HN

Comments (183)

• Menu

  NiloCK
  Being born in 83, I experienced the shift from "serious local nightly news program" into the 24 hr cable news platforms as a loss of focused, serious journalism.Only much later did I read Understanding Media, Amusing Ourselves to Death, etc, and understand that the prior shift from print to the "serious local nightly new program" was itself a loss of focused, serious journalism.For today's youth, Tik Tok is "the air we breath" - the de-facto standard against which the future will be judged. It's horrifying to imagine what will be worse.
• Menu

  bentcorner
  I love this paragrpah and I think it provides an interesting insight:> They are entertainment platforms that delegate media creation to the users themselves the same way Uber replaced taxis by having people drive others in their own car.Taking this analogy further, is today's end goal of social media to provide AI generated content that users can endlessly consume? I think Facebook is heading this direction.
• Menu

  oblique
  > We dreamed of decentralised social networks as "email 2.0." They truly are "television 2.0."> They are entertainment platforms that delegate media creation to the users themselves the same way Uber replaced taxis by having people drive others in their own car.Either this is written poorly or way off. Social networks are already television 2.0. Decentralized social networks circumvents having the algorithm controlled by some central authority. Media creation has already been delegated to users over a decade ago, think content creators.Personally I'm a fediverse evangelist. Having decentralized entertainment platforms makes corporate/state influence much more difficult.The methods of influence in modern centralized social networks are much more sinister than television ever was.
• Menu

  terminalbraid
  > They believe those platforms are "public spaces" while they truly are "private spaces trying to destroy all other public spaces in order to get a monopoly."There's nothing I can add to this.
• Menu

  majormajor
  Text and chat (and the voice forms) are alive and well for communication.Broadcast forms, on the other hand, are ripe for co-option by profit-seeking through advertising.That's not communication being lost, it's media.
• Menu

  mrkeen
  This is so dramatic it's hard to recover the original complaint.Dansup has built a photo-sharing app on top of ActivityPub, and we humans are a lost cause because the app doesn't also do text-only messages?Is that the gist of it?
• Menu

  hollow-moe
  Soooo, when my email client is text-only and doesn't show me the attachments from the multi-part, it's "actively destroying the Fediverse" ? Ploum doesn't make any sense here. A "platform" such as Mastodon, Pixelfed, Peertube etc. (Do not mistake with "client", there's multiple Peertube "clients" or "frontends" for instance) using ActivityPub shouldn't have to implement and provide the user with the whole spec, otherwise just make the "ActivityPub" platform, implement everything there why even bother making other platforms?
• asmor
  I don't get the hangup on having multiple accounts. The point of AP is that you can read any kind post, not create any kind of post.There is a truth to consumption over communication, but that is in the destruction of third spaces and the increasing difficulty in making friends. The fediverse is a force against that in my view, even if it has some of the creature comforts of regular social media.
• ofalkaed
  Reading through this thread, I can't help but think that Stanley Elkin got everything right when he wrote George Mills. The blurbs and reviews of George Mills often reduce it to being about the failures of the 99%, but I think it is more about why the 1% succeeds and the answer is fairly simple, because the 99% wants the 1% to succeed, it absolves them of all culpability. This is modern (contemporary) life, absolution. George Mills seems to only increase in relevance as far as I can see, but it only recedes in relevance in the eyes of the public because it offers no scapegoats.This time it is different, right? The first George Mills was correct in believing that, but we don't live in his times.
• Menu

  bryanrasmussen
  >Communication networks are not profitable.Ma Bell tells me they may not have considered all possible angles on this matter.
• Menu

  beej71
  Resonates for me. I consume a bunch of content daily, but it's RSS mostly. Gemini, too. None of it is Facebook et al. I am in groups with friends and family on Signal and on Discord, and in email.It feels more boring, for sure, but it is vastly more satisfyingly "human", if I can describe it that way.Yes, I'm over 50.
• Menu

  vanschelven
  I wonder if the author is aware of Neil Postman's work, especially "Amusing ourselves to death". It seems very relevant to this article.
• kaonwarb
  The author’s ideological bent against Big Tech shows through most clearly in the passage on Uber:> Uber replaced taxis by having people drive others in their own car. But what was created as "ride-sharing" was in fact a way to 1) destroy competition and 2) make a shittier service while people producing the work were paid less and lost labour rightsThere are valid complaints about Uber, but most people consider it a materially better service than taxis most of the time. They vote that way with their wallets, long after VC subsidies ended, and often even when it costs _more_ than a taxi.
• jim201
  The book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman seems really relevant here. The thesis is that different modes of information are best suited to different tasks. Postman argues that television is best suited for entertainment. So the programs that do well on TV will naturally tend to be entertainment.That book was written in 1985, but the core observations are also applicable to modern cellphones (which have become, for the majority of users, entertainment devices).Postman then talks about how our communication systems have degraded as a result of entertainment being the strength of our current modes.Fantastic read.
• Menu

  mojuba
  > I apply a strong inbox 0 methodologyTangential to the main topic, but this is the only sensible way of running an email inbox, always has been to me, and it boggle my mind, why would anyone let clutter and a piling number of unreads in their one and only inbox, one of the most important things in our digital lives?Each email is an action item. If it's not or if it's been addressed, it's gone, period.Archive vs. Delete is another question but not as important. Over time I've found that I'm probably deleting too much (e.g. where did I buy that <nice thing> 5 years ago? want it again, can't find the order). Then business emails are all archived with the exception of business spam of course.So why would you have more emails in your inbox than items you’re supposed to act on?
• ofalkaed
  Communication was mostly lost before the rise of social media—assuming we ever had anything more than isolated pockets of actual communication, which I am not convinced we have. Literature has been exploring this for a good many decades, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter is a good example and even shows how our relation to it has changed in the 80 odd years since its release; these days when it comes up the interpretation/discussion about it is more often than not, about social causes, which is depressingly ironic, it is using the novel in the same way the characters of the novel use Singer.
• Menu

  TheServitor
  I think the desire to not centralize identity has more to do with it than anything. We present different facets to different communities. The pseudo-indelible nature of internet commentary means saying something to anyone potentially means saying it to everyone, in any context.That's why people have multiple fediverse accounts, to limit context or purpose of communication channels. Not because they don't value genuine communication within those channels.
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  scotty79
  We lost communication to advertising.
• jlengrand
  Ploum is one of the people getting me into blogging 12 or so years ago. I'm so glad to see it popup again here, it's like a big piece of nostalgia. And the piece is current. Thanks Ploum!
• Menu

  bryanrasmussen
  >A few days ago, I did a controversial blog postand>When I originally wrote this post, nearly one year ago,I am confused.
• Esophagus4
  > But what was created as "ride-sharing" was in fact a way to 1) destroy competition and 2) make a shittier service while people producing the work were paid less and lost labour rights. It was never about the social!Framed this way, sure. But for the most part, I like Uber. The competition it "killed" was monopolistic and stagnant, and the "shitty service" was the legacy taxi industry that Uber forced to modernize. Yellow taxis got phone apps and credit card processing devices because Uber forced them to keep up.I remember trying to order a taxi to the airport 15 years ago in one of the most populated cities in the world. I had to look up taxi companies on Google, call their dispatch, and ask for a ride. 40 minutes and several calls later, none arrived, so I had to call a different company's dispatcher as I scrambled to catch my flight.Now, I've called countless taxis with the push of a button in several countries. I get an estimate of pricing and arrival times up front.For me, Uber/Lyft is an incredible service. I'll leave the labor rights discussion for a different thread. (inb4 a HN contrarian jumps down my throat about this.)But that was a long winded way of saying: to me, the author's analogy seriously weakens his point. I could argue that highly personalized entertainment is way better than 800 cable channels of bleh. We still have plenty of non-enshittified communication (I text and call and Whatsapp and Telegram my friends).
• 1121redblackgo
  This article makes me think of how defiant Discord has been against all of this, and how slowly I'm starting to succumb to many of the same forces, although much slowly than other platforms. It's a minor miracle they never got bought up/sold themselves.Also reminds me of the Dark Forrest Yancy Strickler stuff.
• BrenBarn
  I found this a bit odd as I don't recall ever thinking of social media as about "sending messages", and only loosely would I say they're for "communication". They're mostly for one-way communication, which is essentially what entertainment is too, so it's not surprising that social media would feel like entertainment. When you make a post on Facebook you're not really "sending a message" to anyone in particular, you're just broadcasting it out to the network.But this got me thinking about what I think a "message" really is. Maybe there's a Dunbar's number kind of thing here because I feel like there's some sort of limit on how many people I can send textual content to before it stops being a "message" and becomes more like an "announcement". Like I get emails, and some of those are messages because they come from individuals and are sent to me and perhaps a small set of other individuals. But some emails are more like announcements (or even "content"), and such quasi-messages have existed since before email went mainsteam (like holiday newsletters that people sent out with xmas cards).It's true that many social media platforms have a messaging system that exists in parallel ("direct messages"), but that always seemed kind of separate from the core essence of the platform.The closest you get to real "messages" in social networks is comments, but in my experience the degree to which those constitute "messages" or "communication" varies a lot from platform to platform and also from user to user. These days a large proportion of comments are just slightly more specific "reactions" like "That's so great!" or "Wow" or "Thanks for posting this". I don't often see genuine discussion happening in comments (although HN, if you consider it a social media site, is an exception to this).There has been an evolution in this regard, but even back in the day I think it wasn't what I'd call "messaging". The earliest platform I can remember using that (in retrospect) I could call a social network was LiveJournal. But LJ was a blogging platform. You didn't post "messages" to other people, you posted, well, posts, and maybe people would comment on them or maybe they wouldn't. I would never have said that I dreamed of LJ becoming "email 2.0". And I'd say modern microblogging-type platforms (like Twitter) seem even more removed from email or "messaging".I also don't see decentralization as really connected to this. To me the main advantage of decentralization is to eliminate single points of failure and guard against various sorts of rugpulls (like what eventually happened to LJ). But whether a platform fosters communication, messages, interaction, or whatever you want to call it, is pretty much independent of whether it's decentralized.This isn't to say that I disagree that something's been lost in internet communication over the years. But to me that missing thing seems mostly to be a combination of attention and authenticity.We've lost attention in the sense that now that people do everything with their phones, they consume and create content more diffusely, as opposed to having a division between "I'm sitting at my computer reading or writing" and "I'm doing something else". The small screens and balky input mechanisms of phones make this problem even worse for writing than it is for reading.And we've lost authenticity in the sense that so many platforms have become contaminated with stuff that is in no sense communication from any human, not even one-way communication. Instead it's junk generated by corporations to sell products (perhaps with some intermediate steps of harvesting data, etc.). This has become much, much worse in the last few years with the rise of AI slop. It's harder and harder to find stuff on the web that actually represents the work of a human being expressing themselves in a personal way.So yeah, we've lost something, but I wouldn't say we lost communication to entertainment. It's more like we lost the boundaries of the units of our communication so that we find ourselves in a constant blur of content, rather than a sequence of discrete units each of which we process and ponder independently.
• lysace
  This only makes sense if you only read the headline.
• anon
  undefined
• buildsjets
  Social media is yet another strange game where the only winning move is not to play.
• anon
  undefined
• NedF
  [dead]
• anon
  undefined
• contrast
  This is one of those articles that is too obsessed with amusing itself with its own pretentiousness to communicate anything interesting - which is ironic given the author seems thinks they prefer communications to entertainment.