Thanks, you made me think, but not in a way that makes me doubt my original point.
Browsing HN for 30 mins is a better investment for someone who's life revolves around tech. If you're not a massive nerd, you're probably going to get more understanding and value out of 30 minutes of what TikTok serves. (I say that as a massive nerd who's never used TikTok).
It seems a pretty common trope in the comment sections of Reddit and HN on the subject of social media for people to act like they've solved the problem they had because they only use Reddit and HN. I do it too.
All that's happened is I've found a place in social media that's comfortable/familiar enough for me that I don't consider it as social media (unless it's really forced in my face). I imagine the experience is the same for a non-nerdy Facebook addict.
> Light use of social media can be a greater net positive than complete abstinence from all forms of social media.
I can't disagree with that, but it feels like a false dichotomy to justify our social media usage.
Getting info from individual sites and sources that you've personally and organically discovered and vetted feels like it would be a far far far bigger net positive overall than even light social media usage.
I keep meaning to get on mastodon, bluesky or other platforms that are meant to be more decentralised and slightly less algorithm-driven to find more interesting sources that I can just add to a local reader client or something, but HN/Reddit is more comfier/familiar/easier for me.
I wasn't doubting your original point, more like complementing it.
Though on this:
> Getting info from individual sites and sources that you've personally and organically discovered and vetted feels like it would be a far far far bigger net positive overall than even light social media usage.
I would disagree, this is exactly what it means to live in a bubble.
Thanks! Although, curse you, making me think more. Touché.
That's a fair disagreement. Although I guess I was thinking that my individually curated sites and sources would include sites and feeds that themselves include diverse and new info. But then I guess that's just me not recognising that that's what people in a bubble think they're doing.
Do you have any nice, foolproof ways to reliably source new info online?
Browsing HN for 30 mins is a better investment for someone who's life revolves around tech. If you're not a massive nerd, you're probably going to get more understanding and value out of 30 minutes of what TikTok serves. (I say that as a massive nerd who's never used TikTok).
It seems a pretty common trope in the comment sections of Reddit and HN on the subject of social media for people to act like they've solved the problem they had because they only use Reddit and HN. I do it too.
All that's happened is I've found a place in social media that's comfortable/familiar enough for me that I don't consider it as social media (unless it's really forced in my face). I imagine the experience is the same for a non-nerdy Facebook addict.
> Light use of social media can be a greater net positive than complete abstinence from all forms of social media.
I can't disagree with that, but it feels like a false dichotomy to justify our social media usage.
Getting info from individual sites and sources that you've personally and organically discovered and vetted feels like it would be a far far far bigger net positive overall than even light social media usage.
I keep meaning to get on mastodon, bluesky or other platforms that are meant to be more decentralised and slightly less algorithm-driven to find more interesting sources that I can just add to a local reader client or something, but HN/Reddit is more comfier/familiar/easier for me.