Re:How did DOGE disrupt so much while saving so little?
by leosanchez on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @06:00AM
(#46374470)
Not just Twitter almost all of social media apps are net negative for humanity.
Re:How did DOGE disrupt so much while saving so little?
by theoreticalmal on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @09:41AM
(#46375960)
Except Hacker News :)
Re:How did DOGE disrupt so much while saving so little?
by saulpw on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @07:59PM
(#46381087)
The things that make social media net-negative--advertising, infinite scroll, global scale--aren't part of HN. Facebook wasn't net-negative when it was just a website that a few million people used to post semi-publicly with their community.
Re:How did DOGE disrupt so much while saving so little?
by rationalist on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @08:01PM
(#46381099)
Don't forget "personalized" feed/home.
Re:How did DOGE disrupt so much while saving so little?
by etempleton on Friday December 26, 2025 @06:35PM
(#46397543)
Once content begins being served by algorithm social networks start taking a nose dive in terms of quality and user experience and they slowly spiral into lowest common denominator smut. It juices engagement and therefore advertising dollars for a time, but slowly half of users start to recognize the vapidness of it all and disengage for good.
Re:How did DOGE disrupt so much while saving so little?
by eru on Thursday December 25, 2025 @01:03AM
(#46382484)
Hacker News is paginated, but effectively infinite, too. Though I guess that's enough of a UI friction to make a difference?
How is it not global scale? Or do you mean it only target a specific slice of your life (even if it makes not much of a difference where on the globe you are)?
(From a broader society point of view, I'm a bit sad that they didn't actually manage to run Twitter into the ground. I think Twitter's a net-negative for humanity. But that's a different topic. People obviously like using it.)