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..
> 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.
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.
> 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).
> 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.
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.
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.
Just picked up Neal Stephenson's Fall, or Dodge in Hell today and am 1/4 way through. There's so much animosity & energy against social media that rings parallel here.
> Over the past months I have began mountain climbing again, and in many cases I have rediscovered a sense of self-respect for my ability to accomplish my goals when nobody is watching.
Ouch... I hope it wasn't a seeking of this feeling that lead to her fatal accident.
I find it so irritating and difficult to read when authors needlessly make most of their paragraphs a single sentence. Or use lots of tiny sentences that read like fragments. I guess it's to add effect? Except it doesn't read like it's profound, it's just annoying.
Please stop doing this and just write like you talk. Unless that's also how you talk, in which case please just don't do that.
Given that the author died last Wednesday—this being her last post is likely why it’s front page of HN—I suspect your writing advice might go ignored in this case.
It’s a device used for conveying dramatic feelings in storytelling. You’d never use it in formal communication or technical documents, but there’s no reason to get worked up about it either.
Don't shoot the messenger... There is not much difference between generic social media critique, AI angst and, gnerally, making tools responsible for the actions of their owners. If you cant stand what social media does to you, stop. But please, stop projecting your own inabilities on others. Just because a certain type of person feels unhealthy using a particular tool doesnt say how it is going to influence others... If for one met my gf on FB, and I am still grateful for the service at the time. Does that mean I unconditionally like FB, no. One thing I've learnt though is that whenever someone tries to educate me about the "truth", I know they are likely full of shit.
Ego death with a side of "stay tuned for more blog posts and Twitch streams".
> doom and horror
I don't think lumping everyone into this bleak conclusion is fair or accurate. Perhaps it's a method to excuse yourself from your own use of social media: the "system" is to blame, and everyone else is just as bad?
> "Everyone wants to slow to gawk at the carnage – nobody wants to stop and lend a hand."
Not true. Some would lend a hand if they thought they wouldn't get in the way. Some slow down to assess the situation to determine whether they could help. Not everyone is an unhelpful gawker.
I recommend listening to krishnamurti's talks. specially those from saanen in the 70's, those with dr david bohm and those with alan naude.
The intellect can not resolve it self one has to practise
The observer is the observed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS9r2_fUtWM
Not sure who this is, but it reads to me like they are about to commit suicide.
>I want to kill my ego, or at least substantially break it.
So not that they have had an ego death, but rather had a goal of it.
This is very much akin to Echart Tolle in his ego death. He was literally suicidal and then realized his ego is his problem. Thus avoiding an actual suicide.
[+] [-] Wolfenstein98k|2 years ago|reply
Just how it feels to me, anyway. It's very overwrought.
[+] [-] verisimi|2 years ago|reply
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..
[+] [-] jaapz|2 years ago|reply
She recently suddenly passed away (climbing accident), which is pretty weird considering this article and how it ends.
[+] [-] thejackgoode|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] elcapitan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxdude314|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] netsharc|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lo_zamoyski|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZeroZeroOneZero|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] NetOpWibby|2 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] throw__away7391|2 years ago|reply
> select * from posts where author_id in $following order by posted_date desc
No more gaming engagement or viral rage.
[+] [-] ajross|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lnxg33k1|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] safety1st|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kepano|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37199495
[+] [-] Clent|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mock-possum|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] norir|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d1sxeyes|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] exodust|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Wolfenstein98k|2 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] avgcorrection|2 years ago|reply
—The Buddha
[+] [-] kukkeliskuu|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] muhammadusman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jauntywundrkind|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the-dude|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] john-radio|2 years ago|reply
:(
[+] [-] netsharc|2 years ago|reply
> Over the past months I have began mountain climbing again, and in many cases I have rediscovered a sense of self-respect for my ability to accomplish my goals when nobody is watching.
Ouch... I hope it wasn't a seeking of this feeling that lead to her fatal accident.
[+] [-] mekoka|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] birracerveza|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] QuantumG|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colordrops|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autotune|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rwhyan|2 years ago|reply
This was especially ironic:
> "I want to kill my ego, or at least substantially break it"
[+] [-] bastawhiz|2 years ago|reply
Please stop doing this and just write like you talk. Unless that's also how you talk, in which case please just don't do that.
[+] [-] while1malloc0|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supriyo-biswas|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calt|2 years ago|reply
It's how I write most of my communication, like statements are lines of code.
[+] [-] coolliquidcode|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SV_BubbleTime|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lynx23|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exodust|2 years ago|reply
> doom and horror
I don't think lumping everyone into this bleak conclusion is fair or accurate. Perhaps it's a method to excuse yourself from your own use of social media: the "system" is to blame, and everyone else is just as bad?
> "Everyone wants to slow to gawk at the carnage – nobody wants to stop and lend a hand."
Not true. Some would lend a hand if they thought they wouldn't get in the way. Some slow down to assess the situation to determine whether they could help. Not everyone is an unhelpful gawker.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fieldbob|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] incomingpain|2 years ago|reply
>I want to kill my ego, or at least substantially break it.
So not that they have had an ego death, but rather had a goal of it.
This is very much akin to Echart Tolle in his ego death. He was literally suicidal and then realized his ego is his problem. Thus avoiding an actual suicide.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]