[standardUser]

I think a lot of us want the same thing - a minimally commercialized social network with content exclusively from people we actually know or like. But much like with group chats (or real life) the people we know are not going to be consistently engaged, let alone entertaining, and we'll get bored fast.

[glial]

> I think a lot of us want the same thing

Cognitively, yes. This is like saying "a lot of us want the same thing - healthy, fresh food that makes us stronger, sleep better, and live longer". Of course. But fast food is a $400B industry in the US. Social media is fast food. Nobody says they want it but their behavior indicates otherwise.

[eggbrain]

I agree both with you and the OP comment here.

Ideally, I think if we could, we'd only get content from the creators or people we care about -- but that content runs out eventually, and yet our minds still want to be stimulated.

To bring it back to your food analogy, if I had a personal chef that made delicious food whenever I wanted it, I'd probably not indulge in fast food very often -- but if I needed a quick bite to eat, I'd probably still jump into a McDonalds.

[aaronbaugher]

Yep. Every time a platform comes out that tries to give people more control over what they see and how they share, it languishes and people keep going back to the ad-laden mosh pit of Big Social.

For instance, Yahoo 360 let you create "circles," so you could have your "work circle" and your "friend circle" and so on, and let them overlap however you wanted, and then you could post things to whichever circles you wanted and read them how you wanted. Seems like a great idea, but most people didn't want it. Too complicated, probably. Easier to just scroll through garbage looking for gems like flipping through TV channels.

And the truth is, most people posting a selfie want everyone to see it. All their friends, at least, but really, the world if possible. So they don't really want restrictions on what reaches them because they don't want restrictions on themselves.

[Draiken]

Our brains are wired to answer to stimuli but that doesn't necessarily mean we consciously want it.

These platforms prey on us with every possible tactic to keep us there since every second "engaged" means profits for them.

If we take a generic view of "if they are in these platforms, then they want it" we might as well say that fish want to be caught because they bite the hook.

[Zak]

I was recently thinking about how early Facebook was a harmless or good thing for the world that was easy to have a healthy relationship with.

I could check it once a day, know that I had seen every post from my friends and family, like the cat pictures, ask for the recipe for the lunch picture, and be done. Of course it's not very profitable for Facebook for me to be done so now it tries to show me a bunch of stuff I can't look away from. That drowns out posts from my friends, so those posts get less interaction, and now my friends don't post pictures of their cats regularly.

[esafak]

So you'll do something else instead. Sounds great.

[standardUser]

No, instead we doom-scroll content curated by an ever-evolving algorithm designed by some of the smartest people in our society to maximize corporate profits.

[smokel]

I got by just fine without social media for most of my life. I look forward to society returning to that quieter and more fulfilling time.