I am not the most interesting person in the room.
I am not the least interesting either. Just somewhere in between. However, I think that it is worth considering what is interesting and what is not, because we spend more time putting our thoughts out there, looking for some kind of response from relative strangers. Most of the internet is people putting "themselves" out there, looking for some kind of attention, without actually thinking too much about what the audience wants.
There is no active listening involved in the process, it is largely one-directional, with the "response" being a like, a share, or an inane comment that doesn't really add much value, as it doesn't go deep. This is because the people who are consuming, are scrolling through dozens of pieces of content a minute, meaning nothing gets considered deeply enough to really generate a solid response on.
This is part of the reason that I like Hive, because there are a group of people who are willing to engage in the discussions at more depth, and there is some consistency over time. They aren't just dropping by on an individual post that happened to catch their attention, they are part of a rolling conversation that spans across time, topic and changes in the relationship itself. Perhaps from the outside looking in at one article, it isn't overly interesting, but over time, it can be, as different opinions change, as experience in various areas build.
While I write each day for many different reasons, what I do hope is there is something interesting in there for anyone who is either a regular reader, or who chances upon it. For the regular reader and commenter, then they become part of the discussion, and I hope that the person who chances upon it, will read the discussion and become a part of it too. I think there is a lot of value in building organic social networks that aren't topic specific, but are community specific - not a topic community, but a community of varied people who come together and add value to the group.
Hive is a bit like a city in this perspective, where there is a very wide range of people, skills and experiences, that while all living in different topic suburbs, are still within the boundary of the city. Each person can be part of multiple croups, visit multiple sites, and may never cross pass with others, yet can still add value, and have added value for themselves, from strangers who don't know they exist.
The centralized platforms are quite different to this, as they are far more specific, targeting user groups through their design and marketing, through their productization. They are not melting pots of humans, they are ecosystems built by algorithms to maximize interaction and network for advertising functions, regardless of what they are enabling is healthy for users, or not.
And, while these types of "meta" discussions might not be interesting to many people who focus on individuals and events, I think they are valuable because we are interacting with these various platforms and are influenced by them, even if we aren't using them, because many others are.
Sitting with a group at lunch today, I was listening to how much of the conversation centered around entertainment type activities. If I change that group slightly, the conversation will shift into more big picture discussions and possible solutions. I far prefer the second kind, because I don't spend much time consuming entertainment, at least not in the same way as the group I was sitting with. For me, it is entertaining to be part of discussions that I feel matter in some way, as it gives some purpose. However, there also has to be something actionable, where I am able to reach some kind of point that will change my experience.
It is selfish.
Because I want to improve my life. But, it is also community oriented, because I want to be part of helping others improve theirs too. If I am sitting in front of a screen playing a game alone, I am not really interacting with people at a local level, those in the communities I live in. Having conversations at work however, means interacting with a relatively wide range of people, but who are also acting at a local level.
This often feeds into my content, because my writing is through the lens of my own experience, and often enough, people are able to relate to it, even though we are spread across the world on Hive. This is because for the most part, we are more similar than we are different, despite our cultural variations. And I think that the people who are engaging in conversations here, are also more likely the ones who are talking with others in their own local worlds, improving their community in some way too.
How I see this, is while it might not be world-changing, it is far more relevant to individuals than the algorithm based discussions that are designed to drive engagement and shares for that advertising dollar, because it is more human to human, based on human experience. The centralized conversations that are designed for drama, leverage emotional polarization for attention, not human experiences. Because of the emotional rise people get, they are "interested" in it, even though it doesn't give them any tools to use to improve their experience, or their community.
And, I think that this is part of the problem in culture at the moment, where even though we have plenty to complain about, we don't actually spend that much time investigating and building solid strategies to do anything to improve the situation. It is all about active complaint, passive solution.
I am not the most interesting person, and there is likely far better content out there. This is okay. To improve ourselves and our communities, we don't need to be the best in the world, we just have to be willing to be part of the discussions and act toward improvement at the local level. A stronger community - It might not be as interesting as one filled with social drama, but it would be an interesting experience to not have to live with constant division and violence this world has to currently offer.
Boring isn't bad.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
