I don’t have this problem at all. I love when people send me things as I think of it as proof they are thinking about me. But it really doesn’t happen very often so it’s not a problem. Also I’m not on tiktok or Instagram (i quit a bit more than a year ago) and I guess people are less prone to send links texting than in the app
It’s true on the app vs texting. I def get more content sent via DMs. Though I’m not sure I’d say it’s a problem, overall, I like it, but it’s also something I want to be more mindful of.
I must admit I prefer it when people don't post terribly often, because my inbox gets alarmingly full quite quickly and then I'm more likely to skip over things. Thanks for the article!
If we're talking about Substack, my preference if for articles about every other week. That way, I can subscribe to more people without my inbox getting overwhelmed. Some people post every day, but I find myself skipping over a lot of their posts because I simply don't have time.
I have one internet friend who sends me stuff that makes me laugh and connected to what we’re talking about. I’m at a life stage where everything is posted on the internet on IG and so friends will assume I’ve seen their reels and they’ll send me reels but I don’t watch anything on those apps and I sorta wish people texted me personally beside political parties
I feel you. So many people message me on FB messenger, but I never check it. Then I feel bad that I just don't respond to people. I tried to dismantle it, but short of deleting your entire FB account, you actually can't turn off the messenger as far as I can tell. Nor can you setup an auto-response on personal accounts.
You will need a license to "operate" online at some point and biometric proof that you are not a bot (or a spammer of links).
That should prune the "non-essential" linking activity I would imagine. Or judging by current trends... people will gladly accept the micro-needle, patch applied, invisible tattoo and iris scan without complaint and carry on sharing memes into oblivion.
I think you’re probably right. Though maybe not because I secretly suspect that bots are like drugs, Bitcoin, or prostitution, in that, establishments say they want them to go away, but they really don’t because people want to use them.
Yeah, I’m more the sender than the recipient, I’m afraid. I wish I got more links to deeper, richer stuff. I so very rarely appreciate a GIF or a simple meme, because these I think I get via the Algo. I used to send people a lot more, but now I try to just send the deeper stuff, the longer reads that I think people might overlook. I try to say a little something to entice them to read, at least the ones I think still read. We’re all fucked, aren’t we?
Thanks! And that didn’t interest me too much, but it lead me to this, which even the preview I found interesting! Links, on link, on links... lol but I refuse to use Threads.
It's an interesting question, and it's odd that I hadn't really considered it, given that I don't like a lot of what other people like about social media and things. I guess the links people share with me are very 'us' or very much representative of the kind of stuff they're into, so it’s almost never a surprise. If I were to get links that weren't either, I would almost certainly ignore them.
Speaking of, here on Substack, I have several posts/newsletters wherein I have linked meticulously different references and resources. Almost no one clicks these. Like, ever. So the pragmatic side of me wants to stop linking everything, but the 'show your work' bullshit drilled into mah skull since third grade makes it a hard habit to break.
Yes! I totally feel you on the hyperlinks. I’d say about 2-4% of people actually click on hyperlinks in my essays, yet I keep doing it! Though I’m not sure if it’s about showing my work or what it’s actually about. Something to ponder further.
Originally this post was longer and had an additional section about writers who share lists of links, like roundups, for example Roxanne Gay, and I discussed click through rates, but I decided that should go in its own essay. So stay tuned for that!
I shall! Yeah, a follow a few Stacks who are almost entirely link shares, and if it's a niche subject, it can be super helpful. Saves a lot of search time.
I don’t have this problem at all. I love when people send me things as I think of it as proof they are thinking about me. But it really doesn’t happen very often so it’s not a problem. Also I’m not on tiktok or Instagram (i quit a bit more than a year ago) and I guess people are less prone to send links texting than in the app
It’s true on the app vs texting. I def get more content sent via DMs. Though I’m not sure I’d say it’s a problem, overall, I like it, but it’s also something I want to be more mindful of.
I must admit I prefer it when people don't post terribly often, because my inbox gets alarmingly full quite quickly and then I'm more likely to skip over things. Thanks for the article!
Oooh interesting. What do you think is your idea frequency for receiving things?
If we're talking about Substack, my preference if for articles about every other week. That way, I can subscribe to more people without my inbox getting overwhelmed. Some people post every day, but I find myself skipping over a lot of their posts because I simply don't have time.
I have one internet friend who sends me stuff that makes me laugh and connected to what we’re talking about. I’m at a life stage where everything is posted on the internet on IG and so friends will assume I’ve seen their reels and they’ll send me reels but I don’t watch anything on those apps and I sorta wish people texted me personally beside political parties
I feel you. So many people message me on FB messenger, but I never check it. Then I feel bad that I just don't respond to people. I tried to dismantle it, but short of deleting your entire FB account, you actually can't turn off the messenger as far as I can tell. Nor can you setup an auto-response on personal accounts.
You will need a license to "operate" online at some point and biometric proof that you are not a bot (or a spammer of links).
That should prune the "non-essential" linking activity I would imagine. Or judging by current trends... people will gladly accept the micro-needle, patch applied, invisible tattoo and iris scan without complaint and carry on sharing memes into oblivion.
I think you’re probably right. Though maybe not because I secretly suspect that bots are like drugs, Bitcoin, or prostitution, in that, establishments say they want them to go away, but they really don’t because people want to use them.
Yeah, I’m more the sender than the recipient, I’m afraid. I wish I got more links to deeper, richer stuff. I so very rarely appreciate a GIF or a simple meme, because these I think I get via the Algo. I used to send people a lot more, but now I try to just send the deeper stuff, the longer reads that I think people might overlook. I try to say a little something to entice them to read, at least the ones I think still read. We’re all fucked, aren’t we?
Haha no, we aren’t! Or I hope not... What was the best deeper read you read recently? Lol I can’t resist asking because I too love the deep stuff.
This from Ian Leslie I enjoyed (not that deep) https://open.substack.com/pub/ianleslie/p/the-wile-e-coyote-illusion?r=ofba&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Thanks! And that didn’t interest me too much, but it lead me to this, which even the preview I found interesting! Links, on link, on links... lol but I refuse to use Threads.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ianleslie/p/threads-isnt-toxic-enough?r=8gb2e&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
yeah, no threads for me either, nor Twitter (or X) for that matter. I do still dig The New Yorker, I must say
Yes! Actually I read a New Yorker piece today that I loved. Though I do still do X... for now...
Though it sucked more of my time than I’d planned, I found this captivating today:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/31/larry-gagosian-profile
yeah, that was a good one. That author, Patrick Radden Keefe, is really something. He has a good sense for the corrupting nature of money and power
It's an interesting question, and it's odd that I hadn't really considered it, given that I don't like a lot of what other people like about social media and things. I guess the links people share with me are very 'us' or very much representative of the kind of stuff they're into, so it’s almost never a surprise. If I were to get links that weren't either, I would almost certainly ignore them.
Speaking of, here on Substack, I have several posts/newsletters wherein I have linked meticulously different references and resources. Almost no one clicks these. Like, ever. So the pragmatic side of me wants to stop linking everything, but the 'show your work' bullshit drilled into mah skull since third grade makes it a hard habit to break.
Yes! I totally feel you on the hyperlinks. I’d say about 2-4% of people actually click on hyperlinks in my essays, yet I keep doing it! Though I’m not sure if it’s about showing my work or what it’s actually about. Something to ponder further.
Originally this post was longer and had an additional section about writers who share lists of links, like roundups, for example Roxanne Gay, and I discussed click through rates, but I decided that should go in its own essay. So stay tuned for that!
I shall! Yeah, a follow a few Stacks who are almost entirely link shares, and if it's a niche subject, it can be super helpful. Saves a lot of search time.
Yes! I think for music especially, people with taste are still better at finding greatness than the algorithms.
I think this is my primary form of communication with people.
Hahaha, I am sometimes the same.