 Thinking more people are going to engage with you on mainstream social media “because everyone’s there” is like thinking people at a stadium concert are there to listen to you. It‘s only true if you’re one of the ones on stage. Not so much when you’re huddled in the nosebleeds. Forget the numbers. Forget about “going viral” (leave it to the psychopaths in Silicon Valley to make virus-like behaviour aspirational). Embrace the joy of interacting with one another on a human scale. 176 comments
12
 @aral I totally hear what you're saying and agree wholeheartedly. But as I reeducate my social media reflexes here, and revaluating my engagement on Twitter - I'm wondering whether it would be better to export new behaviours back into that world rather than turn away? Lots of internal conflict about this concept... @yukinosaru You can’t export behaviours into that world. It’s a top-down, not bottom-up, world driven by venture capitalists chasing exponential growth and profits investing in the most extractive and exploitative means possible of obtaining them. It’s a corporate world of CEO kings where their word is law. That world is what it is. Not you nor anyone else can change it. It’s like asking factory farms to be kinder. They can’t. It’s their nature to be cruel. (All they can hope for is better PR.) @aral yes, I hear and see that. But sadly it's not going away. It is top down but it is we are also still the content. And in many ways its a mirror to the duality of mankind. @yukinosaru @aral I have great hope in a kinder human nature, both because it is the only way we will survive and because our own society shows a halting and uneven evolution in that direction. But the many people who feel they benefit from the current systems of power and privilege are not going to change and they are going to fight changes to the systems they depend on. Unlike our planet, we can leave the world of Twitter to create a better one. @yukinosaru I mean, by all means if you want to infiltrate/sabotage that system, go for it. Sabotage is the only legitimate means of changing such a system from the inside (but I’m not necessarily convinced of its long-term effectiveness). Personally, I prefer to create. To work on alternatives. To try and help build the kind of world I want to live in. I’ve railed against that system long enough and let me tell you, it’s a soul-destroying affair. I still call it out but my focus is creating. @aral @yukinosaru Beautifully said, Aral. Yes, there is much value in creating indeed. @aral I'm not really advocating for sabotage, I've muddled two thought streams there. My main point is that I do find that there is still value there and I'm questioning whether and how my own behaviour has contributed to the toxicity and how I might do things differently. I too believe that creation is the better choice and I've also tried to build and live the world that I want to see, although in a different domain. Interrogating my own instincts and behaviours is part of my growth journey.  @aral @yukinosaru agreed - trying to change a broken system from within generally sees the idealists who go into it with that aim (to justify the pangs of conscience felt when taking such highly remunerated roles) ground down & recast as a rationalising apologist, redefining 'good' so that it includes them and their behaviour. Extreme cognitive dissonance. I've seen it many times over the last 20 years. The system sabotages idealists with far greater certainty than idealists sabotage the system. "Or. Infiltrate, poison the data pool, switch the dynamic up?" Oh, please Stop dreaming You and what Seven Nation Army is going to generate enough tweet volume to "poison the data pool, switch the dynamic up?" You're only helping #ElonMusk to bail out a sinking ship @FinchHaven @yukinosaru @aral @flyswatter If no one is there, it won't be relevant. If everyone with a conscience just left, it would be Truth Social within a month. It's so easy to migrate the whole operation here. I don't understand why people don't just do it. They have to stay and enrich Elon and the fascists and keep him and his "own the conversation" relevant. They can't be inconvenienced in the slightest. They are complicit.  At 4am in NYC I wake up to catch the early bus. When I'd look at twitter at that hour it was totally filled with all these students and scientists and nurses from Nigeria-- They are already at work and in class and taking about the news, papers, jokes. And I made friends that way too. I learned new things. That's the power of a network with 100s of millions of people.  @futurebird @aral yep. I've made lots of friends on Twitter and Facebook -- and reconnected with old acquaintances as well. There are plenty of good critiques of Twitter, FB, and surveillance capitalism-based social networks ... but this is not one. @CheckingInOcassionally @aral that first line is genuine. I do agree, but I'm genuinely asking myself the question. Playing devil's advocate to myself is important to see behind my own paradigm. It's too easy to blame the site and its overlords. But ultimately aren't "we the people" the content providers. Can't we become more savvy to the dark forces and nurture different ones? I think this question matter more than we might think because it's a microcosm of the real world challenges that we face. Except we don't have an alternative to migrate to... @yukinosaru @aral The alternative to migrate to is called Life. Any activity -- any activity at all -- that you drive back *into* #Twitter benefits one and one person only Want to guess who? Period Full stop #Musk needs the traffic volumes and replies and likes to pump up #Twitter's stats to dupe advertisers into maybe sticking around You're just helping Musk bail water out of an otherwise sinking ship Stop trying to overthink it The main purpose of the fediverse is decentralization and unentanglement of paying a service with your self-determination. @ekes @yukinosaru @aral @PensiveTM @yukinosaru @aral The key is you can leave without giving up on your circle and other instances can block them if they misbehave.   @heracles @aral I guess that this is a dilemma for every writer (or content creator). Either they choose to write what they think or they choose what their readers like to hear (or read). Getting rid of "performance" metrics (as you suggest) is one way forward to help those who prefer the former. But disabling them will also play an important role in avoiding "going viral". @aral it’s been more emotionally fulfilling to have real conversations with people. I still miss the dopamine hits from a popular post, but who doesn’t like a sudden rush? This is more sustaining over the long run, though. @aral @aral @aral so true! What matters here is that we are a community that are talking and listening to each other. And everyone of us matters….☺️🙏 @aral Agreed. I've had more valuable conversations and interaction here in a couple of months than I had over years at the birdsite.  The "engage with influencers" mindset has led to a copious flow of gratuitous pandering. I gave up on the other sites because it was too painful to watch. @aral "In the seating area very high up in a stadium or theater, as for a sporting event, musical performance, play, etc., which typically costs less money but has a restricted view. "Nosebleed" refers jocularly to one effect of extremely high altitudes on the body, nasal hemorrhaging."  @Irisherself I was as happy with a handful here in 2016. (And equally fine with leaving the 42K+ “followers” I had when I closed the hell-site account.) The number here ballooned up quite a bit during the migration. Was far less for the majority of the last six years. In fact, I’d be very happy if Mastodon hid the numbers altogether. I think that would be a positive. I’ve already hidden by follower/following lists but I can’t hide the numbers. @aral it wasn't a pick on you, I just had to giggle a bit :D I too left a large crowd behind at the bird place (did not redirect anyone), and even left another instance here which turned a bit foul... I agree the social aspect is about the connections you make, in the moment, and diversify your impressions and interactions... let's just all chat with each other and no one will feel left behind <3 :toot: @aral @Irisherself and I’m at least two or three of those followers, what with being active on multiple instances.
The numbers are even more meaningless here than they are on the big centralized platforms. I agree. And I'm trying to do more commenting vs just liking and boosting. It's the human interaction that appealed to me when I first joined the fediverse. I actually get acknowledgment when I post here. The other place felt like posting to a void or echo chamber. I fell into the bad habit of just retweeting since my own stuff was rarely acknowledged.  @aral The difference is that people eventually come out of a stadium and you can distribute flyers to them on the public street. The walled gardens are careful to not let anyone out. @aral Going with this metaphor, most people would prefer to listen in a smaller venue. I prefer to listen at home. 😏 @aral This is a great explanation and spot on! I would have made excuses a few months ago, before breaking the addiction. @aral Exactly. Well put. It took me some time to figure out that I mostly enjoy the company of other people in small numbers. I shine in 1on1 conversations. I suck in groups. I am fine with this by now.  @aral Somehow this rings true with my impression of Native American values before the Eurasians came. They abandoned empire after empire to live small. Each time they improved their administrative & power systems of power a bit so the next empire wouldn’t be able to create so much warfare or amass as much power. (This was achieved through legends, tales of the birth of the people, and art, as they didn’t write.) @aral Also though. We need to still acknowledge the bad actors are touching at something primal in the human psyche. The will to power will always be there. But if that will has creative outlets that do good instead of bad, then we can be more secure as community. Leaders being able to use their power to amass more power is the critical point. Mechanisms to throttle this are paramount. Ceremonial power is another option. Reduce the actual power, but let them have the illusion  @aral None of the funny or brilliant things I've tweeted over the years has ever made me go "viral." I got 7,000 likes on a comment once and never gained a single follower. It's better to make our social media presences about the people, places, and things that we love, our hobbies and interests, and the causes we believe in. @aral yes yes. I for one, am here for the social. To talk of my day, my daily doin's n thoughts n feelins and chatting with others about theirs. This was my approach on Twitter when I was on it...engage one on one with people. Trying to convey an idea to just one person. It got hard when you kept realizing I could just be talking to a bot... @aral Fitting that this post should be popular :) I have nearly 10k followers between Facebook & Twitter, but finding it rewarding to discover my tribe, one by one (only 80 friends, here, so far) @aral I certainly agree with your opinion on "going viral", but I'm not sure about "thinking small" in general. Personally I couldn't care less about becoming some kind of online celebrity. No thanks. But I do want to engage with many people with shared interests worldwide. In that sense I'm "thinking big", and I would be happy as a small fish in a big pond. @rozeboosje @aral I'm not sure I want to be the guy appealing to the masses anyway; I think I'd feel like I messed up along the way somewhere 🤔 I get much more engagement here. But I don't think of it as "engagement," rather good conversations. I've read the most interesting posts since I've joined here. @aral @aral I honestly think in my short time here at masto I've had more conversations with folks than the last 3+ yrs on twitter. @aral if you are trying to publicize an incident of police brutality the ability to go viral is the point of the exercise.  I want everyone capable of going viral, just not via algorithms. The magic of micro blogging is that it finally enables mass attention democracy. The big companies are no longer the only ones with that power. Eventually, they all just become equal players on the network, not elevated to a special place cause they're a channel your cable network carries. Higher status in our heads needs to be earned. #MeritCulture @aral I only "did numbers" on Twitter when I replied to large accounts. Otherwise, nobody engaged with my posts, not even mutuals. I didn't even realize how much a mutual of mine appreciated my work until we connected elsewhere (Discord). Twitter is great for getting a message out (if you do things to be noticable) but not great for communities. @aral @aral I had a post go viral on TiKTok a couple of times. It was nothing special. A fair amount of supportive and funny comments, but also a lot of annoying and hate filled ones. No real conversations. But I guess I’m also not on platforms to make a name for myself like an artist or writer may need to be for their career. Great analogy! I compare Twitter to a performance that has an element of audience participation. You may get called up on stage with a RT or QT, but most likely you simply remain in the audience watching others. @aral AMEN. And there is incredible value in deeply interacting with 10 people who then interact with 10 others whether on social media or in real life, who then go on to share the seeds we plant. As the sister of the Central Park Birder and the one who posted the video that went viral to the tune of 50 million worldwide, I know the power and draw of going viral. But instead of creating one potted plant choked with viral roots, we can create groves that grow into healthy forests. @aral I've always gotten more engagement on Alt-Tech sites then Big-Tech. Big-Tech has a problem with too much positive feedback in the algorithm, So unless you are playing the algorithm (producing the content the company wants you to make) you get no traction. : /  @aral Thank you. Community building instead making things viral. (Like, the past few years we've seen stuff go viral, and it wasn't pretty...) @aral I have more followers and interactions with people in 6 weeks on this place than I did in 13 years on the other site. No. I will not think small. Absolutely not. I could never be happy in a small social network. Not because I'm so wonderful and popular and everyone should listen to me, but rather small networks have fewer sub-groups. 200 people talking about math, but what about people talking about ants? 500? How much intersection? Large groups can contain more diverse subgroups. The stranger you are the bigger a network you will require.  This reminds me of a fairly harrowing period in my life, rearranging schedule for a public radio station. Modernizing our schedule (existentially mandatory) needed "horizontal block" programming. Individual scattered hours of "special" content made this impossible. There was a "woman's music" hour, each week. Easily found, more easily avoided. A ghetto of sorts. Integration and embrace of "woman's music" into the entire schedule advanced everybody's cause. More for all. @futurebird @aral I think the two approaches are reconcilable. "Human subcultures are nested fractally" so we need social networks that mirror this structure. Little clubs inside bigger networks inside an enormous super-structure! @futurebird @aral big fish, small pond syndrome is heavy here. They think niche = special, small = order, and uniformity = peace. It's a recipe for extremely lazy groupthink. @aral honestly, I came from Twitter. Inviting Donald Trump to return was a red line. Last night I found myself scrolling through Mastodon, and instead of being outraged, I was running across funny jokes, amazing photography, and a lot of nice people. It’s much more pleasant here, even with a fraction of the followers. @aral I'm literally on social media because it allows me to do what I can't elsewhere: Get in touch with people I don't know from different parts of the world. Get to know people I didn't know. Reading about things in different parts of the world that aren't considered to be 'real news' enough for regular media. I don't want to think small, totally the opposite actually. Maybe this is not what you were thinking of but that's why I'm here. @anneroth yeah really. It's interesting how few people are saying that in the replies though -- you, me, @futurebird @mnl and virtually nobody else. And all the boosting and "yes I agree" on this viral post by an influencer, with almost no interaction between commenters, is exactly what everybody's saying is bad about Twitter but (in their minds) doesn't happen here! 🤣🤣🤣  @jdp23 @anneroth @futurebird maybe it’s just an elaborate shitpost and we’re the fools @mnl @anneroth @futurebird It's possible but I think he really believes that. There's a lot I agree with in https://ar.al/2020/08/07/what-is-the-small-web/ but there's also a lot of things I find important and valuable that aren't glossed over. Same, Anne. It's so amazing to meet someone who is just living a totally different life. Find some common ground, help them or get some help, learn a little teach a little-- and it's not the start of a life-long friendship. It's just two people enriching each other through what they share-- and what they *don't* share. That's why I keep coming back to social media as much as keeping in touch with "regulars" and people I've known for years. @futurebird @anneroth I'm loving your posts, but, yeah, things can be very different. @futurebird @anneroth I lost people after G+ shut down even though they were on Twitter, they never showed up in my feed. Now they are reappearing and it's wonderful. Spotty but not awful.  @aral Working as a street act is something like this. You'll find your people, you'll get an audience, it will be intimate, meaningful, and spirited  @aral I'd say "Think sustainable," which is similar, tho not entirely the same. We sustain each other in addition to ourselves. We are social creatures, without a network, we can't create much. We need not hierarchies of domination and rule, but lateral networks of co-operation and sharing. @aral Honestly, I get better engagement on my random posts here than I ever did on Twitter. It doesn't really matter, because I'm not trying to build a brand or establish an audience, I'm just a dude hanging out and posting whatever dumb thing I want to. But I have actually had some interesting conversations with people, as opposed to basically no one responding on Twitter or getting replies from just the people that want to start a fight with an internet stranger. lol @aral nothing wrong with being small. Everyone has to start somewhere. That said, you probably have one of the biggest accounts that I've seen on here. @ligma Indeed. And yet it is four orders of magnitude smaller than the most popular accounts on Twitter and one that’s grown over six years here (or 16 years if you consider that some folks migrated over with me from there, where I had ~42K followers, slowly built up since 2006). To wit, celebrities who migrated over flew past such numbers here in a day or two. Again, we’re talking orders of magnitude difference. (And I’d be the first to support hiding follower counts altogether.) @aral I wasn't complaining, I was just observing an interesting contrast. Indeed, I find it rather admirable that despite having clearly one of the more popular accounts on this platform, you find the humility to care about the small. The devil's in the details, or so they say, so perhaps we all really ought to pay more attention to those, to make sure he's got nowhere to hide. @aral I never understood how anyone can feel happiness over seeing people reduced to a bunch of numbers and considering that number a source of happiness when it is merely a bunch of random people you never met, never will talk to and who only see you as a number as well. |
Gregory's Server
@aral so true. This is one of the most common misconceptions about corporate social media.