I'm done with social media – Or: why I have a blog now

2025-07-1115:00301293www.carolinecrampton.com

Or: why I have a blog now.

I started last year with one clear goal: 2024 was going to be the year that I finally did social media. Regular posting, a content calendar, a strategy, a plan for growth — all of that. And yet I ended the year pretty certain that I never wanted to open those apps again, let alone post my photos and words to them. How?

My main motivation for wanting to conquer my long-held ambivalence about posting was because I had a book coming out in April 2024. I was very anxious about this, in part because A Body Made of Glass was not an obviously easy sell. There are a few reasons for that: it blends several genres in a hard-to-categorise way, it tackles a subject in which I am not a well-known or previously published expert, and it is highly personal. It had also, in quite a modest way, done well according to the nebulous pre-publication benchmarks that authors obsess over. It had attracted a "Big Five" publisher in the US, something I had not had before, received a BBC radio serialisation deal in the UK, and had received some decent early reviews from industry publications in both places. I felt I should be leaving no stone unturned to support the book's success, since I had been gifted opportunities that many other writers would love to have. Chances, too, that I may never have again.

There are very few things that an author can practically do to make a book a success, especially after said book is written, edited and printed. Being a celebrity or personality with a pre-existing audience that adores you definitely helps, but isn't something you can suddenly decide to become four months before your publication date. Catching a particular trend or moment that causes publishers to invest heavily in promotion and booksellers to place large early orders is great too, but once the book is done that's up to them, not you. Giving off that nebulous aura of "I'm about to become a huge literary success" that seems to cling to some people and not others would be good as well, but is also pretty hard to engineer deliberately if that's not your personality or presentation (and it isn't mine).

In that tense, quiet period after the book has been finalised but before anyone can buy or read it, augmenting your personal brand via the regular use of social media feels like the only concrete action you can take. Or at least it did to me, so I threw myself into it. I attended some training sessions on "social media for authors". I asked professional acquaintances with expertise for tips. I learned that Instagram and TikTok were the best platforms to target for bookish followers and that the algorithms of these platforms were, these days, only interested in vertical videos. I compiled lists of videos I could make and started filming mostly-daily updates about my experience as an author with a book coming out soon. I scoured the accounts of other authors who were more successful than me on social media for insights. I posted about every tiny bit of publicity my book got or small win I achieved. I asked people to pre-order in as many ways as I could think of. I delved into the analytics, searching for ways to optimise and improve. I spent a lot of time scrolling, and scrolling, and scrolling, hunting for the "one weird trick" that would help me make a success of this.

I quickly began to feel quite uncomfortable. I'm not a natural on camera and I don't have that talent for talking effortlessly and engagingly to a lens when alone in a room that successful social media personalities need. I was forcing it all the time, making myself record multiple takes and doing things again and again until they looked "natural" (a highly unnatural behaviour). My video editing skills are basic, so turning out regular videos took me a long time. Worst of all, though, was the way in which this enterprise began to alter my mindset about the normal stuff of life. I never used to think very hard about what I wore for a casual day of writing at home, or worry about how clean the bathroom mirror was, or obsess over what narrative or story might emerge from my general jumble of accumulated tasks. It shocked me how quickly I started viewing my own life as something to film and share, rather than something to just... live. I've seen this effect described as "the devil had taken my eyes" and I feel that is accurate. Something had taken over my gaze and it wasn't something good. A new and sinister lens had appeared between me and the world. One evening, as I made my husband walk our dog past the same scenic view multiple times so that I could get the best shot of it for a video, I experienced a sudden wave of revulsion for myself and what I was doing. From then on, I began to despise the way this supposedly necessary aspect of modern authorship was intruding on parts of me that I had never meant to be available for public consumption.

Worst of all, perhaps, it didn't even seem to be doing anything. The TikTok and Instagram algorithms were utterly disinterested in what I was posting. Some of my existing followers saw my videos and interacted with them, but the promise that this kind of regular video posting would expose my work to lots of new potential readers was never fulfilled. Instagram's analytics showed that although I had a couple of thousand followers, only a few hundred of them were even seeing what I was posting. On Twitter, where I had nearly ten thousand followers that had mostly been accumulated during my previous work as a political journalist, the figures were even worse. Most of my TikToks barely made it to views in three figures. Clearly, I was doing it wrong. But how?

I couldn't find any answers, although there's a seemingly inexhaustible supply of information out there on this topic. Everyone in this space seemed to publicly agree that "social media was really important for book promotion" and pointed to the viral success of various books on BookTok, but nobody was able to go into more detail about how this was achieved, or if it was even applicable to a non-fiction book by a non-celebrity author. When I tried to explore this world, it seemed to me like the old-fashioned word-of-mouth effect was just being channeled through a new medium. Books mostly weren't gaining momentum on TikTok because their authors were making top notch viral videos, but because readers and bookish influencers were recommending them to each other and posting about their experiences. It was the quality of the book, the canny distribution of advance reading copies and marketing materials by publishers, and the work's ability to speak to a moment that made the difference. I didn't really see how my own social media activities could fit into this ecosystem. People would either find and like the book, or they wouldn't. Did I even need to be there?

Every time I posted, I felt worse. From the outside, my attempts to "do" social media seriously probably looked inconsequential, but they consumed a major portion of my thoughts. What I was doing felt inauthentic and, as the book came out and started getting reviews, like boasting for no reason other than to boast. The choppy nature of the algorithms meant that there was no consistent community on these apps with whom I was sharing my progress through the publishing process and no guarantee even that those were interested would see what I was sharing. When I did in-person events about the book and spoke to readers over the signing table, they would tell me that they had come because they had liked my first book, or enjoyed my current podcast, Shedunnit, or had been a fan of my old one, SRSLY. One person drove several hours to see me at a literary festival because I had put a link to the event in a postscript in my sporadic email newsletter. Nobody I met had been motivated by what I had been doing on social media, even though making those posts had been consuming the vast majority of the time and effort I had to devote to book promotion. This is anecdotal data, for sure, but so much of how the success or otherwise of a book is defined is vibes-based that I felt fine about allowing it to inform me. It only backed up what the social media platforms' analytics had been telling me, anyway.

By the mid point of last year my book had been out for a couple of months and the expectation to market it as much as possible was dying away. My anxiety simmered down to the point where I could assess matters more objectively. This was situation as I saw it: I had put a lot of work time and mental energy into social media because I had been told by lots of trustworthy sources — like people who worked in publishing, fellow authors and my writers' union — that it was the best way to help my book reach as many interested readers as possible. In fact, my posts had reached very few people and contributed very little to the success of the book. Plus, they were very time consuming to make so had eaten up leisure time and my capacity to do other work. There had also been negative side effects in the form of vastly increased screen time and that disagreeable mental habit of seeing my entire existence as potential posts. There was only one possible conclusion: social media was not for me.

More than that, I felt that there was something of an "emperor's new clothes" situation at work. Being a social media star is a skillset completely distinct from being someone who writes books — they may overlap occasionally, but it's not the norm. Yet I suspect that every non-celebrity and midlist author will have felt the pressure at some point to "be more active on social media" because otherwise they aren't "pulling their weight" for their book. I wasn't alone in finding that the effort:reward ratio was entirely out of whack, either. Plenty of peers that I spoke to with online creative businesses were happy to share their experiences of withdrawing partially or fully from social media (for all sorts of reasons including harassment, burnout and parenting) only to find that their sales were largely or even entirely unaffected the next time they had a project to promote. One had closed an account with a following in the six figures and switched to communicating with customers only via an email newsletter, and business was even better than before (likely because all of those subscribed were actually receiving the emails they had signed up for). I began to wonder. Was this all, in fact, nonsense?

The publishing industry is going through a period of great volatility at the moment, for many reasons including but not limited to rising production costs, encroaching celebrity culture, corporate greed and the advent of AI. Traditional publicity opportunities like television/radio interviews and print reviews are becoming less and less effective at getting the word out about books as fewer people tune in. The digital alternatives have, so far, not offered a like for like replacement for the old marketing ecosystem. From my perspective as a traditionally-published, non-celebrity author, it feels like nobody really knows what makes a book sell anymore. I think the persistent advice to authors to "do social media" is, at best, part of a strategy that can be generously described as throwing everything at the proverbial wall in the hope that something, anything, will stick. Being more cynical, I think it might sometimes be a way of keeping authors quiet, of transferring the responsibility for their book's success on to their shoulders and occupying them doing something that feels productive so they don't ask too many awkward questions. It's busy work.

That's all without considering the role of the platforms themselves in this. I spent several months last year feeling grim about the amount of free content I had uploaded to platforms owned by the likes of Meta and Elon Musk. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok — these are all outlets that purport to capture and manipulate their users' attention, meaning that, as a "creator", if you catch the wave of the algorithm just right you can surf it all the way to a huge following, then fame and fortune. I don't doubt that the select few who make this equation work for them do get well paid for their work once they become successful. Everyone else, though, is just uploading for free so that there is enough stuff on the app to keep users scrolling forever. Infinite scroll means infinite ad inventory. The platforms also invest in promoting the idea that being a "full time creator" is an attainable goal and incentivise their top creators to sell the idea that anyone can achieve their success, if they just start now and work really hard for nothing as long as is necessary. The more I thought about it, the harder it became not to view the so-called creator economy as a blatant pyramid scheme underwritten by some of the worst corporations in the world. The way to succeed is to get in early, then become an aspirational figure to those who come along later.

I'm being deliberately blunt to make my point. If you enjoy watching happy videos of dogs and uploading pictures of your holidays for your friends, I'm delighted for you. If making videos and sharing them online is your hobby, all power to you. As part of a viable creative career, though, where a living wage and sustainable workload is the goal, social media now feels to me like a long con that just hasn't been exposed yet.

I've never been a whole-hearted lover of social media, nor a great adept at it. I only signed up for Facebook at university because it was necessary for being involved in the student newspaper, and then I deleted my account a few years later when I had a scary experience with a stalker. I rejoined when I moved out of London, naively believing it would help me make new local friends, which it did not. I got Twitter when someone on my journalism training course laughed at me because I didn't already have an account and then almost never posted on it, even when the platform was at its dizzying heights of relevance for those in the media. I once went mildly viral for a snarky tweet during a televised election debate and found the experience so horrifying that I never wanted to repeat it. Instagram was better, for a while — my corner of it was mostly friends and dogs and knitting — but then the feed became algorithmic instead of chronological and I almost never saw the things I liked in a sensible order.

Social media was never a wholly cosy or useful place for me, although I was utterly addicted to it for a number of years because "being a journalist" in the 2010s felt synonymous with "being on social media all the time". This idea was so deeply rooted in me that when I worked somewhere with such terrible computers that they couldn't even handle refreshing a Twitter feed, I bought an iPad with my own money so that I could have a device next to me all day that was continually showing the latest posts. At the time, I barely made more than the London Living Wage, rent took three quarters of my monthly pay after tax, and I walked an hour to work every day because I couldn't afford to take the Tube. In those circumstances, buying an expensive tablet just so I never had to be separated from the latest tweets is absurd, even irresponsible. And yet I did it, because I had utterly internalised the idea that social media was the route to writing success. Years later, even knowing what I now knew, it took months to work myself up to quitting and even longer to say out loud what I had done and why.

Once I had made up my mind to mentally uncouple myself from social media, it was shockingly easy to do. I deleted the apps from my phone and changed the passwords to my accounts, recording them somewhere inconvenient so that I could log in via the desktop versions if necessary but it took more than a couple of taps or clicks. A few weeks in, I took stock of what I felt like I was missing and the list was surprisingly short: Taylor Swift content, chats with friends, the occasional funny picture of a dog. I replaced all of these pretty easily: I signed up to a couple of music podcasts and Patreons, made an effort to be more regular about phoning and texting people, and just enjoyed the dogs that I saw out and about in the world. The benefits were just as quick to come. That feeling of seeing the world only as potential future content receded, I started reading more books, and my screen time fell drastically. I felt released from a burden I hadn't noticed I was carrying. I had become so accustomed to the sense of shame at not being better at offering up my life for successful consumption that I only realised how acute that feeling had been now that it was gone. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, for someone very influential in my industry to swoop down and reprimand me for my actions, to declare that I had irrevocably failed at "being a writer". But nothing bad happened. At all. Those apps had become so barren of joy or purpose for me that I didn't miss the experience of being on them, either as a creator or a user, at all.

By the end of the year, packaging chunks of myself to share on questionable corporate platforms for strangers to watch and judge felt like a really weird thing to do. I talked about it in therapy and imagined trying to explain this practice to my eleven-year-old self who had really wanted to spend her life writing stories. The more time that passes, the odder it feels that I spent a decade and a half of my life believing that social media was a vital part of being a writer. Others may have different experiences, but because I was never a consummate poster I never received work opportunities or made friends or found a partner through these apps. Maybe if I had, I would feel like there had been more of a fair exchange. I just allowed them to occupy a large chunk of my brain for nothing.

Where does this leave me? I ended 2024 absolutely sure that social media was not for me, a complete reversal of my position at the start of the year. I'm not moving to the woods and throwing my phone in the bin, though. Beyond the reassuringly steady drip of Taylor Swift videos, there was one overarching benefit to being active on social media as a writer that I want to retain, and that is having a way to be in touch with those who are interested in my work. I've spent most of 2025 so far working out what that might look like. I still like the internet and what it can do for us — quite honestly, I don't think I would have a job at all without it — but I want to use it on my terms and in a way that feels good for me rather than harmful. If that means that my potential audience is much smaller, so be it. After much reflection during, I have come to realise that I'd rather talk to a small number of people and be happy doing it than try to reach a huge audience but be miserable.

I started small, making the change for my podcast. I did a "farewell" post on the show's accounts and replaced them with an enhanced email newsletter. I expected some pushback and braced myself for a dip in listenership, which I decided that I was willing to accept as the price I paid for independence and greater peace of mind. Neither materialised. I received lots of supportive messages from people with their own growing reservations about social media. The podcast's newsletter now has more active subscribers than we ever had followers. There has been no discernible fall in audience, vindicating my suspicions that our posts hadn't really been doing anything to direct people away from the apps and towards the podcast anyway. Best of all, I'm enjoying writing to the podcast's listeners every week. I am no longer guiltily pushing the "do podcast social media" tasks to the bottom of my to do list all the time.

Taking this step for the podcast first has allowed me to come to some decisions about my personal internet presence, too. I have realised that I only want to post on a platform where I have control, with no algorithms or anything else coming between me and the people who want to see what I'm doing. I'm a writer and I think in paragraphs and chapters, not in videos or captions. I think it's about time I played to my strengths, rather than trying to fit myself into a format that I've never found to be comfortable. So, I decided to add a blog to my website and that will now be my home on the internet. I gave it a tagline that hopefully reflects this new stage of my online life: "A blog by a writer attempting to live the literary good life on the internet". Because that's what I'm trying to do now. The quality of the life now is more important than any potential reward in the future.

Although the blog will be the main home for all my stuff (you can follow it via RSS and I think you should, because RSS is possibly the best and purest tech we still have) I'll still be sending some posts out as newsletters too. Personal essays where I think out loud (like this one), my Thursday links round up, reading reflections, and a new series I'm about to start titled "Caroline Writes a Novel" (!). Because lots of people have been in touch to say they miss the photos of my dog I used to post on Instagram, there will be a sporadic "photo diary" mail out too where Morris will feature heavily. If you'd like to receive those you can sign up here, or if you already subscribe you can use this menu to adjust which types of posts you receive. I have no plans at the moment to put up a paywall or make extra premium content, but I do have the subscription feature turned on so if anyone really wants to make a financial contribution, they can. I must stress that you won't receive any extra material or benefits if you do so. For now, this is a Medici-style "patron of the arts" situation. Everything is free for everyone, supported by those who have the means and desire to do so. I also want to stress that I absolutely do not need your contributions for basic necessities or survival — this is just a way for those who can to support work that they like if they so choose. There's also an option for a one-off tip if you feel inclined to give one. You should feel no pressure or obligation to do so, though. If you're more into a "extra content for a fee" model, then you might want to consider joining the paid membership element of my podcast.

If all of this — a non-famous writer with a podcast deciding she's replacing Instagram with blogging — feels too inconsequential to write 4,500 words about, then you're not alone. I think so too, but I also couldn't not write this. In fact, I've been tapping away at a draft of this post for months, trying to get my feelings about it straight. I might be well on the way to breaking the habit of reflexively viewing the world around me as possible nuggets of content, but even after the somewhat bruising experience of putting out two autobiographical books, I still think best with my fingers on a keyboard and a publication date in mind. In this instance, I do feel like I'm answering a question nobody has asked, though. I think quite regularly about the, at the time very funny, ebook that Grace Dent published in 2011 titled How to Leave Twitter: My Time as Queen of the Universe and Why This Must Stop, in which she lampooned her own social media addiction and the absurd phenomenon of too-online people with tiny followings grandiloquently announcing that they wouldn't be online for the next three hours. What is this, if not that? It feels fitting, though, to mark the end of this chapter in a needlessly performative way. Even though I was terrible at posting, I did spend fifteen years watching human behaviour evolve on these platforms. It was bound to rub off on me a bit.

I still don't know if I will delete my old social media accounts. I want to, because it feels more final that way, more like a definitive statement about who I am now and what I am doing. Maybe that's why I shouldn't, though. That was a version of me too, the one who agonised over every angle and caption, who couldn't see the light hitting the water just so without imagining Instagram's square frame around it, who believed that all her dreams would come true if she could just crack Meta's code. She was trying her best, just like I am now. She can live on as a ghost in that machine for now, a bodiless reminder of an existence I never really had.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By stego-tech 2025-07-1115:2610 reply

    Between the fight over AI, shifting geopolitics reigniting old conflicts, an overly-centralized technology industry, a lack of meaningful innovation from a consumer perspective, and the immense precarity of modern work in general, it feels like we’re at the start of the end of a cycle.

    I’m noticing more people taking stock of what’s actually important to them and taking a stand on their values. This is good in the long run, but in the immediate it results in a lot of binary/black-and-white decision-making that results in dustups and conflicts between groups who would normally be allied behind common goals.

    All of this is to say that I expect we’ll see many, many, many more of these types of posts in the future, as everyone remembers they can choose to shape their engagement with technology, and that naturally includes the right to disconnect from it - not out of any sort of anti-technology position itself, necessarily, but simply from realizing that a specific thing isn’t something they need or are interested in, and that’s okay.

    Props to the author for being so clear about their engagement with social media, their background, and their thought process. If it encourages more folks to reassess their own relationship with social media (or any technology), I’m all for it.

    • By qmmmur 2025-07-1115:536 reply

      People with their own name as the domain posting with a clearly technical background are hardly representative of the general populace. Most people are completely enthralled by social media and use it uncritically for most day-to-day interactions. I wouldn't hesitate to argue that they live their lives through something like tiktok or facebook messenger.

      • By maplant 2025-07-1116:051 reply

        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.

        • By ericmay 2025-07-1116:232 reply

          > 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.

          • By bluGill 2025-07-1117:002 reply

            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.

            • By NeutralCrane 2025-07-1216:43

              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.

            • By ericmay 2025-07-1117:294 reply

              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.

              • By ilinx 2025-07-1118:011 reply

                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.

                • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:261 reply

                  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.

                  • By yorpinn 2025-07-1118:391 reply

                    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".

                    • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:411 reply

                      Ok I’m expressing judgement then.

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

                      • By yorpinn 2025-07-1118:431 reply

                        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.

                        • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:491 reply

                          Maybe it just takes an addict to know one?

                          • By yorpinn 2025-07-1118:532 reply

                            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.

                            • By theendisney 2025-07-122:38

                              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.

                            • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:571 reply

                              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.

                              • By yorpinn 2025-07-1119:011 reply

                                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.

                                • By ericmay 2025-07-1119:051 reply

                                  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.

                                  • By yorpinn 2025-07-1119:051 reply

                                    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.

                                    • By ericmay 2025-07-1119:101 reply

                                      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?

                                      • By yorpinn 2025-07-1119:141 reply

                                        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.

                                        • By ericmay 2025-07-1119:151 reply

                                          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.

                                          • By yorpinn 2025-07-1119:172 reply

                                            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.

                                            • By ericmay 2025-07-1119:19

                                              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!

                                            • By lucyjojo 2025-07-1214:20

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

              • By bluGill 2025-07-1118:171 reply

                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.

                • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:244 reply

                  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.

                  • By yorpinn 2025-07-1118:341 reply

                    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.

                    • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:481 reply

                      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.

                      • By yorpinn 2025-07-1118:491 reply

                        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.

                        • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:551 reply

                          > 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.

                          • By yorpinn 2025-07-1118:581 reply

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

                            • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:591 reply

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

                              • By yorpinn 2025-07-1119:031 reply

                                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.)

                                • By ericmay 2025-07-1119:071 reply

                                  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.

                                  • By yorpinn 2025-07-1119:191 reply

                                    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.

                                    • By ericmay 2025-07-1119:231 reply

                                      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?

                                      • By yorpinn 2025-07-1120:40

                                        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.

                  • By hackable_sand 2025-07-123:59

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

                    It's fake as hell.

                  • By nradov 2025-07-1118:45

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

                  • By nradov 2025-07-1118:491 reply

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

                    • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:511 reply

                      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?

                      • By bluGill 2025-07-1119:541 reply

                        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)

                        • By AlexandrB 2025-07-121:08

                          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.

              • By yorpinn 2025-07-1117:381 reply

                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.

                • By Bluestein 2025-07-1117:591 reply

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

                  • By yorpinn 2025-07-1118:192 reply

                    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?

                    • By skydhash 2025-07-120:221 reply

                      > 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.

                      • By yorpinn 2025-07-125:44

                        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.

                    • By Bluestein 2025-07-1118:241 reply

                      > we discussed how we might build a healthier alternative?

                      Totally for that. We really need it.-

                      • By yorpinn 2025-07-1118:481 reply

                        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.

                        • By Bluestein 2025-07-1120:11

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

              • By watwut 2025-07-1210:44

                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.

          • By maplant 2025-07-1117:211 reply

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

            • By ericmay 2025-07-1117:273 reply

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

              • By diamond559 2025-07-1117:361 reply

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

                • By ericmay 2025-07-1118:271 reply

                  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.

                  • By maplant 2025-07-122:47

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

              • By BoredPositron 2025-07-1123:14

                Gin doesn't smell.

              • By maplant 2025-07-122:47

                So I’m drinking less?

      • By otodus 2025-07-1115:552 reply

        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.

        • By nradov 2025-07-1117:12

          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.

        • By dmbche 2025-07-1115:59

          Parent didn't mention she was a programmer

      • By throwawayoldie 2025-07-1116:061 reply

        > 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.

        • By bakugo 2025-07-1116:161 reply

          > 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.

          • By xboxnolifes 2025-07-1118:24

            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.

      • By rightbyte 2025-07-1215:18

        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.

      • By bluGill 2025-07-1116:58

        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.

      • By qzx_pierri 2025-07-1115:56

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

    • By jackdoe 2025-07-1116:413 reply

      Yes!

      I am using old nokia phone for 3 months now, I am not going back to my iphone. (means no whatsapp, banking, uber, reddit, hn, whatever)

      It took almost 1 week to get rid of the cravings "I am slightly bored, I *MUST* look at my phone"

      Now, I am just bored, I had forgotten how nice it is to be bored, I just stare at things, poke something with a stick, look for patterns, ask questions, have ideas.. etc; when I have a meeting and the other person doesn't show up on time, I just watch the world and wait.

      I also noticed I can watch movies properly, I have more patience, I dont look at my phone at the first "less exciting" moment. It is really nice especially for things like Star Trek where they have not algorithmically optimized every frame to keep you engaged because they were not competing with instagram for your attention.

      I even bought a walkman. When the song is not very good, I just wait it out. Very quickly I got my sense of time back, just after few days I can measure time in 'songs' or 'cassette sides'.

      I have also blocked all socials except hn on my local pihole.

      If you survive the first week of cravings after that it gets nicer every day!

      Some people say I am doing those things because of "nostalgia" but this is incorrect, I just want to be able to be bored.

      • By stego-tech 2025-07-1116:511 reply

        That’s excellent to hear! Alas, I have not gotten to the point of replacing my iPhone (being in IT means I’ve long been married to a smartphone of some variety), but I’m with you on a lot of the above. For example:

        > I also noticed I can watch movies properly, I have more patience, I dont look at my phone at the first "less exciting" moment.

        I’ve started leaving my phone in the bedroom when I’m playing games or watching movies in the Living Room. It’s a PITA to extract myself from the sofa to retrieve it, and I find myself far more engrossed leaving it physically in a different space. The eventual goal is to have a designated “phone drop” for folks to drop the device on to charge that’s far away from living and sleeping areas, to further break that habit.

        > I even bought a walkman.

        Same! I turn off WiFi except for OS updates (it’s one of Sony’s new Android-based Walkmans), and have no streaming apps on it. It’s just my microSD card of music from my NAS, and it’s blissful. I need to use it more, but writing synchronization scripts has been a PITA.

        > I just want to be able to be bored.

        I’ll confess to using an “herbal” crutch for this of late, because of (diagnosed) OCD making it impossible to pause or stop on my own in most cases. Combined with an outdoor walk, I’ve developed a newfound appreciation for just laying on a bench and watching the clouds and planes go by in the sky, or watching cars on the highway. It’s helped me appreciate humanity more, forcing myself into a sort of bored observation of others instead of constantly rehearsing new work tasks, new project ideas, or new contingency plans.

        More people need to be bored.

        • By jackdoe 2025-07-1116:55

          when hungry eat, when tired sleep; as the poet said, no need to rush

          I also have severe ocd, maybe I should try the herb

          PS: I am on call for 25 years, so far I have no issues because of no smartphone, opsgenie just calls me and then I get my laptop few minutes later

      • By globnomulous 2025-07-123:541 reply

        Canceling streaming, on-demand media subscriptions and replacing them with cable is my next step in this process. The practices cable TV cultivates and requires seem healthier and more civilized than those streaming services cultivate.

        I love the idea that media consumption is tied to a specific place, which the whole house shares, and that if I want to watch something, I may need to plan for it and know when it'll be available. Moreover, not always getting exactly what I want, when I want it, in the largest possible dose, seems the right way to consume media.

        • By throaway955 2025-07-1214:181 reply

          Cable is a good downgrade but still insidious. I personally would recommend just a hard drive full of whatever media you want to store on it.

          • By globnomulous 2025-07-1218:27

            Sure, cable has huge downsides, such as cable news, reality television, and countless other sources of unconscionable garbage. On the other hand, I grew up with these and survived the onslaught of dreck with my wits basically intact, and I discovered a number of things through TV that I wouldn't otherwise have.

            I really think that part of what's healthy about cable is precisely that you don't control when or how much of something is available.

            That full hard drive doesn't hold much appeal for me.

      • By card_zero 2025-07-1117:341 reply

        Hey, it's OK to use the fast forward button. Just because you want to hear Back in the USSR and While My Guitar Gently Weeps doesn't mean you have to sit through Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, it's not good for you like eating your vegetables. And it's not good to let things bore you, you're mixing up being bored with being patient, the distinction matters.

        Edit: but if you have actual OCD as you say below, that puts a different slant on things.

        • By jackdoe 2025-07-1117:47

          I do use fast forward :) just not a lot, but also really like cassettes that two good songs happen to be on the opposite sides of each other.

          I am using 'bored' quite loosely, I mean allow yourself to not be constantly engaged, the content creators, the algorithms, the advertisers all are trying to keep me at this extreme state so that I could be sold. The bar is really high, in order to be patient I had to re-learn how to not be engaged all the time. Some times I think of nothing, but most of the time I am having fun with stuff either real or not.

          PS: yea I do have ocd, my bored or patient probably mean different things to other people

    • By emseetech 2025-07-1115:586 reply

      I want a social media website that barely ever notifies me, has no algorithmic feed, no ads and limits the amount of connections I can have to about the size of a large wedding party. Something like that would be for actual friends and family and would be useless for influencers, trolls and bots.

      Bonus points if it doesn't have an app and is only a website.

      • By LargeWu 2025-07-1116:091 reply

        This is basically Mastodon, but I think the mass appeal of that is limited given its distributed nature.

        • By emseetech 2025-07-1116:30

          Mastadon is a more of a broadcast network with micro-blogging. It's got advantages over a place like twitter but not what I'm looking for. And having worked on decentralized social networking, I've turned off from it because it has a lot of ux, privacy and quality issues that are hard to solve.

          Myspace or early Facebook is closer to what I'd want.

      • By stego-tech 2025-07-1116:391 reply

        Digging into your clarifying comments further down, and what you’re describing isn’t social media but just a website people can post stuff on. Social media by its very nature is public, and when it’s public it becomes exploitable.

        I do think there’s an opening for a “landing page” of sorts where invited persons can easily share photos and updates with one another (I’ve seen it in the Enterprise repeatedly, though it never gains traction) like the 2010-era Facebook you describe, but it’d have to be something you (or someone in your circles) hosts for everyone if you want the privacy and utility without the ads, spam, and miscreants.

        • By emseetech 2025-07-1116:44

          Social media is defined in a lot of ways but what I'm talking about is defined by bi-directional connections between users and sharing within that verified graph.

          Self-hosting is a non-starter but a service that charges a reasonable subscription fee could avoid the ads and dark patterns.

          A non-profit model like Wikipedia plus low cost subscription would be ideal.

      • By not_wyoming 2025-07-1117:08

      • By the_snooze 2025-07-1116:002 reply

        It's called a private group chat.

        • By emseetech 2025-07-1116:041 reply

          Come again? I don't want to be in a discord or WhatsApp chat, I want 2010 era Facebook. Those are different experiences and products.

          • By the_snooze 2025-07-1116:132 reply

            I don't know what 2010 era Facebook is, but I'm talking about small SMS, iMessage, Signal, or WhatsApp groups among people who know each other outside the platform. These groups are no more than maybe 10 people each, so you don't fall into the problem of context collapse [1]. You can have offshoot subgroups, and groups can also be ad-hoc for a particular event. The personal small-scale nature means they're governed entirely by shared social norms, not algorithms or formal moderation.

            If you want actual meaningful social interactions online, it needs to be small-scale and completely useless for advertisers. Group chats are that.

            [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse

            • By 0x5f3759df-i 2025-07-122:191 reply

              Yeah the whole idea of public mass social media has basically failed thus far.

              Maybe someone will create some enlightened LLM based algorithm that solves the engagement optimization problem but what we have now has proven to be pretty disastrous through many iterations.

              Small scale group chats/discord servers are the clear solution right now. Which is sad in some ways because the question then becomes how do you find your way into a good group chat.

              But it’s the only way for the sane to not be overwhelmed by the engagement farming, political nonsense, and what Noah Smith calls the “shouting class” of people that have nothing else to do in life but dominate these platforms by stirring up drama all day every day.

            • By emseetech 2025-07-1116:25

              Yeah that's not really what I'm interested in. Chat is a very different thing.

        • By chasd00 2025-07-1116:27

          Yes, an imessage group chat with a few close friends is the best social network IMO. I have two, one with me and some college buddies and another for my family.

      • By busymom0 2025-07-1420:51

        I emailed you regarding this idea.

      • By hackable_sand 2025-07-124:021 reply

        Discord does all that

        • By emseetech 2025-07-124:21

          As I said below, I’m not interested in a chat program in the least. Especially discord. I use it when I have to but it’s a much more demanding and ephemeral experience than I described.

          Is this a generational divide? There’s no way I’d ever convince my immediate family let alone my extended family to join a discord server.

    • By thinkingtoilet 2025-07-1115:502 reply

      I think one thing to remember that is often forgotten is just how new all this is. Society is moving incredibly fast and that can be both good and bad. Even 10 years ago the way people interacted with technology would be unrecognizable today. 20 years ago is the distant pass. We sacrificed a generation of kids to figure this out and hopefully we will actually figure this all out, but we shouldn't be surprised that we've had seismic shifts in how technology is impacting our society and we didn't get it immediately right from the get go.

      • By stego-tech 2025-07-1116:31

        That’s something that still blows my mind, and gives me serious pause when I consider the impacts. Sure, I’ve been involved in technology and the internet since the mid-90s as an elementary schooler, but I’m the exception to the rule. In thirty short years we’ve gone from bank tellers to bank apps, from dreary Government buildings with long waiting times to poorly-designed websites that crash frequently, and from only being reachable via post or landline to never being unavailable unless you’re somewhere isolated and remote - and then building technology to bring connectivity into those areas as well.

        In three decades computing went from a toy of the rich and tools of the biggest businesses to a “necessity” of the everyman, but without any formal training on usage, value, or feedback on boundaries. Thirty years to go from only nation states being able to effectively surveil people at scale, to any tech company with a magic pixel being able to gather far more and accurate data than anyone prior could hope to.

        This has been a gargantuan shift in civilization in an impossibly short amount of time, and we’re only really just now agreeing that there’s some growing pains that need sorting out. Maybe most businesses don’t need cloud-based services for everything, maybe most humans don’t actually need public social media, and maybe some of the stuff we take for granted as necessary today are actually quite worthless to most people/entities.

        Viewed through that lens, I also see the desperation of the AI movement to continue accelerating “advancement” forward, before more people start asking the same questions regarding necessity and importance of existing tools and technologies. Once people start questioning the utility of a purchase, they’re less likely to spend money on it - and there goes your business.

      • By throaway955 2025-07-1214:20

        yes, us millennials should be called the "guinea pig generation"

    • By bigbuppo 2025-07-125:281 reply

      I know a few people on the internet long enough to have IP assignments that were originally recorded in Jon Postel's notebook. They have always been on the forefront of everything new and exciting on the internet. Today, there's a fairly even split between bluesky, various mastodon instances, and going back and hanging out on IRC. Nobody that has been in the trenches for a few decades wants to touch an algorithmically-curated platform.

      If there's one thing twitter showed us it's that humanity isn't yet ready for the hive mind.

      As for me, I am on bluesky, but I limit who I follow to the point that I can mostly take in a whole week of posts in about five minutes. I'm at the age where a few hours of my time is a horrifyingly significant fraction of a percent of my remaining time on this planet. I have better things to do with that time than to squander it being miserable so the world's third richest person can get a little richer and buy another private island.

    • By andrewmutz 2025-07-1116:006 reply

      I want an LLM that I control to sit between me and any social media feed. Let it filter the garbage and engagement-bait and boil it down to something that actually adds value to my life

      • By goopypoop 2025-07-1116:32

        If my roof leaks and my drip bucket is full, do I need a shinier bucket or a better roof?

      • By CharlesW 2025-07-1116:191 reply

        Achievable goal! Bluesky lets you create your own moderation tools using whatever technologies you like. https://deepwiki.com/bluesky-social/bsky-docs/2.5-moderation...

        • By toomuchtodo 2025-07-1116:31

          I wrote a comment a bit ago on what this adversarial interoperability [1] could look like with local LLMs and accessibility APIs [2]. Big AT Proto and Bluesky fan, as it cannot be captured ("protocols, not platforms"), but it isn't enough to have this capability only with Bluesky; it must be able to support any social network or graph. It should be a robust content processor under the user's control for any firehose they wish to consume, whether that is a REST API endpoint, an RSS feed, a plain 'ol website that the agent will login as the user as, or a closed app that the agent will use accessibility APIs to operate the app as the user.

          [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...

          [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42879342

      • By mrweasel 2025-07-1117:04

        That's not what the social media site wants. It has it's own algorithms and AI, ensuring that you get exactly what they need you to see.

        You want an AI to sift though endless piles of crap, just to find the few specks of gold. Why not stop mixing your gold into the dung heap before consuming it?

      • By fullshark 2025-07-1116:50

        I want to communicate with actual humans and enjoy meaningful conversation, 5-10 actual humans is enough really, I don't have a public-facing brand I need to maintain like the author. That's what social media is for and thus it's simply not for me.

      • By lr4444lr 2025-07-1117:54

        I smell a business idea here.

      • By butanyways 2025-07-1116:56

        [dead]

    • By stevenAthompson 2025-07-1115:412 reply

      Similarly, I've been watching the rise of the "minimal phone", and "analog tech" with interest lately.

      People have lost agency to the degree that they're looking to the very tech that stole their agency for answers, and I view that a sign that perhaps the push-back is actually beginning in earnest.

      • By nradov 2025-07-1115:495 reply

        There's no push-back. Manifestos posted by a few members of the terminally online chattering class don't constitute any sort of real trend. I've yet to see anyone using a "minimal phone" (other than a few older people who might still have a working feature phone).

        • By burningChrome 2025-07-1116:211 reply

          I still have a smartphone, but I barely have any apps on it. I literally have a handful of email apps and two weather apps and that's it.

          So yeah, I have a smartphone, but I barely use it compared to how I used to use it even 5 years ago. By unplugging, I've found myself way more productive. I'm reading two or three books a month now. Its an amazing feeling knowing you can drive what you want to do instead of having social media driving your life, manipulating you into using it more and more and not feeling like you're in control.

          I've essentially logged off and I really don't miss it. I feel like I can't be the only one.

          • By mrweasel 2025-07-1117:08

            > I feel like I can't be the only one.

            You're not, but you're also not the majority. I'm continually surprised that people are still on Facebook. I get why they use Facebook Messenger, or Facebook Marketplace, but the actual Facebook "news" feed? Have you seen that, it's ads or ads disguised as content... How the hell that thing isn't dead i beyond me.

        • By gamacodre 2025-07-1115:54

          As an anecdatum, one of my gen Y embedded engineers is using a little stick phone that can barely text, and avoids all social media except Discord (assuming that counts). One of the other younger folk in a different department has something similar. And we've only got around 100 people in this building.

        • By stego-tech 2025-07-1116:361 reply

          “I don’t see what you’re seeing and therefore your position is invalid” isn’t really the slam-dunk your tone suggests. I’m also seeing pushback and withdrawal from my own highly-technical circles as we come to terms with how much time and energy these things sap from us with little given in return, and decide to exert more agency as a result. Developers are retiring to work on farms, for crying out loud, suggesting there’s something deeply, intrinsically toxic about the state of things that the people with the most expertise are leaving the field for areas less glamorous or lower in compensation.

          You might not be seeing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

          • By nradov 2025-07-1117:011 reply

            Nah. The "back to the land" movement is nothing new. Some office workers were trying to become farmers (and mostly failing) back in the 1970s when there were only a tiny number of developers. Again, complaints about the state of society by a few disaffected individuals are meaningless and highly technical circles aren't representative of the broader society. No matter how amazing everything is a few people are going to be unhappy. Nothing has changed.

            https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/back-land-mo...

            • By Karrot_Kream 2025-07-1117:552 reply

              stego-tech is the equivalent of an anti-tech influencer ("zealot") on HN. Pretty much all they post about on here, and they post a lot on here, is about how tech is ethically bankrupt.

              HN is big enough now imo that it's worth starting to tag users so you can know where they're coming from.

              • By bryan_w 2025-07-126:521 reply

                Is there a "HN enhanced" extension that would facilitate such tagging?

                • By mapontosevenths 2025-07-1413:15

                  I found a tampermonkey extension for Firefox based on this comment. So far it seems to work well. I'm not sure if that's what they were referring to though.

        • By atavistically 2025-07-1218:32

          [dead]

      • By karohalik 2025-07-1116:141 reply

        Yeah, I’ve been noticing the same. But let’s be honest, most people don’t really get to choose their relationship with tech. The whole analog tech and minimal phone thing sounds nice, but it’s still a luxury. You need a certain level of stability to even consider disengaging. So while I’m hopeful and happy to see those small changes, I’m also skeptical. Real change won’t happen until it stops being a lifestyle choice and becomes a bigger shift (or its part).

        • By atavistically 2025-07-1218:371 reply

          I'm calling it right now. Develop world costumers are increasingly seeing smartphones as limiting rather than empowering. It will shift into a product for areas with poor infrastructure as higher income push back against this invasive and manipulative technology. This will create a feedback loop. Lower average income will drive down the utility of the platform for those who fund it (advertisers), smartphones will gradually lose their status signalling value and in another generation it will be prevalent only in areas with poor infrastructure.

          • By stevenAthompson 2025-07-1413:21

            I suspect that you're right, but only because of the rise in AI.

            At a certain point we'll all have AI personal assistants that are easier to use, more convenient, and less harmful to us than smartphones have historically been. The cool kids will move to the shinier new format, and the poor will continue to use the moderately dangerous, addictive, less efficient legacy tech for a long while.

            Maybe these things will come in smart glasses format that we interact with primarily by voice, better smart watches that don't require a phone at all, or maybe it will be something like the star trek communicator?

    • By energy123 2025-07-1117:02

      The problems with social media are partly network related. You may opt out, but those naked pictures or nasty comments about you are still up there, the division and polarization that social media causes is still there. Basically society is just as bad off as before you decided to opt out, and you can't opt out of society. This is one of those technologies that we shouldn't have invented (one of Bostrom's black balls), but once you invent it it's too late because the incentives make it too difficult to roll back.

    • By munificent 2025-07-121:221 reply

      > everyone remembers they can choose to shape their engagement with technology, and that naturally includes the right to disconnect from it

      The thing that scares me the most about the times we are living in right now is that while I can choose how I shape my engagement with technology, I am still stuck living in a planet/country/society/democracy filled with people who may be making radically different choices and I still have to deal with the consequences of that.

      It really doesn't matter that much if I figure out ways to avoid toxic disinformation when I'm outvoted by idiots who haven't. It doesn't matter that much if I spend less time staring at a screen so that I can spend more in-person time with people I care about when it's a grueling task getting anyone else to commit to hanging out because they are still enthralled by the glowing rectangle.

      I'm doing my best to navigate this chaotic stressful time, but ultimately I share a boat with many many other people and have only my own tiny little oar.

      • By andhuman 2025-07-127:551 reply

        Well, isn’t this a ”build it and they will come” situation? Do what you feel is right and that will communicate to others around you that there’s an alternative.

        • By munificent 2025-07-1323:43

          In my more optimistic days, I believe that, yes.

          But on many other days, I remember that all the asshats are also doing their own "build it and they will come" and pimping their own brand of toxic nonsense. And, worse, the billionaires are all doing it too and they have many orders of magnitude more influence than I ever will.

    • By Bluestein 2025-07-1117:55

      > If it encourages more folks to reassess their own relationship with social media (or any technology), I’m all for it.

      Great point, this.-

  • By teekert 2025-07-1115:246 reply

    Yesterday I got a mail from Facebook: "*Woman_I_have_known mentioned you on Facebook".

    Haven't used FB in years, mail looks legit, I get kinda curious. I tap it, and am immediately logged in, in DDG browser (which has 0 cookies when closing)!

    To top it off, she didn't mention me, she mentioned some #tag on some stupid lottery for a van.

    It's so disrespectful. So dirty. I know they don't give a * about me, but do they have to put it on so thick?

    • By the_snooze 2025-07-1115:45

      This is a big reason why I'm so suspicious of AI. Those systems are largely backed by the same companies who have spent the last 15+ years disrespecting users and treating them as resources to extract, not actual people to serve.

      The ethos in tech seems to be a simplistic toddler-like mindset for "more for more's sake" that doesn't care about others' agency.

    • By pyrale 2025-07-1115:332 reply

      The ddg browser part is simple to explain: you followed a link that was generated specifically for this email sent to you. When you click it fb knows who you are (so they directly log you in), but also that you reacted to this specific clickbait campaign.

      Expect more trash from them since it worked once.

      • By fisherjeff 2025-07-1115:475 reply

        So if someone gains access to your email, they also get FB access…?

        • By gspencley 2025-07-1115:581 reply

          Yes, these are often referred to as "Magic Links."

          When it comes to the security implications, consider that email has long been a "single point of failure" for a lot of services in the form of the "forgot password" feature that emails you a link to reset your password.

          When I'm talking to non-tech people in my life about how best to protect themselves, I usually tell them to think about priorities and disaster scenarios. What would suck the most if it got hacked? The two that are usually at the top of the list for pretty much everyone are email and online banking. Others might include Amazon accounts (hackers can order themselves gift cards with your CC if compromised etc.) Prioritize securing those with a strong password + MFA. The rest is case by case but make sure to use a password manager so you're not reusing passwords.

          • By HelloMcFly 2025-07-1116:191 reply

            I have never seen a use of a Magic Link that wasn't because I asked the Magic Link to be sent to me. Never, ever had one sent to me in a marketing/engagement email.

            • By acaloiar 2025-07-1120:56

              Facebook is able to realize outsize cross-web tracking benefits by having you logged in as long as possible. Few other companies are able to realize comparable benefits because they don't have the same ad-serving aspirations coupled with "Login with Facebook" reach.

              Google is comparable, but it's too risky for them to have so many magic links hanging around in customer inboxes, because Google identities tend to be tied to far more sensitive 3rd party applications. Which is not to say that there are no sensitive applications with "Login with Facebook", but I'll argue there are fewer.

        • By DaSHacka 2025-07-1115:52

          Yes, but that's pretty common for most services.

          Clicking "forgot password" typically sends you an email prompting to set a new one; this is similar, in a sense.

        • By groestl 2025-07-1115:53

          They'll probably make you reauthenticate as soon as you do anything, but who knows...

        • By xboxnolifes 2025-07-1119:01

          Thats usually how password reset emails work.

        • By nordsieck 2025-07-1115:54

          > So if someone gains access to your email, they also get FB access…?

          I mean, that's how it works for most websites. I think I have 2FA turned on for FB, but honestly the phone system is way less secure than email at Google/Microsoft.

      • By teekert 2025-07-1115:551 reply

        Yeah, I gathered as much, but still, just a single URL to an email address to log me in? What about my 36 char password and my 2fa app?

        Edit: I just found I didn't set up 2fa. I wonder, if I had, would they still do this? Then it would have just blatantly ignored my second factor...

        • By kl4m 2025-07-1116:191 reply

          They want control over the post content (in case it's deleted, edited, etc) and also track your interaction ASAP, so they link it instead of embed.

          You will be asked to authenticate if you try to do anything.

          • By teekert 2025-07-1118:121 reply

            Just checked, I am fully logged in in a clean ddg browser session, and can accept friend requests, etc. But I don't have 2fa enabled.

            • By WickyNilliams 2025-07-1118:241 reply

              It may be that the link only worked once. Try again after logging out. Does it work?

              • By teekert 2025-07-1118:57

                Clicked it again, it says: The link you clicked may have stopped working or the page has been moved.

                Can still log in as often as I want into clean browser sessions. Even when I log out, clean the session, tapping the url logs me in again.

                And every time FB sends me an email: "Someone logged in from some location, was it you?"

    • By AndriyKunitsyn 2025-07-1115:353 reply

      A mention without a mention - I get that, but why do you think it's dirty to skip the log in?

      • By jmathai 2025-07-1115:43

        Look at the context of the email he received.

        It's a lie to get him onto the site and to start scrolling. In that context, skipping the login is pretty dirty.

      • By ivanmontillam 2025-07-1115:48

        because though we know BigCo know too much about us nore than ourselves, revealling that ugly fact so frontally is tasteless.

      • By compiler-guy 2025-07-1115:421 reply

        If they had forwarded that mail to someone else--"Hey look! Someone mentioned me on facebook!"--then that second person could have logged into the first person's account with a single tap.

        It's scummy and terribly insecure to pass around someone else's credentials via email.

        • By maerch 2025-07-1115:46

          That was my first thought. This can go downhill pretty quickly. Nobody suspects that you expose your account with a link to a mention.

    • By ben_w 2025-07-1115:50

      Yup. Somehow, despite this, they're not even that good at the one thing their business relies on, correctly targeting adverts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40083838

    • By legacynl 2025-07-1116:021 reply

      I wonder if it's part of some growth hacking scam. They want their metrics to show x amount of people logging in each month, so they show these emails that auto log you in.

      • By teekert 2025-07-1116:11

        Yeah, I'm now back in that monthly active users group. Should have resisted more.

    • By duxup 2025-07-1115:271 reply

      I wonder if Facebook has slowly began to lean into the scammer email pattern where ... they really want the people who are ok with these patterns so they can hook them in other equally scummy ways.

      Perhaps social media companies are not interested in anyone who wants to manage their feed or is looking for somethings specific, they want to point their product AT you, not have you use it.

      • By pyrale 2025-07-1115:361 reply

        Slowly begun? I’ve received this kind of email since their beginnings. The only reason they’re not #1 at this is that linkedIn does even more of it.

        • By mock-possum 2025-07-1115:451 reply

          Oh my god I’ve been at the end of my rope wirh LinkedIn too. Between the obnoxious notifications and the absolute brain rot that is The Feed™ there’s basically nothing good about that site apart from the obligate profile-as-a-resume.

          It is so pathetic how they beg and wheedle and connive to get you to engage. I’ve honestly lost all respect for that site at this point.

          • By ozim 2025-07-1120:55

            I like “beg” as term for their notifications.

  • By kmarc 2025-07-1116:163 reply

    For those who don't even open TFA: she is a creator, not a consumer in social media, and she only started two years ago.

    It's a long ass post about how fake those people are and how fake you yourself become once you start creating that content.

    Wishing the best of luck for the journey.

    This was a refreshing exception among all those "enough, I quit social media". OTOH, here I am still surprised how many people find it fulfilling to either be a performing monkey in this palm-sized vertical cage, or the opposite, why is it so fulfilling to watch those monkeys hours long, daily. "monkey" sounds harsh, I know, but in reality, these performers are barely more than just copying, mirroring other ones, with possibly more followers.

    What a time to be alive in.

    • By dentemple 2025-07-1116:531 reply

      At the very least, one should be a regular user of a platform prior to marketing on that platform. Every platform has nuance to it, and if you don't understand that nuance, then you're better off paying someone else to do it on your behalf.

      The OP was never going to succeed in her efforts there.

      • By ozim 2025-07-125:36

        That’s tricky part to understand.

        On one hand it seems she already has audience so she should have positive traction.

        On the other hand it seems like she started from 0 on the platforms and expected to be already a star “because I am an author”. Then she wanted to hack away with tricks like “posting daily” attracting people who liked her “dog posts” - because she didn’t have better stuff to post.

        I read that post yesterday and it started sinking in. She did everything wrong.

        Her audience as she mentioned wasn’t transferable to socials so she really was starting there from scratch. Posting your funny dog pictures and your daily routine will not make you stand out - everyone does that. Being “an author” also doesn’t make much of a difference when I can follow J.K Rowling and watch her funny dog pictures or laugh at her making inappropriate comments.

        Edit: I also checked just now what was her book. That’s definitely not aligning with lifestyle influencing with happy dogs or husband in perfect golden hour video.

    • By wredcoll 2025-07-1118:211 reply

      > OTOH, here I am still surprised how many people find it fulfilling to either be a performing monkey in this palm-sized vertical cage, or the opposite, why is it so fulfilling to watch those monkeys hours long, daily.

      He says in a post on social media website.

      • By unethical_ban 2025-07-1120:58

        This is like comparing a snow cone to meth.

    • By wishuwero 2025-07-120:35

      [dead]

HackerNews