distractions.
In 2005 MySpace became all the rage and something shifted. It was the start of the "me" generation. Facebook amplified this and it became all the rage to ask "are you on Facebook?" at parties. Everything was new and exciting but we also had no idea what we were about to get into. The feed became an addictive creation that twitter then took to some next level. The "For you" tab is a joke. It's a way to continue to drive clicks, likes, retweets. All of this needs to end now. I honestly don't have the answer but I know part of it is probably less technology, less staring at screens and almost zero social media consumption. I so badly want to escape.