I don't know how to say this constructively, but this post reads like it is written with a deep smugness. It feels very "ego-y". It feels like the author has glommed onto a real concept (denying the ego) but instead used it to get out of the competitive marketplace of social media, and instead take it to their blog where the competition is invisible and lesser. It even basically finishes with "tune in later to keep in touch with my journey of mastering what all you plebs struggle with and can't see."
Just how it feels to me, anyway. It's very overwrought.
You're right, there nothing much there but excessive, if muted, self-grandiosement and hypocritical judgement.
Eg, the first sentence:
> As I begin settling into a new flow of my life I find myself finding tremendous sanctuary and peace with myself.
2 * "I", 2 * "myself", 1 * "my life" and a claim that this person has found "tremendous sanctuary and peace".
> I notice this internal tranquility seems to be related to my exodus of social media.
In the second sentence we read that they have peace because of their absence from social media. Great, but then why write a blog post about it all?
It seems like an egoic attempt to try to claim moral high ground to castigate others, while failing to address the crimes others commit in oneself. Do as I say..
The ego has a million-and-one (and, always one more) ways to subtly cling to anyone trying to rid themselves of it.
As far as I can tell, from observations in myself, and of others, the ego is only something you can manage. You can experience moments of freedom (most reliably through psychedelics in my experience) that give you a taste of something beautiful and relieving. But the ego is just sleeping.
The tentacles of the ego are attached to the very nature of your life itself - to very basic metabolic processes. It’ll always be with you - your existence and your ego’s existence are hopelessly intertwined.
I would argue your comment is cynical as well. HN tries to be a place of discussion which means challenging ideas. Someone having recently passed is sad and tragic and deserves respect, but it doesn’t make their public opinions immune from discussion
What is with the recent (2000+) use of “disgusting” to mean reprehensible?
Disgusting tends to directly describe an individual rather than an act. I think that makes it much less useful in teaching and discourse, since it strongly evokes ad-hominem vibes.
I think we might all be better off to carefully consider the (mis)use of the term when our goal is to educate, enlighten, correct, or lead.
It’s a great term to use when the goal is to shame, diminish, or discredit an individual, but should we be doing that except in cases where a person has revealed themselves to be beyond a desire to improve or any hope of redemption?
> We aren’t using social media to drive action. We are using it to farm a false sense of worth. To cast stones at anyone who foolishly stumbles into the latest virtue-trap.
Yeah, it feels like most of social media is now shit-flinging and calling the "outside group" stupid so one can feel "At least I'm not a stupid horrible person like that idiot!".
I notice on Instagram you can "like" comments but not dislike them, to disagree with someone you have to put in more effort and type a rebuttal. This "oh we prefer positivity" behavior also means reinforcement of ignorant behavior, by the many likes people see that they get for their hateful comments.
Social media simply amplifies what is already common among human beings. One way it seems to do this is by flattening and legitimizing impropriety. Normal societies are "chunky", that is, you have niches and enclaves and varying distance unified in some increasingly "thin" manner. This enables various kinds of relationships to flourish (think of how marriage creates a special space for the couple, and then another space for the family that results from it, then consider the different space that the extended family creates, or coworkers create). But in social media, this structure evaporates. Everyone is shoved into the same space. People you barely know or don't know are on par with your closest family and friends. This is bound to cause aggression and nosiness and impropriety. To put it hyperbolically, it's like having your coworkers in bed with you making lewd comments as you have sex with your spouse. Social media encourages and defaults to this kind of boundary violation so that you are effectively consenting to it by using it because otherwise, it makes little sense to use. So telling someone to mind their own business becomes more difficult _because you're the one who volunteered the information in the first place_, whereas you can still tell an intrusive stranger to piss off with the confidence of moral justification.
>Social media simply amplifies what is already common among human beings
We all have some anger in us too. But we're not all frequently beating up or even killing people in powerful fits of anger. Something that "simply amplifies" pre-existing violent tendencies can have a dramatic detrimental effect on society.
Human beings have many potentialities. Amplifying some of them as opposed to others, is enough to change major parts of our behavior, personality, and even society.
This is very astute. It's as if all social institutions were dissolved, then reconstituted into a single structure that is bad at just about every interaction it destroyed.
I really do miss the days where candor was seen as a sign of respect. Now it's just seen as being contrarian or even insulting. All because you "ruined" their virtue-fueled dopamine drip.
It's not a genuine interaction, at all. It's a town hall full of shit posters, some of which you went to school with or just happen to be related to. There are literal families divided right now because Becky went full "nobody asked, stay off my profile" mode on her Uncle Steve. Which is just nuts.
Really makes me worry about where we'll be in 20-30 years, socially speaking.
> All because you "ruined" their virtue-fueled dopamine drip.
You are ignoring how peoples diet have changed over the decades. Life activities were more directed towards survival, even things like growing vegetables in the back garden or allotment were hobbies to help put the icing on the cake for an otherwise functional world.
Today, with food aplenty and technological gains like mobile phones, the internet, not just social media, is perhaps best seen as a mirror of the human psyche, a mirror of the regional, national and global collective ego's.
This may well be a golden age for the advancement of psychology.
> most of social media is now shit-flinging and calling the "outside group" stupid
I saw myself in both your quote and the one you responded to.
For the past year, I've participated in calling out Unstoppable Domains for their bullying tactics[1], shady behavior[2], &c. I've delighted in catching their employees off-guard in obvious lies. I've made ample use of the #StoppableDomains hashtag to further expose how they're a Web2 company masquerading as Web3. All this for Twitter to indefinitely ban my account for "platform misuse."
Was it worth it? My previous data export was almost a year ago so, unfortunately not. Losing a decade plus of memories hurts but it further illuminates the need to own your content (and that's a rant for another day).
I do think that holding people and corporations accountable is important. At this point though, I don't care to continue putting energy into platforms and not really getting much back from them (if anything).
That will only incentivize posting low quality worthless things in order to improve position and reach in comments. Might as well just charge them $8/mo for the privilege of making other people see their comments.
Edit: I think I misunderstood what you were suggesting (just a chronological timeline?).
> Yeah, it feels like most of social media is now shit-flinging and calling the "outside group" stupid so one can feel "At least I'm not a stupid horrible person like that idiot!".
Like the folks here on HN in this very thread flinging shit and calling those horrible social media users idiots, you mean? The irony in your comment is just too much. Yikes.
Just stop. People are people. In-group/out-group abuse and hate has been a fact of life for as long as we've been a species. You treat that, as Nova did, with understanding and empathy, not with more hate.
As long as you (and you're hardly alone in this topic!) walk around with that chip on your shoulder you are guaranteeing never to escape your personal in-group prison, nor to ever make peace with the out-groups you're yelling about.
Are you sure that the disagree button is because they prefer positivity? I am not a social media user, I have none of them, but I've always read that social media eat their lunches thanks to flame wars, would it be possible that the non-existent disagree button is because a disagree button would be a passive way to show disagreement, while a message is more likely to generate engagement?
I support the post author's position completely. It's incredibly clear to me now after using social media for about a decade that it's not something healthy to participate in, and I shouldn't use it beyond a few really specific scenarios, like communicating with a business.
I've watched it destroy relationships, including some of mine, and turn people into psychopaths. When I meet someone new I can observe a pretty consistent correlation between how heavily they use the major social media platforms and how awful of a human being they are.
It is not a thing you want in your life, full stop.
Not everyone's social media experience is the same.
The author was participating in the noise, stuck in the culture of substance abuse.
Their experience is that this is the only experience.
To the most casual observer this is clearly untrue.
----
Anyone paying attention to the science on social media is aware there are people stuck in this cycle.
It's cool that this person woke to it but there is nothing larger here and there is no indication their habits are going to change longer term. They are determined to continue to participate in something they admit harms them.
Yeah I’m pretty tired of people who have a problem with social media assuming that that means everyone has a problem with social media - or that social media itself is a problem. If it doesn’t work for you, then don’t do it. Stop projecting and start taking responsibility for yourself.
Self worth comes from yourself. If you’re getting your worth from an outside source, that’s external validation, which is a wholly unsatisfying strategy. You’re always going to be chasing it. Not everybody has that problem.
While taking responsibility for yourself is important, I think there still needs to be a discussion in society about addicting habits. There is a reason why many substances are forbidden, why alcohol and tobacco are not sold to kids, and why gambling is regulated.
Sure, regulations change (like the push for legalizing marijuana), but I doubt anyone is seriously advocating to make everything addictive completely freely available.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, or the author for that matter, but I can't quite entirely tease apart why one would apply to the one and not the other.
I noticed the train wreck phenomenon she described around 2009 on facebook and immediately quit knowing that I lacked the self control to look away. I post from multiple anonymous hn accounts to test ideas and make a point of not acquiring a particularly high karma before switching to a new account to ensure that I don't get attached to a particular persona that might become correlated with the handle.
2009 was when FB introduced the 'like' button, which I think burdens the majority of the responsibility for the decline of the quality of interactions on Facebook.
Gathering 'likes' was addictive, and because of the low effort required to 'like' things, it created the false impression of being connected to people. Suddenly, reacting to EVERYTHING became an expectation. Of course, this is what Facebook wanted, but it is overwhelming to react meaningfully to everything every one of the 338 friends an average Facebook user has.
There's also the receiving side of likes - the Variable Ratio Schedule which means the more you post, the more likely you are to receive a 'like' - but there's not a direct correlation. Skinner (the father of operant conditioning) identified this as the most effective reward mechanism to condition behaviour.
I believe (quite strongly) that the 'like' button is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the mental health damage being done by Facebook and Instagram.
Why would there be correlation? Do you mean in your own mind, or decided by others?
> test ideas
I don't understand. You post things you don't necessarily believe, to see how people react? This is not a healthy approach for you or the platform. You could instead use one account and simply say you're not sure about this or that idea, or on the fence about particular issues.
I only post things I believe to be true but I am not always successful at communicating my thoughts and feelings. The response lets me know if I was effective or not. I also have blindspots and recognize that I may not be seeing the whole picture at any given moment. Sure, I could hedge every statement with every possible doubt but then it becomes impossible to actually say anything.
If I had a reputation then people would consciously or not evaluate the truth of my statements at least in part based on my reputation. I often fail, but I try to write the truth as I see it and let it stand without being tied up in my identity.
A little of both. I do sometimes feel like "this is a post for xxxx" vs. this is a post for norir. I'm not comparing myself to him, but kierkegaard used pseudonyms to write most of his works in personas that he considered distinctive and separate from himself although surely they reflected aspects of himself.
Humans need to have a persistent world view. Without persistent world view I could not even use a spoon -- I would be constantly surprised by what is this thing in my hand, and what I am supposed to do with it.
My current understanding is that purpose of the ego is to maintain the world view. In other words, it provides resistane to change to the current world view.
It is supposed to work like soil works for seed -- provides some initial resistance to facilitate growth and make it possible for the plant to survie after it breaks through the surface.
Therefore, ego is absolutely necessary part of humans. Killing it is not possible and even trying to kill it is not a useful aim. (I know, I have tried.)
That said, there may be many problems related to oversized egos and learning to work with your ego is worthwhile.
Reading this helped me realize some feelings I've been having recently after not being on Instagram for a few years and then going back to it recently. The content has shifted from a feed of my friends' lives to a feed of copy-paste memes, headlines with weird music playing, tiktok screen-caps, and a ton of advertisement as media content. It's unfortunate that the reigns of almost all kinds of social media are now in control of Meta, soon when X/Twitter disappears and Threads becomes the leading thoughts and news platform, it will feel like we might be missing big chunks of real news and life because that stuff doesn't sell ads.
Readit News
Just how it feels to me, anyway. It's very overwrought.
Eg, the first sentence:
> As I begin settling into a new flow of my life I find myself finding tremendous sanctuary and peace with myself.
2 * "I", 2 * "myself", 1 * "my life" and a claim that this person has found "tremendous sanctuary and peace".
> I notice this internal tranquility seems to be related to my exodus of social media.
In the second sentence we read that they have peace because of their absence from social media. Great, but then why write a blog post about it all?
It seems like an egoic attempt to try to claim moral high ground to castigate others, while failing to address the crimes others commit in oneself. Do as I say..
As far as I can tell, from observations in myself, and of others, the ego is only something you can manage. You can experience moments of freedom (most reliably through psychedelics in my experience) that give you a taste of something beautiful and relieving. But the ego is just sleeping.
The tentacles of the ego are attached to the very nature of your life itself - to very basic metabolic processes. It’ll always be with you - your existence and your ego’s existence are hopelessly intertwined.
She recently suddenly passed away (climbing accident), which is pretty weird considering this article and how it ends.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
If the authors earnest blog post strikes you as ego-y maybe stop for a second check your own ego.
Your cynical response to someone practicing vulnerability is disgusting.
Disgusting tends to directly describe an individual rather than an act. I think that makes it much less useful in teaching and discourse, since it strongly evokes ad-hominem vibes.
I think we might all be better off to carefully consider the (mis)use of the term when our goal is to educate, enlighten, correct, or lead.
It’s a great term to use when the goal is to shame, diminish, or discredit an individual, but should we be doing that except in cases where a person has revealed themselves to be beyond a desire to improve or any hope of redemption?
Yeah, it feels like most of social media is now shit-flinging and calling the "outside group" stupid so one can feel "At least I'm not a stupid horrible person like that idiot!".
I notice on Instagram you can "like" comments but not dislike them, to disagree with someone you have to put in more effort and type a rebuttal. This "oh we prefer positivity" behavior also means reinforcement of ignorant behavior, by the many likes people see that they get for their hateful comments.
We all have some anger in us too. But we're not all frequently beating up or even killing people in powerful fits of anger. Something that "simply amplifies" pre-existing violent tendencies can have a dramatic detrimental effect on society.
Human beings have many potentialities. Amplifying some of them as opposed to others, is enough to change major parts of our behavior, personality, and even society.
Deleted Comment
It's not a genuine interaction, at all. It's a town hall full of shit posters, some of which you went to school with or just happen to be related to. There are literal families divided right now because Becky went full "nobody asked, stay off my profile" mode on her Uncle Steve. Which is just nuts.
Really makes me worry about where we'll be in 20-30 years, socially speaking.
You are ignoring how peoples diet have changed over the decades. Life activities were more directed towards survival, even things like growing vegetables in the back garden or allotment were hobbies to help put the icing on the cake for an otherwise functional world.
Today, with food aplenty and technological gains like mobile phones, the internet, not just social media, is perhaps best seen as a mirror of the human psyche, a mirror of the regional, national and global collective ego's.
This may well be a golden age for the advancement of psychology.
I saw myself in both your quote and the one you responded to.
For the past year, I've participated in calling out Unstoppable Domains for their bullying tactics[1], shady behavior[2], &c. I've delighted in catching their employees off-guard in obvious lies. I've made ample use of the #StoppableDomains hashtag to further expose how they're a Web2 company masquerading as Web3. All this for Twitter to indefinitely ban my account for "platform misuse."
Was it worth it? My previous data export was almost a year ago so, unfortunately not. Losing a decade plus of memories hurts but it further illuminates the need to own your content (and that's a rant for another day).
I do think that holding people and corporations accountable is important. At this point though, I don't care to continue putting energy into platforms and not really getting much back from them (if anything).
--
[1]: https://domainnamewire.com/2023/06/26/court-handshake-wallet...
[2]: https://twitter.com/_chjj/status/1565158353055145985
> select * from posts where author_id in $following order by posted_date desc
No more gaming engagement or viral rage.
Edit: I think I misunderstood what you were suggesting (just a chronological timeline?).
Like the folks here on HN in this very thread flinging shit and calling those horrible social media users idiots, you mean? The irony in your comment is just too much. Yikes.
Just stop. People are people. In-group/out-group abuse and hate has been a fact of life for as long as we've been a species. You treat that, as Nova did, with understanding and empathy, not with more hate.
As long as you (and you're hardly alone in this topic!) walk around with that chip on your shoulder you are guaranteeing never to escape your personal in-group prison, nor to ever make peace with the out-groups you're yelling about.
I've watched it destroy relationships, including some of mine, and turn people into psychopaths. When I meet someone new I can observe a pretty consistent correlation between how heavily they use the major social media platforms and how awful of a human being they are.
It is not a thing you want in your life, full stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37199495
Not everyone's social media experience is the same.
The author was participating in the noise, stuck in the culture of substance abuse.
Their experience is that this is the only experience.
To the most casual observer this is clearly untrue.
----
Anyone paying attention to the science on social media is aware there are people stuck in this cycle.
It's cool that this person woke to it but there is nothing larger here and there is no indication their habits are going to change longer term. They are determined to continue to participate in something they admit harms them.
Self worth comes from yourself. If you’re getting your worth from an outside source, that’s external validation, which is a wholly unsatisfying strategy. You’re always going to be chasing it. Not everybody has that problem.
Sure, regulations change (like the push for legalizing marijuana), but I doubt anyone is seriously advocating to make everything addictive completely freely available.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, or the author for that matter, but I can't quite entirely tease apart why one would apply to the one and not the other.
Gathering 'likes' was addictive, and because of the low effort required to 'like' things, it created the false impression of being connected to people. Suddenly, reacting to EVERYTHING became an expectation. Of course, this is what Facebook wanted, but it is overwhelming to react meaningfully to everything every one of the 338 friends an average Facebook user has.
There's also the receiving side of likes - the Variable Ratio Schedule which means the more you post, the more likely you are to receive a 'like' - but there's not a direct correlation. Skinner (the father of operant conditioning) identified this as the most effective reward mechanism to condition behaviour.
I believe (quite strongly) that the 'like' button is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the mental health damage being done by Facebook and Instagram.
Why would there be correlation? Do you mean in your own mind, or decided by others?
> test ideas
I don't understand. You post things you don't necessarily believe, to see how people react? This is not a healthy approach for you or the platform. You could instead use one account and simply say you're not sure about this or that idea, or on the fence about particular issues.
If I had a reputation then people would consciously or not evaluate the truth of my statements at least in part based on my reputation. I often fail, but I try to write the truth as I see it and let it stand without being tied up in my identity.
Do you imbue reach handle with its own persona (presumably a fragment of yours, writ whole)?
Or is it basically just a cover for whatever you feel like writing in each moment?
—The Buddha
My current understanding is that purpose of the ego is to maintain the world view. In other words, it provides resistane to change to the current world view.
It is supposed to work like soil works for seed -- provides some initial resistance to facilitate growth and make it possible for the plant to survie after it breaks through the surface.
Therefore, ego is absolutely necessary part of humans. Killing it is not possible and even trying to kill it is not a useful aim. (I know, I have tried.)
That said, there may be many problems related to oversized egos and learning to work with your ego is worthwhile.