Super Mario Bros. X Forums

(repost from my talkhaus thread)

A lot people go after Reddit for "circle jerking," and people go after Tumblr for being "an echo chamber." At first glance these seem like generalizations to make a broad assessment about the sites, but I wonder though. Is it the sites themselves that causes this, or is it the users to blame? Like is it site functions that attract certain types of people, or is that a coincidence? To use Facebook as an example it seems to attract "normal" people, while Tumblr attracts the more quirky and unique types, and Twitter attracts the people that seem to be in between. That's an observation I've made but I'm not sure what it is that leads these websites to attract the certain demographics they do.

Thoughts on this?

Aero wrote:(repost from my talkhaus thread)

A lot people go after Reddit for "circle jerking," and people go after Tumblr for being "an echo chamber." At first glance these seem like generalizations to make a broad assessment about the sites, but I wonder though. Is it the sites themselves that causes this, or is it the users to blame? Like is it site functions that attract certain types of people, or is that a coincidence? To use Facebook as an example it seems to attract "normal" people, while Tumblr attracts the more quirky and unique types, and Twitter attracts the people that seem to be in between. That's an observation I've made but I'm not sure what it is that leads these websites to attract the certain demographics they do.

Thoughts on this?

I think it has to do with a certain type of person averaging over other peeps which causes the demographic to change and set based on the content being produced.
A bunch of unique individuals post on Tumblr, then other unique individuals see the content they produce and add similar content, which repeats over nd over until the demographic has been set.
If your not looking at user generated content, all 3 sites are functionally the same.

Aero wrote:A lot people go after Reddit for "circle jerking," and people go after Tumblr for being "an echo chamber." At first glance these seem like generalizations to make a broad assessment about the sites, but I wonder though.

Aero wrote:Anybody who cites Reddit, John Oliver, ThinkProgress, The Washington Post and/or The Huffington Post does not deserve a serious response.

Aero wrote:Thoughts on this?

I just think it's ridiculous that all people have to do to make themselves feel all high and mighty is start bashing other websites and the majority of their users just because they saw one thing they didn't like about it.

Facebook attracts all sorts of people, I don't know what you mean by "Facebook seems to attract 'normal' people", because when I go onto Facebook, the first things I see on the right are the following:


And then the various smut roleplay groups I wont even bother to show. Nothing different from what you see on Tumblr or some Twitter pages.

Calm down please, I'm only trying to ask about this stuff and gather opinions.

That was an overreaction, Danny.

I think Facebook and Twitter are more generational - Facebook is generally used by people who are older, whereas Twitter is often the social network of choice for people around my age.

I'm not sure if it's accurate to say older people use Facebook. A while back I was doing some research for a Journalism class and came across a bunch of articles saying FB was mostly used by younger people as a news source. Also I'm not sure if it's a generation thing either and I'll use Reddit as an example again, because their upvote and downvote system is basically a joke outside of there because of how it insulates what is seen there. Functionally it creates certain audiences that other sites don't get because of it, and that's what I get curious about. Another thing is that anonymous image boards attract completely different discussion (assuming the board is moderated enough for discussion to take place) due to site functions of anonymity and thread placement by popularity.

Syndrilevosse wrote:

Aero wrote:A lot people go after Reddit for "circle jerking," and people go after Tumblr for being "an echo chamber." At first glance these seem like generalizations to make a broad assessment about the sites, but I wonder though.

Aero wrote:Anybody who cites Reddit, John Oliver, ThinkProgress, The Washington Post and/or The Huffington Post does not deserve a serious response.

Aero wrote:Thoughts on this?

I just think it's ridiculous that all people have to do to make themselves feel all high and mighty is start bashing other websites and the majority of their users just because they saw one thing they didn't like about it.

Facebook attracts all sorts of people, I don't know what you mean by "Facebook seems to attract 'normal' people", because when I go onto Facebook, the first things I see on the right are the following:


And then the various smut roleplay groups I wont even bother to show. Nothing different from what you see on Tumblr or some Twitter pages.

Dude, you only see that fucking stuff because you have the fetish for it and Facebook knows this.

Timaeus Bouma wrote:Dude, you only see that fucking stuff because you have the fetish for it and Facebook knows this.

If we see more posts like this from you you will be banned.