[1dom]

Sorry to be "that guy", but where and why do you draw a line between social media, Reddit and HN?

I do the same, but I don't like it. I "don't use social media", but I use reddit, and I'm commenting here too. I think I'm deluding myself, and I think you might be too.

I'd guess what you come to HN and Reddit, and what you get from them both is no different to what a daily Facebook user goes to Facebook and gets.

For some reason, because the content type here is slightly more intellectual, slightly less emotional (generally...) slightly more focused on what I'm proud to call my interests (tech), I somehow feel like it's more justified.

If it's justified for people to use sites like this and claim it's not bad social media because it's related to our tech interest, I feel like we must accept people who use Facebook daily and claim it's not bad social media, because it relates to their interest in social stuff.

Practically, they have the same features and problems: a constant stream of information on which we can passively extract and offer views on.

Sorry, I don't mean be disagreeable, I just wish people would call this (including me) out more. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it is that there are supposedly educated people like me and you claiming they "don't use" and have "ditched" social media to each other in the comments section of a media site. What do you think?

[bazmattaz]

No you’re not being disagreeable and this is why I love HN - the intelligent discourse!

The way I think about it - and I’m probably wrong about this - is that like there way there are good fats and bad fats. There is good content online and bad content. The good content like good fats feed the brain and are good for your overall wellbeing and development, bad content like bad fats are just damaging to your wellbeing and development as a person.

So if we put the actual websites aside for a minute and said that if someone consumes content from a website that makes them feel better (not a quick dopamine hit) and helps them develop as a person (like learning something new) then maybe that’s ok.

Conversely if they’re just scrolling endlessly consuming content that is just designed for a quick dopamine hit, it doesn’t actually make them feel better longer term or develop them longer term then yeh that’s not ok.

Maybe I’m rambling here but I think regardless of what platform you’re using there is content that feeds the brain in a healthy way and content that negatively affects the brain.

And for me there are certain platforms that use sophisticated algorithms that optimise for engagement regardless of how healthy the content is for the user in the long term. And then there are other platforms (like HN I believe) that have a reputation for high quality intelligent posts that, in most cases, are healthy for users

[buzzardbait]

Not the person you're replying to, but maybe "ditched" is a strong word. A few thoughts about the various forms of social media you've mentioned:

Browsing HN for 30 minutes is probably a better investment than browsing TikTok for 30 minutes.

Browsing TikTok for 30 minutes and learning a new healthy recipe is probably a better investment than reading international news for 30 minutes.

Light use of social media can be a greater net positive than complete abstinence from all forms of social media.

[1dom]

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.

[buzzardbait]

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.

[1dom]

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?

[purple-leafy]

I think Reddit is just as bad tbh, but I still like HackerNews as its so plain and boring, I hardly use it (at most 20 minutes a day).