>Honestly, all of these "I refuse to use social media!" type articles just remind me of people who spam "all the music of this generation sucks; I'm 14 and I was born in the wrong generation" on YouTube videos.

So? They aren't that off.

There's this widespread belief that things are either (a) constant, always equally good, or (b) improving all the time. Some people think music for example belongs to (a). But any student of the history of art will know that there are periods where great works come out (in this or that art), and periods where there is drought, or which the main output is crap, and few things last (or even interest people at their own time).

Now, music today has tons of outlets, and there are good works in niche spheres across various genres that sell little or nothing.

But that the mainstream charts are getting worse and more formulaic (and money driven) is a near certainty. In fact it has even been studied, that chart topping songs have lost both melodic and harmonic richness, have flattened their dynamic range (the "loudness wars"), and have regressed several school years in vocabulary used.

>Social media exists as a way to facilitate communication online over a long-distance

That was the demo. The real product has been used for much more, and much worse, than that (from bullying to fake news, and from propaganda to surveillance).

As McLuhan said, the medium is the message, and the way social media structure communication is more important than what is communicated.

>But you're not a special snowflake just because you don't have an app installed on your phone...

Well, if most everybody else has it, then by definition they are a special snowflake, at least in that regard.

And since that's quite a big part of how people today spend their time (1-3 hours a day on social media), that person is probably a special snowflake in other regards too. For one, they get to form their thoughts outside the social media echo chamber...

> There's this widespread belief that things are either (a) constant, always equally good, or (b) improving all the time.

Are you sure that belief is as widespread as (c) things are always getting worse? Do you find that regardless, this is subjective and saying things are a near certainty like it's objective is just reinforcing the parent's point?

> And since that's quite a big part of how people today spend their time (1-3 hours a day on social media), that person is probably a special snowflake in other regards too. For one, they get to form their thoughts outside the social media echo chamber...

Not sure it's fair to take an average and compare it to an individual and pretend there is no middle ground. It's even less fair to assume that one on social media cannot form their own thoughts, that ones off social media can, and that other mediums of social activity that people spend hours of a day doing don't have other effects. It comes off as guessing at best and curmudgeony at worst. If your social media situation is a thoughtless echo chamber (or your social situation in any aspect), that isn't fair to assume this is the case for everyone.

>Are you sure that belief is as widespread as (c) things are always getting worse?

Depends on the era, society and demographics. In the US, and in the geekier communities, it's usually (b), and sometimes (a), seldom (c).

>Do you find that regardless, this is subjective and saying things are a near certainty like it's objective is just reinforcing the parent's point?

No, I don't believe it is subjective. It might be fuzzy, and some might disagree, but e.g. quality of art output for a period is not subjective, in the way e.g. color preferences are.

>Not sure it's fair to take an average and compare it to an individual and pretend there is no middle ground.

The average mentioned is not like averaging mine and Bill Gates wealth. The standard deviation is quite low. If anything those that use their phones just say 10 minutes per day are the outliers.

I'm Gen X, and unless you count message boards and HN-like places I've never used social media.

Not because I thought "the music of this generation sucks" but because it was easy to see the horrific way the Internet was going to go with walled gardens and centralization. I predicted 10 years ago if you uploaded and tagged photos on facebook you were giving up 100% of your privacy forever, as now every single photo of you ever taken (private or in public) will eventually be tracked to a name. I think generations coming up today really missed out on seeing the potential of the Internet, and what's it's become is nothing resembling the dreams of the 90's.

There are far more reasons to be wary and not participate in social media than "I'm just better than everyone".

And yes - it's a huge hit to your ability to continue an active social life. But things like SMS, Instant Messenger phones, e-mail, etc. still exist. The other downside is you tend to collect friends willing to deal with that, so it can kind of put you into a bubble if you don't reach outside your comfort zone.

I've found dating someone with an already established social media presence (e.g. too late to opt out, why bother) is a decent compromise :)

> And yes - it's a huge hit to your ability to continue an active social life.

Also Gen X, also don’t touch social media, and I don’t agree with this at all, despite how much it gets repeated here. Staying away from Facebook has had zero effect on my social life or ability to catch up with friends and family. In fact, I’m busier than ever outside of work and home. I assure you all, there are plenty of ways to keep in touch and maintain an active social life without scrolling through a company moderated ‘feed’ on your phone. The old-school ways still work fine and, as a bonus, don’t require you to be glued to your phone.

If you were in the dating pool, you would likely agree with that statement.

Unless I'm missing something, just give your phone number and text.

While that never died, social media is the modern rolodex. And on top of that, someone can jog their memory of you and warm the iron back up a little bit.

Swapping social media details has been more effective for me because often I don't pounce on a number immediately. And I would hate to lose contact with someone just because I didn't.

Social media keeps someone on the fringe of your vision. Bit easier to spark something from that than cold-texting "hey, it's Jeremy from that one party two months ago. remember me?"

Besides, at age 30 and having been dating for a long time, I can't tell you how many times social media has given me serendipities like someone asking what to do while visiting the city I live in and I can PM them with "hey, I'll show you around."

I rather meet prospective dates in person not via tinder /coffee meets bagel type appsm I understand that you are exposed to far more people online, dating pool wise, but in University I was surrounded by 50,000 students and I thrived by physically going to organized clubs and events I was genuinely interested in and chatting it up and exchanging info. Now outside of University, these apps and even online dating get more locked in when you are exposed to less people on the regular.

Some women find it odd if you don't have a FB. This may have changed slightly in recent years though, as trends away from F have started.

is hacker news not social media?

Maybe? I guess it depends on how you define social media. It sure has elements of social media, with its up and down voting, and the karma scorecard. People here don’t tend to know each other though and there is no following, re-tweeting, or even lazy image sharing, so I don’t know, is HN social media?

IMO Hacker News is representative of the slightly earlier than social media concept User Generated Content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content

The original concept of Web 2.0.

That’s fair. I can certainly understand privacy concerns/just general disinterest in social media as a reason to not use it.

The article, though, at least to me, seemed more like it was more about just not using the popular thing.

>The article, though, at least to me, seemed more like it was more about just not using the popular thing.

How's that bad? Being able to resist what's popular is a good thing too. We rely too much on following fashions and trends.

Resisting things just because the are popular is as effective as doing them just because they are.

Effective at what?

Pursuing one's actual goals rather than letting emotions, arising from identity challenges, guide one's behaviour. Or not, in this case.

Of course we wouldn't know that without knowing these people's actual goals.

Your comment makes no sense in regards to the parent discussion.

First, someone said this:

==How's that bad? Being able to resist what's popular is a good thing too. We rely too much on following fashions and trends.==

You responded with this:

==Resisting things just because the are popular is as effective as doing them just because they are.==

I am pointing out that you have no idea what the motives are and have simply assumed it is "because they are popular". Maybe the reason they want to resist what is popular is in order to spark their creativity or focus on specific niches. You are trying to make value judgements with almost no information.

> The article, though, at least to me, seemed more like it was more about just not using the popular thing.

If you're never going to dive deeper than that I can see where your misconceptions come from.

Sometimes the popular thing should be avoided, for very good reasons.

I've definitely addressed the fact that there are good reasons for not using social media in other comments on this very thread.

I'm just saying that not using social media doesn't make you "better" than anybody else.

That is literally all I am saying.

I might not respond to any more comments after this, because I'll end up repeating myself all afternoon.

> Social media exists as a way to facilitate communication online over a long-distance, i.e. old friends who now live in different places.

That's an optimistic view to hold. If that was the case we'd pay money for the service. But we don't because that's not how social media companies make money. They make money by learning information about you by tracking who you are and what you do. That's the business model. Not making you more connected to anyone or anything. They make money by keeping you on the site as long as possible and showing you as many advertisements as possible. We can debate the efficacy of how well advertisement/political campaigns are but a corporation's job is to make money and social media's corporations incentives are clear. I'm not comfortable giving up information about myself for free, and I am not so confident that I'll make smart decisions in the face of advertisers and political activists. So I'll continue to abstain from social media. Not because I feel superior but because I fear the business incentives and I don't want to risk subjecting myself to hyper personalized advertisement campaigns.

Also it's a huge time sink, and I have the phone numbers of all the people I would ever want to contact. Calling or texting someone is a much more preferable to me, and has none of the costs of social media.

> That's an optimistic view to hold. If that was the case we'd pay money for the service.

Yet I think a reasonable view to hold from the perspective of a user. I don't see how that view has anything to do with payment. The monetary value to people is not the same as the purpose something exists or is used by people. The business model of the outlets matters not to many of the users and I'd say it's not out of ignorance, it's out of apathy.

To the rest of your comment, we are basically the same person. We just need to recognize that we are neither objectively right nor are frequent social media users objectively wrong. And most importantly, we don't need to berate users of social media with our perceived righteousness (not saying you are, just concurring w/ the parent in general).

> Yet I think a reasonable view to hold from the perspective of a user.

What someone thinks they're getting out of something, and what they're actually getting out of it can be very different, and when the differences are huge, the consequences can be deadly.

MLM participants THINK they're getting an independent business opportunity - and sure, that's a "reasonable view to hold from the perspective of a user" - right? They've got product, a market, a way to transact sales, a clear hierarchy to climb... But a broader perspective and closer inspection of the details reveals it is a terrible business position to be in that puts all the risk on you, the individual. But it's easy to see how someone who doesn't have the skills or training to examine such things might think the opportunity is "reasonable."

So yes, I wouldn't be surprised if most users were convinced of the utility they were getting out of their use of Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat etc... but like the person caught up in MLM, they can't see the real risks and side effects until they become overwhelming.

>But you're not a special snowflake just because you don't have an app installed on your phone

I don't think this elitism is the biggest reason people quit social media. Quitting social media has bigger consequences for elitist mindsets-- that is, having a social media presence involves more opportunity to curate an image that is seen by others as "elite".

This kind of thinking is also a coping mechanism. Going against common practice is isolating but if you can think of it as elevating or distinguishing then you can more easily accomplish your goals or follow through with what you're thinking and feeling on a particular issue. It's hard to quit social media, even if it's no longer benefiting you.

So, ultimately, your complaints of this kind of elitism are pointless and change nothing. They say nothing valuable about the state of the world or the state of this change.

>Social media exists as a way to facilitate communication online over a long-distance, i.e. old friends who now live in different places.

This is a very specific use case. I doubt that "fishing girls on Facebook/Tinder" fits the need of communication with people living far away.

Some problems that we think are unique in social media exist in real life as well. The difference is about "access", which makes it scarier and more dangerous. Back then only people with good connections were able to shape and manipulate public opinion. Now it takes a blog or a Facebook account.

Totally agree, and I think this is where so much discussion gets off track - few problems are ones that haven't been seen before in human history. But when something comes along that suddenly facilitates or exacerbates a problem in a uniquely powerful way, we need to really examine that.

I'm like full of weird analogies today, (see other posts on this thread) but, like, take the modern diet. It's not as though obesity, or diabetes, or heart failure, or whatever, never existed until now; but some things changed in how we create, package and distribute food over the past century: food processing and preservation, artificial flavors and fillers, pesticides and antibiotics, sugar... sugar EVERYWHERE. And yeah, all of these things have come with ENORMOUS benefits. But we're also starting to realize the cumulative effects these new processes are having on the public health.

We already KNOW there are massive negative side effects of Social Media use for individuals - especially with depression and bullying, and unhealthy self-image. And collectively we're starting to see the effects of such a singularly huge network with no accountability or oversight and how that can shape public opinion and knowledge. All this noise about Social Media is just us as a society trying to figure out just what to do about it all.

Aren't you simply doing the same thing with an opposite opinion?

Your "communicate over long distances" reasoning is just additional bunk... unless of course, you consider email social media.

> Aren't you simply doing the same thing with an opposite opinion?

Defending ones position and imposing/guilting ones position are different I think.

> Your "communicate over long distances" reasoning is just additional bunk... unless of course, you consider email social media.

Why is it bunk? Why are people so quick to assume someone's true motives for using something are false even to themselves? It's ok to say you suffer from the cognitive dissonance to recognize their intentions, but you should just assume you don't know instead of calling their reasons false.

One could consider email the precursor to modern social media, and if as a medium it offered what modern social media outlets do, it would still prevail.

As stated elsewhere in this thread, social media is about collecting your data. This includes what you like, what you hate, what makes you happy, who you love, who you look up to, etc...

Now, this can be used to set your(not you but the social media user, no need to be an addict) mood and thus your emotions. This is what advertisers use to target ads or design them.

Your "intellect", in the short therm, is heavily dependent on your mood and your emotions. By "intellect", I'm referring to how you interact to the environment. (E.g. a sad person would interact with other people differently than a person that just made a million dollars).

So, if social media has such a handle on your emotions they have a handle on your intellect (its manifestations, which is the only thing other people can perceive ).

I would say "that intellect" is vulnerable. Because it is not serving your best interests. Because it's been manipulated to make you want to buy a new car, for example.

PS: I know this is controversial opinion and a lot of people will hate it. But I do believe this is the case given my current understanding of machine learning capabilities and human cognition.

Every generation has the same pattern, it's just the details that change.

Kids are always lazy. This generation always have their heads in their phones, but we had video games and before us it was TV, music, and dancing that was rotting our kids brains. There's a quote floating around on social media claiming to be from the early 1900s, complaining about how kids spend all their time reading books.

There's always the ones who were born in the wrong generation. That's a growing demographic just because there's been such a huge explosion of culture and art in the last 80 or so years. Your parents basically had 50s rock'n'roll or the free-loving 60s as their missed generations. You've got 90s rave culture, 80s punk and 70s disco as well, and all of them and more will continue to have their own subcultures for years to come. Your own kids will reminisce fondly of a time they never saw, when everybody drove their own cars which had powerful internal combustion engines and 00's indie or 10's K-pop was the pinnacle of music.

And you'll always get the ones who choose not to join in with whatever this generation's thing is. Those who didn't watch Doctor Who last night, the ones who refuse to collect stickers for the World Cup, and now those have no interest in getting Instagram followers.

One noticeable difference is that this generation are the first to see the consequences of social media. They're the first to experience facebook stalking as an everyday thing, the first to see people fired for things they did at the weekend, the first to see people having their entire life history investigated as part of a job application. Little wonder they're starting to be a little more concerned about their privacy.

> Every generation has the same pattern, it's just the details that change [...] One noticeable difference is that this generation are the first to see the consequences of social media.

Sounds to me like just another detail and if you take any generation condemning the next in that pattern you mention, you'll see they are the first to see consequences of the new thing. It's just another step in the evolution, albeit one we may not like.

> I saw a comment in this very HN thread that goes so far as to say that youth who use social media display "intellectual vulnerability," and that _not_ using social media is an asset warranting immediate hire.

Not blindly following a trend or mindlessly using (or being used by) technology is definitely a plus. The point is about reflection, being able to justify one's position.

> But you're not a special snowflake just because you don't have an app installed on your phone...

Name-calling does not much to solidify your position in this discourse, neither does over-generalization.

Please explain to me how an active choice to use specific apps is equivalent to “blindly following a trend.”

For all you know, people could just _want_ to use Facebook, Twitter, etc., for their own personal reasons.

And people can also _not_ want to use social media for their own personal reasons. That doesn't make them holier-than-thou, or a hipster, or condescending just because they make the less popular choice.

It's not choosing to do the less popular choice that is annoying the OP, it's when people make the less popular choice and feel the need to tell everyone about it that's annoying. It's just another form of snobbery, like the people that look down on others for watching TV or drinking things besides craft beers.

Okay, but who cares if it's annoying? What is the point of bringing up the fact that sometimes people are annoying when they make certain choices? How does that add to meaningful discussion, how does that even create meaningful discussion?

> Okay, but who cares if it's annoying?

Lots of people, same people who don't like being guilted by portions of society in general. The real question is, if they find it annoying, why do you care?

> What is the point of bringing up the fact that sometimes people are annoying when they make certain choices?

I thought this was clear, that it's not about making the choices, it's about imposing the choice upon you via bombardment, guilt, perceived righteousness, etc.

> How does that add to meaningful discussion, how does that even create meaningful discussion?

Surely you can understand the level at which society accepts/approves of certain actions has value? And if you do, how does one derive that level sans discussion?

>same people who don't like being guilted by portions of society in general.

Being "guilted" is not an act others do to you, it's a mind-state you inflict on yourself.

>The real question is, if they find it annoying, why do you care?

I don't care if anyone finds anything annoying. But I do care when someone waxes useless about it on a forum that is supposed to generate meaningful discussion.

>it's about imposing the choice upon you via bombardment, guilt, perceived righteousness, etc.

Again, these are all things you yourself give permission to affect you.

>Surely you can understand the level at which society accepts/approves of certain actions has value? And if you do, how does one derive that level sans discussion?

Go back and look at OP's comment, and then look at your comment that I replied to. The "point" both you and OP have made is that elitism is annoying. You gave no commentary on "the level at which society accepts/approves of certain actions". You literally only said that elitism is annoying. Might as well have said that the sky is blue.

> Being "guilted" is not an act others do to you, it's a mind-state you inflict on yourself.

It's also a mind-state inflicted by others on others who vote and build general sentiment towards changing laws that do affect you. General discourse and sentiment matters even if it does not matter to you. This sentiment can be based on what is annoying, what is pervasive, what is elitist, what is ok, etc. The discussion about that matters.

I have not claimed what you claimed I did.

Someone who is not doing what everybody else is doing is just very easy to spot and piques my interest. So yes, it is a door-opener when looking for a job with some (like me). That does not mean I'd hire you - give me some nonsense justification and you're out.

This is not about judgement of specific technologies and their use, but about self reflection.

> Social media exists as a way to facilitate communication online over a long-distance, i.e. old friends who now live in different places.

I... I dunno. I think that's what we'd all LIKE to think, and it's certainly what FB and Twitter and Instagram and Snapchat all WANT you to think. And there IS some degree of "yes it does kind of do that" and certainly it's fair to say these companies probably started with that mission.... But, like, what is - truly - the primary "thing" (I'd say "value" but I don't want to imply benefit) being extracted from SM use by the vast majority of users? Is it really communication utility? Or are side-effects beginning to outweigh the original benefits?

This may be going off the rails a bit, but hear me out for a second: Let's take pharmaceutical opioids, for example. They certainly were created with the intent of improving the quality of life of individuals experiencing pain. And they certainly DO have that effect for some - even many. But there's no denying that for a huge - tragically huge - number of people, they are an addiction with often fatal consequences.

It seems to me that "Social Media" is kind of getting to be in the same boat. Like it was created for all these great reasons ("to facilitate communication online over a long-distance" as you say) but there's no denying that it is also the cause of severe problems for a LOT of people - especially young people. It IS addictive, habit-forming, depression-inducing, among other possible negative side effects. And in that sense, yes, it does need to be addressed

For example, if someone were to say "Yeah, I don't care how much pain I'm in, I'm avoiding opiate pain meds entirely because I know they can be habit-forming, and I can see what that does to people so no way am I going to risk it." you'd probably be like "sure, I get it. Pain's gonna be rough, but, yeah... there's a risk." You wouldn't say "Well don't you just think you're a special snowflake mister 'I-don't-want-to-get-addicted'...." Right? And yes, there's always some wannabe trend-followers who flaunt their life decisions to get attention, but that doesn't in any way mean there isn't a real problem to be addressed.

I agree that using or not using social media shouldn't be made into some special thing.

(I'm 28 for context). My experience with most of social media though, is that none of my friends ever seemed interested in actually socializing on there.

All I ever really saw on Facebook, for example, was re-posting memes, often political in nature. No actual conversations though.

So I wonder if that's other people's experience as well?

Social media exists as a way to facilitate the collection of advertising revenue. All other considerations flow from that.

Pretty much this, there seems to be a lot of religious arguments within these replies rather than logical ones...

Yet you managed to feel superior to both. Classic case of https://xkcd.com/774/

There are many very good reasons to dislike and avoid social media, that are not "hispterism". You banal dismissal as "they they just want to be special snowflakes" rubs me the wrong way.

Oh please. So everyone who has concerns about the loss of privacy must have a superiority complex?

"You're not a special snowflake just because you don't have an app installed on your phone"

...I think I figured out who actually has the superiority complex here.

My comment was about the people featured in this type of article, and people who feel they are “better” than the rest for not making a mainstream decision.

If your reason for not using social media is concerns over privacy, then maybe you don’t fall into the above classification, and what I said doesn’t apply to you.

Either way, I wasn’t talking about privacy concerns, and you responded as if my entire comment was an attack on people with said concerns. Which it wasn’t.

Who in the article said they feel superior?

Here's the people from the article:

Mary Amanuel - saw her friend obsessing over likes and thought it to be unhealthy, realized she used social media to put on a false face and stopped.

Isabelle - doesn't like how her friends engage with social media on their phones in lieu of talking to the people in front of them, prefers to spend her free time outdoors, and was disturbed by how Cambridge Analytica used social media.

Emily Sharp - saw cyber bullying and didn't want to have anything to do with it.

Jeremiah Johnson - realized he was competing for the appearance of "happiness" and decided it was unhealthy.

Tyreke Morgan - prefers to make deep connections in person over maintaining lists of hundreds of "friends".

I don't see any of them saying they feel "better" than others. You are projecting.

Why does it matter if some people think they are better than others? What are you trying to add to the discussion here? Your point in this thread amounts to, "apples are crunchy and sweet".

> Going against the mainstream often is a package deal that comes bundled with a superiority complex against people who choose to engage in the activity that you choose not to engage in.

Ironically, your post reeks of a superiority complex found only in those that like to point out how much smarter they are than the people they are criticising because they believe they've spotted a pattern in their behaviour; and to show everyone how they didn't conform to that same behaviour.

Not really, no.

I don't believe I'm any smarter than these people - I'm just pointing out that the article is treating them like they are smarter than everybody else.