I think the problem of treating people as a means to an end is something that social media as it exists rewards, and why media analysis for social media content should start with "why was this recorded?"
that question changes a lot of things. with that question, you realize that the "autism mommy" account is just exploiting their disabled child for views by filming a meltdown instead of trying to comfort their kid. arguments that get filmed go from someone being aggressive to questioning whether the behavior we're seeing is warranted based on what happened BEFORE someone pulled out a camera.
I think this also where the rise of "I don't owe anyone anything" individualism comes from, because that kind of selfishness enables you to use other people as means to an end, not independent people whose opinions, feelings, etc. you have to take into account.
I think what you're describing can be linked to the dialectical relationship of legitimacy in general.
Harvard is considered a university of social-cultural capital Harvard because of the social-cultural capital of its alumni. One legitimizes the other but also vice versa. What happens if this isn't the case? Well, see for example the similar ever so controversial legitimacy-instution we call the Noble Peace Prize. (There's some STS research on this in relation to science awards, but I can't find it rn.)
Now, when this is a case of legitimacy, meaning a socially mediated phenomena - similar to what Bourdieu or (what I assume your picture is referencing to) Neil Postman faces in their respective books on television - there can be violation of social ethics that can be fought against by raising awareness among the legitimacy-perceiving-granting public. You can appeal to a possible better community, or, to recall one of the recently obituaried German philosophers, a public sphere.
However, I don't think this is as much of a problem on these new forms of algorithmically complex media. What legitimized a figure like Andrew Tate? Isn't his viral power more akin to the sky-cars that drive on custom GTA maps? Is socially mediated legitimacy the issue here?
That was actually the first clip of yours I saw and I think your response was really good to dodge the "parasitic" intent of the question. Interpreting the question in a more serious light seemed to break through the childsh humor, actually making it an interesting thought while not giving much to the jesters.
I saw the video in question on your YouTube channel (as a short I believe) and didn't think of it this way, I'm sorry that Steve's question bothered you and made you feel used, I think you delivered a great reply and didn't show any sign of annoyance. You nailed it! You turned exploitation into a springboard.
The "connections over content for content's sake" has become a core tenet of how I'm trying to move through the online world. Really like that distinction. Also: HUGE congrats on the new book deal!!!
Your referencing the idea of a “human pseudo-event” who is popular because they’re considered *popular* reminded me (somewhat analogously) of a concept from a personal research project I’ve had for some months now: the degree of influence. A person whose platform is built off of the idea of success (eg. “entrepreneur” podcasters) will have such an image reinforced if they host already-famous people, because the guest will put the podcaster’s content in front of a wider audience, and engage with an audience positively predisposed toward themselves, increasing their own following in the process.
If social media apps were managed by governmental or true non profit organisations this would never be a problem. People try to go viral simply because its is easy money. No further reasons need to be.
If everyones data werent sold in order to make shit ton of profit internet could have been a place purely for communal reasons. Why would people create content inn that scenario? To educate or influence masses? maybe, for fame? I dont think so. Which social media famous person have actually became something equivalant to a movie star or a singer? I dont mean that as a numbers of clicks thing has anyone over the age of 15 ever thought about an influencer in the same way they did about brad pitt?
Maybe it would still be a thing but i doubt it would be like what we have right now. People do not actively race to the bottom to dehumanize themselves and others if not for money.
The heading photo paired with the first line of this essay is so perfect, so beautiful. I didn’t know whether or not to read “goondemic” in Nixon’s voice or JFK’s so I went with both. Phenomenal.
When I were a lad, in my middlebrow household my father admired Voltaire. So of course I did too.
Not till many years later did I discover what an unscrupulous flatterer and toady to the rich and powerful Voltaire was. I became the passionate critic of Voltaire that I remain till this day.
Voltaire's great rival was Rousseau, a deeply flawed but admirably courageous man (who never quite achieved the status and renown of Voltaire) who furthermore abandoned his poor, little dimwitted wife and their children to their fate in the workhouse— who, quite rightly, never forgave himself for his perfidy, was guilt ridden and bereft to the day he died.
Physics and philosophy in Oxbridge and in Bristol in '70s England were replete with celebrity physicists and philosophers, all competing with each other for academic and public recognition. Their principle amanuensis was perhaps Bertrand Russell who achieved fame and notoriety not through his earlier stirling work with Whitehead, but through his public campaigning for CND and his late onset numerous sexual liasons.
The head of the philosophy department at Bristol during my time was Stephan Korner, a Hungarian refugee from Communism, perhaps the leading exponent at that time in England on Kant. He was handsome and distinguished — and did he know it. His wife was the Chief Magistrate in Bristol during England's Poll Tax riots. They devastated their poor daughter by committing suicide in a pact, without letting her know, leaving her to stumble across their twin corpses in their marital bed, plastic bags fixed over their heads and tied around their necks.
Theroux is himself yet another very sophisticated influencer who puts on an excellent act of masquerading as a serious, diffident, self-effacing reporter without an agenda. Theroux's chosen and carefully targetted audience in England is the soft, wishy-washy left, not brave nor bright enough to be Marxists, whom Americans usually misunderstand to be 'liberals'.
For any Yanks still reading this, at a minimum a true liberal is a follower of the political philosophy of and encapsulated in his essay 'On Liberty' of John Stuart Mill (who was also a brilliant formal logician), Mill's father James, and James' friend Bentham.
The key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe is theoretical physics. Nowt else will suffice. The fuels of theoretical physics are the data gleaned by applied physicists. The language of theoretical physics is applied mathematics. The foundation of applied maths is pure maths. Fundamental to pure maths is logical theory.
Many brilliant physicists have become feted celebrities of their day, including Newton and his FRS rival Hooke, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking.
In their time, Peter Abelard, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Dr Johnson, were all celebrities — funded and patronised by their rich patrons and protectors, advocates and apologists, groupies and supporters.
If I could answer the question, yes. Yes we are in a goondemic. Why is “how to quit porn” nearly as common as looking for it? Not common enough, though…
I think the problem of treating people as a means to an end is something that social media as it exists rewards, and why media analysis for social media content should start with "why was this recorded?"
that question changes a lot of things. with that question, you realize that the "autism mommy" account is just exploiting their disabled child for views by filming a meltdown instead of trying to comfort their kid. arguments that get filmed go from someone being aggressive to questioning whether the behavior we're seeing is warranted based on what happened BEFORE someone pulled out a camera.
I think this also where the rise of "I don't owe anyone anything" individualism comes from, because that kind of selfishness enables you to use other people as means to an end, not independent people whose opinions, feelings, etc. you have to take into account.
WOW I really like this question!! I'm going to start telling people to ask this as well.
And you raised an important point that this is structural, rather than individual. The deeper problem is changing the incentives of social media.
I think what you're describing can be linked to the dialectical relationship of legitimacy in general.
Harvard is considered a university of social-cultural capital Harvard because of the social-cultural capital of its alumni. One legitimizes the other but also vice versa. What happens if this isn't the case? Well, see for example the similar ever so controversial legitimacy-instution we call the Noble Peace Prize. (There's some STS research on this in relation to science awards, but I can't find it rn.)
Now, when this is a case of legitimacy, meaning a socially mediated phenomena - similar to what Bourdieu or (what I assume your picture is referencing to) Neil Postman faces in their respective books on television - there can be violation of social ethics that can be fought against by raising awareness among the legitimacy-perceiving-granting public. You can appeal to a possible better community, or, to recall one of the recently obituaried German philosophers, a public sphere.
However, I don't think this is as much of a problem on these new forms of algorithmically complex media. What legitimized a figure like Andrew Tate? Isn't his viral power more akin to the sky-cars that drive on custom GTA maps? Is socially mediated legitimacy the issue here?
But who am *I* to say anything on the topic!
That was actually the first clip of yours I saw and I think your response was really good to dodge the "parasitic" intent of the question. Interpreting the question in a more serious light seemed to break through the childsh humor, actually making it an interesting thought while not giving much to the jesters.
I saw the video in question on your YouTube channel (as a short I believe) and didn't think of it this way, I'm sorry that Steve's question bothered you and made you feel used, I think you delivered a great reply and didn't show any sign of annoyance. You nailed it! You turned exploitation into a springboard.
The "connections over content for content's sake" has become a core tenet of how I'm trying to move through the online world. Really like that distinction. Also: HUGE congrats on the new book deal!!!
Your referencing the idea of a “human pseudo-event” who is popular because they’re considered *popular* reminded me (somewhat analogously) of a concept from a personal research project I’ve had for some months now: the degree of influence. A person whose platform is built off of the idea of success (eg. “entrepreneur” podcasters) will have such an image reinforced if they host already-famous people, because the guest will put the podcaster’s content in front of a wider audience, and engage with an audience positively predisposed toward themselves, increasing their own following in the process.
If social media apps were managed by governmental or true non profit organisations this would never be a problem. People try to go viral simply because its is easy money. No further reasons need to be.
If everyones data werent sold in order to make shit ton of profit internet could have been a place purely for communal reasons. Why would people create content inn that scenario? To educate or influence masses? maybe, for fame? I dont think so. Which social media famous person have actually became something equivalant to a movie star or a singer? I dont mean that as a numbers of clicks thing has anyone over the age of 15 ever thought about an influencer in the same way they did about brad pitt?
Maybe it would still be a thing but i doubt it would be like what we have right now. People do not actively race to the bottom to dehumanize themselves and others if not for money.
Now imagine if individual profit wasn't the end goal of every aspect of society
Congrats on the book!! Can’t wait!!
Damn, Steve is a loser. Great job at running with that question, you handled it really well!
Thank you I starred this email
The heading photo paired with the first line of this essay is so perfect, so beautiful. I didn’t know whether or not to read “goondemic” in Nixon’s voice or JFK’s so I went with both. Phenomenal.
I think what you're describing can be linked to legitimacy in general.
STS research on science awards (like the Noble Prize)
oh this fuckass app posted my unfinished comment
When I were a lad, in my middlebrow household my father admired Voltaire. So of course I did too.
Not till many years later did I discover what an unscrupulous flatterer and toady to the rich and powerful Voltaire was. I became the passionate critic of Voltaire that I remain till this day.
Voltaire's great rival was Rousseau, a deeply flawed but admirably courageous man (who never quite achieved the status and renown of Voltaire) who furthermore abandoned his poor, little dimwitted wife and their children to their fate in the workhouse— who, quite rightly, never forgave himself for his perfidy, was guilt ridden and bereft to the day he died.
Physics and philosophy in Oxbridge and in Bristol in '70s England were replete with celebrity physicists and philosophers, all competing with each other for academic and public recognition. Their principle amanuensis was perhaps Bertrand Russell who achieved fame and notoriety not through his earlier stirling work with Whitehead, but through his public campaigning for CND and his late onset numerous sexual liasons.
The head of the philosophy department at Bristol during my time was Stephan Korner, a Hungarian refugee from Communism, perhaps the leading exponent at that time in England on Kant. He was handsome and distinguished — and did he know it. His wife was the Chief Magistrate in Bristol during England's Poll Tax riots. They devastated their poor daughter by committing suicide in a pact, without letting her know, leaving her to stumble across their twin corpses in their marital bed, plastic bags fixed over their heads and tied around their necks.
Theroux is himself yet another very sophisticated influencer who puts on an excellent act of masquerading as a serious, diffident, self-effacing reporter without an agenda. Theroux's chosen and carefully targetted audience in England is the soft, wishy-washy left, not brave nor bright enough to be Marxists, whom Americans usually misunderstand to be 'liberals'.
For any Yanks still reading this, at a minimum a true liberal is a follower of the political philosophy of and encapsulated in his essay 'On Liberty' of John Stuart Mill (who was also a brilliant formal logician), Mill's father James, and James' friend Bentham.
The key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe is theoretical physics. Nowt else will suffice. The fuels of theoretical physics are the data gleaned by applied physicists. The language of theoretical physics is applied mathematics. The foundation of applied maths is pure maths. Fundamental to pure maths is logical theory.
Many brilliant physicists have become feted celebrities of their day, including Newton and his FRS rival Hooke, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking.
In their time, Peter Abelard, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Dr Johnson, were all celebrities — funded and patronised by their rich patrons and protectors, advocates and apologists, groupies and supporters.
If I could answer the question, yes. Yes we are in a goondemic. Why is “how to quit porn” nearly as common as looking for it? Not common enough, though…