Consistent data on teen use of social media is hard to get because nobody bothered surveying it until recently. However, here's how things seem to have gone over the past five years:
- Winners: YouTube, TikTok
- About even: Instagram, Snapchat
- Losers: Facebook, Twitter
Here's what struck me about this: the more interactive a platform is, the worse it's done. Facebook and Twitter, which are fundamentally based on conversation, have done the worst. YouTube and TikTok, which simply present content, have done the best. Instagram and Snapchat, which are interactive but mostly video and photo sharing, are somewhere in the middle.
I'm not entirely sure I'm right about this, and I'm not sure what to make of it in any case. But it seems like it might be an important trend. In the past, social media replaced narrow in-person interaction with broad digital interaction. Maybe that was a plus, maybe a negative. But now the majority of time that teens spend on social media is simply about ingesting endless content.
If this is true, what does it mean? Thoughts?
I've had more interactions on Mastodon in one year than the entire time I was on Birdsite. Fewer memes, more thinkers.
That's the problem with interaction - it takes damn few brain cells to do it. Ruthlessly pruning idiots and mouth breathers takes so much effort and quality conversation has to be carefully sought and cultivated. Back in the early days, Google Plus was a place you could jump into any conversation and if you weren't an idiot, end up having deep discussions with people who you'd never interact with otherwise. Then it all turned to crap, like everything else.
I think "social" is not really true any more, it's more like user generated content with a comment feature.
Well, TV, even those tiny black and white ones, replaced radio in a blink. FB and Twitter are digital radio, with pictures thrown in alongside the text. TikTok and Youtube are 100% passive ingestion, as you note.
Which appeals to lazy minds? And which nation has the laziest minds in the world?
I’m not on any of the social media platforms but I do use YouTube, mostly for music. I’ve been introduced to several artists through their algorithm that I had not heard of previously. There’s also a lot of live music of high quality that is unavailable elsewhere.
yeah - when adblocking stopped working, I paid for YouTube, and the music is great! Too bad it sucks at podcasts, given that Google is killing their podcast app
Facebook is much more about pushing content these days. About 5% of posts I see are from my "friends". The rest are random things the algorithm thinks I might like. It's especially funny when I slow down my scroll for a second and think--is that Marissa Tomei? And then when I scroll a bit more I see 10 more pictures of Marissa Tomei. Why do I even check it anymore? No clue.
But I think KD is on to something here. Though You Tube does have an active and interesting comment section if you pick the right videos.
I don’t think of YouTube as social media. It’s just video. Netflix.
https://youtu.be/Flk46f-4wms?si=wNK7qjAYuxdK3UqC
It is "social" media when channels livestream and chat is open. Better than Twitch's mostly one-way interactions, but generally on the same page.
When developing a user interface I used to think that something really interesting with lots of interaction and possibilities would be good. I’ve since learned that to get the most users you need to provide the very least amount of friction. This beats quality.
Not sure it really means anything. There are also tons of smaller sites with lots of social interaction. I participate in some smaller niche sites on specific topics where there is a lot of social interaction. In the past, I think many were only on one or two sites, but now there is a huge variety to choose from for different purposes. Plus, each one is what you make of it. I personally seek out news, weather, sports, opinion, tech stories, etc. on Twitter, but rarely interact with anyone. It has replaced our nearly extinct sources of local news too. I know some people who spend a lot of time in the social part of YouTube and Facebook, and others on Instagram. I used to only go to IG for seeing beautiful photos and have no interest in chatting up people. I've quit both FB and IG now that they have become so enshittified. Never looked at TikTok once.
“I’m not sure about this”
No, you’re not. Have you even tried TikTok? It’s at least as interactive as Facebook and I’d argue it’s as interactive as Twitter.
You can like videos, comment on them, and also repost, stitch (basically replying or amplifying) other people’s videos as well as “duet” them (appearing side by side in your responses.)
For instance Jamelle Bouie, indispensably reality based on race and American history, posts multiple times a day, generally in response to viewer engagement.
It’s fun. The algorithms are amazingly friendly/positive vs any other “curated” platforms too. Oh yeah, and it’s the crack cocaine of Ted Talks. There are some insanely clever, insightful folks posting there. I mentioned Jamelle Bouie but there are countless others dishing inside baseball on basically everything from policy, academic, business, entertainment, etc.
...you have to have the app and an account and follow people to do that.
That's a bit more investment than most want to do.
I wonder how email, blogs, and podcasts stack up to "social media"? That's really how I consume and interact.
I keep a tab open on my browser so that I can easily check to see what interesting thing Kevin has posted in the last hour. 😉 (I have a tab for Krugman too.)
Personal anecdote (I know) we have a Millennial and a Gen Z here at home and they spend nearly all their waking hours glued to either a phone or a laptop streaming entertainment content. To the point where the are non-functional human beings who can't do anything else. Having 24/7 streaming entertainment is worse than any drug Nancy Reagan ever dreamed about.
It's not correct to say YouTube and TikTok "simply present content". Many postings have thousands of comments in discussion threads, and many popular TikTok personalities invite fans to reply directly to them.
This is why I insist that, rather than directly link to Birdsite posts, you share a screen capture of a post. Maybe you have a vested interest in supporting the platform, but I don't. I just want to embiggen the view of the post.
I'm wondering if former users of Facebook found that they simply preferred to text with friends/ family members, and share or look at videos/ pictures on platforms used primarily for that.
YouTube is only social when you're on a livestream and participating in the comments, otherwise it's just a video hosting site. I don't use TikTok, but my sense is that it is similarly "User Generated Internet TV" rather than truly social.
Facebook and Twitter have both fallen victim to platform decay - Facebook slowly, Twitter rapidly - able to hold on to at least some of their existing users but not really able to attract new ones.