"Geriatric Social Media"

[Major Tom]

ExFlyBoy5 - that vertical video PSA is very entertaining!

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

ExFlyBoy5 - that vertical video PSA is very entertaining!

I have shared it many, many times over the years. Sadly, most folks ignore the sound advice. If I was king for a day, I would decree that anyone who posts vertical videos would be sentenced to having all their flat panel TVs mounted vertically for one year.

 

[ls99]

I have shared it many, many times over the years. Sadly, most folks ignore the sound advice. If I was king for a day, I would decree that anyone who posts vertical videos would be sentenced to having all their flat panel TVs mounted vertically for one year.

That would work really well for reading text as if it was a large newspaper.
But would require two side by side vertically to emulate a newspaper.

 

[JoeWras]

I found USENET in the mid-90's. That was a blast. Quite a free-for-all, but still civilized. No graphics unless you painstakingly created something out of ASCII characters. Then trolls started showing up and taking over and some groups formed moderated versions of the regular Usenet group. I would put this in the late 90's and/or turn of the century. These mod groups were not popular. Then online forums popped up. Then online forums were trolled and moderated online forums became commonplace (ER.ORG is an online moderated forum.)

Those Usenet days were my introduction to online communities and it made quite an impression. Truly the forerunner of social media. I have people from Usenet I still keep in touch with via email and texts and I even met one of them last year.

Usenet was a blast. There was so much tolerance for everything... except advertising.

I still remember when that lawyer broke the unwritten rule and started advertising. https://www.wired.com/1999/04/the-spam-that-started-it-all/

It was only a matter of weeks the advertising dam broke. Advertising previously was on on devices like AOL, Compuserve or Prodigy. Once it started on Usenet, it infected everything.

People tolerated a lot of crap, some of it very distasteful, and also far left and right views. Yet they cooperated.

Reddit is supposedly wide open, but through history and custom, they lean heavily one way. The owners would love for you to use up and down voting to gauge interesting posts, but the reality is down voting is used mostly to shame people who express the "wrong" political lean. It is not the real world. I admit, though, that I do like r/idiotsincars. It is mostly short video. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. But I've actually learned a lot about driving situations and when to be more defensive. Oh that, and SUVs are incredibly easy to roll over .

 

[Pellice]

There were some bizarre posts on an early listserv I participated in - about canaries, of all things. There are some disturbed personalities out there! But one thing about longer form social media (listservs and bulletin boards) - personalities do come through over the years. Flame wars (remember those!) lent themselves particularly well to sorting out the personalities! https://www.politicsforum.org/flame-warriors/

Texts don't cut it - although some of the more pronounced personalities are discernible.

 

[CaptTom]

Not in my book. Message boards have been around before "social media" exploded. Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Pinterest, are social media to me, because people post detailed personal information.

Maybe that's the difference. We all have different personalities we pull out in different social situations. At home, at work, in church, in the store, in the bar, whatever. (Cue Billy Joel's The Stranger...)

Yet FB and the rest expect us to show one face to the world. They want every detail of our lives to be in the spotlight. I don't think that's natural.

Google tried to buck this trend with their attempt to compete against FB. Their idea was you didn't just have one group of friends, but different "Circles." Their social media product failed miserably. I'm not sure if it was too late and FB had already taken over, or if I'm just the oddball who thought it was a good idea.

Perhaps more of a rant of the day, but I agree 100%. Here is a video PSA about it.

Oh, wow, that's my pet peeve too! I think it's because most people today have never held a camera. They've only ever known vertical orientation.

 

[ncbill]

Usenet was a blast. There was so much tolerance for everything... except advertising.

I still remember when that lawyer broke the unwritten rule and started advertising. https://www.wired.com/1999/04/the-spam-that-started-it-all/

It was only a matter of weeks the advertising dam broke. Advertising previously was on on devices like AOL, Compuserve or Prodigy. Once it started on Usenet, it infected everything.

People tolerated a lot of crap, some of it very distasteful, and also far left and right views. Yet they cooperated.

Reddit is supposedly wide open, but through history and custom, they lean heavily one way. The owners would love for you to use up and down voting to gauge interesting posts, but the reality is down voting is used mostly to shame people who express the "wrong" political lean. It is not the real world. I admit, though, that I do like r/idiotsincars. It is mostly short video. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. But I've actually learned a lot about driving situations and when to be more defensive. Oh that, and SUVs are incredibly easy to roll over .

And don't forget Fidonet.

No one else here ever used that bulletin board-based discussion system?

 

[Born2BRetd]

The last few years before I retired management started sending videos instead of memos. No way I was going to waste my time listening to someone natter on at me for 10 minutes when a quick perusal of a memo would give me the same information in a minute. Also, if there is important information in the video, there is no way to highlight it like you can with a memo. I don't mind an instructional video at times but don't have the patience to watch something that I could read quickly. I'm hoping that there is room for both the written word and video in the future.

 

[JoeWras]

The last few years before I retired management started sending videos instead of memos. No way I was going to waste my time listening to someone natter on at me for 10 minutes when a quick perusal of a memo would give me the same information in a minute. Also, if there is important information in the video, there is no way to highlight it like you can with a memo. I don't mind an instructional video at times but don't have the patience to watch something that I could read quickly. I'm hoping that there is room for both the written word and video in the future.

You hit a nerve.

Agree 100%.

 

[CaptTom]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who isn't enamored by the "pivot to video" which seems so trendy these days. Some text and quality still photos is all I need to figure something out. Not 15 minutes of "Bubba" telling me his life story and what brand tools he's going to use to get the job done. And don't even get me started on video advertising!

 

[Music Lover]

Before too many more years, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth as people realize without newspapers, without printed media, they can only know what website owners allow to be on their sites. I see this happening already. Old content gets removed if it looks bad in hindsight, so you can't find it any more. The inherent trust that used to be there with newspapers and TV news is gone, everything on the web has a slant and an agenda.

There was a perfect example of this recently, the story from a major network regarding an attack on a high profile person has now changed 2 or 3 times since it happened. Rather than amending the story and linking to the old one they just supplied a different version of events and completely deleted the original as if they never reported it in the first place. Those reading the new story for the first time would have no idea what was originally reported. The original press conference with the police spokesperson with a different version of events than the current version has also disappeared from the internet.

The media wonders why people are losing trust in them. Examples like this are just one of the reasons why.

 

[punkinhead]

I, for one, won't be sad to see social networks like Facebook and Twitter fade away. I can't speak much to Twitter because I've never used it - the idea that a view can be expressed in 140 or 280 characters is ludicrous. It's like being informed by bumper stickers. Facebook is a truly awful means of communication. I'm buying an RV and the user group is on Facebook. The format makes it nearly impossible to have a back and forth discussion, there's no way to organize topics, and the search function just plain doesn't work. A topic quickly fades from people's feeds so if a question isn't answered in the first couple posts it's unlikely to ever get answered.

I know it identifies me as a Luddite, but I still think Forums are the best means of back and forth information sharing. Topics can be arranged in logical groupings, back and forth discussions are easy to follow, and searches are for the most part useful.

Usenet was a hoot. I think I made my first post in '85 or '86.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

There was a perfect example of this recently, the story from a major network regarding an attack on a high profile person has now changed 2 or 3 times since it happened. Rather than amending the story and linking to the old one they just supplied a different version of events and completely deleted the original as if they never reported it in the first place. Those reading the new story for the first time would have no idea what was originally reported. The original press conference with the police spokesperson with a different version of events than the current version has also disappeared from the internet.

The media wonders why people are losing trust in them. Examples like this are just one of the reasons why.

I noticed that there was a lot of gnashing of teeth of the "mis-reporting" about said attack by NBC. The article mentioned the exact broadcast time and reporter. I have that particular newscast as one that is "DVR'd" on YouTube TV. Figuring it had been "recorded", I went in last night to see what had been reported but the entire segment had been replaced within the broadcast...the reporter that was cited wasn't even in the story.

Also, I saw the FIRST police presser live and there was very little information during that broadcast; it was MAYBE 90 seconds long and there was no information released outside the attacker's name.

 

[ls99]

We are in the Twilight zone: "Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission"

 

[Chuckanut]

We are in the Twilight zone: "Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission"

Oh Oh. You made a wrong turn and ended up somewhere in The Outer Limits.

 

[ls99]

Last j*b was with a MD state gummint agency, transportation. Outer Limits is very familiar)

 

[Pellice]

There was a perfect example of this recently, the story from a major network regarding an attack on a high profile person has now changed 2 or 3 times since it happened. Rather than amending the story and linking to the old one they just supplied a different version of events and completely deleted the original as if they never reported it in the first place. Those reading the new story for the first time would have no idea what was originally reported. The original press conference with the police spokesperson with a different version of events than the current version has also disappeared from the internet.

The media wonders why people are losing trust in them. Examples like this are just one of the reasons why.

But there are advantages and disadvantages to both. What if you have a print version of a story that is simply wrong? YOU yourself, the first reader, might know the story was corrected, but that stray print copy that got passed down is the one that posterity consults! And print disappears as randomly and frequently as rapidly as online.

I just wrote an email about some books I am passing on to a relative that reflected on this: Asinius Pollio, one of Caesar's generals, wrote a detailed account of the Roman civil war that brought Caesar to power (and he did it after Caesar's death, so it was not entirely sycophantic). It's gone, known only from references from other writers, who regarded it as authoritative, and a few quotations. Would probably change the entire picture had it survived.

And the next time I move I'll have to dispose of my entire run of Fine Cooking Magazine, which has ceased publication and deleted its website. But I can't keep all that print!

I guess it's good to have both!

 

[Pellice]

I, for one, won't be sad to see social networks like Facebook and Twitter fade away. I can't speak much to Twitter because I've never used it - the idea that a view can be expressed in 140 or 280 characters is ludicrous. It's like being informed by bumper stickers. Facebook is a truly awful means of communication. I'm buying an RV and the user group is on Facebook. The format makes it nearly impossible to have a back and forth discussion, there's no way to organize topics, and the search function just plain doesn't work. A topic quickly fades from people's feeds so if a question isn't answered in the first couple posts it's unlikely to ever get answered.

I know it identifies me as a Luddite, but I still think Forums are the best means of back and forth information sharing. Topics can be arranged in logical groupings, back and forth discussions are easy to follow, and searches are for the most part useful.

Usenet was a hoot. I think I made my first post in '85 or '86.

I still don't have the hang of Facebook, but I do use it, as I do Twitter (although I may jump ship if it deteriorates under Musk). Twitter is good for brief references to current events, but the efforts to have "discussions" on it are clumsy. They've had to invent new interfaces (like threadroll) to try to deal with extended tweets.

I do not know why bulletin boards are less popular, as they do solve many problems of communication.

 

[Music Lover]

But there are advantages and disadvantages to both. What if you have a print version of a story that is simply wrong? YOU yourself, the first reader, might know the story was corrected, but that stray print copy that got passed down is the one that posterity consults! And print disappears as randomly and frequently as rapidly as online.

Online they have the option to say what correction was made and why. But often they choose not to and that's not an oversight, it's done deliberately. Why would a major network would memory hole a story and write a completely different one the next day with no explanation?

We were told a lot of things a couple years ago that have turned out to be completely untrue. Now those same people are pretending that they never said those things and it's impossible to prove otherwise because the online media, TV network archives, and YouTube clips no longer exist.

 

[ModestNestEgg]

I was intrigued by the OP's characterization of 1980's and 1990's internet in particular. I have also noticed that as it has become more accessible to the masses, while the quantity of what is available has exponentially increased, the overall quality has dipped due to that accessibility meaning that just about everyone can participate. And with rare exception, that does mean everyone.

The other interesting thing that's happened with the ease of access to technology is the shift in etiquette around how and when it is used. In the 1980's, for instance, someone who was flashing around the fact that they had a car phone (the predecessor of the ubiquitous cell phone and then so-called "smart" phone), they were probably a bigtime executive, lawyer, or real estate developer. Now, it seems that people who have their phones out in front of their faces all the time (particularly as one grows into their adult years) are the ones who seem uncouth and to lack understanding of social graces. That has basically flipped on its head as far as etiquette is concerned.

 

[MichaelB]

<mod note> The thread topic isn’t about the attack on Mr. Pelosi. That story has been well covered in the media and here, so let’s drop it and get back on topic, which is the decline of some social media platforms.

 

[Music Lover]

I'm thankful to social media for some things. I rarely use Facebook but it's a good way to advise when one of my bands has a gig.

I don't have an account enjoy reading some Twitter feeds. I follow a couple of journalists not employed by the large corporations to get a more accurate version of the news.

I also follow a few blogs, and YouTube still has some content that I like in certain areas, although they are biased on some topics.

 

[catii]

I've owned a computer consulting company since 1986, & I REFUSE to use social media! Yes, it cuts way down on the number of people who use my services, but there are a lot of them who prefer my "geriatric communication," & they are the older ones, who have lots of money! Oh, & I have clients, rather than customers - remember them?

 

[a60dan]

Can someone post a “short” that summarizes this “read”?

 

[Pluperfect]

I was intrigued by the OP's characterization of 1980's and 1990's internet in particular. I have also noticed that as it has become more accessible to the masses, while the quantity of what is available has exponentially increased, the overall quality has dipped due to that accessibility meaning that just about everyone can participate. And with rare exception, that does mean everyone.

I first got on the internet in 1995, and was amazed at the quality of information that was out there. I knew it had to do with the fact that not everyone was on the internet, and the people who were were sort of in a club. And then someone pointed out that the people who contribute do so at a personal cost to them (time) with no tangible reward. It all made sense.

I'll never forget my first inkling things were changing. I was looking for a particular, unusual, sewing accessory that I could describe but I didn't know what it was called. Someone said to try Walmart. So I went to Walmart, and they didn't have it. I then realized that this person hadn't actually seen it at Walmart but assumed Walmart would have it because Walmart has everything, and posted based on that, and not because she actually knew anything. That was different, and the beginning of the end.