One year ago, I signed out of Facebook, but I didn’t delete my account or deactivate it. I just logged off and didn’t look back. I haven’t signed back in a single time. I had told myself that maybe I’d delete my account if I could stay away from it for a year. Well, I made it. So will I delete Facebook now? Mmmmm, no, not yet.

Delete: why or why not?

Over the past year, there were two or three times when I thought I might need to log into my Facebook account for a very specific reason. But I managed to avoid it. And now that I’ve been off Facebook for so long, I feel much more confident that daily living is perfectly fine without it. I’ve proven that a Facebook account is not necessary in modern life. So deleting it would make sense.

Yet I think part of my success in staying off Facebook is because I know I can go back if I want or need to. And I have a Facebook account, so I don’t need one. Does that make sense? I don’t lack one, so I don’t need one. But if I delete my Facebook account, then I might feel like I need one even if I actually don’t. It’s some kind of psychological thing, I think. So not deleting it might be best for now.

Still social

At this time a year ago, I totally deleted my long-standing Twitter account; I’m glad I did. Facebook then became the last social media I had.

Now I’m active on Micro.blog, which has a social timeline, but it’s not built like traditional social media. It’s more of a blogging platform. Yet Micro.blog provides enough social connection online to scratch that itch. And thanks to the Fediverse, being on Micro.blog also gives me interaction with people on Mastodon.

I was active on niche social cataloging sites since they’re more about their utility and focus on a single topic: Goodreads for book reading and Grouvee for video gaming. I’m not so active on those anymore. I prefer to focus on just my blog and Micro.blog. It’s simpler. And I think it’s enough.¹,²

Future deletion

I may eventually delete my Facebook account just on principle if for no other reason. Yet I hesitate because I’ve deleted my previous Facebook accounts several times and always end up creating a new one. The main reasons I’ve done that were “peer pressure” and “FOMO.” But in the past year, I’ve felt neither of those. That’s telling. To me, it’s evidence that Facebook just isn’t what it used to be; it’s on the decline. That said, there’s still some utility to Facebook. But I think it’s slowly waning.

Well, I’m leaving Facebook alone, ignoring my account. I’ll keep going as I have been. Maybe in another year, I’ll revisit the idea of deleting it. Or maybe I’ll wake up one random Saturday this summer and just nuke the thing.

What do you think?

✉️ Reply by email

✴️ Follow on Micro.blog

Something happened on the internet again. A guy who likes to tweak his blog theme totally switched platforms, moving from one host to another in haste and inadvertently breaking some links. And it’s basically Elon Musk's fault. WordPress gets some blame too. Let me explain.

A Micro.blogger is born

Elon Musk bought Twitter and started wrecking it. So many people fled to Mastodon; conversation started happening there. The zeitgeist was Mastodon to the social-media rescue. It has promise since it’s – based on IndieWeb principles – decentralized. All this compelled the geek in me to try social media again.

In turn, I was reminded of Micro.blog because it, too, is IndieWeb friendly and social. Which would be better, Mastodon or Micro.blog? I was thinking of each one as social platforms. Mastodon is more Twitter-like – both a good and bad thing. But then, looking more into Micro.blog, I was slapped sober; it’s more…blog-like!

While I wanted to try Indie Social Media, I kind of needed a better blog host than old-fashioned Blogger. Due to the WordPress disruption last year, I had moved from WordPress to Blogger, which was nostalgic if nothing else. And though I’m fond of it – despite Google – Blogger is like the walking dead.

Realizing Micro.blog is both decentralized social media and a blog platform, my brain was electrified into action. I saw Micro.blog in a new light; as host, it could be my new blogging home! It’s modern, has a credible reputation, and is built on a firm IndieWeb foundation. The cherry on top is that my blog could automatically cross-post to the Micro.blog social timeline. Why hadn’t I joined before?

Faster than a growing 16-year old can inhale a pizza, I was whisked off my feet from Blogger; a Micro.blogger was born. I moved my domain name before I imported any previous posts. Permalinks? Yes…until I broke them. It’s a small price to pay; no worries. I also readily paid for a monthly subscription – sign me up, take my money! – and then, so impressed by the service, I bought a whole year of hosting at once. I’m all in.

A microblogger is born

This change in blog hosts caused another change; the way I blog. Not only was a Micro.blogger born, a microblogger was born.

You see, my custom for years was to only publish long-form posts – articles with a title like the one you’re now reading. And when I had a Twitter account, I Tweeted short stuff like links, quotes, or microposts. But now that I can totally do that on Micro.blog in addition to traditional blogging, I find myself liberated in sharing with the world, free to publish both short and long posts, no longer bound by a quantity of words; quality matters most.

With this newfound freedom, I’m now embracing the idea and practice of mixing microposts with, uh, “macro” posts on my blog; it’s like a whole other level of blogging for me. Let’s say you took the best of Tweets and the best of Medium articles and combined them in a single feed; that’s a Micro.blog blog.

It’s great because sometimes I only have a few words to say about something and can now freely share that; I don’t have to wax verbose just to create a long article. Simple status updates are welcome here. Yet I’m also not limited to only 280 character text snippets; when the muse impels, my words can flow like Niagara Falls.

I think the mix works well. If nothing else, it certainly accomplishes what Micro.blog founder, Manton Reece, aimed for: people blogging more often. I’m now posting at least once a day, whereas I used to post about three times a week.

So this blogger upgraded. Now I’m also a microblogger.

And thanks to what’s dubbed the “Fediverse” (think Blogosphere), I don’t have to choose between Micro.blog or Mastodon. Basically, one can feed into the other, so with my Micro.blog account, I also have a Mastodon profile - no instance required. Bonus! But all this…is for another post.

Note: This post exceeds 280 characters by several thousand. No problem.

What do you think?

✉️ Reply by email

✴️ Follow on Micro.blog

I’ve been checking out Mastodon lately — decentralized social media — which led me to rediscovering a related site/platform called Micro.blog. I had briefly tried it out a few years ago but didn’t need it alongside my WordPress blog (and Twitter profile). But now, things are different.

Mastodon is a social media service/software/platform, like Twitter. You only post short texts, a.k.a microblog posts, like a comment or a status update. The aim is to chit-chat with others in a sort of open conversation about whatever. It’s like equal parts of sharing a thought on your mind and checking the thoughts of others. You can just as easily comment on someone’s post as you can simply comment in your own new post.

Micro.blog is a blogging service/platform. It hosts stand-alone blogs that can have either short or long posts. It’s like traditional blogging — something I happen to enjoy. But it adds a timeline/feed for all micro.blog posts, whether short or long. It favors short posts; not sure what that says about quality versus quantity though:

“…Micro.blog is focused on short posts because we think it encourages people to write more often…” Micro.blog help center

Those are the big picture overviews of each service, as far as I understand them. I’m still trying to wrap my head around each one, learning how they overlap or interact. Mastodon and Micro.blog are indieweb compliant. So they feature strong benefits of avoiding centralized for-profit social media or blogging services. Yet it’s hard for me to decide which I might like to use, if any.

On one hand, I left social media. But it was the big publicly-traded commercial juggernauts of Twitter and Facebook. You know, the kind that prioritizes profits over people by maximizing user-engagement, typically via algorithm-pushed negativity. And on the other hand, I’m still a social creature like my fellow humans and have some attraction to “joining the conversation” on the interwebs with its netizens.

“Micro.blog is a blogging platform with a social engagement component. We have a timeline where you can follow and interact with other bloggers. Sometimes it feels like Twitter, because of the timeline, mentions, and conversations.” Micro.blog help center

The weird thing is how Micro.blog seems to combine blogging with social media. In my mind, it’s similar to the WordPress Reader, which is a feed — a reverse chrono timeline — of blogs you choose to follow (with a few suggestions). It lets you like and comment too. But since all WordPress blog posts are big/long, the Reader is more like looking at an RSS reader for news articles. In contrast, looking at the Micro.blog timeline shows you lots of short posts or status updates, like Twitter, where you can also interact with commenting and such.

Though hesitant, I’m thinking about using both Micro.blog and Mastodon. The possibilities are intriguing, but I know part of the reason is they’re different from my current blogging setup; they’re shiny new tech things to try out. For now, I’m trying out Micro.blog. One step at a time.

What’s your take?

Reply by email.

As Twitter implodes, there remains the elephant in the room: social media persists. The elephant’s cousin — Mastodon — proves it. Well, sort of. As social creatures, people are going to connect online, one way or the other. At first, I heard about various Twitter alternatives, but Mastodon seems to keep rising to the top. Though I doubt I’ll join, I’m interested in that it’s “federated,” kind of like email.

I can’t get into the technical stuff because it’s mostly over my head. I’ve read a few articles about it, but Glenn Fleishman’s recent piece strikes the loudest chord. It relates how Mastodon works similar to email. Due to this and the fact it also looks and feels much like Twitter helps spark my interest.

I am, after all, a social creature who favors text over photos or videos when “connecting” with my fellow humans. And I miss the old days of original Twitter with its simple restriction of 140 characters per Tweet. And of course, like Twitter of yore, Mastodon is labeled a “microblogging” platform. Anything like blogging gets my attention.

Another feature of Mastodon that is most intriguing to me: a plain ol’ feed that’s in reverse chronological order and shows only people you follow — no ads, no sponsored posts, no algorithm amplification. That sounds so quaint or elementary, yet it also sounds so refreshing in its straightforward simplicity.

So I’m learning more and will keep an eye on the pachyderm in the room. Maybe it will grow more popular or powerful and fulfill a promise like that of the early internet or the modern Indieweb, such that people can directly interact quickly and easily online without the problems of web 2.0 social media. Maybe we’ll see a shift away from centralized and commercialized platforms like Facebook.

While I don’t like social media as run by billionaires — Musk and Zuckerberg — Mastodon might be different enough to be worth joining. Like email, maybe Mastodon has enough old-school wisdom to last well into the future.

Final note: I’ve been off Facebook, Twitter, etc, since April ’22. I currently only use social-cataloging site, Grouvee, for gaming stuff (it’s like Goodreads but for games), along with its forum.

Have you considered Mastodon?

Reply by email.

Recode published a piece that does not help reduce skepticism towards Meta’s ambitious AR/VR/metaverse endeavors. The year 2022 was tough on the company. Will Facebook/Meta be the next MySpace or Yahoo? Its founder and CEO is optimistic:

“Zuckerberg says he has a plan to reverse the slump. He’ll keep building the metaverse, but he’ll focus most of his time on improving Meta’s core social media business (Facebook and Instagram) and finding new ways to expand the company’s popular but less profitable messaging apps.” — Shirin Ghaffary

My reaction to the above quote was literally, “Wait…what??”

It sounds like Meta — the company that pivoted hard from Facebook to the metaverse — is now pivoting back to social media, since Zuckerberg’s “focus” and “most of his time” will be on improving the core business (i.e. Facebook).

Okay, so social media remains Meta’s core business, despite having renamed itself to Meta, and the metaverse remains a side hustle. That makes sense; social media is what makes Meta money, whereas the metaverse has thus far caused Meta to lose billions.

Still, the renewed focus on or return to prioritizing the social media part of Meta is surprising because the company’s late 2021 pivot — new name and new brand — to the metaverse was so prominent and promising.

What’s more, Meta isn’t only intending to ensure the fires of its social media apps keep burning brightly, it’s also planning to nurture growth in its messaging apps too. And all that’s on top of continuing to build the metaverse.

So, build the metaverse, expand its messaging platforms, and also — above all — improve its social media (which seems to mean beating TikTok at its own game). Meta, after laying off thousands in recent months, plans to do all three of these at the same time.

Yeah, I’m skeptical.

Do you think Meta can pull all this off? Should it focus on just one thing?

Do you want a good long-ish read? This great piece from The Atlantic was right up my alley. The end of social media? Imagine that. Sure, this has been said before, and I think that’s because the life of social media has been dwindling for years. We’ve seen more signs of it in recent months with Facebook earnings dropping and the company pivoting away from the social app towards the metaverse. And lately, we’ve witnessed Twitter being run into the ground in quick fashion.

If social media has aged into its twilight years, it looks now to be in hospice. It’s condition is terminal; there’s little time left.

“It’s over. Facebook is in decline, Twitter in chaos. Mark Zuckerberg’s empire has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in value and laid off 11,000 people, with its ad business in peril and its metaverse fantasy in irons. Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter has caused advertisers to pull spending and power users to shun the platform (or at least to tweet a lot about doing so). It’s never felt more plausible that the age of social media might end—and soon.” – Ian Bogost

It’s one thing to predict the demise of social networking as we know it. It’s another thing, though, to step back and realize we may very well be witnessing social media in the throes of death. It’s not going down without a fight, but it’s definitely down. Even regular users of Facebook wouldn’t argue that the service isn’t what it once was.

As long as we still have the good ol’ internet, we still have social networking despite lacking social media proper. Along this line, it’s interesting to see how many people have left Twitter lately and joined Mastodon and refer to it as old-school networking due to its federated or decentralized setup.

We don’t need Twitter or Facebook. Social Media was cool at first, but it devolved. After causing upheaval, it is being upheaved. Despite some benefits, I still think social media, overall, isn’t worth it.

A telling anecdote: in times past, when I’ve quit Facebook, I always eventually felt pressure or draw to return with a new account; friends and family can be hard to resist. But since I logged off Facebook almost eight months ago, I have not logged back in a single time. I’ve only felt a possible reason to maybe log in once, just recently and very briefly.

I did not log in. Instead, I met an acquaintance face to face. How’s that for social?

Do you think we are truly seeing the age of social media ending?

A few weeks ago, I noticed that YouTube would be adding Handles to existing accounts and wondered how that might change the platform, for better or worse, into a more social media-like experience. Well, looks like we’re about to find out; I’ve already got my @username!

From WIRED:

“YouTube says that handles will be “shown in more places over time” as the feature gets more traction and as YouTube expands the ways in which it can be used. Two of the most prominent areas you’ll see handles in are video descriptions, where they can be used to mention collaborators, and in video comments, where you can give a shout-out to another user on the platform.” — David Nield

So I eagerly dashed over to my laptop while in the middle of making coffee so I could maybe snag a good @username. My personal favorite: @jason is already taken. No surprise there. But to my real surprise, I already had a good name assigned to me: @JasonMcFadden. I wasn’t sure about the camelcase — I have the option to go all lowercase — but I stuck with it. Not half bad.

For details around the use of an @username, check out this Google support link.

The big question remains: will YouTube become social? In the wake of what looks to be the implosion of Twitter, could YouTube find a place within the journalism and tech spheres to share breaking news and snark in lieu of blue bird tweets?

I discovered on the site there’s a place for posting text and images like what’s found on Facebook. Interesting. But is it good to use? I don’t know. I still only use YouTube to watch videos, not share stuff. The only Google property I use to share stuff is…Blogger! But on YouTube, maybe mentioned people will become common and useful now.

I’m cautiously optimistic. I would “+1” the addition of YouTube handles, but we all know how Google+ turned out. (Bummer; I liked Google+ more than Twitter.)

What do you think, will YouTube become more social since you can @mention viewers and Tubers?

One of my favorite bloggers is computer scientist Cal Newport. I found this great quote on a podcast (at 50:42) from 2019 wherein he discussed his then recent book, Digital Minimalism. The context here is Cal’s apt distinction between the social-internet and social-media:

“When you go back out to the wild social internet, it’s such a better experience. And so this is why I’ve been a blogger for a long time. I think the blogosphere, though weirder and harder to navigate is, for example, a much better repository of expression and information than, say, Facebook or Twitter is.”

This resonated with me of course; I’m a blogger on Blogger and still enjoy the blogosphere (e.g. WordPress Reader). I don’t use social media anymore and don’t miss it. And I’ve written about this before, saying The Web Itself Is The Social Network.

Though engaging, algorithmically curated silos — like the Facebook Newsfeed — are inferior to the wide open web where individual blogs once flourished. Outside of social media, many people enjoy the web’s data as the internet-backbone serves up info via mobile apps. And beyond that, most people click links no further than one Google search result deep. But it’s a privilege to surf the social internet from site to site and page to page, bookmarking, copying URLs, or commenting on someone’s specialized blog.

As Newport points out, it’s a bit harder for some people to navigate the web to its fullest, discovering new sites and blogs via ubiquitous hyperlinks. But I’d say sowing the extra effort is well worth the abundant harvest of uniquely expressive blogs, deeply informative websites, and utilitarian web apps. Staying within the confines of a limited feed strips the web, and the web surfer, of a rich internet experience.

Would you rather give up the open web or social media?

Maybe you noticed Twitter now belongs to Elon Musk. Some are worried, some cautiously optimistic, some are leaving the social site. Others will wait and see. I think it will be interesting to watch.

When Elon first moved to buy Twitter earlier this year, I deleted my ten-year-old account. Part of my decision was related to the uncertain or dark future of the platform under the edicts of Elon. Mostly, though, I realized that checking Tweets had become too distracting, nigh addicting, to me personally.

Overall, I think Twitter will, like Facebook, slowly dwindle and become less relevant. Regardless of who owns Twitter or what Zuckerberg does to pivot Facebook, it really seems that the tide has shifted on Web 2.0 social media; that era is winding down. Tik-Tok may have some social aspects to it but isn’t quite the same, and its popularity (also temporary) indicates a shift from what social networking was in its hey-day.

What’s your take?

There’s a good Art of Manliness piece about escaping algorithms and using the social-internet — RSS feed aggregators and email newsletters — instead of relying on social-media to read articles and surf websites. I’ve written likewise — Zero Feeds Experiment and Finding Feedly Again — so the AoM bit resonates.

For example:

“Now that I just consume my content via RSS or email, I’ve found myself spending less time online. I check my RSS feeds in the morning and in the evening. That’s it. Since there’s no social commentary on RSS feeds, there’s no reason to keep checking back to see what other people had to say. You just read the article and you’re done. There’s some finitude to it.”

Since quitting social media, I’m less online too…to an extent. If you remove something — like Twitter — then you’d better intentionally replace it with a better thing. Else, another bad habit gets vacuumed into the empty space left behind. So I admit that overall, my online time is about the same thanks to…YouTube. It’s the one algorithm that captures my attention.

That said, I spend far less time “checking things” habitually, either on my smartphone or my laptop. I had removed the email and browser apps from my phone for over a month — a game changer for me.

The few times I check things, it’s in algorithm-free Feedly. Cautiously reluctant to reintroduce it to my web-flow, I now use it very intentionally and sparingly. I no longer compulsively check for new and novel headlines and I don’t mindlessly surf sites, crashing on waves of terribly pushed ads.

While such aggregators have distinct advantages over algorithmic feeds, they’re not perfect. Yes, there’s finitude, which is apparent by the displayed number of unread articles. But that number can grow very high, especially if you follow prolific publishing sites.

To combat this, I selectively eliminated several website feeds that exceeded a certain threshold — like 100 articles per week — or were otherwise redundant. This cut the overall article count significantly. Having glutted on RSS feeds before, I recognize when my brain needs to back off. So I’ve settled on a comfortable amount of news content to consume.

The benefits of direct control over my content consumption are indeed worth the “old-school” efforts required. It’s all about being intentional. The Art of Manliness post has much more good to say about this topic, so be sure to check it out when you have time. And for more overall, Cal Newport’s Digital Minimalism weighs in here too.

Do you enjoy RSS or newsletters over social media?

Here’s some new brain-tickling info. Google will soon make user handles on YouTube a thing. I don’t know if or how this will affect my video surfing habits, but we’ll see. From the Verge:

“All YouTube users will soon get a new way of identifying themselves. The company announced today that @name handles will be used across the platform, a convention that’s common elsewhere on the internet but a departure for YouTube.”

I use YouTube almost daily. I watch videos there for entertainment, but mostly I enjoy informative ones, like those about wood construction techniques or how to use the Mac better. And if you’re into Tiny Living, well, YouTube has you covered.

The site is my go-to place for content consumption. So for me, YouTube has always been a passive interaction. I don’t post my own content there. My engagement consists of “smashing that Like button” and “hitting that bell” and subscribing to channels.

The most original stuff I post there are short comments on videos. I do it for the sake of the video creator, to give meaningful feedback, and it’s weird to me when other YouTube users reply to my comment in some way.

With my limited use, I don’t see how having my own @username handle will make a meaningful difference in my participation on the platform. That said, the idea of adding such a feature strikes me as a potential game changer, yet not in a good way. I associate this kind of thing with…social media. 

YouTube is not social media.

At least it hasn’t been to me, but what if it becomes more like it? What if your identity and profile get promoted more readily with a handle like on Twitter?

How all this plays out is something I’ll be keeping an eye on for sure. I’ve never cared about my identity on YouTube before, but now it might become important, for better or worse. At the least, I hope I get to pick my @name to have the one I want, though that’s unlikely, and I don’t know what I’d pick other than my former Twitter handle.

Well, actually, I know I won’t get what I want, the ever simple @jason.

Do you think username handles on YouTube will be significant?

In this Vox piece from Peter Kafka, a few things are clear: Twitter is likely in decline, broken, and not really important. As he points out, if the social networking site vanished today, the repercussions would be ho-hum, no big deal:

“Here’s a thought experiment: What happens if Twitter goes offline tomorrow, for good? A bunch of us get some valuable time back, for starters. More seriously, some people lose an easy way to tell the world what they think, and a larger number lose a real-time window to the world. But realistically, most people aren’t spending time on Twitter to begin with. Most certainly not the youngest generation of internet users, who weren’t that interested in Twitter a few years ago and are even less so today.” - Kafka

As the author says, relatively few people use Twitter these days. It’s like a vocal minority. And loudness doesn’t make noise worth listening to. In the cacophony of Tweets, one generally must sift and sort out any signal to be found in the noise.

Since I deleted my Twitter account back in April this year, I’ve not really missed it at all. In fact, what little FOMO I had was fleeting, and I’m glad to be free of the distraction and addiction Twitter became for me.

While Elon Musk’s threat or promise (depending on your take) to buy Twitter had little to do with my decision to deep six the once-heralded micro-blogging service, it seems more apparent now that he probably won’t make it much worse or better than it is.

Like Zuckerberg with Instagram or Facebook, if Musk owns Twitter, the smart move might be a hard pivot, morphing to a new internet thing to contend with. Color me not optimistic. I think Twitter may diminish to something like what Flickr or Tumblr became: shadows of their former glory.

Do you enjoy, despise, or tolerate Twitter?

Just yesterday, I published my disconnected Facebook status. Then I found a new article stating that Facebook, after many years, is finally allowing a fully chronological feed for just the people you actually follow, like your in-real-life friends! Though I plan to stay off the social media site, this development is good and, dare I say, promising. Well, no, I won’t go that far.

Just one month ago, I published how Facebook’s main (and then only) feed was getting much worse because it broke away from its roots. Instead of showing you content from those whom you follow, it was starting to show and prioritize stuff from outside sources (discovery), meaning not your friends. How is that social? Well, it seems Facebook decided they’d better allow for both.

From The Verge, it’s said that Facebook will have two tabs in the mobile app (so this new feature may not appear on the desktop web browser) featuring different types of “newsfeeds.”

The default is the “Home” tab for the algorithm-based feed, which surfaces content from anywhere, marketed as a place or way to discover new stuff “it” (the A.I.) thinks you like/might like/should like and/or what Facebook wants you to like and/or stay engaged with or hooked on as much as possible. Also: ads.

The new (but not novel) “Feeds” tab is for what people actually have wanted all along, to see everything from everyone they friend or follow. It’s organized into types for Friends, Pages, Groups, etc. So if you want to only see what your friends post, you can and will, in reverse chrono order, as if it were a sensible blog or something. Also: still ads.

Finally!

So The Verge points out that this is Facebook’s attempt at keeping people engaged while defending against Tik-Tok’s popularity. To me it sounds like Facebook is so afraid that Tik-Tok is eating its lunch that it is finally resorting to such “drastic” measures as simply making a chronological feed of just people you follow. You know, giving “users” what they actually want in order to keep them happy and on the site. What a winning strategy.

Yet this sounds more like the way YouTube is set up. There, the “home” feed is mostly full of videos the algorithm thinks you’ll like based on your watch history and such. It also sometimes shows new suggestions or other new or different stuff for discovery. In addition, there’s a “tab” or link for all the channels you subscribe (follow) to where you can see all the latest (chronological) videos from them.

I think this approach by Facebook is smart and long overdue. No matter what site you’re on, it seems best to have a discovery section for new yet similar or related (relevant) content the service thinks you want in order to keep “users” engaged and delighted. And it’s also great to have a section for the content you know you want based on who or what you choose to follow, whether it’s a person, a group, a channel, or a topic.

That’s my hot take. Facebook’s new “Feeds” is a surprising development, one I hope sticks around long-term. If I ever, for some reason, resume some Facebook interaction, I’ll look forward to this. But this alone isn’t going to get me back on the site.

What do you think of the new Facebook “Feeds” feature? Will it increase your use of the app on your phone?

This week I realized that it’s been 3 months since I signed out of Facebook. The thing is, I haven’t thought much about it until now. So here’s some fresh thoughts about life without social media of late.

There hasn’t been a need to be on Facebook, and I don’t think or feel I’ve missed out. Yet my account remains intact…just in case I guess. I think I would feel more alienated from Facebook if I had deleted my account. Since I have one (though I don’t use it), I don’t feel like I need one, if that makes sense.

The only FOMO I’ve had has been for Twitter. While I wasn’t active on Facebook, I was quite addicted to Twitter. Since logging off in April, I’ve encountered Twitter news and tweets on other sites, mostly as quotes or examples for news articles. On one hand, it made me feel like I was missing out on the tweets, but at the same time I wasn’t because the newsworthy ones that might matter were still being surfaced.

Though somewhat attractive, Twitter is still a site to be avoided, at least for me. My life certainly hasn’t degraded from lack of Twitter; I’m better off really. There isn’t utility I need from Twitter, and there’s little time to be checking tweets, that’s for sure.

So no change is necessary. I plan to keep cruising along free of social media, keeping life simple in that regard. That should let me make time for better pursuits like, oh I don’t know, how about blogging? Or maybe video gaming hundreds of backlogged hours of exquisite RPGs? And I might also enjoy reading more books and watching new movies! Imagine that.

Oh, I guess I should mention that I have started getting sucked back into…YouTube. But that may be for another blog post. Well, that said, while some consider YouTube a form of social media, I don’t use it that way at all. It’s pure entertainment or information for me.

And doesn’t it seem that social media, for those who still use it, is now more tailored towards entertainment? More people seem to flock to Tik-Tok or similar video-based entertainment now rather than to sites made for online socializing. These days, I think more people gravitate to niche or focused group/chat apps (Slack, Discord, Signal…) or just plain instant messaging for their telecommunication needs.

Well, times change. Facebook has certainly dwindled or degraded through the years, so I think the point has finally arrived where disconnecting from social media is easier than ever before. Social media simply isn’t as big a deal as it once was. Let me see if another 3 months glide by without it.

Are you avoiding Facebook or other social media? How’s that going for you?

I’m not much on Facebook these days. Logged out in April and haven’t looked back. Might delete it at some point… Now, news of the Facebook feed to become more like TikTok tells me there will be less reason, less interest, for me to Numb-Scroll. If dopamine hits and user engagement are the priority, then it makes sense for Facebook to become like TikTok. But I thought Facebook’s point was to simply connect with people I know.

Sure, people can connect with friends and acquaintances over trendy content from influencers and creators, but that wasn’t the reason people signed up in the first place. People just wanted to see what their personal friends or family were doing, you know, sharing the big and small details of their daily lives with others, from random thoughts to grand events. Times change I guess.

Facebook, the “blue app,” is on the decline, so maybe such a pivot is inevitable. Besides, this isn’t the first time the News Feed was altered. At one point, it leaned towards private stuff from people you friended, then it favored info from publicsources you followed, then it flip-flopped back. Now the Feed going to allow content from neither those you friend nor those you follow. Instead, you’ll get “random” or outside content because the algorithm thinks you’ll like it best, regardless of source.

Do not want.

If I want cool content from wherever, then I would just use TikTok, right? Or maybe YouTube or Instagram. I’d sooner return to Twitter, actually (good thing I deleted it). If people want TikTok-like content, wouldn’t they just use TikTok? I guess Facebook (Meta) believes its network effect will keep its billions of users from leaving, and amplifying viral-like content will make them more engaged. I still think people should disengage from social media altogether though.

Facebook is still a Zuckerberg production, as is Meta and the so-called coming AR/VR Metaverse. On that, there’s also news about Meta’s pervasive pixel tracking web technology. So Zuckerberg’s products are as invasive and perilous to privacy as ever.

Count me out.

So, overall, I really think Facebook’s pivot to mimic TikTok is bad news for the platform and its users. Such a change seems too fundamental a shift away from what made Facebook what it was to begin with. And people don’t need to be more addicted to a feed of viral content anymore than they need to be in the habit of devouring candy all the time. It’s bad for one’s health.

If you want a true “news feed,” then follow the news sites you like via RSS in a feed reader (Feedly.com). Or just bookmark all your favorite news sites and actually visit them (off Facebook). And if you want to keep up with friends and family, then text or email them, or form a chat group on a dedicated messaging app (that isn’t owned by Mark Zuckerberg). Simple. We don’t need Facebook, no matter what it was or what it becomes. And is it really worth wanting anymore? Nah.

Do you think Facebook’s feed acting like TikTok, showing content from sources not followed, is a good or bad idea? Or is there a more nuanced view?

Have you seen the terms social media and social networking used interchangeably? I have; I’ve done it. But I was wondering if they’re the same or just similar. Is there a distinction without a difference? After looking it up and reading a few sites, the answer is…unclear to me.

What others say

I checked out a few articles about this:

I’ve left the sky where the Tweets fly. Good-bye, Twitter. On April 26, 2022, I deleted my ten-year old Twitter account. Previously, when I had deleted Instagram or Facebook, I always held onto Twitter. But now I’ve let it go for good.

Why I kept my long-running Twitter account over the years, despite deleting other social media, was for various reasons.

1. I liked the simplicity of Twitter. It has far fewer features than Facebook.
2. It’s almost entirely about text, which is nice for a writer/blogger.
3. I was always a casual user and had no trouble with Twitter trolls or bots for years.
4. I did not get addicted to it…until recently.

Since the ills of Twitter are pretty much common knowledge, I don’t need to detail them here. I’ll just throw out some typical terms associated with the platform: vitriol, dumpster fire, doom-scrolling, and virtue-signaling. The more I used Twitter in recent months, the more I experienced these negatives.

There are, of course, other issues with the service. I talked about some of my personal problems with Twitter, like addiction, in recent posts here and here.

So I logged off Twitter and waited a week or so. Absent the clamor or random tweets, my brain began to feel calm. Then Elon Musk bought (or is buying) Twitter, which…who knows!? So I decided it was time to delete it altogether and put it behind me. I don’t want to get drawn back into the so-called Twitter “hellscape.”

I think our minds and attention are made worse by social media, due to both its content (misinformation, disinformation, distraction, outrage, polarization, tribalism…) and its form (short, viral, out-of-context, inflammatory, emotional, sensational, hyperbolic headlines…). I also think the mass scale of aggregated users in social media environments amplifies human misbehavior and hurts civility and democracy.

I agree with the notion that social media can have some benefits and positives. But I think the negatives outweigh those, and I think know that people can connect, communicate, and have conversation without social media. In fact, we can have these things better without ad-revenue-based algorithms that manipulate us, both individually and collectively.

So like I said, good-bye, Twitter. (Also, I deleted my newly created Jason Journals Twitter account too.)

Are you on or off Twitter?

Twitter? Signed out. Facebook? Logged off. It started a few days ago after noticing my frequent phone checking, which spurred a reality check. How did I get so hooked? It felt like brain drain. So Wednesday night, feeling staggered, I turned the key that arms the big red nuke button. I signed out of all my social media accounts and removed all links to them. I’m off.

Social Media and me