"Over time, my timeline contained fewer and fewer posts from friends and more and more content from random strangers. "
It still baffles me that Facebook fills up my feed with random garbage I have no interest in. I barely use it now because their generated content gets in the way of the reason why I opened facebook to begin with. These algorithmic feeds clearly work for someone but its not what I am looking for, I want to see what I follow and nothing else unless I explictly go looking for it.
I was always perturbed by the shift from calling them "social networks" to "social media". It signalled a friends-to-famous shift (plus ads) that I didn't particularly want.
Why fill my personal feed with stuff I normally get on dedicated discussion/news sites? (Rhetorical; it's obvious why.)
They still call it SNS (social networking service) in Japan. We need to keep moving to a new iteration of this - hopefully one that funnels less money and influence to a small group of players. (I'm working on my own ideas for this.)
I still think it's worth reflecting which of the toxic patterns we want to, or don't want to reproduce on non-commercial networks like mastodon. Infinite scroll, quote reply, the like button... all these aren't neutral, and discussions were rightly heated about introducing them.
This might be controversial. Please disagree with me.
When these were social networks, I remember my friends and later myself too, changed our profiles to public, send requests to random strangers, messaged them to like our pictures. We were teenagers and we were competing on who's more famous by having a bigger number next to our friends list or likes. There was no influencer culture back then yet everyone was trying to be this new thing. There were rarely any influencer type features on these platforms.
So I won't blame facebook or Instagram for being what it is today, moving away from friends to social media stars. They saw what people were doing and only supported them. People did what people did.
IMHO, any social network that offers an "explore" section (i.e. a feed of strangers' posts) is doomed, independently of whether it is algorithmically filtered or chronologically. I ultimately dropped Mastodon because the "dumb" feed from my instance was already enough to waste my time.
To prove this, just use Instagram or Facebook from your browser with the proper extensions and they'll stop being absolute worthless time sinks
Mastodon really isn't the answer. You frequent enough servers and you realise social media has taught people bad habits..not everything needs to be expressed online. Genuinely I think people need something else. The format fails.
What's the alternative? I don't know. But I'm trying to figure it out. Why? Because walking away from it all isn't the right answer. Why? Because we leave behind all those people addicted to it. So I think there are new tools to be created but they strip away the addictive behaviours and try to avoid the forms of media that caused the issue in the first place.
Unrelated to the topic described in the blog itself, I overall like the theme of `susam.net`. The name itself reminded me of a sesame seed in Turkish for a while. (I think author had recently mentioned one of the recent posts that they wanted to get susam.com but that was already taken by a Turkish company selling some spices...)
The content (that shows up in HN) is also good. Since I am on mobile device, I cannot tell the exact font used, but seems like Georgia to me. While https://github.com/susam/susam.net hosts the actual source code of the website.
Another remark: Would be really nice to have a same theme adaptation for BearBlog and similar places.
I myself started making the same distinction when I talk about these things in English, except it's "social media" vs "social networks". Though I have no idea how to make that distinction in Russian, social "media" never caught on as a term there.
An extra annoying problem about social media for me is that while I can make most of the platforms give me a chronological feed of content authored only by people I follow, most other people see mine in an algorithmic feed. This includes people I have zero social connections with. For example, I just gave up trying to discuss politics on Twitter, because every time I post anything political, that tweet ends up in the feeds if hundreds of people who hold the radical version of opposite views, with predictable results. And there's nothing I can do. I can't opt out of being recommended.
I will admit, one thing the crowd attention model does exceptionally well is surface the best comments on content. Whether it's HN, Instagram, YouTube, etc... the top comments are usually the "best", depending on how best is defined in the given context. On the silly Instagram meme videos my algo serves up, the top comments are invariably hilarious, often funnier than the actual content, and as you scroll it's impressive how the ordering by like count matches hilarity quite well.
I'm surprised there's not more discussion here and in general about symmetric- vs. asymmetric-relationship networks. Facebook worked in the beginning because relationships were symmetric and there was no concept of getting "follows" -- friendships are modeled after real life ones, where the friendship is between two people.
I can see why the big networks moved away from that: pushing "content" has a lot more friction when relationships are symmetrical. What I don't understand is why there is no upstart trying to bring that back.
Having moved to Mastodon, I also recovered some faith in the Internet (of old). You control your timeline. You are not the consumer being fed stuff, you choose what you want to see.
As a side note, I keep hearing people recommend threads, bluesky, or other corporate media machine du jour and I cannot understand how people can't learn a lesson. If you touch a hot stove once, you normally don't touch one again. And yet here I see people around me hoping (against all reason) that this time it will be different, really, this corporation is good, this service will not get progressively ensh*ttified like every other service that came before. It baffles me.
Mastodon is different. It is not owned by a single corp (nitpickers get your engines started) and can't be turned into a machine that juices your attention span for money.
The final transition happened with the death of online forums. I still miss those dearly. I've met extremely interesting and competent people with a true desire to interact with passionate peers. They thought me how to ask for and give advice, how to express opinions in public, the value of growing a community around common interest, and the joy of laughing and getting angry on the OT section.
I’m quite literally experiencing a physical reaction whenever I need to browse some algorithmic timeline. Even YouTube, what used
to be a couple of related videos is now a wall full of “recommendations” - the unskippable ads on every video are more relevant than the actual videos…
Mastodon and related (for me Loops mainly) are a breath of fresh air and I wish more people can (re)learn to enjoy that.
FB is still a social network, but seemingly only when you use groups. And you actively need to moderate those. Public pages, and things like that? AI/bots and ads wasteland.
The funny thing about Facebook is that it's got a perfectly good social network in there, I think the only one that exists. In the menu is "Feeds" which is what you want. It only shows friends and followed things. If they made that the default when you go to facebook.com I don't think I'd have any complaints feature-wise, though an ad-free option would be nice. It's a genuine social network.
Of course, then there's the question of who decides how and what is moderated, and the question of who can access your data, and Facebook definitely leaves a lot to be desired in that area just in terms of Meta not being a particularly trustworthy entity to have control of those decisions.
The real social network is the group chat / friend group you already have. Everything else is algorithmic brainrot with some kind of "friends list" for "legitimacy".
The problem isn't the feed, it's that people actually use "social" networks instead of just talking to actual friends. Just close the apps, lol
Score Breakdown
+0.39
PreamblePreamble
Medium F: Frames technology evolution as moral/human issue A: Advocates for user autonomy and attention preservation C: Covers transformation of social networks from user-centric to attention-extraction
Editorial
+0.35
Structural
+0.20
SETL
+0.23
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article affirms human dignity in relation to technology design; argues against deceptive practices that exploit cognitive vulnerabilities. Preamble values (dignity, justice, freedom) implicitly defended through critique of manipulative design.
+0.44
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium A: Advocates for equal treatment of users/people in attention economy F: Frames all participants as having equal right to autonomy
Editorial
+0.40
Structural
+0.25
SETL
+0.24
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Content treats all users as equal moral subjects deserving respect regardless of platform design intentions. No hierarchy of human value implied.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
No discrimination signals observed. Content does not address discrimination based on protected characteristics.
+0.54
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium A: Advocates for right to personal security/integrity against attention exploitation F: Frames algorithmic manipulation as violation of personal integrity
Editorial
+0.45
Structural
+0.30
SETL
+0.26
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Author explicitly defends right to security of person—cognitive and attentional integrity—against manipulative notification systems and algorithmic exploitation. Platform design treated as affecting personal security.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No slavery or servitude signals observed.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No torture or degrading treatment signals observed.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No signals regarding legal personality or right to recognition as person.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
No signals regarding equal protection before law.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No signals regarding remedy for rights violations.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No arbitrary arrest or detention signals observed.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No signals regarding fair trial or due process.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No criminal law signals observed.
+0.59
Article 12Privacy
Medium A: Advocates for privacy and protection from arbitrary interference F: Frames manipulation as interference with cognitive privacy P: Site structure does not employ invasive tracking
Editorial
+0.50
Structural
+0.35
SETL
+0.27
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article explicitly criticizes bogus notifications and algorithmic interference as violation of privacy expectations. Author's choice to use Mastodon reflects commitment to platforms respecting privacy boundaries. No tracking evident on susam.net.
+0.25
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Low P: Site enables freedom of movement in knowledge/internet space
Editorial
ND
Structural
+0.25
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Structural: content accessible without barriers; no geographic restrictions apparent. Editorial signals minimal.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No asylum or persecution signals observed.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No nationality signals observed.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No marriage or family signals observed.
ND
Article 17Property
No property rights signals observed.
+0.49
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Medium A: Advocates for freedom of thought and conscience against algorithmic manipulation F: Frames attention-capture as interference with mental autonomy
Editorial
+0.45
Structural
+0.30
SETL
+0.26
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Author's critique of manipulative notifications and algorithmic feeds implicitly defends right to freedom of thought—specifically, resistance to systems designed to capture and direct thought/attention without informed consent.
+0.73
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High A: Strong advocacy for freedom of expression and opinion P: Site structure enables unrestricted publishing and comment F: Frames Mastodon as enabling authentic expression vs. corporate censorship/curation
Editorial
+0.65
Structural
+0.50
SETL
+0.31
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Central theme: right to express views freely without algorithmic suppression or manipulation. Author exercises this right directly; celebrates platforms that enable it (Mastodon) and critiques those that constrain it (corporate social media via algorithmic curation). Site structure permits publishing without barriers.
+0.46
Article 20Assembly & Association
Medium A: Advocates for peaceful association (choice to follow genuine communities) F: Frames authentic social networks as enabling genuine assembly
Editorial
+0.40
Structural
+0.30
SETL
+0.20
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article values genuine community/association over algorithmic-driven forced exposure. Preference for Mastodon reflects right to associate with chosen people rather than algorithmic strangers.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
No participation in governance signals observed.
ND
Article 22Social Security
No social security or welfare signals observed.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
No work or employment signals observed.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
No rest or leisure signals observed.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
No health or standard of living signals observed.
ND
Article 26Education
No education signals observed.
+0.64
Article 27Cultural Participation
Medium A: Advocates for participation in cultural/digital community life F: Frames authentic social networks as enabling cultural participation P: Site enables open participation in knowledge sharing
Editorial
+0.55
Structural
+0.40
SETL
+0.29
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Article celebrates genuine social network participation as part of cultural life and shared human experience. Author's choice to use Mastodon reflects desire to participate authentically in digital culture. Site permits open participation through commentary and sharing.
+0.41
Article 28Social & International Order
Medium A: Advocates for social order respecting human dignity in technology design F: Frames manipulative platforms as violating social contract
Editorial
+0.35
Structural
+0.25
SETL
+0.19
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Author's critique implies social order should rest on mutual respect and transparency—not deceptive extraction. Reference to 'unspoken agreement between users and services' invokes social contract theory aligned with Article 28.
+0.33
Article 29Duties to Community
Low A: Advocates for responsibilities of technology platforms toward users
Editorial
+0.25
Structural
+0.20
SETL
+0.11
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Implicit: platforms have responsibility not to manipulate users. Article does not elaborate on broader duties or limitations.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
No signals regarding interpretation/limitation of rights.