Social media hijacking
WTF with all this social media hijacking?
Late last year, tech magazine Computerworld posted a story – Comments 2.0: Social networks are your new venue to engage with us. Basically saying they removed reader engagement off of their site, and onto various social media platforms.
They claimed that it was too hard for them to manage the “spam” on their website and that moving the discussion to social media “obviates” those issues.
Uh, no it doesn’t. They’re getting a profoundly less time on their sites. In fact, many people decided to stop reading them altogether. Because if you wanted to comment on an article you were interested in – you’d have to HUNT DOWN on some social media network where the article placeholder was! And with half a dozen or more networks to manage comments – it becomes completely incohesive!
What is the real reason?
The fact that any company is giving up ownership of that data to all the social media networks (which are profoundly insecure) makes no sense (on paper at least).
Especially a tech company that is supposed to know how to do this stuff.
I mean to scroll a stupid timeline – click on the article – read it – then have to go back to the social media site to comment is annoying and unnecessary.
I do understand that many people are permanently logged into all their networks – and God forbid – never have to worry about various passwords, etc. But that’s a weak reason. We did it that way for a long time and it worked fine. Until social media infected the masses. Like a virus.
The revenue streams have changed too. I guess it doesn’t matter much if people visit a web property these days. Because now MOST CONTENT is sponsored – which makes it pretty much FAKE NEWS anyway.
Social media just feels so dirty and anti-human. Maybe more of us will disengage going forward. But I don’t see that happening.