Hey folks, John Biggs here. I wrote this as a reaction to reason news and it comes at the end of a slow boil. I think we can make better tools than this one and I believe Facebook - and other social media - were originally quite useful and have now devolved due to market pressure. I'm definitely a hypocrite, as well. I still use most things to _broadcast_ not communicate and that's primarily because I've spent 20 years journalizing and am used to the constant, one-sided flow of information.
That said I deleted all social apps except for Twitter and, for some masochistic reason, LinkedIn and am ready to tear it all out of my life step by step. It's a poison.
I killed my account somewhere around 4 years ago. Overall, I am probably a better person (interpersonally / socially) because I have to actually talk to people in order to "catch up". However, there are some difficult downsides. For instance, given that basically everyone else that I know still uses it, all of my friends now have to single me out with a text when they create an event and want me there or post about something they wanted to get the news out about. Basically, being the one (or one of the few) non-facebook user(s) in my friend group effectively shifts the burden of communicating with me to the person communicating, from the app that was specifically designed for mass communication. So expect to be left out of the loop a lot. Expect to lose some friends (because you won't communicate with all of them anymore). Expect to have to put more effort into maintaining your friendships (since you won't have that constantly opened communication transport that you can easily use).
That being said, I'll never go back to using Facebook. It changed my behavior patterns too much and I was just not happy.
I've experienced the same things and believe that the requirement to put more effort into maintaining friendships has been a large positive for me. Particularly given that I have been a poor communicator my entire life. The phone calls that I have been forced to have with friends since I stopped using social media have drawn us much closer -- at least in part because a phone call is far more intimate than a series of text messages.
Nevertheless, I do think some people are perfectly capable of using both social media and more traditional forms of communication. I don't think I'll ever attempt to achieve that balance given the other ills of social media that I've found myself susceptible to, but to each their own.
I really appreciate the fact you call yourself out as a hypocrite. A hypocrite can still be completely correct (we are all sinners, after all) and I think society would be more well right now if people understood that fact.
I too have been slowly weaning myself off Facebook. Step 1 for those who want to but can't bring themselves to is to just be logged in on your phone or tablet. Has done wonders for me.
My approach was to simply delete the Facebook app. I can still use facebook.com in my mobile browser once a week if I want and I don't get any push notifications.
Do you mean you only are logged in on your phone or tablet? This seems like the antithesis of what you want. I have removed it from my phone so now I can only log in on a computer. It has made me so much more happy to not have that temptation there with me all the time.
This. Killed mine 7 years ago. Nobody died. Still fully employed. Still getting invited to more-than-enough social events. And my family appreciate getting hand-written Christmas cards once a year.
Can you provide any additional detail about that? I can’t tell if you’re referring to FB mining the contents of the messages, or the app doing unscrupulous things in the background.
The NSA says they only monitor communication metadata. But that's already a lot of information. Let's imagine a scenario where FB can't read your messages, so it doesn't know what you talk about. But if you talk to people who are mostly Trump critics according to their Facebook activity, Facebook can probably categorize you as a liberal. If you added a new friend of the appropriate gender for dating, and your communication intensifies, Facebook can probably guess what's going on. If it intensified and goes quiet some evenings (predominantly weekend evenings), well, guess who's seeing each other (each guess come with probability percentages).
The latter. I don't have specific examples in mind, just that if you do not trust a company's data collection policies, the collection capabilities of an installed program are much greater than when viewed through a web browser. See [1] for an example from a few of years ago.
When you think about it, it's kind of alarming that FB, Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram are all owned by the same company. I can't even imagine the amount of data they have about us.
>Why "except twitter?" I find Twitter to be 100x more toxic, 1% as useful, and infinitely worse design.
Twitter is all about your filter. I have mine curated to an amazing list of intelligent thoughtful, creative people who I enjoy seeing post every day, completely devoid of politics. As soon as you leave that bubble though, it's an absolute nightmare.
As a very light user of Twitter, I undoubtedly follow far fewer people than most power users, and I'm still overwhelmed by retweets of poorly threaded and displayed conversations that are wholly without context.
I've tried dipping my toe into following this F1 driver or that tech star, but it seems like the content is 100% tangents and 0% relevant to anything I might care about. I just can't get past that hump. And again, that's following very few people.
> I've tried dipping my toe into following this F1 driver or that tech star, but it seems like the content is 100% tangents and 0% relevant to anything I might care about. I just can't get past that hump. And again, that's following very few people.
Again, quality over quantity. I don't follow anyone with more than a few thousand followers because then it becomes a weird hierarchical, pub-sub, "celebrity" kind of relationship, rather than just communication between peers. Follow the guy
with 300 stars on GitHub making weird new stuff, not whatever "online personality" is pushing their blog and building a huge follower base.
unfortunately, twitter seems determined to ruin this for users, with features like "* liked this" and "You might like" showing up in users' timelines with no ways to turn them off.
As much as I think most of Twitter's userbase comprises one of the worst cesspools on the Internet (yes, really), you can fit a hyperlink and short commentary to something well worth reading within a tweet.
Its function as a personal RSS feed can still be pretty valuable, and I see no reason why you can't be judicious with your follows and entirely avoid the toxic majority.
I have a Twitter account that's barely more than domain squatting from the early days of the service; at this point I follow probably five people and have logged in a dozen times in almost a decade. But when I do, my feed is dense with fascinating stuff. If I were to spend a little time curating, I could probably get to a lot more volume and still keep the high quality of the feed.
Personally, I have the opposite experience. It's likely because few of my IRL friends are on Twitter, but I like the commentary of the tech folks I follow. They seem to be on Twitter rather than Facebook. And since few of my friends use it, I don't feel the same "ego projection" pressure as I did on FB.
Sure, maybe I'm better off without either, but I think if you exercise some diligence you can craft a useful experience on most social platforms.
I'm not going to necessarily disagree. My wife and I don't use twitter. Except when 'something is going on'.
When there is a local event or situation, Twitter is pretty valuable. For example, when there is a Caltrain strike, it's almost always more efficient getting details on Twitter.
Can anyone suggest alternatives for such use cases?
I believe the main alternative is to drastically cut down on the amount of news that's consumed - which may or may not be something you need to do. Otherwise, how about listening to local radio for a short while when you're getting ready for the day or doing chores?
I'd say for most people, there's really not much true value that comes from news (compared to books). Sure, it makes us feel more informed and provides topics of conversation for friends and strangers but really, it produces so little nearly all of the time.
Unless your job or hobby is closely linked with news or activism, so much of it is simply consumed as entertainment to idle time away.
However, if your usage of it is so infrequent and only for finding out about transport disruptions; maybe it's not such a problem that needs an alternative? Or perhaps not knowing wouldn't really inconvenience you that severely anyway - that's entirely up to you.
> When there is a local event or situation, Twitter is pretty valuable
That seems like a perfectly fine use of Twitter. Not sure why you'd need an alternative?
You don't have to maintain a list of people to follow and watch your feed to get utility out of it.
I mostly interact with Twitter on a case-by-case basis. Either via events, looking at a specific users profile, or coming across tweets via the media or on Reddit.
Yup, this is absolutely my only use of twitter -- realtime events, following hashtags (which of course the native client still (probably) doesn't support, conferences, etc.
Twitter is indeed quite the mixed bag - I don't recommend for anyone to take the habit up but I think I'm starting to see why it's still so popular:
It can sometimes be more toxic, but I've heard it can also be really great and lead to more real-life interactions compared to Facebook if you can build some trust. The breadth and depth of talent is also much larger, because you're not limited to "friends" from your own past. Because you'll encounter more strangers directly, you're free to follow random people a lot more without expecting them to reciprocate it (compare this to the obligation of accepting friend requests on Facebook).
There's also a bigger endorphin rush when someone with many more followers acknowledges one of your replies or tweets (through a like, or even retweet) - this just never happens on Facebook, and Facebook Likes from "friends" pale significantly in comparison because everything (including reshares) blurs together. To get better at Twitter (and not end up on the losing side of debates), you really have to strive for it and learn from the quality of other well-liked replies. Usually humor goes a long way and there are often some genuinely funny and original posts on Twitter (again, because of the greater pool of talent to bump into).
As others have said, if you follow the right people your feed improves significantly but there is quite the learning curve and trial & error until you get there (I'm still working on this part). It's remains primarily a procrastination tool for me, so I don't recommend those who aren't already using Twitter a lot to try harder at getting hooked.
Breaking news of all forms happens lot faster on Twitter due to the number of journalists present as well as normal users "on the ground" (the search works really well), however I think we should ask the question of how much news we really need in our daily lives and whether it affects us / changes our lives all that much. It's pointless if we're not prepared to act on it and becomes just another form of procrastination.
After I deactivated Facebook earlier this year, I found myself focusing more on Twitter - so far that's actually been a better experience overall. But based on that, I'm thinking from this week that I should just fire up a computer game every time I feel like idly opening Twitter - it could turn out to be a more productive experiment if I can segment my time better. Replacing one habit with another slightly-better and enjoyable one always works. I need to learn to shut down the information-hungry part of my brain more often so that it can stay focused on stuff that I really do need to know (almost never news).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I can see how you're much more likely to grow and gain friendships and professional connections through Twitter the way you describe it. I agree, I use Facebook almost exclusively for connections with real-life friends, which is what I like about it.
I can't say I don't get some level of enjoyment from approval of Likes and so on, but it has more to do with the enjoyment of the connections I already have. I don't have the desire to seek out new people or get liked/appreciated by people I don't know. I don't really mean this as a judgement, perhaps I would once I got rolling on it, but from where I sit it's not something I desire/seek out. It sounds like you didn't, either, though -- until it happened naturally as you moved away from Facebook.
What are your opinions on less personal social media sites like Hacker News and Reddit?
My enjoyment with Facebook ceased the moment Edward Snowden became a household name. I realized then how naked my information was in a world of bad actors. I only use Facebook as a simple contacts list these days.
But it’s harder to wean myself off HN/Reddit, as I get more value of useful information from the former and entertainment from the latter, than I have ever received from Facebook, even though both sites can lend themselves to mindless consumption and propaganda/manipulation, like FB.
Is there a “right” way for social media to be? Or are we resigned to a muddy middle ground forever?
Did you say Reddit? I'm really curious how to tolerate it, since the comments seem oriented more around feelings and me too or kneejerk anger than anything substantive. Also the comments are one-liners. Are there particular subreddits with intelligent people you'd recommend?
Not the parent but every time this question gets asked here it usually gets a few responses along the lines of "the more specific the topic the better the content/community generally is" and I'd agree. A few I enjoy are r/homelab, r/programming, r/Economics, r/networking, r/AskHistorians, and r/ColorizedHistory.
The defaults are cesspools. Just plan on nasty things being said back and forth to each other. In reality, the defaults are worse than 4chan, which is saying something.
However, the moment you start getting into tech subs and narrow hobby subs, the SN ratio cleans right up. Yeah, there might be a single spam, or some rude person, but they are the exception.
Reddit's like Usenet. The more people in a general group, the worse behaved they are. Go look up "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" -- so true..
Honestly I just use Reddit for entertainment. I know there are substantive subreddits out there, somewhere, but most of the subjects I care about understanding and discussing come through HN anyway.
That's the truth. I quit Facebook and most similar sites, and my social life improved quickly. I also get a lot more done without those distractions.
I block all of their companies in my hosts file and avoid their software libraries (React, etc.) whenever possible too. The company is having a terrible effect on the world and should not be supported. It was fundamentally broken from the start. A platform that connects all the world's people already exists -- it's called the WWW.
I know people who are desperately trying to quit, but they can't, because the site has locked their social connections within the platform, and they are addicted.
I'm curious, what are you primarily using LinkedIn for, that you find it difficult to have already gotten rid of it (in the process of stripping out the other social products)?
I've stalked LinkedIn for years looking for a way to undercut them with a superior competing product. I've never really found what I consider to be a very high value angle of attack that looked like it could cause a big enough wound to bring down the beast.
This is fascinating to me - I know LinkedIn is valuable, and lots of people describe it as an essential account they can't get rid of. Meanwhile, I can't work out what LinkedIn is even for.
I update my profile there occasionally, but only to not have out-of-date info being spread. It occasionally produces a low-quality contact or recruiter spam. That's about it. My peers don't keep theirs up to date, my employers don't use it as a major hiring source, I don't trust endorsements there as meaningful or predictive. The interface is enormously frustrating, and it's not even a particularly good job board.
Is there just a parallel ecosystem of people who engage with LinkedIn so deeply and consistently that it forms a real network? Is software just a low-LinkedIn-use field? What on earth are people doing on that site?
I've had an account on LinkedIn basically since it was available to the public. I stripped my account bare years ago and never use it for anything. I log in about once per year to check privacy type settings and maybe change a password.
From my observation, LinkedIn has had three relatively distinct eras for the product.
In the early days it was very simple work & business networking, as you'd expect it to be. A profile + connection between people.
Then it tried to evolve into a more general purpose tool, including publishing content, some communication, etc.
Then having fully captured its market, and with limited upside growth potential on users, it went full spam abuse engine. They kept ratcheting up the user monetization focus regardless of the damage to the product quality, and it has never turned back from that path.
I think LinkedIn is a social hole, where people deposit an account and information out of perceived necessity, and then rarely engage the product again until they change or update their job situation. There appears to be a shield of social-work pressure that keeps it alive and updating. People use it, so people use it. The value proposition certainly appears to be mediocre over time. I've known very, very few people that have gotten much value from it, yet almost everyone I know (that is non-retired) keeps and maintains a profile at a minimum level.
I suspect now that social media has reached a point in the last ~5 years of all-connected status (just speaking of the US here), it's going to become increasingly socially acceptable to quit platforms that were previously regarded as necessary. More and more people will experiment with rejecting the pressure that has been maintaining these networks artificially. I've seen that happen increasingly on Facebook, and LinkedIn often seems to be a graveyard these days.
I don't see where LinkedIn can go from here, in terms of increasing its value to people. They're very clearly not going to return the product to a less annoying, basic use case that sparked the user build-out in the first place. They may find a few more clever ways to monetize their hostages though.
> I think LinkedIn is a social hole, where people deposit an account and information out of perceived necessity, and then rarely engage the product again until they change or update their job situation. There appears to be a shield of social-work pressure that keeps it alive and updating. People use it, so people use it.
This is a fantastic summary, and something I'm going to think about with non-LinkedIn contexts as well. At this point, I update LinkedIn so it won't be out of date, and keep it alive so I'm not confused with other people. (And because deleting the thing looks like more of a pain than having it...)
It's an entirely defensive posture, and I only go to LinkedIn to pour information in, rather than to take anything valuable out.
Actually, it makes me think of those stupid "communication for recipient only" email disclaimers. They probably don't carry any legal weight, but once they got common some companies worried that if they didn't use them it could be brought up in court as evidence that the communication was shareable - so now everyone adds 5-10 lines to their emails just to get back to where they were before the meme ever started.
Indeed, this summary seems fair.
I've been keeping a profile up to date mainly because I thought that potential employers might look me up and probably think me too weird if they couldn't find me on either Facebook or LinkedIn. I definitely don't want a Facebook account.
This seems pretty on point. Personally, I deleted my LinkedIn account ~a month or two ago after realising it serves no useful purpose for me, and earlier today deleted my Twitter account (also mostly unused). Never had a Facebook account, so no action to take there.
GitHub is the only "social" platform I still have involvement with, and that's because it's actually useful. ;)
I feel the same way. None of the people with whom I work directly make use of linkedin at all, yet whenever I attend a business event or networking something or other, people look at me as though I just sprouted a tail when I tell them I have derived zero use from linkedin. It has only annoyed me with its spammy emails and pernicious alerts to invite people I might know, I can't fathom how it is an enjoyable experience to use for anybody.
I use LinkedIn exclusively as an online resume with the occasional message to contacts asking for advice or asking about details for a job. The social aspect is lost on me, as well.
For a journalist the answer is simple: Finding sources. Many of us have accounts solely to find an expert in a field or a person within a company to talk to.
In developing countries like India and Eastern Europe, there are many posts with hundreds and thousands of likes and comments. There IS an ecosystem of users who engage with linkedin deeply. HR recruiters and entrepreneurs publish long insightful/motivational pieces which give them leads and publicity. Then there are also those '+1 if you're interested in this job' posts, which garner plenty of comments.
entrepreneurs publish long insightful/motivational pieces which give them leads and publicity
Serious question: does this actually work? I'm considering a "content strategy" to build brand trust, and one option is to publish on LinkedIn. I'm pretty new to using the ecosystem for anything meaningful though. I'm in the middle of my "free trial" of the +1 level (Pro? I forgot- whatever they try to get you to sign up for...).
But if published content actually gets read, or if at least people search there when trying to learn more about somebody, then I'll consider it.
I was skeptical for years, nervous that I was now broadcasting even more info about myself than I already gave to the likes of Facebook and Google before it was too late. I was worried about now giving my employment history. Well, I finally did and got a ton of interviews out of it, much more quality recruiters than Dice which has become a spam nightmare.
You're deleting old posts, yet you're keeping all the messages from Messenger. And even if you would delete them, your friends would still have a copy, which means Facebook has one too.
