We're not so isolated from normal every day people that noticing trends within ourselves and other people like us have zero chance of bleeding into the mainstream. I too have begun limiting my usage of social media to basically zero, and I'm not so naive to think that I'm a trendsetter anymore rather I am responding to already occurring trends.

I remember what these social media platforms used to be like. They didn't consume my entire life because I was just checking in on my friends. I looked at my screen time recently and decided enough was enough, and deleted everything. Now I only look at my phone if I have an actual reason to. I don't think I'm the only person this is going to happen to.

> too have begun limiting my usage of social media to basically zero

Just delete your accounts. Trust me you’ll feel much better. If your usage is truly basically zero there is no need to keep having an account. Break it off completely.

My sister often only sends updates about her kids on Facebook, so I have to visit once in a while. Most of what is there is garbage I'm better off without (and those posting/sharing would be better off if they got a life), but there are some things that are useful.

You don’t need the updates. It’s better to find those out in person or just not even find out about them. We are obsessed as a society with FOMO but the truth is, you’re not really missing out on much, even for so-called important family events.

That seems like a strange judgement to make for another person. While I agree that it’s typically better to get updates in person, it may be very difficult to do so based on their circumstances. And judging the importance of someone else’s family events feels even more inappropriate.

I’m not judging - I’m just stripping away the excuses. “Oh I just use social media for XYZ” ok so does everyone else who uses it for whatever random purposes that other people want to judge them for. People had great, meaningful relationships before social media.

You are in fact expressing judgement, and your comments are getting more judgemental as the thread goes on. This is the excuse people always use to portray their feelings and judgements as objective "uncomfortable truths".

Ok I’m expressing judgement then.

Now that I’m expressing judgement, I stand by my judgements.

That was quick. You are haranguing this person for not upholding your standards of social media use while failing to hold yourself to a standard of intellectual honesty.

Maybe it just takes an addict to know one?

When people think things are deeply true of themselves it can be very, very difficult for them to see when it isn't true of others. Especially if there's an embarrassing or shameful element.

Alternatively, when someone understands a deep truth it can be easy for them to cut through the excuses others use to hide that truth from themselves or others.

Sure can, but when you refuse to entertain alternative hypothesis or respond to evidence, you're just building a cage to protect yourself from nuance or from recalibrating your views slightly.

The evidence provided wasn’t sufficient to me, nor is it anything I haven’t heard from dozens of other people both online and real life.

You’re free to disagree, hop on and Tweet a picture of it or whatever, but you should at least have respect enough for yourself to acknowledge that in matters such as this others can have genuine differences of opinion and be dogmatic about them, and have thought through such matters at least as much or maybe more than you yourself have.

Like I said before, I deleted my accounts, I'm not on Twitter.

> [You] should at least have respect enough for yourself to acknowledge that in matters such as this others can have genuine differences of opinion...

Physician, heal thyself.

Bsky/Twitter, same thing but with different marketing.

> Physician, heal thyself.

What opinion did you provide? As far as I can tell you started with this whole nonsense about judging others. Did you lose track of the conversation or do quips like this make you feel good about yourself?

See what social media is doing to you?

I don't have Bluesky. I already told you twice I deleted my accounts.

> See what social media is doing to you?

I can see that you imagine I'm in some kind of torment nexus, but again, you're bringing your biases and preconceptions into this discussion and not listening to what people are saying, so you end up boxing shadows.

Sorry, my fault I genuinely must have confused you with someone else.

Though my general statement I think still stands regarding Blue Sky. That’s another damn cesspool.

> I can see that you imagine I'm in some kind of torment nexus, but again, you're bringing your biases and preconceptions into this discussion and not listening to what people are saying, so you end up boxing shadows

Hmm I must be imaging the comments you wrote calling me these things then.

I get it, when things get heated everyone you're talking to blends together. I tried my best not to be insulting or to piss you off, but to the extent I did I apologize.

It’s just words on the Internet - none of it matters. I think it’s kind of fun to trade barbs sometimes even if that’s not really useful.

Ok I admit it - even I have found a use for social media. To pointlessly argue with folks!

(quick reminder, hacker news is a social media platform.)

People (and kids) were a hell of a lot more interesting the longer you didnt see them.

Pictures on social media counts as interaction but its very limited. You still get to feel like you see them regularly.

You get your desired social interaction but it is arguably fake. Then we stick a display on your mums forehead and rotate advertisements. Not offensive at all.

You get your desired fake soical interaction fix therefore, when you finally meet the person irl (after say a year) you can both look at your phone the whole time because you "interact" with them every day. There is no need to tell stories or go do something.

I live several hundred miles from my sister. In-person events are rare things that need planning ahead. Sure I could not find out about events, but I'm better off because I can: when I do get a chance to visit I have an idea what has been going on and thus what to talk about.

Why do you need to have an idea about what’s going on? You could just ask and then talk about it. You’re using social media to skip the initial asking part, but you don’t need to do that.

I can tell you this works because I do it. You’re not missing anything. If you don’t communicate much because of distance either the relationship isn’t that important - so you’re lying to yourself about it, or you should move and live closer together.

You will have deeper and better conversations if you know what questions to ask.

Things that work for you might not work for others. Communication and connection is a need, not a vice.

The idea that you can tell them that their relationships aren't important is so chauvinistic and inappropriate. You ought to take a step back and reflect before commenting further, that's out of line.

You’ll have even deeper connections if you have more things to talk about and genuine curiosity about the novelty of those things instead of “already knowing the questions to ask” - good lord are we robots or something?

> The idea that you can tell them that their relationships aren't important is so chauvinistic and inappropriate. You ought to take a step back and reflect before commenting further, that's out of line.

Save this stuff for someone who cares because it’s not me.

There is no evidence their curiosity is ingenuine, that's your image of them but it doesn't have a basis in reality. It's based in your biases and preconceptions about social media.

I'll refrain from criticizing you for being a chauvinist if you agree to take that behavior someplace else, because it's not for this community. Save that for some toxic no-holds-barred social media. Maybe think on whether your actions are contributing to the social media environment you decry.

> I'll refrain from criticizing your for being a chauvinist if you agree to take that behavior someplace else, because it's not for this community. Save that for some toxic no-holds-barred community like Twitter.

No thanks. You don’t get to define what is toxic behavior nor do you speak for this community or others.

Also, grab a dictionary. Your usage of chauvinist here is incorrect.

> There is no evidence their curiosity is ingenuine, that's your image of them but it doesn't have a basis in reality.

They already said they need information about events to have something to talk about. That’s not how conversations work, nor is it how you establish new friendships or build and maintain existing relationships.

> It's based in your biases and preconceptions about social media.

Well they are biases (yours is showing) but they’re not preconceptions, they are just conceptions.

You don't get to define your behavior as nontoxic, either. I'm not arguing about what words mean.

I didn’t define my behavior one way or another. I said I don’t care what you think about it.

I don't believe you, but it doesn't really matter. (I'm happy to admit I have a small investment in helping you see my perspective, for what it's worth. It's part of my human need for connection.)

Why would I care about your opinion of me? If I recall from the thread so far it consists of being chauvinist and toxic. That’s no different than some random person yelling at me from across the street while out walking my dog or something.

Just looking out for you and for the community. If I was being a chauvinist I would want someone to tell me. If someone was being a chauvinist to me I would want someone to say something.

I'm not attacking you, I'm giving you feedback. I'm being as neutral and uninsulting as I can be.

You’re misusing the word chauvinist here or rather if you think you’re not can you please explain what the word means? I don’t understand your usage of it in this context.

> If someone was being a chauvinist to me I would want someone to say something.

On the flip side you’re being condescending toward others, “giving feedback”? C’mon. You know it’s good practice to not give advice to those who don’t ask for it, right?

When someone does something inappropriate, you tell them so as politely as possible. Just like if someone's shoe is untied or has toilet paper on it, you let them know. No one needs to ask, those are the table stakes.

(I would also point out that this thread started because you were offering unsolicited advice about using social media. I could be wrong but it seems to me like you think it's appropriate to offer someone advice unsolicited if you have a perspective that's able to see through their "excuses".)

This was the closest definition to my usage I found (American Heritage #4):

    Exaggerated and unreasoning partisanship to any group or cause.

What I meant was that you were insisting your subjective viewpoint was the only one that was valid. Other viewpoints you reduced to "excuses."

I can see how it comes off condescending, and I apologize for it. There's a paternalistic element to telling someone they've done something inappropriate, and that should be reduced as much as possible, but I don't think it can stop us from saying something altogether.

What a weird comment. I'm glad my relatives aren't like you.

What a weird comment. I'm glad my relatives aren't like you. Your irrational hatred of social media is distorting your views.

If you got rid of social media tomorrow, completely, the world would be better. No doubt in my mind about that. It’s not irrational, I have seen first hand the destruction it causes.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you’re so upset that someone says to delete it? Does it cut too close to the truth?

True, but that is because there are bad parts of social media that we would also lose. The real question is how can we get rid of the bad parts of social media so we can keep the good? (I do not have an answer which is why I only check a few times per month)

The good parts of social media is basically Facebook's feature set in 2007 or so. Everything since then has been in the interest of increasing addiction and monetization. Unfortunately 95+% of Facebook's valuation is due to those bad parts, so I don't see a way back.

I agree with this commenter. Y'all making excuses and then complaining you need to use a platform.

It's fake as hell.

I've deleted my accounts too (HN obviously notwithstanding) but telling people they should disengage with their family because they don't need that information is patronizing and undermines your point. They get to decide what they need.

... yet I respectfully think the above point still stands, "people need not get even that family info via Zuck's brain-grinder".-

You need not get that information. Other people have different needs and priorities. What if the reason they are so concerned about getting updates on this kid is that they have serious medical issues? What if it brings a ray of sunshine on stressful days to see pictures of them? What if missing these updates means missing family functions and becoming more isolated and lonely? (Note that they confirmed my last speculation.)

What if, instead of berating people for using social media, we discussed how we might build a healthier alternative?

> we discussed how we might build a healthier alternative?

Totally for that. We really need it.-

Welp, I ought to stand on business I suppose, I think social media communities are too big. I think it would be less toxic if we were balkanized into smaller communities, and interacted with people of unlike minds in a more considered and intentional way. As it is, it becomes a free for all for dunking on people. Small communities of like minds can become too insular, ideas need to be challenged, but they also need space to grow and develop in a friendly environment.

Wherein the balance, eh? Though nut to crack.-

> What if, instead of berating people for using social media, we discussed how we might build a healthier alternative?

Why do we need to build one? Before the internet, we had letters and memos. The Email and IM came. The reason to have a feed is to share things, it shouldn't be for people to come consuming it. And there's no reason for it to be social. To have a special feed that mix everything from everyone on the platform according to "the algorithm"

No need to build something else. Blogs, Email, and IM are still here.

I think there's good parts of social media that are salvageable. I think it's generally good to be able to communicate with anyone and encounter people you otherwise wouldn't. I think we can have social media without having feeds optimized for "engagement" or any single metric. I think blogs and email are great, I just don't think they're the can-all-be-all.

I like the dichotomy on this site - constant complaining about loneliness on one hand ... and systematic refusal to engage in social ritual mainstream people do to keep connections.

Unlike the other reply, I disagree that those updates aren’t important. However, you can still get updates through email or text messages. My family and friends group has almost entirely moved to group chats where people will send pictures or updates on what they are doing. If they aren’t the kind to proactively send these to you, reach out and ask her how she and her kids are doing.

In my experience this makes for a far more meaningful way of staying in touch without much additional effort than passively checking up on each other through social media. And it comes without any of the additional baggage social media brings.

I already have lol. I still use bluesky occasionally on my computer. That's what I mean by "basically zero"

All you’ve done is basically switch from drinking beer, wine, and liquor to only drinking gin.

I'd say it's more like switching from bottom shelf, burn your throat vodka to a nice white wine.

From an addicts POV it’s no different, maybe worse because you are deluding yourself about the other aspects to make you feel like your addiction is ok.

Also, Blue Sky generally sucks. It’s another awful echo chamber.

Great way to make your point, telling people they’re addicts. That’ll change my mind.

Gin doesn't smell.

So I’m drinking less?

> People with their own name as the domain

You know that buying a domain and setting up a few pages is something you can hire someone to do for you, right? And that it's a thing people often do if they want to engage in public relations, such as if they had a book coming out that they want people to buy.

> You know that buying a domain and setting up a few pages is something you can hire someone to do for you, right?

And yet the vast majority of the population doesn't do it, because they don't need it when they're perfectly happy with mainstream social media, which is the point.

The vast majority of the population doesn't do most individual things you could possibly name. There's a vanishingly small set of things you could name that the vast majority of people do without over-generalizing. That doesn't necessarily make them niche.

Most people work, but most people aren't a programmer/barber/chef/construction worker/farmer/etc. Most people listen to music, but most people don't actively listen to <insert any artist below top 100 or so>. Most people use some form of computer daily/weekly, but most people aren't visiting reddit every day, or HN, or a specific youtube channel. Most people aren't a small business owner, but small business owners aren't a niche thing, they are a cornerstone part of the economy.

Add all of these "not mainstream" activity participating people together, and suddenly you have most of the population.

She's not a programmer. She's an author of a book on health issues explaining why social media failed her as a marketing tool. She's probably still not representative of the general population, but she gives an interesting window into a community that is expected to use social media a lot.

Parent didn't mention she was a programmer

It's tough to be an author. Publishers and retailers will only put major marketing efforts behind new books from authors who are already popular. Before social media, less popular authors had to try to market their own books through interviews on radio and TV but most authors weren't good at that either. So I don't think that social media has necessarily made things any worse, just different.

You nailed it. However, it is good to see more people waking up from the contrived nightmare that is social media.

That doesn't change the message though: social media is not a great way to get attention. If you are social on social media with your friends (including online only friends) that is very different from on social media to get people to your business.

I don't know about uncritically. It has been like 10 years since I heard anyone refer to social media in some positive sense.

Maybe normal people underestimate the scale of corruption the companies do or something. Often some bogey man is blamed not the main culprits by pundits but dunno if people believe that or not.