Some pathogens actually benefit from the inflammation the immune system triggers to destroy it. Salmonella ragebaits (injects proteins into) the gut and multiplies faster by feeding off the immune system’s reactions (tl;dr: gets the immune system to facilitate tetrathionate production, which feeds it). This environment allows it to outcompete other bacteria and grow exponentially. It eventually loses to the immune system but accomplishes the goal of getting you to diarrhea everywhere and transmit it to a future host.
The story of Salmonella sounds just like the lifecycle of ragebait: a speaker/creator presents inflammatory content that thrives off of mass criticism and negative attention. This allows rapid spread of ideology, but the strategy is a double edged sword: the speaker’s reputation is destroyed for the sake of reach. Eventually, people get used to the ragebait, the creator retreats to their small community of die hard fans, and they fall out of mainstream relevance. However, the ideology prevails, and it inspires new generations of master ragebaiters.
There are multiple steps in the process to prevent/treat Salmonella: cook food to kill all bacteria before ingestion (get people to stop using social media/content that is selected by an algorithm based on engagement), maintain a healthy gut so that the good bacteria can outcompete it (have algorithms serve non-inflammatory content), strong immune response (haha, maybe we just have to criticize them more), or holistic treatment and symptom reduction (treat society so people are less likely to become radicalized). This might be taking the analogy too far, but the concepts are there.
Unfortunately, pathogens are inevitable both in the literal sense and in the figurative. Conceptually, they represent strategies that spread and persist via transmission. When we first called memes viral, it was because they were funny and everyone shared them with their friends. Today, it feels more and more like the only content spreading these days is inflammatory, and the algorithms have revealed that anger is the best emotion to elicit for virality. Getting ragebaited is the new cough.
That's a really good analogy. I think I should be optimistic about my learning curve for digital hygiene. If more people were made sensitive to this infection maybe they would agree on measures to prevent infecting others by sharing inflammatory content. Especially that last point about treating society in a way people are less likely to be radicalized is interesting, I've recently had a conversation about outlawing words in schools vs. trying to change the school's culture to prevent harmful verbal habits. It's difficult to decide on how to treat society.
this is a very thoughtful and well written analogy. this sort of thing also reminds me of radiation, like how radium can distribute in the body in place of bone like the jaw and cause it to come off. in an abstract way, it reminds me of how these algorithms that prioritise slop and cutting thinking to short, convenient narratives further deteriorate peoples ability to communicate.
the cellular degradation also reminds me of things like doomscrolling. it can cause sleep deprivation and further contribute to cognitive problems like memory issues which are becoming more common in younger people. in a way, peoples selfhood and psyche are being degraded at the cellular level through ragebait narratives and polarisation. mb if this isnt that coherent cause i just typed it as i thought :)
iirc HIV gets around the body by taking advantage of how immune cells move. As an aside, I like the parasitic vs viral analogy used in the article, but to be nitpicky, viruses like HIV, Hepatitis B, and the herpesviruses do not simply move on, and stay in us, replicating, much like a (eukaryotic) parasite.
"His brand is built on controversy, and discussing him is like scratching a bacterial infection—any interaction will cause it to spread further." – this sentence is a treasure
The ship has set sail with History’s course set, but do not let the Sirens’ song tempt you. For though these waves rise regardless of man, to ride such unjust floods demise upon your lands.
I'm pretty sensitive to ragebait and all that kind of stuff, honeypots and ragebait just make me physically nauseous, and I've kinda been mean to myself about it.
reading this makes me feel like it's more my brain protecting itself. my feeds are pretty free of this sort of thing, minus people like minimimuteman refuting the logical fallacies.
if only being a decent and moral person were more profitable :/
I would also suggest that folks consider taking accountability for their own emotions.
Does anyone have to let rage bait bother them? No. Do they have to respond? No.
The only person who can control your ideas and emotions is you. That's a scientific fact by way of the limits of human perception and processing stimuli. Maybe people don't know what cognitive re-appraisal is, but how privileged must life be if they don't? Must have had it easy enough never to have had to have been forced to change their attitude. Some of us wouldn't have survived it we didn't.
Even if we control the tech companies, then what? How will you control your rage bait when touching grass then?
Can we just take responsibility for our own emotions and ideas already?
Heavily agree, but I also recognise this isn’t enough. We can’t just rely on individual immune systems. Public and personal responsibility must come together if we want to see change at large
I agree. but this fails to consider that when we are offline touching grass, negative ragebait interactions are not necessarily done deliberately for profit. We arent being ragebaited 70 times a day by different individuals. And based on my experience, irl ragebait rewards no one and is rooted in spite and not profit. Being ragebaited in real life in face to face interactions will not count how many times you relay the incident to your friends then send the perpretrator a dollar everytime it gets brought up. nor will it count every instance you talk back for money.
There's something far more insidious when systems are deliberately and monetarily rewarding negative engagement and are highly engineered to flood broadcast it to anyone with a smartphone. Self-control is half of the solution, on the recieving end. Removing external incentive from the source is the other. At some point, institutions need to decide that emotional responses should not be currency and that's not entirely within the scope of personal stoicism or whatever.
It has long been internet wisdom to not feed the trolls, but when we're all just walking around with troll food (attention) it's tough not to feed them. Of course, it's still important to try; nothing is achieved without effort.
Sorry to hear about the doxxing/swatting threats. I hope this sentiment somehow bubbles up to those making the decisions about how social media is designed. I'm somewhat optimistic given how it seems the culture as a whole is beginning to awaken to the effects of algorithms, and that voices like yours help disperse that knowledge in pointing out specific instances. I haven't ordered Algospeak but reading your stuff on Substack makes me think I should
I recall a professor once talking about how the only way to truly defeat terrorism would be to refuse to cover it. Taking away the attentional reward would short circuit the incentive structure. Obviously in that case there are other ways to discourage and prevent such things. But wrt online info hazards we can change the incentives!
I love the “parasitic mimetic” term you give to professional rage baiters. Their actions are so immoral and lacking in principle, they do feel parasitic even when witnessing them.
Your writing always leads me to think about things, mull over, consider. Thank you. I think what we see here has always existed - only it's a lot bigger now. It went from poisonous back fence gossip among a few who delighted in outrage/response, easily ignored if you were disinterested - to global village proportions, almost impossible to ignore. Possibly the ratio of people who foment is the same? But the numbers now are exponential. They have grown as communication technology has grown. One shutdown is to say it's boring - oh no not more of that old crap! In a way, that's the best way, because the attention of society does move on. Eventually a whole culture refuses to acknowledge, respect, or give any time or attention to some old endlessly repeated idea. No one laughs at the "joke" anymore. People don't get it, shrug, turn away. Isolation and disinterest whither the perps to dust on a back archive shelf. But it still matters to legally stop cruel and criminal actions, and stop perpetrators from harming people. And that means paying attention and supporting civil rights, compassion, decency where you can. I think this issue is as old as humans, and we can't ever give up trying to do better.
I thoroughly enjoy all of your articles - and TikTok of course! However, sometimes I think you just address an issue. No tangible steps forward here. Not that I'm sure I know how you would do this. If this is simply to rally the crowd then I suppose it serves a purpose - I suppose it is better it exists than does not. Thanks!
I'm curious if you've read "Enshittification" by Cory Doctorow? I feel like there's also a lot do to with the idea that platforms themselves enshittify themselves for profit, which leads to a lot of the parasitic mimetics that you're talking about; although one key difference is that he doesn't believe we should "hold the big platforms accountable", since we can't trust to platforms not to enshittify. So we need to hold governments accountable, instead of asking the platforms to make the rules that will inevitably make our digital lives worse. I'm also statistically more likely to comment because I'm a man, so maybe don't listen to me.
starting to read your back catalog of substacks since about three weeks ago. i like this one a lot. "This means that, if you disregard your own morality, the internet becomes a game you can optimize, where you “win” through any content possible, especially if someone criticizes you." -- that's enough of a dissuasion from ever posting consistently online to appease the part of me that exists in any person my age who thinks "maybe i'll just be an influencer"
The analogies with the bioworld really keep on going, as genes spread through any mean necessary so do ideas, and both under the right circumstances can form parasites able to abuse pre-existing systems to survive.
Some pathogens actually benefit from the inflammation the immune system triggers to destroy it. Salmonella ragebaits (injects proteins into) the gut and multiplies faster by feeding off the immune system’s reactions (tl;dr: gets the immune system to facilitate tetrathionate production, which feeds it). This environment allows it to outcompete other bacteria and grow exponentially. It eventually loses to the immune system but accomplishes the goal of getting you to diarrhea everywhere and transmit it to a future host.
The story of Salmonella sounds just like the lifecycle of ragebait: a speaker/creator presents inflammatory content that thrives off of mass criticism and negative attention. This allows rapid spread of ideology, but the strategy is a double edged sword: the speaker’s reputation is destroyed for the sake of reach. Eventually, people get used to the ragebait, the creator retreats to their small community of die hard fans, and they fall out of mainstream relevance. However, the ideology prevails, and it inspires new generations of master ragebaiters.
There are multiple steps in the process to prevent/treat Salmonella: cook food to kill all bacteria before ingestion (get people to stop using social media/content that is selected by an algorithm based on engagement), maintain a healthy gut so that the good bacteria can outcompete it (have algorithms serve non-inflammatory content), strong immune response (haha, maybe we just have to criticize them more), or holistic treatment and symptom reduction (treat society so people are less likely to become radicalized). This might be taking the analogy too far, but the concepts are there.
Unfortunately, pathogens are inevitable both in the literal sense and in the figurative. Conceptually, they represent strategies that spread and persist via transmission. When we first called memes viral, it was because they were funny and everyone shared them with their friends. Today, it feels more and more like the only content spreading these days is inflammatory, and the algorithms have revealed that anger is the best emotion to elicit for virality. Getting ragebaited is the new cough.
That's a really good analogy. I think I should be optimistic about my learning curve for digital hygiene. If more people were made sensitive to this infection maybe they would agree on measures to prevent infecting others by sharing inflammatory content. Especially that last point about treating society in a way people are less likely to be radicalized is interesting, I've recently had a conversation about outlawing words in schools vs. trying to change the school's culture to prevent harmful verbal habits. It's difficult to decide on how to treat society.
this is a very thoughtful and well written analogy. this sort of thing also reminds me of radiation, like how radium can distribute in the body in place of bone like the jaw and cause it to come off. in an abstract way, it reminds me of how these algorithms that prioritise slop and cutting thinking to short, convenient narratives further deteriorate peoples ability to communicate.
the cellular degradation also reminds me of things like doomscrolling. it can cause sleep deprivation and further contribute to cognitive problems like memory issues which are becoming more common in younger people. in a way, peoples selfhood and psyche are being degraded at the cellular level through ragebait narratives and polarisation. mb if this isnt that coherent cause i just typed it as i thought :)
iirc HIV gets around the body by taking advantage of how immune cells move. As an aside, I like the parasitic vs viral analogy used in the article, but to be nitpicky, viruses like HIV, Hepatitis B, and the herpesviruses do not simply move on, and stay in us, replicating, much like a (eukaryotic) parasite.
This is super good!!
no way this is so interesting
Beautiful comparison‼️
"His brand is built on controversy, and discussing him is like scratching a bacterial infection—any interaction will cause it to spread further." – this sentence is a treasure
I bought algospeak and I enjoy it
The ship has set sail with History’s course set, but do not let the Sirens’ song tempt you. For though these waves rise regardless of man, to ride such unjust floods demise upon your lands.
I'm pretty sensitive to ragebait and all that kind of stuff, honeypots and ragebait just make me physically nauseous, and I've kinda been mean to myself about it.
reading this makes me feel like it's more my brain protecting itself. my feeds are pretty free of this sort of thing, minus people like minimimuteman refuting the logical fallacies.
if only being a decent and moral person were more profitable :/
I would also suggest that folks consider taking accountability for their own emotions.
Does anyone have to let rage bait bother them? No. Do they have to respond? No.
The only person who can control your ideas and emotions is you. That's a scientific fact by way of the limits of human perception and processing stimuli. Maybe people don't know what cognitive re-appraisal is, but how privileged must life be if they don't? Must have had it easy enough never to have had to have been forced to change their attitude. Some of us wouldn't have survived it we didn't.
Even if we control the tech companies, then what? How will you control your rage bait when touching grass then?
Can we just take responsibility for our own emotions and ideas already?
Heavily agree, but I also recognise this isn’t enough. We can’t just rely on individual immune systems. Public and personal responsibility must come together if we want to see change at large
I agree. but this fails to consider that when we are offline touching grass, negative ragebait interactions are not necessarily done deliberately for profit. We arent being ragebaited 70 times a day by different individuals. And based on my experience, irl ragebait rewards no one and is rooted in spite and not profit. Being ragebaited in real life in face to face interactions will not count how many times you relay the incident to your friends then send the perpretrator a dollar everytime it gets brought up. nor will it count every instance you talk back for money.
There's something far more insidious when systems are deliberately and monetarily rewarding negative engagement and are highly engineered to flood broadcast it to anyone with a smartphone. Self-control is half of the solution, on the recieving end. Removing external incentive from the source is the other. At some point, institutions need to decide that emotional responses should not be currency and that's not entirely within the scope of personal stoicism or whatever.
It has long been internet wisdom to not feed the trolls, but when we're all just walking around with troll food (attention) it's tough not to feed them. Of course, it's still important to try; nothing is achieved without effort.
Sorry to hear about the doxxing/swatting threats. I hope this sentiment somehow bubbles up to those making the decisions about how social media is designed. I'm somewhat optimistic given how it seems the culture as a whole is beginning to awaken to the effects of algorithms, and that voices like yours help disperse that knowledge in pointing out specific instances. I haven't ordered Algospeak but reading your stuff on Substack makes me think I should
I recall a professor once talking about how the only way to truly defeat terrorism would be to refuse to cover it. Taking away the attentional reward would short circuit the incentive structure. Obviously in that case there are other ways to discourage and prevent such things. But wrt online info hazards we can change the incentives!
I love the “parasitic mimetic” term you give to professional rage baiters. Their actions are so immoral and lacking in principle, they do feel parasitic even when witnessing them.
Your writing always leads me to think about things, mull over, consider. Thank you. I think what we see here has always existed - only it's a lot bigger now. It went from poisonous back fence gossip among a few who delighted in outrage/response, easily ignored if you were disinterested - to global village proportions, almost impossible to ignore. Possibly the ratio of people who foment is the same? But the numbers now are exponential. They have grown as communication technology has grown. One shutdown is to say it's boring - oh no not more of that old crap! In a way, that's the best way, because the attention of society does move on. Eventually a whole culture refuses to acknowledge, respect, or give any time or attention to some old endlessly repeated idea. No one laughs at the "joke" anymore. People don't get it, shrug, turn away. Isolation and disinterest whither the perps to dust on a back archive shelf. But it still matters to legally stop cruel and criminal actions, and stop perpetrators from harming people. And that means paying attention and supporting civil rights, compassion, decency where you can. I think this issue is as old as humans, and we can't ever give up trying to do better.
I thoroughly enjoy all of your articles - and TikTok of course! However, sometimes I think you just address an issue. No tangible steps forward here. Not that I'm sure I know how you would do this. If this is simply to rally the crowd then I suppose it serves a purpose - I suppose it is better it exists than does not. Thanks!
Can we please stop citing Bostrom? In the 90s, dude was writing an email about how stupid he thinks Black people are: https://www.vice.com/en/article/prominent-ai-philosopher-and-father-of-longtermism-sent-very-racist-email-to-a-90s-philosophy-listserv/
Bostrom is all wrapped up in the TESCREAL bundle of ideologies that, surprise surprise, furthers eugenics beliefs and argumentation:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/28/nick-bostrom-controversial-future-of-humanity-institute-closure-longtermism-affective-altruism
I'm curious if you've read "Enshittification" by Cory Doctorow? I feel like there's also a lot do to with the idea that platforms themselves enshittify themselves for profit, which leads to a lot of the parasitic mimetics that you're talking about; although one key difference is that he doesn't believe we should "hold the big platforms accountable", since we can't trust to platforms not to enshittify. So we need to hold governments accountable, instead of asking the platforms to make the rules that will inevitably make our digital lives worse. I'm also statistically more likely to comment because I'm a man, so maybe don't listen to me.
starting to read your back catalog of substacks since about three weeks ago. i like this one a lot. "This means that, if you disregard your own morality, the internet becomes a game you can optimize, where you “win” through any content possible, especially if someone criticizes you." -- that's enough of a dissuasion from ever posting consistently online to appease the part of me that exists in any person my age who thinks "maybe i'll just be an influencer"
The analogies with the bioworld really keep on going, as genes spread through any mean necessary so do ideas, and both under the right circumstances can form parasites able to abuse pre-existing systems to survive.