> There should be no illusions anymore about what Facebook is, as a platform. It’s just random bits of sensory information meant to make old people fight with each other
Oof. Engagement around conflict works at all age ranges though. Controversial statements by eSports casters drives posts on Reddit, NIMBY comments on NextDoor, etc.
I suspect the tone of this comment is to suggest the platform's algorithms did a better job mixing in rich content and focusing attention on more interesting, less conflict-laden viral media?
> Engagement around conflict works at all age ranges though.
I've noticed that the best way to get people to engage in a problem is to state an opinion that is so obviously wrong. People go out of their way to tell you that it's wrong and what their opinion is. If you post something that's sort of wrong, partially right, or probably right, people won't lift a finger.
Try this with your next code review! :D Do something the wrong way and everyone wants to correct you. I've noticed after I've corrected such a problem, people are silent about the rest of the code review, or get lazy about finishing it.
<dm> I discovered that you'd never get an answer to a problem from Linux Gurus by asking. You have to troll in order for someone to help you with a Linux problem.
<dm> For example, I didn't know how to find files by contents and the man pages were way too confusing. What did I do? I knew from experience that if I just asked, I'd be told to read the man pages even though it was too hard for me.
<dm> Instead, I did what works. Trolling. By stating that Linux sucked because it was so hard to find a file compared to Windows, I got every self-described Linux Guru around the world coming to my aid. They gave me examples after examples of different ways to do it. All this in order to prove to everyone that Linux was better.
* ion has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<dm> brings a tear to my eye... :') so true..
<dm> So if you're starting out Linux, I advise you to use the same method as I did to get help. Start the sentence with "Linux [stinks] because it can't do XXX like Windows can". You will have PhDs running to tell you how to solve your problems.
We would use a version of this concept in client reviews, and construction inspections are known to do the same. WHen you know there are things that you would rather not have the client notice, put something so obvious that is easily corrected. The client sees that, feels great that they actually had something to say/do/etc, and then the rest slips through.
Being wrong is a great way to extract information from people. Simply asking is ineffective. There's less status to be gained by informing someone, than by setting the record straight, or putting someone in their place. Unfortunately, being wrong is also a great way to lose status.
> Engagement around conflict works at all age ranges though.
It certainly does, but content like that is described in the article, is clearly aimed a less internet-savvy crowd. Maybe the same crowd that didn't grow up with internet trolls and have copious free time and are at the highest risk for contracting plague, so they are especially juicy targets for online engagement vampires.
> There should be no illusions anymore about what Facebook is, as a platform. It’s just random bits of sensory information meant to make old people fight with each other
I'm confused. It seems the author's statement is also random bits of sensory information meant to make people fight with each other.
But only old people are using Facebook. While engagement around conflict works for all ages, each age group has a different set of conflicts they will engage with, so the content found on Facebook is specifically the stuff that makes old people fight with each other.
I keep reading people saying this, but then when I search for actual statistics, it seems that it isn't so; for example, the linked site claims that there are plenty of 25-34 year old users. If these stats are wrong please point us to better ones.
Now if you tell me that younger people are less likely to admit to using Facebook I'd buy that.
That's the worldwide usage statistics. In the U.S., a majority of users are over 30: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187549/facebook-distribu... Obviously, very few of us, if any, would be qualified to speak on Facebook usage outside of our own geographic areas of experience.
Another thing to consider is that simply looking at the age distribution is not enough. In my experience, older users (like 60+) are much more likely to engage with content. While older users may be a minority, they can make up a sizeable amount of content on the platform.
In the US the majority of people are over 30. Those numbers could easily just be describing the age of a population that uses Facebook regardless of age.
Oof. Engagement around conflict works at all age ranges though. Controversial statements by eSports casters drives posts on Reddit, NIMBY comments on NextDoor, etc.
I suspect the tone of this comment is to suggest the platform's algorithms did a better job mixing in rich content and focusing attention on more interesting, less conflict-laden viral media?