[HN Gopher] The internet didn't kill counterculture - you just w...
___________________________________________________________________
The internet didn't kill counterculture - you just won't find it on
Instagram
Author : isanengineer
Score : 500 points
Date : 2021-03-12 15:06 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.documentjournal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.documentjournal.com)
| Nothereearlit wrote:
| Won't find it on Hacker News either
|
| All just SaAS and exits and praising Katie Haun and A16Z as Ross
| serves life in prison
|
| Uggh hate fake hackers and SV
| everdrive wrote:
| I was originally going to write a more thoughtful response, but
| then I got to this section:
|
| "The names of these e-deologies tend to be both fantastical and
| literal."
|
| "post-civilizationist"
|
| "voluntarist post-agrarianist"
|
| "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism"
|
| I've really never heard of categories like these. It makes me
| think the author has delved into subcultures I really have no
| experience in. In that sense her descriptions may or may not be
| valid. But, she makes no attempt to bring specificity to a lot of
| her claims. Who are these people in these subcultures? How many
| people are in them, and how many people are out of them?
|
| In this sense, it reads a lot like a "cultural studies" piece;
| there is some great individual insight, but the overall essay
| makes claims it hasn't supported.
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| > post-civilizationist
|
| http://www.johnzerzan.net/articles/why-primitivism.html
|
| > voluntarist
|
| https://voluntaryism.info/
|
| > post-agrarianist
|
| https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300182910/against-grain
|
| > Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism
|
| I can't help you there, sorry :)
| KineticLensman wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Commu.
| ..
| NotChina wrote:
| Nothing validates ones views more than a circle of like minded
| curmudgeons judging everybody else.
| real_counter wrote:
| You will find it on 4chan. /pol/ more precisely.
|
| The counter-culture that goes against all political, media,
| financial and corporate institutions.
| markandrewj wrote:
| It's sort of ironic that the photographer for this article is on
| instagram.
| foolofatom wrote:
| The kids are alt-right.
| jasonv wrote:
| My teenage son asked me the other day what "grunge" and "goth"
| were. I was then trying to explain "subculture" and
| "counterculture", and it was surprisingly difficult to explain..
| or convey, especially in the context of what he's seen so far in
| his life.
|
| I tried using examples of my own youthful adventures and
| communities -- still not easy.
| ArtWomb wrote:
| https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Aesthetics
| pjc50 wrote:
| Kpop stans are a live example of a subculture, if not a
| counterculture, that teenagers may be familiar with.
| bena wrote:
| I wouldn't call them a counterculture by any stretch of the
| imagination.
|
| Kpop is deliberately manufactured culture. The personalities
| and music are meticulously curated by corporations.
| "Underground Kpop" is practically an oxymoron like a "married
| bachelor" would be.
|
| And that's not to insult or knock it.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Listening to KPop in a country where it is not a major
| genre, might still be counterculture. Think back to the
| 1960s and 1970s: a lot of the American rock 'n' roll even
| then was curated, but those young people in the Soviet
| Union, say, or Morocco who started listening to it where
| definitely seen as a counterculture within their own
| country.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Listening to KPop in a country where it is not a major
| genre, might still be counterculture.
|
| Abstractly maybe, but in actuality an enormous amount of
| money and effort is spent to market K-Pop in the US by
| some of the largest media companies in the world.
| astrange wrote:
| They get pretty far by just allowing it to appear on
| YouTube. Japanese music companies spend all their effort
| on stopping anyone outside the country from listening by
| DMCAing all the music videos.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| And it took an enormous amount of effort to get rock
| music into and distributed within the Soviet Union. It
| was produced through the systems of a leading power with
| organizations that would be illegal locally. I don't see
| how that changes that the counter culture goes against
| the general flow until it manages to become it.
| [deleted]
| dunnevens wrote:
| The product is most certainly manufactured. But the
| culture's response to it is not. The fandom has their own
| language, their own in-jokes, and will rally together for
| the causes they find important. They've created something
| real for themselves. "Counter-culture" may or may not be
| the right term for what they've made, but it is something
| independent of the corporations that own the music.
|
| That's a distinction that should be noted because you can
| see it everywhere. For example: the MCU, Star Wars, and
| Star Trek are all corporate products produced for a mass
| audience. But the fandom is independent of that control.
| The number of good jokes, fan theories, and fan art I've
| seen for WandaVision has been immense. And the impact of
| the Star Wars & Star Trek fandoms is also enormous on the
| culture at large. That's something Disney or Paramount can
| possibly influence but never hope to control.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| I've heard it claimed that hardcore punk was the last American
| youth subculture, I think street skating qualified too. Those
| were pretty much the end of it though. You can't have a youth
| subculture that your parents drive you to in the car.
| toyg wrote:
| Some of those hardcore punks were driven around to the sound
| of Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Lennon's "Imagine"... Elvis
| was utterly scandalous in his time ("those hips, what
| filth!"), and I bet he was on a lot of radios when Malcolm
| McLaren and his proteges were growing up.
|
| Any successful culture, be it sub- or counter-, will
| eventually be swallowed by the mainstream. That's because a
| culture is such only if it gets transmitted from person to
| person. Denying transmission is not counter-cultural, it is
| _anti_ -cultural: it denies its own validity. Which is why I
| laugh at the elitism and pretentiousness of articles like
| these, who want to be purer than pure then take their clues
| from the likes of MTV Unplugged. The search for purity in
| culture is a fool's errand, one might as well burn every page
| one writes. In reality, _culture has to be transmitted_ , and
| the purists are just another bunch of competitors desperately
| trying to elbow everybody else with what little leverage they
| have.
|
| The modern lack of visible "alternative" cultures is simply
| due to the fragmentation and recombination that new media
| have allowed. Guthenberg has invented his press a few years
| ago, Luther just started writing his thesis, and we are all
| here wondering why amanuensis culture is not as vibrant as it
| was.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Some of those hardcore punks were driven around to the
| sound of Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Lennon's "Imagine".
|
| I was one of those hardcore punks and I think you greatly
| overestimate both the level of parental involvement we had
| in our lives as well as our parents' musical tastes.
|
| Hardcore as a youth movement didn't get swallowed by the
| mainstream, it just ceased to exist.
| redisman wrote:
| Try explaining next that computing and gaming used to be
| subcultures/countercultures. I remember how Mortal Kombat and
| DOOM were going to cause the fall of civilization.
| juststeve wrote:
| > DOOM
|
| Now we're talking. Doom was a massive deal because of the
| violence (as you mentioned), but also because it moved
| entertainment revenue away from MSM and onto PC's and the
| internet.
| giantrobot wrote:
| It didn't though. By the time of Doom's release video games
| (console and PC) were a multi-billion dollar industry. Only
| a quarter of households had PCs and none had Internet
| access. Even by 2000 only half of all households had a
| computer and only about 40% had Internet access.
|
| Doom was _not_ some watershed moment in entertainment. It
| was a trend setter, or at least a meme, in the industry but
| it didn 't somehow change the trajectory of the game
| industry.
|
| The PlayStation was vastly more influential on the industry
| on the whole than Doom. It was less expensive than PCs yet
| had a good selection of the sort of "mature" titles (or
| even ports) typically found on the PC. The PlayStation was
| not a platform that moved money from the "MSM" since it
| Sony which was the very definition of mainstream.
|
| Doom was cool but it didn't even come close to doing what
| you suggest. It didn't even _have_ Internet multiplayer
| until Kali (originally iDOOM) came up with their IPX /SPX
| bridging years after its release.
| juststeve wrote:
| Shareware and distribution of the game through the
| internet was a watershed moment that helped sell a lot of
| Wolfenstein and doom in 1992 and 1993. It is doubtful
| that a company like Nintendo would distribute a game like
| doom. PS was a few years after that. Are these statements
| correct, or hyperbole?
| giantrobot wrote:
| Wolfenstein and Doom's nature as shareware was much less
| about the Internet distribution but distribution by third
| parties on physical media. They were almost universally
| available on magazine cover discs and anyone else
| shipping CD-ROMs. IIRC even Blender magazine had at least
| one issue shipping a copy of Doom.
|
| While id was certainly an Internet _aware_ company in
| 1993 most consumers were not.
|
| Keep in mind in 1993 a minority of households even had
| computers. A minority of those users even had modems.
| Even when they did have computers with modems connecting
| to a "local" BBS could still be a local toll call.
|
| A copy of that month's PC Gamer was much cheaper than a
| modem and got you not just Doom but hundreds of megabytes
| of other crap. Cover discs were still a big deal even
| towards the end of the decade where home Internet access
| was more common.
|
| As for the PlayStation, it was released in the Japan in
| 1994 and the US in 1995. Doom was released at the end of
| 1993 so it's contemporaneous with the PlayStation. The
| PSX had Doom-quality 3D games (including Doom itself) for
| a fraction of what a good Doom running PC cost.
| juststeve wrote:
| > While id was certainly an Internet aware company in
| 1993 most consumers were not.
|
| Right, so you agree? This thread is about counter
| culture, and your talking about generic internet usage
| facts and % of playstation sales when it went mainstream.
| I played Wolf and Doom as shareware in Australia when
| they were released, including Kali.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Your original point was that Doom was some huge watershed
| moment for gaming where PCs and the Internet gained
| prominence. I'm saying you're wrong.
|
| 1. Doom's distribution was (to consumers) largely CD-
| ROMs.
|
| 2. Doom didn't even support Internet multiplayer, only
| modem-modem or LAN (IPX/SPX).
|
| 3. The game industry was a multi billion dollar industry
| by the time of Doom's release. Doom didn't somehow
| accelerate growth of the industry.
|
| 4. Instead of being a shareware-only title like Doom,
| it's sequel was sold in big boxes like all other games.
|
| 5. Doom didn't influence people getting online (BBSes or
| Internet) as there was no sudden uptick in modem sales,
| account signups, or BBS growth associated with the game.
|
| Doom was a fun game and got media attention for being
| popular _and_ violent. It was not however some major
| inflection point in the game industry or Internet.
| juststeve wrote:
| > Your original point was that Doom was some huge
| watershed moment for gaming where PCs and the Internet
| gained prominence.
|
| No, someone mentioned that mortal kombat and doom were
| examples of counter culture, and as someone living in
| rural Australia in the early 90s, I agreed.
| ogurechny wrote:
| Internet was neither the only computer network available
| to consumers, nor the first one. Users had been pretty
| connected even before they started having IP addresses.
| Also, Internet is not a synonym of World Wide Web.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Most consumers didn't _have_ computers. Let alone modems
| or any online service. Consumers were _not_ pretty
| connected when Doom was released and wouldn 't be for
| until the end of the decade. Businesses and schools with
| Internet access were 1) decidedly not consumer systems
| and 2) not the target market for video games.
| Kelamir wrote:
| > I remember how Mortal Kombat and DOOM were going to cause
| the fall of civilization.
|
| redisman, could you tell more about this?
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Probably referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_co
| ngressional_hearings_on...
|
| Keep in mind when these games were released there was no
| rating system for video games. The ESRB came about because
| of these hearings.
| rchaud wrote:
| And yet by 1995 Bill Gates was appearing in a video promo
| for Doom on Windows, wearing a trenchcoat and carrying a
| shotgun. For obvious reasons, this kind of nerdy
| frivolity wouldn't really be palatable after 1999.
| monocasa wrote:
| You might be able to explain through an exploration of genz
| subcultures.
|
| E-Boys/Girls, VSCO Girls, and cottagecore are some examples.
| imaginationra wrote:
| I run an independent film/animation/music/interactive studio- I
| have never owned any mobile phone and don't use any social media
| except for youtube. Our studio is not on any social media
| platforms. We are the counterculture.
|
| Our studio has released torrents of media over the past 15 years
| that I would classify as counterculture but you would never know
| because we aren't hustling on Zuckerbergian platforms or playing
| the "please look at me" game on Youtube etc.
|
| Trailerjacked trailer for counterculture game that makes
| animations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrMEQPtMO4c
|
| Scene from a counterculture animated feature film in progress
| made in a game engine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgMeIaqjRvY
|
| Counterculture is not dead, its just not playing in the sandboxes
| everyone else is playing in, because those sandboxes are lame as
| fuck.
| JacobSuperslav wrote:
| how is youtube counterculture?
| dylan604 wrote:
| The fact that you can post pretty much any video you make for
| people to watch is totally counterculture the media studio TV
| programming culture that has lost viewers to platforms like
| YT. It has become so big itself that it is now pretty much
| the defacto culture.
| imaginationra wrote:
| It's just a platform and for now we can put things like this
| on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3SDNrxe-1M
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _its just not playing in the sandboxes everyone else is
| playing in_
|
| Where is it playing?
| greenonions wrote:
| Youtube apparently.
|
| (This was sarcasm)
| imaginationra wrote:
| You are correct fine onion- This is youtube in 2084
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ3fOdorpCQ
|
| Great sarcasm by the way- its going to inspire generations
| of smart asses with the smooth chill it was written with.
| Snarky and effortless.
|
| Its like they were so confident in their sarcastic wit they
| had to include the parenthetical phrase- oh wait that was
| added out of fear of being misunderstood by the faceless
| crowd- quite the brave figure.
|
| Build a 4k video platform and we'll use yours.
| wussboy wrote:
| And it was good sarcasm. The enemy isn't you tube. The
| enemy is the algorithm.
| imaginationra wrote:
| You have to pull to find it- we live in a push world now and
| that's why all you see is the same old crap- because people
| aren't searching new works out- they are just sitting around
| letting curators and algo's push it to them.
| aembleton wrote:
| How do you "pull to find it"? If I search on DDG then an
| algorithm orders the results.
|
| Do you expect me to type in random urls to see what comes
| up?
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I too would like to know this. I realize there's a rule one
| of the internet issue, but it's worth asking all the same.
| yowlingcat wrote:
| Not the OP but I'll bite -- I've seen some incredible
| counterculture emerging out of what I like to term the IRC
| revival, or Discord communities. Discord and Roblox have
| fueled the communities creating a ton of the more interesting
| music I've discovered over the past year.
| smolder wrote:
| Yeah, but discord is centralized and comes with all the
| related problems. IRC you can host yourself and it's not
| really dead, being a protocol.
| yowlingcat wrote:
| What is a protocol, really? In a literal sense, you can
| say only something that's IRC compatible is IRC. But in a
| more figurative sense, aren't Discord communities merely
| using Discord the way folks use to use IRC? Isn't Discord
| just centralized IRC, then, because that's how people use
| it and what they're using it for?
|
| Centralization poses censorship and control risks that
| IRC doesn't, for sure. But it also adds ubiquity. That's
| key for a community.
| [deleted]
| lozaning wrote:
| Not OP, but I feel like I come across more and more art house
| style stuff thats only on Vimeo. Which to be fair is still
| pretty mainstream.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| There are lots of unique, fun subcultures in out of the way
| places an even on Youtube. But that isn't the same as
| counterculture.
| airhead969 wrote:
| Special sandboxes with purple sand surrounded in velvet ropes
| only the cool kids know about. And with unlimited fresh
| lemonade, chocolate milk, and warm chocolate-chip cookies.
| You can almost see one during the winter solstice.
| imaginationra wrote:
| This is where the cool kids hang out- at this concert in
| Funland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tk5REKdZso
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _where the cool kids hang out- at this concert in
| Funlandhttps://www.youtube.com/watch..._
|
| YouTube?
|
| No own ground? Sovereign space?
|
| This is the same sandbox everyone else is in.
| keiferski wrote:
| YouTube is filled with so many interesting little channels. I
| wish the algorithms highlighted them more.
|
| I remember one channel of an old guy just smoking a cigar for
| an hour. Said nothing, just sat there. There were thousands of
| videos of him doing this, going back years. I don't remember
| the name of it, unfortunately.
| the_duke wrote:
| Can you share a few?
|
| YouTube always seems to stick me in a bubble and never
| recommends any worthwhile new channels.
| colordrops wrote:
| Try vimeo.com instead. Lots of artists, quality on average
| is much higher than youtube.
| temp0826 wrote:
| OrdinarySausage?
| keiferski wrote:
| I think you just have search for something, then go to the
| later pages of results.
|
| Not sure I'd call it obscure, as Nick Knight is pretty well
| known as a photographer, but I really love the ShowStudio
| channel. They experiment with film and fashion in really
| interesting ways.
|
| https://youtube.com/user/SHOWstudio
| bobsmooth wrote:
| Shane O'Brien MacDonald. He makes videos on Japanese food
| from a Western prospective.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Kaztalek Eastory William Maranci 2SICH Syrmor
| dylanblanchard wrote:
| might you be thinking of Adolfo Mateo?
| https://www.youtube.com/user/SMOKERSOFCIGARSPIPES/videos
| keiferski wrote:
| Yeah I think that was it! Thanks.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| What the hell is he saying? Every video he mutters
| similar phrases as he exhales. Maybe he was speaking in
| code.
| keiferski wrote:
| Sending messages to the youtubers of 2500 AD, most
| likely.
| [deleted]
| wussboy wrote:
| Good God I'd be puking if I ever smoked that heavily
| pope_meat wrote:
| That's a sex thing. People are jerking off to videos of
| people smoking. The more you know.
| Alupis wrote:
| Pretty sure some people do that to anything.
|
| Doesn't mean the intent behind the video was that...
| keiferski wrote:
| Man, why did you have to ruin it. Oh well...
| dylan604 wrote:
| There used to be a televangelist that did something similar.
| He would light up his cigar and drink his whiskey, and yell
| at the audience he was not going to preach until a his
| audience called in with some donation threshold. He would
| then cut to footage of his/a horse running around in a
| field/pen.
| newsbinator wrote:
| Recommendation for those looking:
|
| /r/artisanvideos
|
| * pleasant guy talking for 45 minutes about his lifetime of
| experience using chains: https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtisanVide
| os/comments/lyvfzz/just_...
|
| * man weaves a bed: https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringPorn/
| comments/978s2c/man...
| airhead969 wrote:
| > We are the counterculture.
|
| Isn't that a tad bit arrogant to stick a flag in all of it? See
| also: https://youtu.be/uEx5G-GOS1k
|
| Youtube is "lame as fuck." Release everywhere to not be
| arbitrarily silenced because anything good is controversial, by
| definition.
|
| Why abuse the word "counterculture" so many times? It comes
| across like you're trying too hard.
|
| Good luck and I hope you find an audience rather than make at
| obscurity for the point of staying in obscurity.
| bobthechef wrote:
| "anything good is controversial, by definition."
|
| No, it isn't.
| imaginationra wrote:
| Its not arrogance- it is confidence.
|
| We've been doings like this for twenty years. We made Potato
| Phones in 2002 before a potato phone was a thing
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo3StA3INws
|
| Youtube is lame- our work is also archived on Internet
| Archive and other places- this is a 172 gb master of one of
| our films https://archive.org/details/heartstringmarionette
|
| Flag? I don't see a flag. I see text.
|
| The "try too hard" stuff usually comes from weak people who
| are wannabe creators but lack the guts to do it, let alone
| stick with it for several decades while remaining original
| and independent.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| What you are describing is a subculture, not a
| counterculture.
| Flowsion wrote:
| You literally had to link to YouTube to show us your work..
| You don't see the irony in that?
| scubazealous wrote:
| We should be considered lucky he shares his work with us
| at all.
|
| HN likes to hate youtube (rightfully) but there is no
| better platform for discovery, sharing, and analytics.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| > I have never owned any mobile phone
|
| Eschewing a mobile phone has been pretty counterculture these
| recent years, but I think we are close to a point where it will
| no longer be sustainable, at least for anyone wanting to cross
| borders - or depending on the country, even enter a restaurant
| or concert. Several governments have announced that their
| vaccine passports will exist as mobile phone apps, because
| paper certificates are too easily forged.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| At that point, countercultural starts looking like the only
| game in town, at least that is worth playing.
| bawolff wrote:
| I dont get why paper docs are still forgeable in this day and
| age.
|
| Just put a qr code on it containing the same info plus a
| digital signature, and have verifiers scan it with an app.
| That sounds a lot more secure than the enduser having an app
| that the verifier just looks at with their eyes.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| The apps being discussed _will_ generate QR codes that the
| verifier will scan. But these codes are meant to be
| limited-time codes, so that if a new COVID strain appears
| and the old vaccines don't protect against it (or it turns
| out that annual boosters are necessary), the person will no
| longer be able to report as vaccinated but will go back to
| the unvaccinated category.
| bawolff wrote:
| Does limited time codes really get you anything that
| putting a date or which vaccine you got wouldn't?
| Besides, seems a bit overengineered for something that
| might happen in theory but hasn't yet.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Officers at passport control aren't trained health
| officials. It can be hard for them to make sense of
| certificates and understand what vaccinations are valid
| and which aren't, or which no longer are. That is why
| governments want to present an app where trained
| officials at the health ministry have already decided if
| the person is safe for travel or not, and just show
| border control officers a green check mark or no.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| What is irrelevant again, because those officers will
| read the QR code with a computer. The computer can
| summarize to them how valid the vaccine still is.
|
| There is no reason at all why a paper printed QR code
| can't tell exactly what vaccine you have taken, when you
| took it, who exactly are you, and what authority is
| authenticating the data. From there, any extra data is
| only needed at the time of reading.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Wait till they see how easy it is to make a lookalike app :)
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| The apps are expected to generate limited-time QR codes
| with the respective country's digital signature (just like
| the biometric data in your passport), so no, your
| suggestion won't work.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Unless they somehow figured out a flaw in thr crypto that
| allowed for spoofing countries in which case holy shit
| why are you using it to fake vaccine certificates?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Yup, because lowest-bid contractors are well known for
| producing bulletproof code, never copying bad samples
| from StackOverflow, and never rolling their own crypto
| instead of using proper libraries.
|
| Yup
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| States' already turned to contractors to design the
| system of digital signatures on their biometric
| passports, but these passports remain secure, so your
| sarcasm is unfounded.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| And guess what... they have been hacked:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/aug/07/hackin
| g.s...
|
| https://www.news18.com/blogs/india/jaimon-joseph/your-
| biomet...
|
| http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/19/passport.security/inde
| x.h...
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=biometric+passport+hacked
| imaginationra wrote:
| We work just fine without mobiles. The plus is that we aren't
| enslaved to a handheld device ruled by rich guys.
| lanevorockz wrote:
| We are moving into a brave new world. Take your digital soma,
| stay at home, follow the rules and only speak the approved
| propaganda.
| mdoms wrote:
| The truth is that today the counter-culture is the right wing
| dudes (and ladies) who won't be beholden to trigger warnings,
| won't treat particular words as if they have magical powers and
| won't try to get you fired if you openly believe that male and
| female are real concepts. If your cursor is hovering over the
| downvote button right now then that's natural - counter culture
| isn't popular. By definition.
| [deleted]
| astrea wrote:
| Ah yes, the playground bully martyr defense: "Anyone who
| disagrees with me is just proving my point."
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The bog standard opinions of CPAC, a recent President, nearly
| every straight-laced conservative, and the majority of
| Republicans aren't counterculture, they're just grievance
| culture. There are some grievances they like to complain about,
| but it is still part of mainstream, popular culture to do so,
| and plenty of people have ridden to fame and fortune repeating
| those grievances to mainstream audiences.
| klyrs wrote:
| LARPing with boffer swords is counterculture. Kink is
| counterculture. Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is
| counterculture. You don't need to brandish a tiki torch to be
| sufficiently different -- but that's the loudest
| counterculture, and they're getting all the attention. I know
| of an ancient forum related to a counterculture intentionally
| not listed here, and it's ticking along just fine,
| thankyouverymuch.
|
| Of course, there's a difference between "unpopular" and
| "intentionally or callously offensive". All of my examples are
| of the former kind (so long as the kink happens in private
| spaces, I guess). Church of Satan is borderline in my mind, but
| I suppose that some Christians might put it in the latter
| category.
| Noos wrote:
| It's hard to say things like kink or spaghetti monster are
| counter culture when they were routinely held by people in
| high positions of power in the culture and used to destroy or
| attack the impediments to capitalism. Atheism is capitalism's
| best friend, because it completely defangs any spiritual
| argument against consumerism and productivity; kink is
| capitalism's best friend because it opens up many lucrative
| and well paying methods to commodify sex itself.
|
| Ironically, both are disliked some because of that. The nofap
| rose as a real counterculture to commodified kink and porn;
| and the "i love fucking science" type of reddit atheist the
| FSM people were at heart are mocked.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I agree those things you mentioned aren't very popular, and
| possibly where you are the mainstream culture is different
| than where I am, but I don't see any of those things as
| counter-culture in the sense that none of them are opposed by
| the dominant culture. e.g. If it came out at work that you
| were a member of a group that fought with foam swords, had
| unusual sexual preferences, or were funny atheists, you
| wouldn't be fired. People might say "oh, that's weird" but
| they aren't going to hate you.
|
| I'm not saying any of those things are bad (in fact, I like
| fighting with fake swords) but there's not hostility to them
| from the culture and they, in turn, are not hostile to the
| mainstream culture, so I just don't think they're
| countercultural at all.
|
| By definition I think countercultural groups will strike you
| as weird and bad unless you belong to them specifically.
| Q-Anon, for example, which speculates that the leaders of
| society are <bad things>, is a countercultural group because
| they both hate and oppose elements of the main culture and
| are hated and opposed by it. The kind of antifa or anarchists
| who are attempting to burn down courthouses or police
| stations in Portland are another clear example.
| klyrs wrote:
| I think that FSM does satisfy your stricter definition of
| counterculture. Like the Church of Satan, one of the stated
| goals is to force legal examination of whether or not
| "freedom of religion" actually means "freedom to practice
| Christianity".
|
| LARPing and kink also have some opposition by fairly
| mainstream religious-types. They're seen as counterculture,
| even if they don't define themselves that way. Sorry.
| Changing my mind on kink -- that's a really big umbrella.
| Some people get off on being shamed for whatever it is
| they're into. Those folk are only satisfied when seen as
| counterculture.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Maybe the FSM is counter cultural but only in the way
| that housecats and lions are both felines. There is a
| very large difference between trying to hang Mike Pence
| or kill police and believing that established religions
| are illogical. Maybe it's slightly countercultural in the
| areas where Christianity or other religions predominate
| (which is not where I live).
| [deleted]
| klyrs wrote:
| I have family that literally think that Harry Potter
| turns children to Satanism, and think that the books
| should be banned on that basis (JKR was cancelled on the
| right long before she was cancelled on the left). You
| might consider those folks to belong to a counterculture
| in your context, but Evangelical Christianity is
| extremely popular in large swathes of the US.
|
| And yes, both lions and housecats are felines. There's
| gradients and degrees. I'd call the folks you're talking
| about as "extremists" not a mere counterculture.
| pointer_pointer wrote:
| This comment is exactly on point.
|
| Hippies were counter-culture against their 'square' parents.
| Now 4channers are (extreme) right-wing against liberal boomers
| and reddit millenials.
|
| They really are the new punks and as punks did, will litter
| their posts with nazi references and imagery to scare-off
| 'normies'.
| codezero wrote:
| That's a fun and interesting way to look at it, thanks!
|
| TBH I think you got downvoted just for mentioning it, I don't
| think what you said is actually that controversial unless
| you're making a lot of assumptions about _your_ intent in
| sharing this, which doesn't seem fair.
| mdoms wrote:
| I'm not surprised by the downvotes haha. I never said I
| agreed with the things I mentioned - I am by no means one of
| those right wing people - but it's clear which way the
| cultural winds are blowing today.
| fumar wrote:
| What side of the counter culture position would you have
| been while MLK was pushing for reform? Would your line "its
| clear which way the cultural winds are blowing today" align
| with the prejudice side? I think so. Do you look back and
| see that movement as an evolution and betterment for all of
| mankind or do you see it as "winds were blowing the wrong
| way"? Change is hard and change requires you to acknowledge
| your line of thinking, beliefs, ethics, all of it may be
| out dated or no longer the form. Imagine how folks born at
| the turn of 1900's felt when MLK was popular.
| mdoms wrote:
| I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here,
| but I will always side with human rights. I am not
| American BTW so this little piece of cultural trivia is
| not especially relevant to me.
|
| > Would your line "its clear which way the cultural winds
| are blowing today" align with the prejudice side?
|
| ??
| fumar wrote:
| I was trying to make a point, not well, that cultural
| trends are hard to understand while you are living them.
| quercus wrote:
| My finger was hovering over the upvote button but I think the
| downvotes were required to validate the comment.
| andrepd wrote:
| That's precisely the irritating image people like that have of
| themselves, which does not correspond to reality. What does it
| mean "beholden to trigger warnings"? I'm not sure in which
| sense you are beholden to something which you likely haven't
| even encountered outside of internet posts making fun of
| trigger warnings. What magic words are those? Not saying n*gger
| in polite company isn't censorship, it's just good manners. And
| who exactly has been fired for "believing male and female are
| real concepts"? This is some borderline delusional shit.
|
| The "I know I'll be downvoted for this brave opinion" bit is
| the icing on the cake.
| high_derivative wrote:
| You are conjuring up a lot of straw men here, really proving
| op's point. Getting fired for not directing a swear word but
| literally just saying a word in quotation is happening. The
| 'magical powers' is very much on point. Or do you deny this
| happened?
|
| https://donaldgmcneiljr1954.medium.com/nytimes-peru-n-
| word-p...
| naringas wrote:
| well, he was downvoted. but not overwhelmining so; let's call
| it controversial.
|
| > And who exactly has been fired for "believing male and
| female are real concepts"?
|
| I recall some kind of minor debacle about a Stack Overflow
| moderator (or employee? details are vague) who got in trouble
| for something related to individual choice of pronouns. It
| seems to be what they're refering to.
| tw26436552 wrote:
| Recently, I applied for a position at a well-known tech
| company, one where the requirements and my experience were
| a very good fit (imo). For the first time in my career, I
| soon received a rejection email without any interaction
| with a human.
|
| The application form included a not-required field for
| "pronouns", which I left blank. Perhaps this was the test I
| failed.
| darepublic wrote:
| I've worked at at least one place where if I stated "male and
| female are real concepts" I would have raised eyebrows at min
| and received some official reprimand at max
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Well yeah if I said "bacon was made to be eaten" in disdain
| to vegetarians, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews that would get
| essentially the same reaction because it is essentially
| wrongly invalidating others by deliberate exclusion.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Not saying n*gger in polite company isn't censorship, it's
| just good manners.
|
| Is this not polite company? Do you think adding an asterisk
| makes a significant difference?
|
| I'm black myself, do I get to say it? Could the question be
| more complicated than you're making it out to be?
|
| edit: I mean - MCNeil at the NYT was quite literally doing
| what you just did: discussing whether certain language was
| acceptable or should be punished. Imagine being fired for
| this post two years from now. I don't care about McNeil in
| particular (the US is an "At-Will" country, workers have no
| real rights, he's a privileged guy), but the state of free
| expression right now is bizarre. The fact that it comes when
| old (and most of new media) media is more consolidated than
| it's ever been is not coincidental.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| While I don't think the GP post is correct, counter-culture
| necessarily has bad manners, because manners are all about
| cultural norms.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| This is a ridiculous assertion. That might be true if
| mainstream culture was polite. But it isn't.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| It's unfailingly polite regardless of how cruel it is.
|
| Give me an example of a counterculture that was not
| derided as rude by the mainstream of the time?
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| That is ridiculous. Newscasters are far less polite and
| far more openly partisan, combative, and opinionated than
| they use to be. Comments on articles and videos, and in
| social media, are far less polite than people replying
| with letters to the press in the past.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I guess you should be considered lucky for not being
| exposed to the Freeper comments section 20 years ago, or
| Fox News comments sections, or Patch.com comments
| sections. They've always been bad.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Elon musk argued that calling someone a pedophile was
| within bounds of polite banter on Twitter and people
| agreed with him.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| I'm pretty sure if you ask anyone they would say there
| was nothing polite about that exchange. By what
| definition was that exchange polite? None that are based
| in reality or relevant.
|
| I'm not interested in arguing about the definitions of
| words.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I think you are saying that mainstream culture has
| adopted rude behavior, while I am saying that any
| behavior adopted by mainstream culture is, by definition,
| not rude.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| No it isn't. (Sub)cultures are not the same thing as
| countercultures. Right wing vs. left wing is the same as
| choosing between Coke and Pepsi. There is no way to get to a
| modern counterculture when the focus is on Identity and
| Individual Consumer Choice.
| echlebek wrote:
| This self-indulgent rhetoric is so tiresome, and its aims are
| so blatantly transparent.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| You're absolutely correct.
|
| Consider: your HR department is left leaning, your boss is
| probably left leaning, your teachers are left leaning, the
| government is left leaning.
|
| How on earth could the "counter culture" be the hegemonic
| culture of the most powerful billionaires on earth, and the
| people who have the most power over the most people in their
| daily lives (HR departments for adults, school administrators
| for children)?
|
| The people who you instinctively dislike, and who society
| counts as something that needs to be corrected are _by
| definition_ the counter culture.
|
| That doesn't necessarily need to be seen as a bad thing, btw.
| It just means that the hippies basically won and have all of
| the power now.
| rurp wrote:
| > Consider: your HR department is left leaning, your boss is
| probably left leaning, your teachers are left leaning, the
| government is left leaning.
|
| You are doing an awful lot of generalizing from your own
| experiences. I have met a LOT of conservative managers and
| business owners, including more than a couple openly sexist
| and racist ones, who are doing just fine for themselves in
| life. The idea that conservatives are some sort of tiny
| suppressed minority is bonkers.
| Can_Not wrote:
| > Consider: your HR department is left leaning, your boss is
| probably left leaning, your teachers are left leaning, the
| government is left leaning.
|
| Did you forget this is a US based website? Are you posting
| from China?
| [deleted]
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _your boss is probably left leaning_
|
| Where did you work where your boss thought worker-ownership
| and workplace democracy were the best ways to get work done?
| pjc50 wrote:
| > your HR department is left leaning, your boss is probably
| left leaning, the government is left leaning
|
| .. if you think this, your definition of left leaning is
| completely broken and your Overton window is in a very
| strange place.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It entirely depends on where you work. If you work for a
| municipality or university, it's probably very accurate.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Look at California Prop 16 for a concrete example. It was
| universally supported by left-wing groups, endorsed by the
| Chamber of Commerce broadly and by many of the state's
| biggest companies individually, passed the legislature with
| 75%, but failed at the ballot box with only a touch above
| 40% in favor. When policies left-wing groups favor are that
| much more popular among business and government leaders
| than among the general public, I dunno what to call that
| other than "left leaning".
| ttyprintk wrote:
| I don't know about that specific legislation. The effect
| you describe makes me think that business and government
| are, in fact, right leaning. When left-wing groups agree
| with right-leaning govt and business, perhaps the general
| public is a bit wary of bipartisan policies. An argument
| like: If it's popular among partisans of both parties,
| then it must be particularly exploitative of the general
| public.
| bena wrote:
| Prop 16 was a repeal of a previous amendment to the state
| constitution that effectively banned Affirmative Action
| in the state for public positions.
|
| Basically, if Prop 16 passed, various public sector jobs
| would be able to consider race/sex/whatever when looking
| to hire.
|
| That's technically a double-edged sword. As while it
| allows for things like Affirmative Action, it also allows
| for discrimination based on those attributes as well.
|
| So I can see a perfectly reasonable reason while
| progressives would also be wary about passing Prop 16.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Prop 16 was certainly not a _bipartisan_ policy - the
| Republican party strongly opposed it, and all their
| legislators voted against it.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Please explain how a democratic (political left) controlled
| Senate, House of Representatives, and Executive branch are
| not "left leaning", or how HR departments which have pseudo
| mandatory diversity training for their employees are also
| not "left leaning".
| minikites wrote:
| Please explain how our entire culture flipped so
| thoroughly in the last 51 days to make it the dominant
| culture for 350+ million people.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Can you more specific with your question?
| redisman wrote:
| Sounds like they mean `culturally "left"` ie. NYTimes-
| morality.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| The left can lean much further. Someone advocating for
| socialist and welfare policies or even communism or anarchy
| would run afoul of HR departments and the powerful
| billionaires.
|
| Corporations pay lip service to the left but they don't
| really follow through. There's no divestment from China,
| fossil fuels, or even Diversity and Inclusion that reaches
| the board level.
| krapp wrote:
| When your "counter-culture" comprises the ideology of half of
| your country, is based on a traditional religious and cultural
| status quo, and is the doctrine one of your two political
| parties, it is not in any conceivable way counter-culture. It
| is simply the death-throes of the establishment desperately
| trying to maintain its credibility and relevance in the face of
| changing demographics.
| bitwize wrote:
| No, that's not the counterculture. Those are just bigots
| butthurt by the fact that society is starting to enforce norms
| of human decency which the counterculture has promoted through
| example for decades.
|
| Meanwhile a child who stands up for trans people is being
| censored. As in, actual censorship, by the government:
| https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/canc...
| throwitaway1235 wrote:
| LGBTQ+ are establishment identities. Being straight with a
| nuclear family is counter culture.
|
| In 2021 Rolling Stone magazine is the epitome of
| establishment culture media.
| danbolt wrote:
| Really? Most people I know are straight and in nuclear
| families.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| No, neither of those mainstream models of living are
| countercultural. The LGBTQ+ was countercultural, but is no
| longer. It's nice that a person's individual choices,
| whatever they may be, are no longer controversial. But that
| also means we have to look beyond individual expression to
| find the present day counterculture, something that a lot
| of people in this thread seem to miss.
| NotChina wrote:
| Same words were said in the 70s and 80s of non-
| christian/conservatives. They were absolutely adamant about
| their "norms" as the standard.
| bitwize wrote:
| The difference is that our norms promote an expansive view
| of human rights, both in terms of what counts as a "right"
| and who counts as "human". The conservative Christian
| norms... did not.
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| funny to see how the term "counter culture" went from being
| associated to communists/anarchists to being associated to
| conservatives or even fascists.
| jandrese wrote:
| I mean if you can't openly express your dominance and
| superiority over some other group of people is life even worth
| living?
| mdoms wrote:
| Counter culture should make you uncomfortable. Otherwise
| what's it counter to?
|
| By the way, a lot of people here seem to think that the term
| "counter culture" has positive connotations. It doesn't,
| necessarily.
| helen___keller wrote:
| > By the way, a lot of people here seem to think that the
| term "counter culture" has positive connotations. It
| doesn't, necessarily.
|
| I would expand on this to say:
|
| If society and culture are unjust, then to be moral and
| just necessitates dipping into counterculture. Example:
| Participating in the underground railroad would be counter-
| culture in a society built on slavery.
|
| If society and culture are truly just, then the counter-
| culture is perhaps necessarily unjust.
|
| Of course, real life is never so clear-cut (we will never
| live in a truly just society), but I would argue that
| society now is substantially more just than it was for most
| of human history, and consequently this reflects back on
| the sort of counter-culture that exists.
| clairity wrote:
| this was an interesting point until,
|
| > "I would argue that society now is substantially more
| just than it was for most of human history, and
| consequently this reflects back on the sort of counter-
| culture that exists."
|
| that's a pretty broad claim, implying that the current
| counterculture is necessarily unjust because our current
| society is so relatively just. it's really difficult,
| likely impossible, to show how the justice delta is
| irrefutably positive now (not to mention the cutural-to-
| countercultural delta is negative). this instead likely
| merits an examination of perceptions and biases,
| especially of dichotomous reasoning, leading to that
| belief.
| helen___keller wrote:
| > implying that the current counterculture is necessarily
| unjust because our current society is so relatively just.
|
| I do avoid stating that implication, as it is not
| necessarily true. This part is merely my belief
| klyrs wrote:
| In your original comment, and to a lesser extent here, you
| seem to be saying that counterculture necessarily has
| negative connotations.
|
| I listed some counterexamples in another comment, but take
| "bronies" for another. Does the notion (grown men obsessing
| over a kids show) make people uncomfortable? Yeah, kinda...
| but is that because dominant culture says only girls should
| like ponies? Or is it because we assume men who like stuff
| meant for kids are pedophiles? I find both of those
| viewpoints to be intolerant of diverse expressions of
| masculinity.
|
| Many countercultures are pretty much neutral (LARPing, for
| example -- which offends only the most religious and
| closed-minded). But, like the bronies, they make space for
| folks who fall outside social norms in harmless ways. They
| make space for diversity of thought and expression -- that
| is generally seen as a positive thing.
|
| Contrast to the rally in Charlottesville, where self-
| described nazis showed in force. Sure, folks who desire a
| white ethnostate tick the "diversity of thought and
| expression" box at a surface level (it certainly is
| different), but their stated desire is to eradicate (or
| evict) all other such diversity. So I don't see that
| particular counterculture as a positive thing.
| helen___keller wrote:
| Comparing to my comment[0], I think we're seeing a
| divergence in the meaning of "counter-culture" as either:
|
| a. Counter or opposing the dominant culture
|
| b. An uncommon or rare culture
|
| I argue in [0] that (a) is increasingly likely to be
| negative as society grows more just. However, as you
| mention, (b) can include all manner of neutral cultures,
| which are of course not necessarily negative.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26440512
| klyrs wrote:
| I largely agree with you, but for another example:
| sportsball. I went to a school that was real big on it.
| We had a Rival Team, with an annual The Big Game. I had
| family and friends at the Rival School. I can imagine a
| reality wherein I give a shit about sportsball. In that
| reality, I might find myself rooting for the Rival Team:
| I'd belong to a counterculture. Maybe I'm already in the
| counterculture because I don't give a shit about
| sportsball. I don't see sports disappearing should
| society become more just; I don't see such a
| counterculture being inherently negative.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Counterculture should also be against the mainstream
| culture. Neither Right nor Left wing as defined by
| Republicans and Democrats, or the NYT and Fox News, are
| against mainstream culture.Nor are the increasingly smaller
| subcultures on the margins of either side.
| uniqueid wrote:
| Is there anything _but_ counterculture on the internet anymore?
| How I miss the occasional measured, adult point of view! The
| internet has destroyed most of my interest in eccentric artists
| or alternative viewpoints.
| swayvil wrote:
| One way to rebel without rebelling is to pursue the exact same
| ideals as those pushed by your culture, except better.
|
| (Greg Egan proposed this technique in his novel, Quarantine)
|
| Snarking off about the ubiquitous hypocrisy would be one level of
| that, of course. (Seen in much popular comedy.) But there are
| higher.
| narrator wrote:
| I think the closest thing to counterculture today would be the
| world of cryptocurrency. It is the least connected thing to the
| rest of whole mainstream ecosystem that has serious unstoppable
| vitality.
|
| Btw, reading about Boyd Rice reminded me of Russian experimental
| electronic band GameBoydRice who makes music using a hacked
| gameboy and a mixer. https://youtu.be/lxzpatLthxE
|
| Just one of the billions of random little market segments and sub
| genres out there. The mainstream had much less hold on the world
| than it used to. The platform censorship though constrains it.
| Crypto doesn't have those constraints though. One is reminded of
| how Wikileaks, getting locked out of every bank, took
| cryptocurrency donations and became hugely wealthy as a result.
| kodah wrote:
| There's definitely an old internet culture that eschews social
| media and it has seemed to grow (again) over the years. One
| example is Freenode:
|
| - The network has some moderation, but bans are last resorts
| where on social media bans and temporary bans are part of the
| process.
|
| - Much of the moderation is left to channel operators and guides
| are given by the network on how to moderate.
|
| - Much of the network is apolitical and you can even be banned
| for talking about politics in many channels. This runs counter to
| pop-culture with encourages not only discussing politics but
| airing _your_ politics with _known_ dissidents.
|
| - Nearly every channel is topic focused, where pop-culture and
| social media encourage broad, boundaryless discussion.
|
| - Pseudoanonymity is still an option; in contrast to real
| identity policies in social media.
|
| You can't tell me that's _not_ culture, but maybe it 's not a
| _whole_ culture just yet. That said, keep poking the bear cub and
| see if it doesn 't grow up.
| simonh wrote:
| You just described the internet I've been using for almost 30
| years, split across various online forums, including this one.
| Couldn't agree more. I've managed to find a good handful of
| very high signal to noise Reddit topics too. G+ was good while
| it lasted.
|
| The trick is to have specific interests you care about and
| track down that community. They're out there. The encouraging
| thing is my kinds have found their own communities online and
| among friends without my help. They use Discord, Twitch, a bit
| of instagram and such. They're tech savvy geeks though, if
| somewhat differently geeky to myself. They know what they're
| interested in and look for that because most of mass culture is
| just occasionally amusing background noise to them. I'm very
| encouraged.
|
| I often see people bemoaning the passing of the old internet,
| but for me it's all still out there and thriving. Several new
| layers of it have developed too. It's just not the only, or
| 'biggest' internet anymore.
| kodah wrote:
| It is still out there, you just have to work to attain it.
|
| I'm happy to listen to the bemoaning, mainly because the
| newest and largest groups on the internet are the most
| problematic and most of them have no self-awareness to that
| end. Better that they hear the bemoaning and get a chance to
| change and choose not to.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Counterculture completely aligns with corporate America now, it's
| fascinating.
|
| The punk manifesto could be written by McDonalds.
| JacobSuperslav wrote:
| no it doesn't. true counterculture means these corporations
| would be dead. they are just choosing few parts that make for
| nice ads.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| That was the former counterculture. Countercultures often get
| co-opted by mainstream culture; the trappings of the
| counterculture even more so.
| Animats wrote:
| Yet his examples are people who did stuff to get clicks.
|
| Arguably, the most effective counterculture in recent times was
| QAnon. That didn't end well.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Your first observation regarding clicks was right on but QAnon
| is just another consumer choice for people to add to their
| Identity. As a general rule, if there is advertisement and
| sales around a space, it isn't countercultural.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| It didn't end at all, I still see people adding Q stickers to
| cars.
| [deleted]
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| A lot of qanon came from flat earth and now have moved on to
| vaccines and other conspiracies. I wonder what they'll be doing
| next year but I am sure they will find something. There is a
| significant part of the population who are deeply uncomfortable
| with the state of the world and look for an explanation that
| comforts them. This used to be mainly religion but it's
| spreading out into things like qanon. Extreme partisanship
| probably has the same origin because it explains that the world
| is bad because of "others".
| Animats wrote:
| _There is a significant part of the population who are deeply
| uncomfortable with the state of the world and look for an
| explanation that comforts them._
|
| Yes. A real problem is that the US has no consensus on how
| society should work. It did, in, say, the 1950s. People were
| expected to get jobs, and work, and the spectrum of available
| jobs was matched, roughly, to the range of human
| capabilities. That was a generally stable situation. That's
| the US from 1945 to 1975 or so.
|
| That's changed, leaving behind a huge number of unemployed
| and under-employed people. More education doesn't help; about
| half of US college graduates are doing jobs that don't need a
| college education.
|
| Nobody really has a good answer to this. Which is why
| conservative populism looks to the past.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| "Nobody really has a good answer to this. Which is why
| conservative populism looks to the past."
|
| And "Make america great again" was wonderful wording for
| that.
| anticensor wrote:
| Define underemployment.
| shakezula wrote:
| It's been very interesting to see counter culture swing to the
| (arguably far but that part is up for interpretation) right.
| Terrifying, but nonetheless interesting.
| edrxty wrote:
| In a way this makes sense, the mega platforms have become a
| highly uniform slightly left leaning milquetoast walled city.
| That leaves being either a raging socialist (guilty) or a
| raging....bigot.
|
| The far right isn't tolerated as they're dangerous to
| advertisers sensitivities. Meanwhile the far left individuals
| are mostly tolerated but they're also all very aware that if
| the far right were to disappear overnight, they'd be the next
| target.
| shakezula wrote:
| I'm hesitant to even admit that far-left politics are more
| accepted; I've seen harsher rejection of socialist ideals
| than legitimate, objective fascism. But I agree with your
| general point - if the far right was gone overnight, the
| far left would be next up on the chopping block.
|
| > highly uniform slightly left leaning milquetoast walled
| city.
|
| This is absolutely true, though. It's become their
| immediate point of mockery for any right leaning people.
| They get to call us robots, NPCs, brittle snowflakes,
| etc... and the left doesn't have a good retort. :shrug:
|
| It's frustrating, because I think that the left should
| chill out with the identity politics and at least start
| trying to focus on larger issues and really drive those
| points home - healthcare, income inequality, etc... those
| are issues that have overwhelming public support but are
| constantly able to be derailed by republican talking points
| because of the identity politics.
| edrxty wrote:
| > I'm hesitant to even admit that far-left politics are
| more accepted
|
| Yea, I should have been more specific, it depends heavily
| on the circles you run in.
|
| > It's frustrating, because I think that the left should
| chill out with the identity politics
|
| It seems to me like this is not uncommon. There's a lot
| of oneupmanship in politics where whoever is the most
| rigid and unyielding to complexity in their belief system
| is the most worshiped because people can't distinguish a
| rigid ideology from an internally consistent one. On the
| left this results in constant twitter mobs and on the
| right it results in capitol mobs.
|
| That said, while it makes an easy target for the right to
| rally around, if that were to go away, the reality
| distortion field would just target the next-lowest
| hanging fruit.
| shakezula wrote:
| > the reality distortion field would just target the
| next-lowest hanging fruit.
|
| social media in a nutshell, unfortunately.
|
| > people can't distinguish a rigid ideology from an
| internally consistent one.
|
| I think this is one of the things people like about
| Bernie, tbh. I think his consistent and reliable world
| view (and voting record to match) is why he's been so
| successful. It's just sad that he's not the standard.
|
| It feels like even when we "win" (air quotes are doing a
| lot of work ehre) e.g. Joe Biden or something, the goal
| posts get pushed and somehow all of a sudden it was
| catching an L when Biden won?
|
| The recurring theme in American politics, to me, is that
| the right falls in line and votes, the left eats their
| own. I keep seeing it right now and I'm worried we won't
| hold it together in 2022 or 2024.
| scubazealous wrote:
| Counterculture will never die, it always adapts. While it is hard
| to find there are aspects of counterculture ideas on mainstream
| platforms like Instagram but they are obstructed.
|
| How do you define counterculture? It is outside the mainstream,
| yes, but it does not need to be hidden. There are still
| individuals and groups who are "against the grain" in our society
| and always will be.
|
| In my experience these people are relatively private when it
| comes to their digital life (not absent!) but can be amazing
| storytellers in other mediums, through song, dance, writing, etc.
|
| I think the biggest misconstruction is that the counterculture is
| a single shared idea or that it is freely accessible to the
| masses.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| I know I'm counterculture when I'm shadow banned. Suck it boot-
| licking conformists!
| laser wrote:
| "We can imagine collectively held physical spaces reclaimed from
| empty retail or abandoned venues hosting esoteric local scenes"
| Where is this happening?
| JasonFruit wrote:
| I'm going to have to read this again to see if it's brilliant or
| just pretentious. But I'm going to print it and read it again
| more carefully, which suggests to me that it may lean toward the
| former.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Keeping in mind, it can be both brilliant _and_ pretentious,
| especially in different paragraphs.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Having reread it, I'm going with pretentious but occasionally
| insightful. Like me, I guess.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Got about halfway through and feels like it's taking a lot of
| words to say very little, the author seems to think it's hard
| to be an anarchist today and that's sad.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I think platforms like onlyfans will end up bringing back
| counterculture, especially if more platforms emerge outside the
| uber-censorious US and esp, if they can embrace new forms of
| payments. porn is showing the way once again
| reilly3000 wrote:
| From what I see on TikTok, GenZ are coming out as low-key
| marxists in droves. As a millennial I grew up through a process
| that started with believing in free-market ideals and slowly
| seeing them shattered with each passing atrocity of monopolists.
| I'd mark Enron/Worldcom times as a coming-of-age for my economic
| cynicism, and its been exponentiating ever since, especially
| through my journey as an entrepreneur and employer. These kids
| have had cynical humor and class struggle as mother's milk, and
| have little interest in repeating history. That isn't to say that
| conservativism doesn't have a place among today's youth, but its
| largely promoted with billions of dollars being poured into
| targeted influence campaigns. Bullshit has a tiny half-life these
| days as fact-checking anything is a matter of moving one's thumbs
| in a small incantation.
| helen___keller wrote:
| I think this is the biggest takeaway for me:
|
| > We saw this dynamic metastasize in the wake of George Floyd's
| murder, when well-intentioned claims of "silence is violence"
| (recalling the powerful 1987 ACT-UP "Silence = Death" campaign)
| spiraled into calling out individuals with even a small following
| who hadn't come forward with a timely public statement of
| solidarity or remorse. Yet public posts were subject to popular
| scrutiny and judged based on sincerity, originality, and tone.
| Not surprisingly, many people defaulted to posting a somber plain
| black square. But this generated criticism of its own by clogging
| the feed with an informational blackout during a moment when
| community resource sharing was critically important. Amid a
| chaotic time, the platform functioned exactly as designed:
| amplification of emotions, uptick in user interaction, growth in
| platform engagement and data cultivation. Cha-ching, the platform
| cashes in.
|
| In other words, any large movement or discussion on "clearnet"
| spaces gets subverted by the algorithms and profit motive of the
| platform they live on.
|
| However, where I disagree with the author is considering
| mainstream "dark forest" platforms like reddit or 4chan to be
| countercultural. In fact, I'd argue that mainstream social media
| can _never_ be countercultural. While there may be no
| "algorithm" controlling the narrative you see on 4chan (or a
| straightforward and ostensibly fair one on a site like reddit),
| the content you see (and by extension, the narrative) is shaped
| by profit motive: From well-compensated marketing teams, to
| hordes of self-interested proselytizers (see: bitcoin), to
| propaganda teams looking to influence public opinion, mainstream
| dark forest sites simply shift the balance of power from the
| platform itself to the most motivated and well-funded members of
| the platform
| TameAntelope wrote:
| What you're saying is and isn't true. One example of a
| countercultural movement that's been in the news recently is
| the DDoSecrets leaks/hacks (they get upset if you aren't clear
| that they're hackers). They've got a strong Twitter presence
| that helps them get their message out, but they conduct no
| "real" business on Twitter.
|
| So a counterculture can use the mainstream platforms, but they
| choose to do so only as a microphone, not as a gathering place.
|
| Edit: That said, one of the members of a related group just (as
| in, after I wrote this but before editing was made unavailable)
| got banned from Twitter, so maybe they can't actually use the
| platform as a microphone for very long. It looks like the law
| is getting involved, specifically related to the Verkada hack.
| satellite2 wrote:
| It seems like a very strong stance to say that the publicly
| advertised leaks and hacks are not financially motivated.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I've thought a lot about what you're saying here, and I see
| no indication that's the case (corrupt/ulterior financial
| motivations related to their leaks/hacks). I am very
| curious how the members of DDoSecrets make their money,
| though (not that it's any of my business), mostly because
| the Twitter accounts I've been following seem to have a
| pretty strong disgust response to the idea of making money
| off of hacking in general.
| satellite2 wrote:
| My bad, I tought you were talking in general. I'm not
| familiar with DDoSecrets so I cannot say much about their
| case specifically.
|
| What I can say though is that generally the threat model
| for attackers slightly more sophisticated than script
| kiddies suggests that the preparations involve a non
| negligible amount of time from highly specialized
| engineers and that somehow, someone has to pay for it.
| bawolff wrote:
| Highly specialized engineers can be motivated by non
| monentary ideology just like everyone else.
|
| Besides i think there are plenty of bored teens/uni
| students who fit between script kiddie and mafia/state
| actor on the sophistication scale - its a pretty wide
| step from script kiddie to professional malware writer.
| throwitaway1235 wrote:
| DDoSecrets targeted the most vulnerable voices in society,
| people banished to Gab for their political beliefs. They
| literally work for the liberal ruling system.
| maedla wrote:
| lol
| giantrobot wrote:
| > most vulnerable voices
|
| It's really sad you apparently posted this seriously.
| [deleted]
| throwitaway1235 wrote:
| I'd like your thoughts on why their political beliefs are
| not vulnerable.
| meowface wrote:
| But vulnerability is, by itself, not that interesting of
| a quality.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Indeed. Being able to lose your source of income for
| posting something that contradicts the mainstream
| narrative counts as vulnerability in my book. I wanted to
| post a few examples of potential comments that would very
| plausibly get one removed from one's job, but that might
| risk becoming trollbait etc, so I won't give specific
| examples and just trust that we all have a decent pulse
| of the kinds of things that you can't say publicly
| without risk of losing employment or some other
| punishment.
|
| Indeed, if someone can post their more-or-less unfiltered
| thoughts on a big social media platform like Facebook,
| Twitter, etc without ever getting banned, that's a great
| indication that that person is not part of a "vulnerable"
| faction, at least in the sense of being part of a
| counterculture.
|
| So - I guess I'll risk giving one example - if you post a
| gross exagerration of the risks of SARS-CoV-2 with
| respect to death or serious illness, or recklessly
| speculate that recovery from infection does not produce
| immunity, you're allowed to do that as much as you want.
| But express the opposite opinion (even if you're
| literally echoing WHO recommendations such as [far too
| late] lockdowns being too blunt an instrument or that
| immunity passports shouldn't be a thing), and you'll be
| quickly suspended or banned with only a vague reference
| to "community guidelines".
|
| And then of course you have the irony of platforms like
| Parler and Gab, which arise in large part due to the
| phenomenon of deplatforming voices of (primarily) a
| certain side, and then the mainstream will turn around
| and criticize these platforms for having a lot of
| "extremists" or supposed "crazy people", despite the fact
| that by definition such a platform is going to be
| populated by those who got booted explicitly or
| implicitly from the mainstream systems. As a further
| irony, it's commonly said that "nobody is preventing your
| ability to speak, you're just not allowed to speak on
| [insert platform]", and then when you go to that other
| platform that permits largely unrestricted speech, that
| platform is yanked from AWS and there's tons of news
| headlines about how they shouldn't be allowed to platform
| voice X or faction Y, etc.
|
| So...yeah, the dismissive "how dare you declare these
| people vulnerable" is very naive and myopic IMO. I think
| we all know more or less what the current zeitgeist is
| and roughly what happens when you run afoul of it, and
| it's not pretty.
|
| I hope I made something close to a coherent point there,
| I was mostly going stream of consciousness mode :)
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > the kinds of things that you can't say publicly without
| risk of losing employment or some other punishment.
|
| See eg http://paulgraham.com/say.html, for further hints.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Because you decide your political beliefs, and reactions
| to those decisions inform whether or not you continue to
| hold them.
|
| Unlike a protected class, which you cannot choose to be a
| member of. Being of a political party is not a protected
| class, nor should it be.
|
| The "most vulnerable people in our society" are the
| people who are discriminated on things they are, not
| things they do. Gab users are not the most vulnerable,
| because they choose to be who they're judged for.
|
| It's viscerally insulting to see that point
| misunderstood, because it belies a fundamental
| misunderstanding of large portions of how society
| functions in practice. Because of what you said, and
| people who believe what you've said, people suffer.
| That's hard to confront on HN, because you don't expect
| it.
| xyzelement wrote:
| > you decide your political beliefs, and reactions to
| those decisions inform whether or not you continue to
| hold them
|
| That's a really odd take. Throughout history, many of
| people have been prosecuted for what in retrospect many
| would agree are correct beliefs (eg: abolitionists,
| suffragists, believes in evolution, etc.)
|
| Do you not feel sympathy for these people, who according
| to you could have just avoided all their troubles by
| changing their beliefs? Do you not understand how
| incredibly vulnerable AND critically important a minority
| belief could be?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I don't see how any of what you just wrote is at all
| related to what I wrote, unfortunately...
| njharman wrote:
| First protected class is a legal construct that varies by
| jurisdiction and application. And a whole lot more than
| then handful enumerated deserve protection.
|
| Veteran, family status and religion are protected classes
| you can choose to be in.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| So you don't believe there's a moral backing for the
| concept of a protected class? And do you think "political
| views" fall into that category? Additionally, do you
| think it's "political views" themselves that are under
| threat here? Has anyone been banned from any social media
| platform entirely for speaking about cutting/raising
| taxes or growing/shrinking government?
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > people banished to Gab for their political beliefs
|
| Racists and Nazis _should_ be banished. What's wrong with
| you?
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| >n fact, I'd argue that mainstream social media can never be
| countercultural.
|
| I would say that is pretty much true by definition. Online
| countercultural elements are open source software and other
| collaborative platforms like Bandcamp and similar sites where
| people are trading tracks and what they have created.
| Torrenting is still countercultural. What the counterculture
| has in common now is that while the individualism is still
| present in the creation of music/software and the
| political/social choice to collaborate, the collective action
| of collaboration is the focus of attention, not individual
| fashion and identity. That kind of individualism has been sold
| back to us ad nauseum and its apotheosis is Instagram.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _Online countercultural elements are open source software_
|
| Open source is mainstream now, even Microsoft are doing it.
| retrac wrote:
| > While there may be no "algorithm" controlling the narrative
| you see on 4chan (or a straightforward and ostensibly fair one
| on a site like reddit), the content you see (and by extension,
| the narrative) is shaped by profit motive: From well-
| compensated marketing teams, to hordes of self-interested
| proselytizers (see: bitcoin), to propaganda teams looking to
| influence public opinion
|
| I've realized I have exactly one outlet free of this left. It's
| an IRC channel I've been in since the 90s. I thought about it
| and none of us are there for any reason other than that we have
| a common interest and like each other. No money involved, no
| names involved, and it's one of the more supportive and
| insightful communities I've ever found online. We've sometimes
| wondered why it's such a different community from the other
| places, and this article articulates why quite well, I think.
| We're old-timers holding out in a little pocket of what has
| been almost fully absorbed by corporate social media. I'm sure
| there are others. And I'm sure they won't tell you where to
| find them, either.
| JakeTheAndroid wrote:
| I find plenty of these types of communities through Discord,
| and I think that is part of the equation that's left out
| here. I don't really like discord much, but the reason I get
| when I do is to go check in on those friends. Usually these
| communities are just people that I've met playing games.
|
| I don't know that these would qualify as counter-culture or
| subculture, but they are free of marketing and advertising,
| and people are there because we have shared interests. The
| conversations are organic and not curated for us and we are
| isolated from anyone else we don't want to be part of that
| group.
|
| So, my gut tells me that the younger generations are using
| Discord like people used IRC.
| YinglingLight wrote:
| Old farts still had irl friends. The amount of teens who
| have no tangible friendships outside of Discord is
| sobering.
| phatfish wrote:
| Teens/young adults surely have far more opportunities to
| make real life friends than working age adults. They are
| at least required to attend school.
|
| I would say that this is more the lifestyle of adults
| after being out of education for a few years. They are
| the group that can ignore all real life interaction if
| they want, Covid has increased the likelihood of this.
| narag wrote:
| My son has a group of friends at the Uni, some of them in
| his same school, some of them in nearby schools, some of
| them are in the neighbourhood... half of them are from
| high school, the other half are from Minecraft discord
| groups.
|
| They have a weekly meeting in a Uni cafeteria and use
| indistinctly Discord or Instagram as chat. Instagram has
| replaced WhatsApp as the regular phone chat.
|
| All of them have wider net-only groups of acquitances.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| But unlike IRC, Discord is about personal identity, which
| is no longer counter-cultural.
| smolder wrote:
| They do use discord like we used IRC, but discord is
| centralized under one company. So, they will eventually do
| what companies do and try to find that sweet spot of "how
| much abuse can our users take" versus "how much money can
| we extract from our market position" as with all such free
| services. Discord is a trap, both in the latent
| monetization sense mentioned, and the sense that all your
| communications there are gobbled up with little to no
| privacy guarantee.
| malwarebytess wrote:
| Discord is not equivalent. Discord is blatantly in with the
| current culture, including the prohibitive elements. They
| remove channels left and right, and monetize every bit that
| they can. Not a problem I've had on IRC, even on big ones
| like Rizon.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > From well-compensated marketing teams, to hordes of self-
| interested proselytizers (see: bitcoin), to propaganda teams
| looking to influence public opinion, mainstream dark forest
| sites simply shift the balance of power from the platform
| itself to the most motivated and well-funded members of the
| platform
|
| This is making the perfect the enemy of the good.
|
| Also, voting systems take care of a lot of this, because naked
| propaganda spam gets downvoted by the users.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Social media sites with voting systems have a lot of bots.
| And they almost always are about expressing individual
| identity in the context of a unique combination of consumer
| choices, which is no longer countercultural, if it ever even
| was.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> From well-compensated marketing teams, to hordes of self-
| interested proselytizers (see: bitcoin), to propaganda teams
| looking to influence public opinion, mainstream dark forest
| sites simply shift the balance of power from the platform
| itself to the most motivated and well-funded members of the
| platform
|
| > Also, voting systems take care of a lot of this, because
| naked propaganda spam gets downvoted by the users.
|
| I disagree: crowdsourced moderation can only really take care
| of the most obvious crap, so it doesn't really take care of
| this problem.
| michaelpb wrote:
| Right, crowdsourced moderation works for badly done spam,
| poorly coded bots, etc. It does nothing for pseudo-science,
| "self-interested proselytizers" or PR teams. I think
| there's a mentality that if we just "crowdsource"
| something, somehow the work just goes away. It's a little
| like hand-waiving "the cloud" or "serverless" -- just
| because it's not your problem doesn't mean it disappears.
| It's still work that still needs to be done by _somebody_
|
| On top of that, moderation of anything sufficiently popular
| isn't easy -- e.g., dealing with trolls or PR teams
| targeting a forum can get extremely complicated sussing out
| who is who and figuring out where to draw the line -- and
| like many things is inherently subjective, which means it's
| the last thing you'll want to hand-waive, but is instead
| integral to whatever is being built.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I think there's a mentality that if we just
| "crowdsource" something, somehow the work just goes away.
| It's a little like hand-waiving "the cloud" or
| "serverless" -- just because it's not your problem
| doesn't mean it disappears.
|
| Yeah, and this has been proven time and time again over
| at least the past 20 years. Crowdsourced moderation is
| also usually founded on the fallacy that people who are
| popular contributors will also be effective moderators,
| which isn't true.
|
| Though certain crowdsourced features, like flagging, can
| definitely be moderation force-multipliers.
| helen___keller wrote:
| > This is making the perfect the enemy of the good.
|
| To be fair, I'm not saying that we should all ditch Reddit
| and only congregate on obscure message boards with maximum
| user limits; I'm simply saying that a place like a default
| subreddit should never be considered counter-cultural.
|
| > Also, voting systems take care of a lot of this, because
| naked propaganda spam gets downvoted by the users.
|
| Strong disagree. Naked propaganda is downvoted, sure, but
| good propaganda is never naked. Add enough eyeballs and
| increasingly sophisticated and coordinated actors will find a
| way to get their message to the top.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| > because naked propaganda spam gets downvoted by the users
|
| This is simply not true, although I suppose it depends on the
| definition of naked. Here's some random examples - although
| like anything, whether it qualifies as propaganda depends on
| one's beliefs:
|
| - When the previous US president wanted to pull out of Syria,
| or at least scale down the activities there, a bunch of
| headlines to the effect of "[President's name] abandons the
| kurds, leaving them to die" were written, and went straight
| to the top of Reddit. (This is a classic war propaganda
| technique where there's always an excuse as to why you can't
| end a certain war, while failing to account for the negative
| effects of continuing wars, or the facts that many of these
| "problems" only exist because of previous foreign policy
| blunders and doubling down on those blunders simply doesn't
| help)
|
| - Without going down the COVID rabbithole too much, there
| would routinely be articles that either (a) spread Chinese-
| state-originated propaganda videos of stuff like "man
| randomly collapses in the middle of the street", (b) articles
| that would credulously take China's metrics at face values,
| (c) scientific publications that immediately denied the
| possibility of non-naturalistic origins of the virus, (d)
| articles intended to shame those who don't believe in masking
| as an intervention, etc
|
| - (This is a fun one since many won't agree) Many articles
| raced to the top which made just completely wrong statements
| about the portfolios of firms like Melvin Capital and
| basically depicted the WSB gamestop fiasco as a classic david
| vs goliath narrative, instead of the reality which was for a
| brief period of time it was a real short squeeze and then
| almost immediately became a classic bubble/pump and dump
| scenario that had no connection to fundamental asset
| valuation. (To be clear, in a short squeeze stock prices can
| easily be pushed past the "intrinsic value", but so long as
| there's still a squeeze it is not irrational to buy the
| asset. However, once it's no longer actually a short squeeze
| and is now just a normal bull-run / bubble, an article
| selling the david v goliath narrative is now propaganda)
|
| - Here's a headline that's #2 on /r/politics, which I just
| visited to find the first headline that counts as propaganda
| in my book: "Conservatives Are Furious Biden Delivered a Non-
| Insane Presidential Speech" (regardless of what you feel
| about the speech or conservatives, it should be trivially
| obvious that they are not furious about a "non-insane"
| speech)
|
| - Any of the dozens of articles about the "Capitol Hill
| Insurrection" which grossly exaggerated what occurred as an
| attempted coup instead of the reality which was a bunch of
| (largely deluded) self-styled patriots who changed and prayed
| and took stupid selfies inside the capitol building (note: me
| saying that it was grossly exaggerated is not the same as
| saying that there was no wrongdoing, etc)
|
| ---
|
| I do think it is true though that "articles which are clearly
| propaganda to the average user" i.e. one thats go against the
| status quo of a cite will be downvoted. But propaganda in the
| other direction won't because they will never think of it as
| propaganda
| great22221 wrote:
| The GameStop thing was some trying to emulate the shitty
| behaviour of hedge funds and succeeding. The authorities
| had to intervene to stop these people. Even Robinhood had
| to disable trading for these people, otherwise who knows
| how long it could have gone on. The authorities are mum
| when the hedge funds do it.
|
| 'Changed, prayed, took stupid selfies' - let's not hide
| what they did. They had weapons. If an angry crowd with
| weapons come to my workplace and ransacked the place,
| making everyone flee for their lives, I would want them all
| to serve prison time. It's a no-brainer.
| tryonenow wrote:
| >GameStop thing was some trying to emulate the shitty
| behaviour of hedge funds and succeeding
|
| The narrative is that hedge funds manipulate prices
| downward to profit from shorts - this was an opposite
| effort. And when Robinhood suspended trades, all they did
| was freeze out retail traders whild institutional traders
| had time to run the price down and trade amongst
| themselves. It was shady given the alleged links between
| Robinhood and market makers and hedge funds and such. I
| really don't think anyone was being protected by that
| move.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > (regardless of what you feel about the speech or
| conservatives, it should be trivially obvious that they are
| not furious about a "non-insane" speech)
|
| I guess it could be implying that being furious about
| insane speeches is normal, and "non-insane" is what makes
| it news? Just for devil's advocate sake.
| ogurechny wrote:
| Ah, those sweet days of "Web 2.0" buzzword a decade and a
| half ago, when everyone boasted that their service had a
| secret formula that processed the user submissions, user
| karma, their plus marks and minus marks, and produced the
| perfect results. All of these quite soon became an absolute
| circlejerk over karma, or had global community secessions and
| wars (often resulting in site owners appearing from the dark
| to remind everyone they had the last word, and that users
| could suck it with their idea that their opinions mattered in
| the system), or a little bit of both, or something similarly
| contrast to those promises.
|
| A voting system does nothing. It doesn't vote, people vote.
| Believing that it solves any problem by itself is just as
| naive as believing that switching human driver with a
| computer solves any problem by itself, or that switching
| human body with a computer solves any problem by itself, or
| some other such sci-fi inspired tea-table talk topic popular
| today.
| drak0n1c wrote:
| Voting systems often amplify propaganda spam. Every day
| r/science has multiple posts upvoted to the top with titles
| exaggerating findings, and/or linking to shoddy studies.
|
| Upvote/Downvote is very susceptible to headlines that exploit
| confirmation bias, and bot activity.
| partyboat1586 wrote:
| >spiraled into calling out individuals with even a small
| following who hadn't come forward with a timely public
| statement of solidarity or remorse.
|
| >timely public statement
|
| Being a public figure sounds exhausting.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| It is, but to be clear I think the point there was not about
| public figures per se but about everyday people. Everyday
| (albeit obviously left-leaning) people would post the black
| squares out of a sense of obligation, and then the responses
| would be split between praising them for standing up for
| "black lives", versus half the people criticizing the poster
| of the black square for making a silly symbolic gesture. (I
| view it as the latter - a stupid symbolic gesture - BUT the
| context of the whole "silence is violence" meme is why these
| NPCs were in a double-bind: damned if you do, damned if you
| don't)
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| This happened to random 18 year old college kids who were
| just not active on social media. I saw it first hand. I
| actually saw an entire group of girls let go of one of their
| friends who didn't post in support of BLM along with them.
| She had like 60 followers on Instagram (mostly family).
| toyg wrote:
| With great power comes great responsibility.
| echoradio wrote:
| I signed on to the internet when everything was handled through
| terminals, so I've always viewed cyberspace -- and the culture
| which developed there -- as completely separate from IRL. People
| can take on different personas, customs, etc. So it's no surprise
| to me the customs within this "new" world are mirroring how a
| physical world society spreads across a spectrum of ideology.
| (Granted, the ideas don't always blend with what exists in the
| real world.)
|
| I've often thought of the counterculture to online space as those
| who are breaking free of centralization and the digital
| "monopolies." They're the people who are homesteading on tildes,
| Mastodon, or their own self-hosted instance, for example. In
| cyberspace, FAANG are the new industrialists (the new
| informationalists?), so to me it makes sense that a portion of
| online society wants to separate or rebel from this establishment
| which controls a good portion of this cyberspace.
|
| As IoT becomes more prevalent, I can see those who seek a break
| from connectivity in general as countercultural, too. Some of the
| ideas in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," or Ted Kaczynski's*
| "Industrial Society and Its Future" reflect this.
|
| * I do not condone Kaczynski's actions. I'm merely stating the
| concern about technology's negative impact on society has long
| been thought about. It makes sense that there would be those who
| seek to shun it entirely.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| One aspect of present-day counterculture that differentiates it
| from the past is the lack of focus on individualism.
| Individualism as culture has been sold back to us so often its
| relevance is necessarily less important now. Which may be another
| reason why it is difficult to find. It's also genuinely more
| scary than a loner in a leather jacket, in front of his car,
| selling rock and roll, hamburgers and Coke. In the past it was
| easier because the the counterculture was easy to find - follow
| the well-worn path of individualism to the last corners of
| censored culture. Now that those paths are almost entirely
| explored, finding a different, more inspired counterculture is
| much more difficult.
| kjrose wrote:
| His definition of counterculture sorta seems limited. When punk
| and being a rebel is fully co opted by those in power, doesn't
| that kinda defeat the whole image part of being counter culture.
|
| Like in a fashion counter culture could be the Amish if the
| culture is extremely anti Amish.
| NotChina wrote:
| Easy enough to identify that which the powers that be, deny a
| platform. The unaffiliated are generalized, and grouped together
| despite not being real bed fellows. What modern labels did not
| exist for the entirety of human discourse? Yet our modern
| generation is the first to recognize some condition that eluded
| all those previous generations. Persecution unifies, and becomes
| a self fulfilling prophecy. (e.g. the alienation of moderate
| Islam post 911)
| kart23 wrote:
| I agree that you have to be essentially anonymous to take part in
| counterculture these days. But the author claims that Discord and
| Reddit are examples of counterculture. I wholeheartedly disagree,
| these platforms are overly sanitized, moderated by the company,
| not the community. On Discord, people get banned for empty mass
| reports, and they can delete servers as they please. Reddit is
| valuable for driving communities to self-hosted, private forums,
| where I believe that counterculture has and will be born from.
| TimedToasts wrote:
| Reddit is the least countercultural site I can imagine. It's
| still Top 10 in sites visited, is it not? It's the very
| zeitgeist of the times.
|
| Those examples weaken an otherwise good article.
| redisman wrote:
| It used to be fairly "counter-culture"ish back in the day
| before it was run like a corporation.
| monocasa wrote:
| Reddit is a meta site. The default subs are of course the
| default consensus, but you can find subs of nearly every
| other position under the sun.
| [deleted]
| cambalache wrote:
| No. Most "radical" subs will be suppressed or otherwise
| banned by selectively enforcing the rules. For every rule
| broken in r/thedonald or r/chapotraphouse you could find
| dozens of similar examples in r/news and r/politics.
| monocasa wrote:
| You can absolutely find subreddits dedicated to pretty
| much every extremist position to this day.
| [deleted]
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Maybe Reddit as a whole, but what are your thoughts on
| WallStreetBets? It seems that WSB has all of the elements of
| a counterculture, although maybe diluted after the wide
| spread GME interest.
| deliveryboyman wrote:
| WSB is a shade of its former self now due to the onslaught
| of new members
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| Check out /r/wallstreetbetsogs. It's an attempt to bring
| back the old school WSB.
| monocasa wrote:
| Has a "what was WSB before the eternal September" escape
| hatch subreddit popped up yet?
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| Yes, /r/wallstreetbetsogs.
| the_only_law wrote:
| I remember popping into r/WSB towards the end of the
| first wave of GME stuff and it seemed to be nothing more
| that what's described on reddit as a "circlejerk". It was
| also interesting to see a dozen different spin-offs when
| searching for it. Maybe it was like that before but
| everything felt forced and unnatural as if the new users
| were attempting to "fit in" by imitating the culture and
| vocabulary.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| I think the thing that is/was countercultural were the
| actions taken by WallStreetBets, not the site itself.
| satellite2 wrote:
| WSB seems like the definition of a smart hedge fund that
| managed to manipulate the market transparently. Everything
| there reeks of fake, manufactured and engineered "counter"
| culture
| juststeve wrote:
| Yeah because WSB uses another language that many do not
| know, or care to know.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I'm really not sure "diamond hands" and "retard" count so
| much as another language. I think the big gap between
| there and other places on the same subject is on
| "gambling logic", not right or wrong, I've seen more
| people there admit that than "Wallstreet Types" who would
| be trillionaires if they actually knew how to win.
| juststeve wrote:
| Fair. But there is also some assumed knowledge of what
| futures and puts are, no?
| edrxty wrote:
| Further, reddit is built from the ground up to force consensus.
| Counterculture cannot exist on the site by definition, as
| anything prevalent on the site is there by consensus.
| krapp wrote:
| >Counterculture cannot exist on the site by definition, as
| anything prevalent on the site is there by consensus.
|
| That makes no sense - consensus must exist _within a
| counterculture_ for it to be definable, therefore
| counterculture and consensus can coexist.
|
| Being "prevalent" has no bearing whatsoever on being a
| counterculture. It's entirely possible for a counterculture
| to have a subreddit and not be prevalent. The vast majority
| of content on Reddit never even touches the frontpage.
|
| You could say that a counterculture can't exist on Reddit
| that runs counter to the platform's terms of service, and
| that might be true, but it's also conditional.
| monocasa wrote:
| I'd argue that the way reddit is currently designed is to
| hold on to it's user base without them having consensus. The
| way that subreddits allow separation of their user base (but
| they're all still users and seeing ads, buying gold, etc)
| allows communities to exist in a way other social media sites
| don't really allow (except maybe facebook groups).
| juststeve wrote:
| Agree - and People should also be aware who funds these
| sites. Especially reddit.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| So is HN and any other platform with where upvote/downvote is
| the primary factor in the algorithm.
| juststeve wrote:
| Yep, or self hosted sites
| ontekhunhsentuh wrote:
| I'll add that Discord does not support right-to-read. They will
| occasionally remove a server and ban everyone who had access to
| that server, regardless of whether or not they had posted or
| participated in that server or contacted any members of that
| server. They view the act of reading the server posts as a
| bannable offense.
| [deleted]
| 1123581321 wrote:
| What incident are you referring to? Having trouble searching
| for it.
| anticensor wrote:
| There are multiple occurances of that. They do that when
| they fail to identify the actual offender or they ban for a
| non-existent reason ("just to ban it"). If they find the
| actual offender, things differ and actual offender gets
| banned.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| That makes sense. I'm just looking to read some forum
| drama, or something, about one of these moments. Doesn't
| have to be a news article.
| edrxty wrote:
| I think this ties in well with all the recent discussion around
| advertising and its effect on internet discourse. To become
| counter-cultural now inherently means foregoing ad revenue
| supported platforms, which inherently means you lose audience.
| keiferski wrote:
| Charles Taylor, the philosopher, covered much of this about
| twenty years ago with far less snark and buzzwords. I strongly
| recommend reading _The Ethics of Authenticity._ It's all about
| the trend of individualism and how it precedes social media
| by...centuries.
|
| https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674987692
|
| Social media is no longer _authentic_ so you're seeing a slowly
| growing backlash against it.
|
| https://seoulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/charles-tay...
| airhead969 wrote:
| "Antisocial media" would a truthful title.
|
| I don't even like texting. Email is a letter replacement. Call
| me and pickup when I call, or GTFO.
|
| Faceblock, Twatter, Instaglam, Discard, Snapper, TikTak,
| LinkedOut can all listen to the flushing sound of me deleting
| their advertising monetization. "Buh buh all of your Ivy and
| Pac12 associations that made you look important on a resume."
| Too bad, I haven't talked to most of those people in years
| anyhow.
| swayvil wrote:
| I find talking on the phone to be excruciating. I'm fine in
| person but there's just something about the phone. It's like
| jerking off a quarter-inch dowel-rod with a pair of salad
| tongs. Cosmically awkward.
|
| I love texting. And email is basically texting.
|
| I'm thinking of getting one of those wrist phones so I can
| voice-text everything.
| krick wrote:
| That's weird. I mean, you do you, but if this is a popular
| opinion, I had no idea. On the contrary, I'm mildly annoyed
| when someone calls me to say something that could've said
| over the text.
|
| And I don't think of it as a personal preference: async
| information exchange is objectively less intrusive, which is
| why it should be preferred when possible (which isn't always
| the case, because it's also objectively less fluent). Unless
| you are some girl I'm mindlessly infatuated with, I'm
| probably not waiting for you call all day long, so when you
| are forcing me to interrupt whatever I was doing, because you
| are calling to say something as simple as "so, you asked me
| about X the other day, the answer is yes" or to ask a simple
| question without any follow up (or, my favourite: a courtesy
| call with no actual information exchange): I'll be polite, of
| course, but I'll hate you.
|
| If you want to ask or tell me something short: send me a
| text, I'll read and respond in 5 minutes, so that I don't
| have to interrupt what I'm doing right now. If it isn't short
| and you are too lazy to type: no problem, send me a voice-
| message. If you just want some chit-chat: ask me to go grab a
| beer (via text). If it's complicated and we'll need some
| back-and-forth, we should call each other, but I'll
| appreciate if you'll send a text/voice first, asking me to
| talk over the phone about X. And only if it's URGENT you call
| me right away. And because it's just sensible thing to do,
| when you are suddenly calling me, I'm already assuming it's
| URGENT: in fact, that's the only reason to answer you when
| you are calling, and not to call back when I'm in the mood.
| So when it turns out that it really wasn't, you are already
| an asshole, even if I don't show it.
| airhead969 wrote:
| Would you be content with chatbots, a sex doll, and living
| in an undersea bubble? If so (I doubt it), great, go for
| it.
|
| If not: don't answer, silent mode, or power off, or
| appreciate human contact when you do. If people are
| "calling too much," it's because you failed to train them
| how to interact with you. And, now you're resenting their
| assuming it was okay because you were too "nice" to be
| honest. Instead of mind-reading, communicate (edit:
| communicate your preferences of communication) perhaps.
| It's probably you, not them. Sorry, bud.
|
| Edit: Let's inquire curiously rather than name-call or get
| snarky, because that degrades the site and discourages
| understanding.
| krick wrote:
| You really didn't provide any objective reasons for why
| it should be your way (I did). You are just projecting
| your (quite questionable) preferences onto others.
|
| I'll go again: there are 2 modes of interaction, sync for
| urgent stuff, async for everything else. If I'll go
| silent mode, I won't be answering ANY of your calls, even
| if you'll die when I don't pick up right now. You won't
| be able to choose between sync and async.
|
| If I'm not in the silent mode: it's a courtesy to you,
| and you should treat it respectfully. Since I don't know
| if it's urgent when I pick up, I'm trusting you to make
| the right choice between urgent and non-urgent (because,
| again, if I don't trust you to make the right choice, you
| won't be able to interrupt me when you really-really, oh-
| god-please-make-him-to-pick-up, really need to interrupt
| me). If you abuse it, you are an inconsiderate asshole,
| and not a "cool social guy, who is fun to talk to: I must
| be, because I've never heard people say otherwise!" If
| you abuse it too much, I'll be forced to tell you that
| you are abusing it. Which is not a polite thing to tell,
| and can be considered an act of agression, which is why
| many (most, perhaps) people will be hating you with a
| smile, instead of telling you that. That's why they'll
| resort to a seemingly more polite, but actually less
| productive act of passive agression: they'll actually go
| into silent mode (maybe for your phone number
| selectively) and you won't have a choice between sync and
| async anymore.
|
| And, let's be clear: everybody (me included) wants their
| emails, calls, texts, anything to be answered
| immediately. The fact is that it's not always convenient
| for the other guy because he has both other
| texts/emails/calls, and unless he is a sales agent, also
| has stuff to do besides talking to phone (actually, no:
| even sales agents aren't on the phone 24/7). Ignoring
| that simple fact is being an asshole, not a custodian of
| "nearly forgotten the true and only art of real(tm) human
| interaction". Sorry, bud.
| airhead969 wrote:
| You don't seem to know how to comment properly or
| respectfully here.[0] Glass houses and such. Best wishes
| to you.
|
| 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| abhinav22 wrote:
| I know you are downvoted, but what you said is 100% true.
| Maybe could do without the first sentence; but otherwise
| it's spot on - if one doesn't like talking on the phone
| for x queries, then they should be able to tactfully
| communicate this and others will appreciate it. Bottling
| it all and then getting frustrated that people don't
| follow our preferred communication style is only our
| fault.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Not OP, but of course not. But the text message with that
| other person is not the end of the interaction. It is a
| coordination effort. "What time are you going to be here
| for dinner." "6:30." Then the actual human interaction in
| person happens.
|
| > Sorry, bud.
|
| This makes you sound like a jerk.
| herval wrote:
| Or maybe a text message is just a much more practical and
| less disruptive form of communication with, you know,
| another human being. You're being quite judgemental on
| other people and ascribing behavior just because they
| happen to communicate in methods that you find
| inappropriate. Not very constructive.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| I think your multitier "How and When It's Okay To Talk To
| Me" document only seems like a good way to interact with
| others if you ignore that they are also people with
| preferences and time constraints, and that communication is
| _between_ two people, not just _to_ you. If you take those
| things into account, you start to sound like a person who
| thinks others should tailor their actions to your whims,
| and thinks other people are the assholes when they don't
| follow your unspoken rules.
| bsder wrote:
| > On the contrary, I'm mildly annoyed when someone calls me
| to say something that could've said over the text.
|
| And I'm just as annoyed when someone keeps sending me texts
| when a 5 minute call would have been far more efficient. If
| we have sent more than 3 back and forths in text, it's time
| to switch to a call.
|
| For me, the twenty-somethings are terrible about this. They
| are just absolutely allergic to voice communication.
| krick wrote:
| So, call him back, what's your problem?
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| It really depends on the context. I like having a history
| of things that are important, and I got more than enough
| information to keep in my head already. Actively
| processing voice on someone else's tempo over a crappy
| mic often leads to mistakes, and the lack of history
| forces me to ask again when I inevitably forget. Also,
| the fast-paced nature of voice tends to make people
| neglect nuance which may be important.
|
| Your idea of efficient may vastly differ from someone
| else's.
| lc9er wrote:
| The argument against texting, for me at least, is that it's
| more intrusive (constant interruptions for unimportant
| things) and interactions end up being less and less
| meaningful.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Turn off notifications. Text is inherently asynchronous
| letting you answer when you can. Phone calls that aren't
| for a conversation are much more intrusive.
| zamfi wrote:
| This is a generational thing. If you're over 30-35, you
| treat texts as asynchronous. If you're under 30, you
| assume someone who hasn't responded within minutes is
| dead.
|
| At least, in my limited experience.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| Exactly. Texting gives control to the receiver on how and
| when to respond. Calling takes away that control.
|
| I wish voice messages were more common though. In
| iMessage you could simply place your phone near your ear
| and start talking to send a voice message. I don't see
| many people use that or even aware of that.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Yep. For these reasons I find texting more respectful of
| other people's time and more polite.
| lm28469 wrote:
| I turned off all notifications 5 years ago. No noise, no
| vibration, no pop-up, no nothing. I doubt I'll ever
| switch any of these on again
| sloshnmosh wrote:
| I highly recommend turning off all notifications/ringers
| as well.
|
| Now, if I turn on notifications I realize just how
| annoying and distracting they can be.
|
| I also block any phone calls that aren't on my contact
| list. Others can leave a message.
|
| Best thing I've done for my mental health.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| The only contacts that make sound on my phone for
| incoming calls or messages are my wife and my boss.
| naveen99 wrote:
| Voice can be asynchronous as well: https://youtu.be/yg-
| TqEFYcfM
|
| What you really want is a secretary between you and
| everyone else.
| cbozeman wrote:
| > LinkedOut
|
| That's the one that made me laugh out loud.
| airhead969 wrote:
| It keeps the spacetime continuum together with personal
| branding, consultant think-pieces and virtual cocktail hour
| networking while scanning the universe for a more important
| person to elevator.
| machinelabo wrote:
| I feel liberated after reading your comment.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I'm along this spectrum, but not nearly so far away.
|
| I like chat programs used as email - that is, non-real-time.
| I have lowered my anxiety a lot by realizing that texts are
| not realtime in my life 98% of the time, and to treat them
| accordingly: Checked on upon occasion. Don't stress about
| whether the person on the other end will be upset if you
| don't get back right away.
|
| Planning something? Need someone right away? Set the
| expectation of response beforehand or just call them.
| airhead969 wrote:
| That seems like a good, common-sense strategy.
|
| Textual for details, and not for human clarification. It's
| often a terrible idea to wrestle in emotional or
| clarification contexts without hearing or seeing someone
| else in realtime.
|
| Attention is a finite resource that ought to vary with
| actual urgency; hopefully, with fewest emergencies.
| rcurry wrote:
| Good for you. I grew up in the eighties, and if I couldn't
| remember your phone number you probably weren't my friend.
| I'm okay with the same rules now. Twitter and Facebook are
| the Internet equivalent of Skid Row - a bunch of hobos
| fighting over a bottle of thunderbird. The only winning
| solution is not to play.
| airhead969 wrote:
| About 20 years ago, I used to say: "People are like dung
| beetles... fighting over balls of shit." Might've been
| live, pirated HBO George Carlin-inspired.
|
| How about a nice game of chess?
|
| I wouldn't demonize the very poor as addicts; drunks, sure.
| A dry hobo is likely to whip your ass and mine at chess.
| There are a good fraction of sane, teetotaling, drug-free
| hobos who are merely poor and itinerant without magical
| bootstraps.
| rcurry wrote:
| Agreed - in fact the term hobo just meant a traveling
| worker back in the Great Depression and most hobos would
| take offense at being characterized as deadbeats - they
| were in fact out to make an honest living for themselves
| in the face of considerable economic hardships at the
| time. I was just being whimsical as to the mental picture
| I get whenever I think of all the craziness on social
| media.
| irrational wrote:
| I definitely don't agree with the picking up the phone
| comment. 99/100 calls I receive are spam. I'll only answer if
| you are in my contacts.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| I think that's what they're saying.
| throwawaygal7 wrote:
| Love the line about calling. People in this thread dont get
| it - if you're going to triage me against your other
| priorities, and if you dont care enough about our friendship
| to try to pickup when I call - you're not really a friend. We
| can still be friendly, but you're too self obsessed and
| 'busy' (in the inorganic, modern sense) to really be a friend
| eplanit wrote:
| When I'm very busy or focused, and then a friend calls, I
| don't want to sound short and perturbed, and I don't want
| to answer just to plead "I'm too busy right now". This is
| what voicemail is for, and so long as the call is responded
| to in relatively short time then no foul has occurred.
|
| I'd be leery of "friends" who want attention and
| interaction on demand. Only my wife has that right.
| throwawaygal7 wrote:
| 'try to pickup' - totally hear you on the voicemail
| thing. If you're consistently too busy to take any calls
| from any social contacts, you're too busy to have a deep
| friendship anyway. We can still be friends, but never
| having real substantial conversations is going to he a
| limiting factor on how deep that goes.
|
| If you're married, of course you should prioritize your
| immediate family - a lot of people get more distance on
| existing social relationships or lose track of friends at
| that stage of life for that reason. It's not really a bad
| thing, it is what it is - the loss of an active
| friendship.
| msla wrote:
| > Call me and pickup when I call, or GTFO.
|
| I don't exist at your beck and call. Text me and respect that
| I have a life beyond hanging on the telephone, or I don't
| care to distinguish you from the billions of autodialers who
| are the only ones still rude enough to make such demands on
| my time.
|
| BTW, cute misspellings. Little jugs got big ears, I suppose.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| https://www.dictionary.com/browse/little-pitchers-have-
| big-e...
| mrweasel wrote:
| > I don't exist at your beck and call
|
| Well, no... but depending on context you might have to deal
| with it. Privately people can do whatever they want, in
| business, the customer gets to decide. I work as a
| consultant, if a customer prefer a phone call, then I pick
| up the phone. If I'm busy a co-worker answers.
|
| In a previous job I was the customer, and I refused to do
| Skype meeting, because I didn't want to spend 10 minutes
| figuring out why audio wasn't working. If you didn't want
| to call me, then I just took my business else where.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It depends how much the business needs or wants the
| customer. It's the same as non business interactions.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _in business, the customer gets to decide_
|
| I found most of my business communications naturally
| moved to email. The few hangouts seem to mostly be time
| wasters, people that reach for the phone before they
| start thinking.
| grillvogel wrote:
| rms is that you?
| airhead969 wrote:
| Nawh, I always get permission before playing on grassy turf
| and never speculate if an incomplete course would still be
| playable. Next, I'd never win a beard-growing challenge.
| Finally, he has way, way more cash in his wallet; so if you
| ever need to break a 20.
| wussboy wrote:
| I hadn't heard "antisocial media" before but I love it
| airhead969 wrote:
| The antisocial social club most def raises the Jolly Roger
| flag against "social" media. ;-]
|
| At some point, I just want a private platform that is paid
| for using microcredits, no ads/data harvesting, requires
| verified named people with faces (improved communication
| quality), connections only stay alive if you actually
| interact with them IRL, doesn't automatically share
| everything with everyone in a single context, and doesn't
| promote dangerous behaviors for likes/shares. The only
| purpose of hidden rating tags (in lieu of likes and shares)
| should be that a viewer's own incoming content gets
| slightly prioritized. Oh and no instant notifications, no
| news link sharing/"retweeting", no messaging or chat
| (there's email), and a user only gets to look at it twice a
| day. Basically, solve many of the societal and social
| problems FB exploits and creates.
| throwaway346434 wrote:
| Your problem is one of overfiltering though.
|
| How many times have you googled an obscure error, to find
| no answers?
|
| And then after some time... you solve it, and want to add
| a comment or make it easier for the next lost soul...and
| its non trivial.
|
| I would argue for a large amount of problems that are
| interesting to people doing practical things, you want to
| allow drop ins to your community. How you keep the riff
| raff out is then unsolvable.
| icedchai wrote:
| You just need to go back to the 1990's, when Usenet and
| BBSes were still active.
| airhead969 wrote:
| BTDTBTTS. IDSPISPOPD.
|
| BBSes: Those tables of phone lines, usernames, and
| passwords.
|
| Usenet: human conversations maybe decreasing, while data
| volume keeps increasing: porn, warez, and media IIRC.
|
| IRC: important things still happen.
|
| Just need a DMC-12 and a flux capacitor.
| icedchai wrote:
| yep.. I miss those days. Things were less monetized, the
| "online" population was smaller and more focused.
| 34679 wrote:
| Massively Manipulated, Monitored, and Moderated Media
|
| MMMMM
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Telemarketers have really ruined phone calls. No one under 40
| is using them anymore unless they're expecting a call from a
| potential employer--the only reason in the past decade I've
| ever "waited" for a phone call--and I'm noticing more and
| more job postings will reach out to you via text or email
| first.
| abhinav22 wrote:
| I hate how they now automated it so they transfer you from
| a robot to a human when you pick up...
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _Faceblock, Twatter, Instaglam, Discard, Snapper, TikTak,
| LinkedOut_
|
| I really hoped that Clubhouse would corral all the hardcore
| narcissists away from all other social media, but it's made
| them worse, they spend all their time on Twitter bragging
| about how they're on Clubhouse now. Pathetic.
| core-questions wrote:
| For what it's worth, I remember people posting on
| Livejournal and various forums about how cool they were to
| have a Facebook account....
| PhillyG wrote:
| So far I only ever hear about clubhouse on hn. Though I'm
| not really on social media much. I just checked the about
| page and it actually sounds like a neat idea - voice based
| chat forums, where new people have to listen for a bit and
| be given permission to talk from those already talking.
| Doesn't sound like it's about gaining likes or showing off
| or inanely talking about yourself. I don't know if it's any
| good or if the world needs yet another social media
| platform but it sounds more suited to genuine conversation
| than quite a few of the current big social media services.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| I just read the first few chapters, what a great reference,
| thank you.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I think the whole thing is bogus from the start, the 'social
| media' idea I mean. These are companies.. they're not here to
| make culture or societies.. they're parasite leeching on your
| human needs.
|
| When a new trends starts organically, it's all impulsive and
| genuine, then people start to profit on it and the game is
| over.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > When a new trends starts organically, it's all impulsive
| and genuine, then people start to profit on it and the game
| is over.
|
| I think I have seen the same argument about anime
| conventions. The idea is that a trend starts with a small
| group of passionate people, as things get bigger and more
| popular, followers arrive. Followers are not really
| passionate, they just jump on the bandwagon, but will leave
| and jump on another bandwagon as the thing gets less trendy.
| With the followers come people who will try to profit on them
| since they represent a sizable market. Among the "exploiters"
| are former members of the original group, who see a find a
| way to monetize their passion, taking advantage of their deep
| knowledge of the field.
|
| So the idea that "people start to profit and the game is
| over" is mostly right, but the dynamic is more complex than
| just having a small number of people ruining it from everyone
| else.
|
| And it is not all bad. While the community is less genuine,
| it is also more productive, if anything, just from the sheer
| numbers.
| cainxinth wrote:
| > And it is not all bad. While the community is less
| genuine, it is also more productive, if anything, just from
| the sheer numbers.
|
| And it's basically just a natural and recurring cycle:
|
| Phase 1: Novel thinker creates something new
|
| Phase 2: Early adopters pick it up
|
| Phase 3: General public joins in
|
| Phase 4: Early adopters get crowded out by newcomers and
| turned off by lack of 'authenticity' and either retreat to
| obscure niches or leave in search of the next trend
| bwanab wrote:
| You just described the process of gentrification.
| krapp wrote:
| I'm not sure the lack of 'authenticity' from newcomers is
| an actual phenomenon, or at least not as universal as
| people make it out to be. One can be authentic in joining
| a community after it's no longer a niche only hipsters
| know about. D&D, for instance, has gotten much greater
| visibility thanks to Youtube and Critical Role, but the
| new fans seem just as passionate and creative as the old
| fans.
|
| The assumption seems to be that only the early adopters
| care, but that seems unnecessarily elitist.
| TJSomething wrote:
| As someone who runs a small anime convention, there's a
| long tail of anime conventions that just barely sit in the
| black, unable to pay much to anyone. Those only really
| exist as passion projects.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I staffed several amateur anime conventions 10-20 years
| ago, as a volunteer. No one was paid, except when we
| needed licensed professionals, passion projects
| obviously. In the early days, we even showed fansubs
| (illegally of course). During that time, things became
| more professional, organizers started caring about
| copyright laws, I witnessed the rise of large, commercial
| events, and an explosion of small, amateur events
| followed by their gradual downfall.
|
| I am among the ones responsible for that downfall.
| Simply, I moved on with my life, I stopped staffing, then
| I stopped attending, and so did the friends I made there,
| except for a few of them who somehow turned it into a
| job. The "new generation" is certainly passionate, but
| they have less to offer, simply because most of it is
| mainstream now. They don't have the budget for doing big
| things like the big commercial players, and they can't
| ignore copyright because owners actually care. As a
| result, their events are more like private clubs, for
| those that still exist.
|
| On the bright side, we now have anime licensed and even
| produced in the west, we get to see major personalities,
| coming straight from Japan, and many things that were
| unthinkable when we started out.
| agumonkey wrote:
| It's probably nothing new either. Even on boards people
| complained about waves of newcomers... spirit comes and go.
| The thing is when the wrong part of society turns it into a
| regular materially beneficial event it loses it's edge.
| din-9 wrote:
| I found https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths an
| interesting take on this.
| teawrecks wrote:
| I think that phenomenon has existed long before the internet,
| though.
| krick wrote:
| That's _kind of_ true. You obviously know the reasons why it
| should be true, but consider also (the "kind of" part) the
| fact that there's stuff like mastodon, like small hobbyist
| forums, unpopular telegram groups & channels that don't sell
| ads, imageboards with a couple hundreds of users. They appear
| because people (the users, not so much the owners) need them.
| And they are (at least sometimes) loosing to
| FB/reddit/twitter, because there's at least something (even
| if that "something" is the network effect) that these
| Companies are better at providing.
|
| Which means, that even if they only want to be _companies_ ,
| they (unfortunately for all) indeed are the "social media" in
| some sense. Sometimes even borderline with "essential
| infrastructure".
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I think the whole thing is bogus from the start, the
| 'social media' idea I mean. These are companies.. they're not
| here to make culture or societies.._
|
| Nonetheless, they do. Medium is the message and all that.
| sdwr wrote:
| mcluhan, whoo!
| calibas wrote:
| > When a new trends starts organically, it's all impulsive
| and genuine, then people start to profit on it and the game
| is over.
|
| What you describe is simply the nature of a trend, it's
| happened with everything from modern Occupy movements to the
| teachings of Jesus. Something original and authentic becomes
| stale after it's been repeated a million times over.
|
| The problem is with trends themselves, the original idea is
| authentic, but then it passes like a wave in the frenzy of a
| "trend".
| philosphyreply wrote:
| For me, the point of the original article wasn't how to be
| authentic in theory or why people try to be, but how are people
| trying and what are some of the ways that seem noteworthy?
|
| And I think it's really interesting if there is really a social
| undercurrent, especially in new generations, that political and
| social engagement is futile, and instead people are trying to
| invent new disengaged futures.
|
| It resonates with me, at least.
| perfectritone wrote:
| Don't forget Guy Debord who was writing about this in 1967.
|
| "The spectacle presents itself as something enormously
| positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more
| than "that which appears is good, that which is good appears.
| The attitude which it demands in principle is passive
| acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of
| appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance."
|
| "False choice in spectacular abundance, a choice which lies in
| the juxtaposition of competing and complimentary spectacles and
| also in the juxtaposition of roles (signified and carried
| mainly by things) which are at once exclusive and overlapping,
| develops into a struggle of vaporous qualities meant to
| stimulate loyalty to quantitative triviality."
| seniorgarcia wrote:
| JSTOR and the Harvard press needs to just go away. As someone
| who does IT for a university library in Germany JSTOR access is
| just ridiculous, even ignoring their fees.
| keiferski wrote:
| https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Authenticity-Charles-
| Taylor/dp...
| seniorgarcia wrote:
| I can ship a 30 year old paperback of it for my personal
| use to my home for 60$, that is true. I'm not sure what
| else you are trying to tell me.
|
| Do you personally think that is a good offer?
| claudiawerner wrote:
| I think it's genuinely ridiculous; academics working on
| really important topics for the current age, from
| society, to legal theory, to anthropology, to novel
| engineering are gatekept by publishers. I've wanted to
| read the full text to a paper I thought I will gain a lot
| from, something I can cite in an argument, something to
| enrich me and make me think. I can't do that, because I
| don't have access to the paper/book/whatever. At best, I
| have access to an inconvenient quarter of it on Google
| Books. I can't buy it for less than 60 euros, sometimes
| much more.
|
| I genuinely think that the fact academic work is hidden
| inside ridiculously expensive books and publisher
| paywalls is a reason why some people have given up on
| trying to change the world. They literally can't afford
| access to the tools that will support them or they can
| argue against.
|
| The independent researcher is at best five years behind
| current theories, and at worst dead.
| zamfi wrote:
| Everything you say is true, but an additional part of the
| problem is that books/papers/whatever tend to lag behind
| thinking and discussion by 1 to 5 years too. If you're
| not an insider, it can be extra hard to have a voice in
| the conversation.
| swirepe wrote:
| How do you feel about crime?
|
| http://library.lol/main/7C31067F2CA96B8CB3F8661CA680B656
| claudiawerner wrote:
| I'm great with it! Thanks for pointing me, though my
| point was more general, I suppose - unfortunately libgen
| doesn't have everything, hence my 'five years' remark :)
| zxexz wrote:
| In a sense some may find this more of a band-aid than
| anything else, but I've found 95% of the book I want to
| read are available through libgen[0] and close to 99% of
| papers through sci-hub [1]. Sure enough, the book
| referenced in the great-great grandparent to your post is
| on libgen and I now have a PDF.
|
| It really is unfortunate though, that there are a great
| many books one can only get a physical copy of for many
| times what they originally cost.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub
| morlockabove wrote:
| I wonder if you could take payments in bitcoin to print
| out epubs/pdfs of books in high quality, bind them, and
| ship them to people. The bitcoin's to avoid the copyright
| ninjas; you could try to silk-road the whole operation.
| It'll be easier once we have better drones and automated
| cars.
| zxexz wrote:
| Honestly, I'm more inclined to just mail someone some
| cash in exchange for their services
| printing/binding/mailing the book back. Seems a little
| more straightforward than transferring bitcoin and having
| a noisy drone drop a book on my lawn. Plus, why would I
| want all my transactions on a public ledger? ;)
| swirepe wrote:
| I don't have any bitcoin, but I would pay extra to have a
| drone wake up my neighbor's dog every time I buy a book.
| morlockabove wrote:
| Of course, whenever I say bitcoin, think monero. And if
| you know their address, so do the feds ;)
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Charles Taylor, the philosopher, covered much of this about
| twenty years ago with far less snark and buzzwords._
|
| No, he just covered a general trend about authenticity and
| examples up to his time.
|
| TFA covers the specifics of today and is about different
| aspects than what Taylor covered.
| lstodd wrote:
| > Social media is no longer authentic
|
| Has it ever been? Well, maybe before it got called 'social'.
| AdmiralGinge wrote:
| I think anonymity or pseudonymity is the differentiator here.
| Things like Facebook have never been authentic because
| they're so welded to your personal identity, if your
| colleagues and family can find you then I think you're always
| going to be posting through a mask.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| How ironic you need to click on a link to Harvard.edu. What
| times we live in.
| irrational wrote:
| TIL that I'm a social media hipster. And here I was thinking
| that I never got a Facebook, Instagram, etc. account because I
| am an old fart.
| ret2plt wrote:
| This is a minor nitpick, but I think claiming that anarcho-
| primitivism is less fringe than it seems because the youtube
| channel "Primitive Technology" is popular is seriously reaching.
| everdrive wrote:
| Still reading the article, but this is an interesting blurb if
| nothing else:
|
| "To be truly countercultural today, in a time of tech hegemony,
| one has to, above all, betray the platform, which may come in the
| form of betraying or divesting from your public online self."
|
| I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space as
| being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| I wouldn't call it counter-culture. Sounds more like taking a
| prominent cultural metanarrative about the evils of social
| media (which has been authored and perpetuated by many papers
| of record over the last several years), and embracing its
| implicit call to action.
|
| It's play-acting rebellion in a pre-aproved manner
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space
| as being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought
|
| I think the interesting part is that it's kind of counter-
| culture but it itself is not really a culture at all. There are
| no groups (as far as I know) for people who eschew social
| media. They don't meet up at the pub and talk about it, they
| don't have any kind of organization, even a loose one. People
| just kind of decide to wash their hands of Facebook and
| Instagram and Twitter and such, then go about their lives. I
| don't think they generally feel a part of some larger culture
| (or counter-culture)
|
| Maybe I'm wrong about that. To me though it almost seems like a
| stand-alone complex.
| briankelly wrote:
| Yes, I think that's an important distinction - you need a
| critical mass of people sharing in countercultural
| behavior/practices in some way to get an actual
| counterculture. Many people have eschewed social media for
| one reason or another but not in some unified way that I know
| of.
| itronitron wrote:
| A culture doesn't require that people meet up and agree on
| some way of doing things. Hence a counterculture does not
| need to be organized or even acknowledged while in process.
| It just happens and then gets written about a decade later.
| greenonions wrote:
| Imagine the Instagram posts profiling the weirdos like
| myself who simply have not been using Instagram for the
| past decade for the Instagram audience.
|
| "What do you do when you visit a scenic vista, if not
| take pictures?"
|
| "I look at it for a time and leave."
| psychomugs wrote:
| Reminds me of the tyranny of the remembering self.
|
| How much would you pay for a vacation where you can't
| take any pictures and your memory is erased afterwards?
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I stopped taking pictures on vacation (and other events)
| quite a while ago because I realized I never look at them
| later. So I spend the time being more focused on the
| actual thing, and have better memories. I wouldn't like
| the memory erased thing.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| I find that is a mortons fork sort of thing - you
| basically can wind up with regrets for taking and not
| taking pictures.
| hnick wrote:
| Does "memory" include fundamental changes to the self and
| perception along with personal growth due to exposure to
| new experiences and situations and time away from the
| grind?
| medicineman wrote:
| About 20USD for a fifth.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| There's 40% of the population you're missing that doesn't
| participate in social media because their ideas have been
| banned. Sure, they might have a Facebook or a Twitter but
| nothing substantive happens there. They believe in things
| like gun rights, freedom of speech and religion, and they
| often go to meeting places called a "church", which these
| days could be considered "counter-culture". Their values
| don't come from TV or Hollywood movies but instead have
| been passed down from generation to generation.
|
| From my experience people from US costal states seem to
| think these people are a small minority (5%) and tend to be
| shocked every time an election comes around.
| randomdude402 wrote:
| I've seen some hard to understand opinions on the web
| over the years, but church as counterculture really takes
| the cake.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Churches (specifically Christian churches) can be dead
| center in the culture. Or they can be solidly Christian,
| and still be countercultural. They might say things like:
|
| You're looking for social unity? Politics isn't going to
| create that, no matter which side wins. We can show you a
| real social unity.
|
| You're looking for security? The government's Covid
| response isn't going to give you that, even if they do it
| perfectly. We can tell you where you can find real
| security.
|
| You're looking for happiness (or, more deeply, for joy)?
| You're not going to find it on Facebook, or at Walmart.
| We know where you can find it.
|
| Now, you may think that Christianity can't actually
| supply any of that. But it claims that it can. And the
| point is, that claim is very countercultural.
| randomdude402 wrote:
| Some things that count as churches may have sprung up to
| make such offers, but I am assuming most churches have
| been standing since before Covid, before Facebook, before
| Trump and Obama and Bush.
|
| If say 40% of people are attending these gatherings, it's
| a tough sell that they are so far from mainstream as to
| be countercultural.
|
| People have been visiting churches in search of unity,
| security, and joy for thousands of years.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| And for thousands of years the churches have been saying,
| "The culture isn't going to give you that."
| randomdude402 wrote:
| I don't understand why churches would say that, when they
| were the cornerstone of culture until a few tens of years
| ago.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| I think AnimalMuppet is talking about more evangelical
| churches, whereas you are talking more about what used to
| be called "mainline" churches.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I think that's right.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Before about 300 AD, they weren't the cornerstone of
| culture. In much of the world, they never were.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Traditionally, they say that because even when their
| outward trappings are all over popular culture, they know
| that their core message is difficult to live out in
| practice, and most of the people who show up aren't doing
| it.
| everdrive wrote:
| >doesn't participate in social media because their ideas
| have been banned.
|
| >Sure, they might have a Facebook or a Twitter
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by this.
| MikeGale wrote:
| I see something which may be referred to here.
|
| I'm acquainted with people on social media who find that
| what they write on Facebook (say) is banned by the
| algorithmic being that reads before you post. Sometimes
| posts disappear. Sometimes they get sent to the naughty
| corner for 7 days.
|
| The reason for a ban is sometimes a real head scratcher,
| as far as I can tell, but not always.
|
| They've tried other places to have conversations. Some of
| those have also been torn down.
|
| Some have gone away. I generally don't know where to, but
| some are setting up their own discussion spaces. (I've
| recommended that to those who've asked.)
|
| Maybe a return to a former age where you controlled your
| own discussion spaces. A braai/BBQ in the back yard, a
| table in the corner of the pub, a ten day tramp through
| the mountains with four friends.
| briankelly wrote:
| > From my experience people from US costal states seem to
| think these people are a small minority (5%) and tend to
| be shocked every time an election comes around.
|
| I'm from the Midwest and grew up going to church just
| like everybody else I knew. Much of my family and friends
| are conservative and I still have views that I might not
| readily share in NYSFLA but probably would after a couple
| of beers because I'm not going to get crucified over
| them. If you honestly think conservatism isn't anything
| but mainstream then you are the one living in the bubble.
| (We literally just had trump as president!)
|
| I had a longer comment written out before chrome crashed
| but the gist is Hollywood and Silicon Valley don't
| dictate the entirety of mainstream culture.
| watwut wrote:
| There is huge amount of Christians and gin rights
| advocates on Twitter. The TV actually caters to them _a
| lot_.
|
| Yet also, people from coastal states are like 75% od USA
| population.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > ... gin rights advocates...
|
| You mean, people who are against Prohibition?
|
| ;-)
| aaron-santos wrote:
| > There are no groups (as far as I know) for people who
| eschew social media.
|
| There is at least one group who (arguably in part) eschews
| political social media: the grillpilled.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Eschewing social media is not a culture in and of itself,
| anymore than eschewing the telephone or TV is a culture. But
| it is an attribute that some cultures have. Cultures have to
| be based around the actual ways they do interact, whether in
| person meetings via church groups, in person hiking groups,
| bike riding, falconry, camping, whatever. Similarly many
| people prefer to use person-to-person communication such as
| text messages, email, telephone calls, rather than
| broadcasting an edited version of their own thoughts to the
| world all the time. To assume that if you are not constantly
| engaging in this type of one-to-many communication, then you
| must be absolutely alone is to have serious tunnel vision.
| potta_coffee wrote:
| It seems somewhat counter-cultural to not have social media
| and tv, though rejecting those things doesn't define a
| culture. I've had visitors to my house that realize I don't
| have a TV and they assume I'm some kind of judgemental
| weirdo.
| greenonions wrote:
| I don't own a TV and most people here don't seem to know
| how to react to this information. Often they don't seem
| to have considered the possibility that someone wouldn't
| own one. I haven't watched television for entertainment
| in a decade or so, so I only get references which I
| absorb through YouTube, Twitch. I wouldn't think of
| myself countercultural, but it shows just how conforming
| many people are without realizing.
|
| Edit: by here, I'm referring to the Midwestern United
| States Edit 2: would > wouldn't
| matwood wrote:
| What is television now? You're watching YouTube and
| Twitch, so what you're really avoiding is broadcast TV.
| The large and growing cord cutting movement is exactly
| that with people using their TV as a large screen
| for...YouTube and Twitch.
| drdrey wrote:
| > most people here
|
| Can you define "here"? I live in a country that is not
| your country of origin?
| randycupertino wrote:
| > I don't own a TV and most people here don't seem to
| know how to react to this information.
|
| Really? We don't own a TV and it's very common within my
| friends group. I do watch occasional shows on my laptop
| and we streamed the superbowl on my husband's large
| computer monitor screen.
|
| But I would say not having a TV is becoming more and more
| common.
| [deleted]
| rsj_hn wrote:
| I own a computer monitor I can use for gaming, streaming
| TV shows or movies, or just a bigger screen for my
| laptop.
|
| That's the only standalone powered screen I own, but
| honestly I don't see any difference between that and a
| regular TV. TV is about watching television shows
| regardless of whether they are downloaded from the
| internet, piped through a cable channel, or received with
| an antenna.
|
| Similarly people that don't own stand-alone monitors but
| have laptop screens or iMac screens they use to stream TV
| shows have TVs in my opinion. To insist that they don't
| because they are using wifi instead of an antenna to
| receive the data seems a bit pedantic.
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| There is a big difference between selecting content and
| watching it; and having a selection of curated streams.
| Autoplay on youtube definitely hacks away at this
| difference, which is probably why youtube keeps turning
| autoplay on for me after I turn it off.
| AdmiralGinge wrote:
| I didn't have a TV for a long time out of spite towards
| the TV licencing system in the UK and the heavy-handed
| way it's enforced. I'd love someone with a background in
| RF engineering to explain how those TV detector vans are
| supposed to work with modern TVs and the massively higher
| electromagnetic noise floor!
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I expect vegans get the same, I know getting rid of my
| car led to some people thinking I was the green police
| and they had to justify why they still owned theirs.
| krapp wrote:
| >There are no groups (as far as I know) for people who eschew
| social media. They don't meet up at the pub and talk about
| it, they don't have any kind of organization, even a loose
| one.
|
| Hacker News is basically that culture. A lot of people here
| spend their time complaining about how much they hate every
| aspect of social media, the web and modern culture ( _except_
| for HN, of course) and make a point of virtue-signaling how
| unplugged, and detached from the mainstream they are,
| including their refusal to touch any form of social media.
|
| I think it's fair to say that a part of the userbase here has
| built a cultural identity around its contrarianism.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Yet there are groups here that tend to downvote certain not
| necessarily evil views to oblivion. For example if you
| support capitalism and in context write your opinion in
| favour of some events, expect a rain of downvotes or if you
| dare to criticise Apple. Quite ironic.
| krapp wrote:
| I don't see any particular irony. Hacker News has always
| accepted that downvotes for any reason are allowed,
| because upvotes for any reason are allowed. It's not
| surprising that in a contrarian culture, casual downvotes
| would be commonplace.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| There are PR companies but also individual groups that
| monitor and downvote certain views on a daily basis.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Hacker News is that culture but it is a subculture, not a
| counterculture.
| jdefelice wrote:
| I think there will be such a group but you won't know about
| them because they won't be on social media telling people
| about it. I don't think their identity will be anti-social
| media, but an identity to strive for a slower way of life.
| Kelamir wrote:
| > I think the interesting part is that it's kind of counter-
| culture but it itself is not really a culture at all.
|
| It reminds me of a chapter from Kino's adventures, where she
| finds a city, which has a culture of cat lovers. When she
| leaves them, she meets their king, who tells the story of the
| land: people had decided they don't need the king and any
| culture, so they've decided to appear to every traveller with
| a different culture.
|
| However, the king says, they are not aware that that is their
| new culture.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| We're on Signal. You don't see us unless invited.
| medicineman wrote:
| Yeah, they organize, and yeah there are groups. You just wont
| hear about them on social media. It's better this way.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| It doesn't need to be a culture, or atomized in that way. It
| isn't a statement of identity, either.
|
| It is being intentional about one's time, attention, and
| emotions. Me, I play a lot more guitar these days, and really
| enjoy having something that I can learn.
|
| Social media just doesn't work for me. I can't deal with a
| constant stream of people dumping their emotions. I'm aware
| that most other people can. And that's fine. But I'm happier
| just ignoring it and working hard on work, family life, and
| guitar.
| planet-and-halo wrote:
| As one of these people, totally agree. I don't really have
| people I sympathize with over this stuff (except a few
| friends with whom its a minor topic of conversation) or
| anything I'd consider a culture. Mostly I just deleted my
| accounts and moved on. On the other hand, despite the lack of
| other people to commiserate with, it does feel a little
| countercultural insofar as I'm doing something different from
| most people, and it sticks out on occasion.
| iYNGcKqrdNPPmcA wrote:
| I've similarly ghosted social networks and other
| "platforms" some years back. A culture is usually formed
| around shared experience. In the case of social media
| escapists there are two sets of shared experiences:
|
| The escapists themselves are simply living their lives as
| usual. This sort of baseline human experience is a rare
| thing these days, but it doesn't get much exposure because
| escapists aren't likely to go out of their way to broadcast
| their experiences - that would be antithetical to the idea
| of disconnecting from social media.
|
| Other people are wondering where the escapists have gone.
| Did they die? Move to Mars? Get convicted of a major crime
| and sentenced to a long stint in state prison? This too
| takes places quietly: it's not as if anyone's mounting a
| nationwide search to locate the escapists.
|
| These experiences to me form a kind of bifurcated culture.
| vageli wrote:
| > These experiences to me form a kind of bifurcated
| culture.
|
| I think what the GP was pointing at is that culture tends
| to have community, and there is no community of people
| who have fled the larger platforms (until you consider
| groups on mastodon, secure scuttlebutt, etc).
| ryandrake wrote:
| To steal and modify a saying: "Non-use of social media"
| is a community as much as "not collecting stamps" is a
| hobby.
| dhosek wrote:
| That's been pretty much my experience. My wife thinks I'm
| crazy to have deleted my Facebook and Twitter but that's
| really about the only interaction I have on the topic.
| aeturnum wrote:
| In an age of corporate sponsored wildly increasing visibility &
| reach, it's a counter-cultural act to forgo visibilty & reach
| for other goals.
| franklampard wrote:
| Really? Isn't it already trendy to bash big tech and diss tech
| platforms?
| akurzon wrote:
| I think so, but for most people it doesn't stop them from
| using the platforms. And then the criticism doesn't amount to
| much.
| lukebuehler wrote:
| I think there is something similar at work with decentralized
| platforms: they might never be as slick as their centralized
| counterparts, but it's a kind of ascetic choice that opens new
| doors.
| edrxty wrote:
| I find this is a good way to learn. Comfortable mega-
| platforms don't really foster anything productive
| (generalizing, obviously) but when you start to play with the
| bleeding edge decentralized options it allows you see "what
| could be".
|
| Trying to rid my life of google has opened all sorts of
| doors. If you're a tinkerer there are a plethora of options
| available for you to customize your experience and discover
| new capabilities.
| AshleighBasil wrote:
| Do people perceive popular platform UI's as 'slick'? To me
| they always seemed like a mess that is insane to navigate
| because the company's massive org chart digests into a
| massive turd that gets smeared over the landing page.
| Facebook is the worst, but they all seem to have this
| problem.
| achairapart wrote:
| One big problem with decentralized platforms is that, while
| technologically and conceptually fascinating, they offer a
| complex and not average-user-friendly UX.
|
| Users are so inured by the down-to-earth, nanny-ready,
| repetitive and instant-gratification driven UIs of
| mainstream platforms that many of them have a hard time
| just understanding where to start with the decentralized
| ones.
| AshleighBasil wrote:
| What part of PeerTube's UX is complex compared to
| Youtube? You just click the videos and search in the
| search box. To leave comments you type them and click
| submit.
|
| Uploading a video is also WAY easier than Youtube,
| because Youtube assumes you've used their interface a
| ton, so they don't have to try to make it as friendly.
| Dominant players tend to think that way - I'm the big guy
| so YOU should have to learn to think like ME
| mordechai9000 wrote:
| I think there is something slick about them, if you just go
| with what they put in front of you. Don't try to navigate
| beyond a very high level, just take what it brings and hope
| for that momentary reward that comes from the likes and the
| comments.
| 1propionyl wrote:
| The analogy to Cixin Liu's "dark forest" concept also seems apt
| and enlightening. (Basically: it's a game theoretic response to
| the Fermi Paradox that suggests that any sensible galactic
| civilization would avoid making contact with any other
| civilization and attempt to stay hidden.)
|
| More and more over the past few years, I've seen my own social
| circles migrate away from public forums like Facebook and
| Twitter and into private WhatsApp group chats, Discord groups,
| and so on.
|
| In some cases these are groups of people I know in real life,
| and in some cases everyone is anonymous or pseudonymous.
|
| And there is definitely an unspoken rule of "don't unilaterally
| invite anyone, don't advertise that this group exists, stay
| hidden, we like what we have going on here."
|
| It's in some ways a reversion to the style of older private
| Usenet/BBS/IRC channels, but in other respects it's a lateral
| move. For one, it's still mostly happening on centralized
| platforms.
|
| What I think is interesting is how our media ecology (in the
| sense of media as means we communicate and express ourselves,
| not "mass media") is an interplay between these big public
| spaces and a proliferation of smaller private spaces. It's not
| _just_ a dark forest, there's also a bright canopy into which
| people emerge, forage, and carry back down into the forest.
| jaspax wrote:
| The Dark Forest analogy strikes me as apt as well. All of the
| best (most interesting, most active, most insightful) groups
| that I belong to are off of the public internet these days.
| Some of them are just small Discord servers, some are even
| more heavily encrypted groups on Signal, Mattermost, or
| Mastadon. But what they have in common is that not everyone
| is welcome, and we don't even advertise our presence.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The thing that I hate about what social media has done is
| that it is resistant to persistance of knowledge. I grew up
| in the heyday of forums (late 90s to mid-late 00s). It seems
| like a lot of these groups have moved to facebook (or
| discord, or whatsapp), and now a lot of that knowledge for
| specialty stuff is unsearchable and behind a wall.
|
| One of my hobbies is boatbuilding, and there is a LOT of good
| material that is still available on forums since they just
| happily sit there seemingly forever, and are easy to archive.
| But a lot of the new stuff is now done on FB, and it means
| that knowledge gets pushed to the bottom of the feed, and it
| is impossible to archive.
|
| My feeling is that the switch to algorithmic feed-based
| discussion is a serious regression for a lot of interest
| groups.
|
| An excellent illustration of this is Stack Overflow. They
| take after the forum model of preserving knowledge to the
| degree that they shut down discussions that have happened
| before. Stack Overflow's database of solutions brings
| literally billions in value to the world, and it simply would
| not work without persistance of information.
| datavirtue wrote:
| That was the beginning of the end for me. Trying to search
| for a post I saw a few hours ago resulted in nothing but
| frustration. What a joke.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > But a lot of the new stuff is now done on FB, and it
| means that knowledge gets pushed to the bottom of the feed,
| and it is impossible to archive.
|
| Are there any maintained Facebook scrapers, akin to
| youtube-dl? I think there's definitely a need for
| /r/datahoarder style archiving of certain parts of social
| media.
| 8bitchemistry wrote:
| > I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space
| as being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought.
|
| The only winning move is not to play:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming
| lambda_obrien wrote:
| Well, if everyone is an attention seeker online trying to pitch
| their own line of BS and side hustling, then not using social
| media, or being genuine there, is counter to culture.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| I don't think the article gets to the heart of the matter of
| why online platforms are not countercultural. The main reason,
| in my understanding, is that they still are selling the vision
| of the individual as rebel, and individual expression as our
| unique combination of consumer choices; Instagram is the
| perfect example and the logical conclusion of Individual Choice
| being our highest expression. Nothing about that dynamic is
| countercultural any more.
|
| There are still online interactions though. Communities trading
| tracks and collaborating musically online. Torrenting. Open
| source software projects.
| ghgdynb1 wrote:
| How about exit from the platforms while continuing to build on
| the Internet?
|
| balajis.com vs twitter.com/balajis
| lmarcos wrote:
| I've been thinking exactly that. The problem is that the
| average internet user would have to: - buy a domain name (and
| pay for it every year) - rent hosting (cheapest provider is
| probably DO at 5$/month) - setup your machine so that it's
| secure enough it doesn't end up hacked - setup whatever is
| needed to publish content in your machine (could be as simple
| as HTML, but then the average internet user doesn't know
| HTML. It could be wordpress... But then you have to install
| it by yourself)
|
| It's a lot of hassle for the average internet user. The worst
| case scenario: you end up paying ~70$/year for something you
| have no idea how to setup property. Beast case scenario: some
| startup takes over the hassle for you for "only" 50$/year...
| But that's not that different from Facebook (except that you
| would "own" a domain name and a host you have no idea how to
| "own").
| Jakobeha wrote:
| I don't think it's _that_ hard or expensive to build and
| host a static site. You could even use github.io if you 're
| desperate.
|
| Hard for the average person? Probably, because most people
| aren't good with technology. But there are a lot of tools
| and support out there, for anyone motivated enough to
| learn.
| pochamago wrote:
| "To be truly countercultural in a time of literate hegemony,
| you must become illiterate"
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| What's posted on social networks makes you feel like we live
| in a time of literate hegemony?
| Nasrudith wrote:
| The fact the contents are text and many prefer texting to
| voice calls for one? It may not be high art or even proper
| grammar but it is still literate.
|
| Plus it demonstrates how vacuous defining something by what
| it is not really is - you can put anything in that hole.
|
| To give a deliberately stupid as possible version - have
| you ever eaten toxic ocean snails? No? Then you are part of
| the not eating ocean cone snails hedgemony oppressing us
| all by their force of the not eating ocean snail ways.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-13 23:03 UTC)