Comment by surfingdino | Hacker News Reader

Comment by surfingdino | Hacker News Reader

I gave up on social media soon after it became popular. I remember early days of Twitter when people were using it to discuss the attention economy and future trends. That was useful, but it quickly became a fight for attention using "content" and anger. Social media today falls apart and doesn't even bother to deliver the basic features. I recently started a new Instagram account for a photo project. I noticed that I was not getting any followers despite posting on a specific niche tag that people interested in the kind of photography I do follow. The tag is not controversial, it's the name of a brand of film I use and the posts were simply scans of photos I took using it, the photos are definitely safe. Turns out Instagram just stopped showing posts with that tag when you search for posts with it. My posts are not seen by my followers, but they and I do get shown a stream of shit posts (quotes, motivational bs, and funny animals) using the standard Instagram pattern of 3 shitposts, 1 ad, 3 shitposts, 1 ad, ... I decided to remove my accounts and posts from instagram, facebook, and other outlets. I am going back to blogging.

You should check Glass[1], which focuses strictly on photography. It does cost some money, but I see this as an advantage. There is basically zero spam, zero self-promotion, no "algorithm", no ads. And it even has RSS, which is how I mostly view photos (users may opt-out, though).

If you really don't want to spend any money, Pixelfed [2] is a good option.

Personally, I publish my photos on my own photography website and then syndicate them to Glass, Pixelfed and Instagram.

[1] https://glass.photo/

[2] https://pixelfed.social/i/web

Thanks. I'll check them out. To be frank, I get more out of Flickr these days.

thank you so much for sharing glass, I've been searching for something like it but have never found something

I feel we need a better word than the blanket term "social media". After all, we're on social media here, right now. Granted, HN is still more civil overall, due to its moderation and user selection, but it's social media nonetheless. Similarly, Reddit is social media as well, and can be an absolute cesspool as well as a treasure trove of civil discussion, depending on where you go.

> After all, we're on social media here, right now [...] Similarly, Reddit is social media as well

I don't agree, but i can't really formulate why. For example is 4chan social media, or Something Awful? I'd say no, they're forums. How is that distinct from Twitter or facebook? Fundamentally the model feels completely different to me. The idea of user centric feeds/content doesn't really fit. Maybe it's that the content is not the OP but the latest days worth of posts?

I see how on that metric HN is not forum-y but social media-y. But there it's the user vs content centric aspect?

Where does Pinterest sit?

Hummm, not at all sure.

I mean, it's a matter of pedantics and subjectivity.

Technically, Social Media is a super set of all of those things. They're all media platforms that primarily operate around user socialization (aka engagement). They are, by definition, social media, and in turn social media has been around long before Facebook (eg, slashdot, BBS, Usenet, etc).

I do agree there's a difference/nuance to be recognized here though (eg, old web vs new web social interactions). I think user vs content focus kinda misses the mark, as the truly key differentiator for me is what influences the activity, both in terms of driving people to post in the first place, but also in curating what they can('t) or should(n't) post. In other words, is the platform a community trying to serve it's users, or a company trying to serve it's stake/shareholders?

In fact blogging would be more than enough to compete with social media if everyone was to implement standards such as WebSub and Webmention (see W3C standards).

We have the tools to compete with proprietary platforms, we just need to commit to them.

This is very interesting. I'm an art photographer part time and have used IG to share my work. Previously (let's say a couple years ago, maybe less), Any posts I added with specific related tags would at least get some traction (I never paid for followers or ads of any kind) and more recently, they barely do at all. I at first suspected that it was because Instagram decided to take a tedious stance of minimizing post exposure until you forked money over for their paid offerings, but now there's this wider enshittification angle to consider, of garbage saturating other's feeds either because it does pay for publicity or games their idiot algorithmic protocols better.

Instagram have been changing the way algorithm works for a while and they did say they are prioritising reels over photos. The enshittification is real. When I block one "quotes" account, say "_quotes" then posts from "quotes_" appear immediately in my feed. Could it be done on purpose to inflate ad impressions and engagement?

I can only imagine this kind of idiocy eventually hurting the absolute core of success that is engaged users. If people who want to post know that their content will be crowded out even to followers and friends by an avalanche of spam, AI garbage, bullshit clickbait reels and so forth, they'll stop posting, and also maybe stop visiting because they know that they'll be hit by the same flood of crap on their feeds.

A social networking platform with over 1 billion users (though I wonder how many of those a real people organically using the site) has a lot of inertia built into it for apparent forward motion, but if the thing that made it work falls apart, it will rot.

Also, for all the newly polished PR talk you hear from Zuckerberg these days about helping users, shit like the above and many other similar things is worth remembering. As the controlling individual at his company he both absolutely knows about these slides into enshittification, and has the power to change them, but apparently doesn't..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com