A good case study in how the words we use for things both reflect and alter how we think about them. I see the rebranding of “creators” as “influencers” (as part of an effort by social media platforms to market themselves to advertisers) in a similar light. When online creators started referring to themselves as influencers that speaks to how they increasingly shamelessly view their job as being vehicles for selling products to their audience rather than, you know, creativity.
A great piece and I love seeing the dissection of meaning into word sized chunks that can be digestible.
Sometime I find it’s strange as well. Offline, you never count friends by the dozen, yet online, we parade numbers like trophies.
Maybe the real metric isn’t followers at all, but how many would notice if you vanished.
Because, in the end, connection isn’t something you scale—it’s something you keep, and it's the meaning behind it that really matters. Not that you were "connected".
The word follower used to be a real insult. It implied that the person didn't have a mind of their own and that they should be embarrassed about that. Social media turned everyone into followers and forces "creators" to beg to be "liked." It really is quite pathetic.
The moment I sense a creator is only interested in a one-way broadcast—and sees followers as a commodity—I'm out. Not here for personality cults or transactional content.
It's a very odd thing to think about. Every now and then I'll see a video of an influencer in a 20,000 person stadium with the caption "I can't believe this 5 times this many people follow me..." But they don't really - they perceive you, perhaps, but to be followed implies something totally different entirely, and it's kind of gross. I struggle with it myself as an artist who relies to some degree on an online following to maintain my practice. I'm glad that although my "following" isn't huge, most people seem interested in what I am doing. Quality over quantity any day.
Always love reading your content - I love how you really encourage people to think differently and you've inspired my own writing to be a tool of communication and connection
This is an essential understanding that captures so well this feeling of "zooming out" of the human experience I've had (and many have had) since the internet.
Thank you for sharing this. The political consequences of regulating involves a battle of words and definitions with/against/for lobbyists involved in surveilling limitations.
I’m not sure if ritual communication has been completely overtaken by transmissive communication. Yes there’s slop but there’s also so much potential for vibrant ritualistic communication to occur in online spaces. There’s a reason online subcultures and communities become so pervasive. We’ve just changed the mediums for communication but the ritualistic nature is still there. I think it’s unfair to assume that ritualistic communication can only occur face to face.
A well-written article with valid arguments. Yet, I feel like it is a general observation of what most of us are aware of. You wrote, "The twentieth and now twenty-first centuries have been all about communicating faster and better to a larger audience—sacrificing connection for transmission.". Sacrificing implies as if it's wrong. We're giving something up for communicating faster and better to a larger audience. I think that not all of us sacrifice connection for transmission. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe that there are a few people out there who manage to achieve both: communicating fast to a large audience while maintaining a connection. (Even this short article is easily accessible to a large audience AND meaningful) The media is a complex site of communication and connection, with many using it as you state. But not everyone is like this. It is the job of a content creator, for example, to gain as many followers as possible after all, but there are other people making friends, making connections. They can't always control who follows them and who doesn't. Depending on whether you have a private or public account. I can imagine that wanting to have an emotional connection with a large audience is difficult enough. But people are at least trying. We are human after all.
AI slop is so obviously a disaster that I think the various consequences of it will continue to unfold for years to come. Brad Troemel's "ZIRPSLOP report" explores how AI slop as a relative market inevitably based on how social media companies adapted from America's 2008 zero interest-rate policy. It's a fascinating watch for anyone who'd like to explore this further.
A good case study in how the words we use for things both reflect and alter how we think about them. I see the rebranding of “creators” as “influencers” (as part of an effort by social media platforms to market themselves to advertisers) in a similar light. When online creators started referring to themselves as influencers that speaks to how they increasingly shamelessly view their job as being vehicles for selling products to their audience rather than, you know, creativity.
Oooh how capitalism invades language
“sacrificing connection for transmission. “
A great piece and I love seeing the dissection of meaning into word sized chunks that can be digestible.
Sometime I find it’s strange as well. Offline, you never count friends by the dozen, yet online, we parade numbers like trophies.
Maybe the real metric isn’t followers at all, but how many would notice if you vanished.
Because, in the end, connection isn’t something you scale—it’s something you keep, and it's the meaning behind it that really matters. Not that you were "connected".
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing us that art was the same as content. I wrote about this here:
“The early internet—those halcyon days of Tumblr and Twitter and MySpace—was imperfect, but at least it was honest.
No longer, I’m afraid.
We’ve barricaded the doors and boarded up the windows, but the call is coming from inside the house.
Today’s creative landscape looks more like a factory floor.
Creators aren’t creators—they’re brands.
Influencers aren’t interesting—they’re optimized.
And everything from your Instagram feed to your inbox has been engineered for engagement, not meaning.”
The word follower used to be a real insult. It implied that the person didn't have a mind of their own and that they should be embarrassed about that. Social media turned everyone into followers and forces "creators" to beg to be "liked." It really is quite pathetic.
The moment I sense a creator is only interested in a one-way broadcast—and sees followers as a commodity—I'm out. Not here for personality cults or transactional content.
It's a very odd thing to think about. Every now and then I'll see a video of an influencer in a 20,000 person stadium with the caption "I can't believe this 5 times this many people follow me..." But they don't really - they perceive you, perhaps, but to be followed implies something totally different entirely, and it's kind of gross. I struggle with it myself as an artist who relies to some degree on an online following to maintain my practice. I'm glad that although my "following" isn't huge, most people seem interested in what I am doing. Quality over quantity any day.
Always love reading your content - I love how you really encourage people to think differently and you've inspired my own writing to be a tool of communication and connection
Brilliantly written!
Thanks, I liked this. Observation clearly and thoughtfully presented is a welcome alternative to the tsunami of manipulation and alienation.
This is an essential understanding that captures so well this feeling of "zooming out" of the human experience I've had (and many have had) since the internet.
Thank you for sharing this. The political consequences of regulating involves a battle of words and definitions with/against/for lobbyists involved in surveilling limitations.
I don’t use Substack much, could use some advice, but I’m just trying to link to some comments I had made elsewhere so I don’t feel like I’m repeating myself 😝 https://substack.com/profile/5982858-se-wood/note/c-146246893?r=3k8ei&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I’m not sure if ritual communication has been completely overtaken by transmissive communication. Yes there’s slop but there’s also so much potential for vibrant ritualistic communication to occur in online spaces. There’s a reason online subcultures and communities become so pervasive. We’ve just changed the mediums for communication but the ritualistic nature is still there. I think it’s unfair to assume that ritualistic communication can only occur face to face.
A well-written article with valid arguments. Yet, I feel like it is a general observation of what most of us are aware of. You wrote, "The twentieth and now twenty-first centuries have been all about communicating faster and better to a larger audience—sacrificing connection for transmission.". Sacrificing implies as if it's wrong. We're giving something up for communicating faster and better to a larger audience. I think that not all of us sacrifice connection for transmission. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe that there are a few people out there who manage to achieve both: communicating fast to a large audience while maintaining a connection. (Even this short article is easily accessible to a large audience AND meaningful) The media is a complex site of communication and connection, with many using it as you state. But not everyone is like this. It is the job of a content creator, for example, to gain as many followers as possible after all, but there are other people making friends, making connections. They can't always control who follows them and who doesn't. Depending on whether you have a private or public account. I can imagine that wanting to have an emotional connection with a large audience is difficult enough. But people are at least trying. We are human after all.
AI slop is so obviously a disaster that I think the various consequences of it will continue to unfold for years to come. Brad Troemel's "ZIRPSLOP report" explores how AI slop as a relative market inevitably based on how social media companies adapted from America's 2008 zero interest-rate policy. It's a fascinating watch for anyone who'd like to explore this further.