[HN Gopher] Gin, television, and social surplus, or, "looking fo...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Gin, television, and social surplus, or, "looking for the mouse"
       (2008)
        
       Author : nz
       Score  : 86 points
       Date   : 2021-11-12 13:15 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (gist.github.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (gist.github.com)
        
       | ImaCake wrote:
       | While some points in here might ring a little cynical today, I
       | think the broader argument has proven true. The mega project I
       | have been contributing my spare time and cognition to is
       | inaturalist [0]. Despite it's many flaws, it is impressive to see
       | the depth and breadth of data available on it. It also serves the
       | same public good that wikipedia does - building and delivering
       | important knowledge that can change the world.
       | 
       | The projects that fit this social surplus model that are doing
       | good are often happening quietly. Those that are negative uses of
       | social surplus are loud. Don't let that fool you into thinking
       | good projects are less common or hopeless causes.
       | 
       | 0. https://www.inaturalist.org/
        
       | flerovium wrote:
       | He's saying that post-WWII society had a lot more free time. But
       | this isn't true for people living in rural areas. Historically,
       | many had more free time.[1]
       | 
       | [1]
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28q7l5/how_m...
        
         | WJW wrote:
         | The free time of people in rural areas is not quite as
         | important, politically speaking, as the free time of people in
         | cities. By the very nature of cities, people inside them can
         | reach other people more readily and social movements will
         | spread quicker in cities than in thinly populated areas.
         | 
         | So, in the earlier time when people in rural areas had a lot of
         | free time they couldn't really do a lot with that free time in
         | a political sense. But after industrialization caused a huge
         | migration towards cities, some of the people took their
         | newfound free time after WW2 and used it to rally people
         | towards ideological causes. Obviously this is a threat to
         | entrenched interests who don't want any new ideologies to gain
         | momentum as they benefit from the status quo. The article makes
         | the claim that by making mindless entertainment available to
         | all, many of these ideological shifts were deprived of energy
         | and this stabilized society somewhat.
        
       | milesvp wrote:
       | I have several thoughts.
       | 
       | Was gilligan a genius? So many attempts to get off the island
       | were completely hare brained, maybe only he could see it. Lovable
       | sabotage can be an effective tool to help save an org from
       | itself.
       | 
       | But the more important thought, I'm reminded of all the works of
       | Luis von Ahn who was trying to capture this surplus. He had a
       | talk talking about the number of hours spent playing soltaire,
       | and used the unit of empire state buildings built and it was some
       | staggering number of units. It was a very compelling idea about
       | the same time as this article. It's a shame so much of that
       | surplus has gone towards solidifying several tech giants rather
       | than more things like Gary's Mod.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | carbonguy wrote:
       | I've been fascinated by the ideas of this piece ever since I
       | first read it, particularly by the idea that leisure time is
       | something that many - or most - people actually have a hard time
       | dealing with and integrating into their lives.
       | 
       | I wonder now what other "Wikipedia"-type projects have arisen
       | since 2008 to serve as similar public goods. GitHub? Maybe
       | YouTube, if you squint hard enough?
        
         | pbhjpbhj wrote:
         | StackOverflow et al.? I enjoy helping people in fields where I
         | have relevant experience (it think I do!), eg with computer
         | issues, and SOs gamification of that (and other community
         | knowledge) makes it into something of a leisure time activity
         | for me on occasions.
         | 
         | I take part in some FB groups (pottery related) in a similar
         | way.
        
         | jetrink wrote:
         | I think YouTube definitely qualifies, though the content hosted
         | there is much more heterogeneous in quality and purpose. The
         | how-to content alone is its own little wikipedia. Guided by
         | videos, my mother is now diving into home-improvement projects
         | that she would have relied on my dad for in previous decades.
         | My dad has always been handy, but now he's learning to do
         | things to professional standards instead of the improvised,
         | jury-rigged way he's always done them.
        
       | wayanon wrote:
       | Enjoyed reading this. As much as I feel guilty watching YouTube I
       | do at least feel I am doing something slightly more proactive
       | than watching legacy TV or streaming in that I'm having to search
       | for stuff that solves a need for me at that time, or at least
       | judge how effective the YT algorithm is. I'm lucky to have the
       | BBC and value it as an impartial news organisation but I haven't
       | watched one of their (or ITV or others) programmes for at least 5
       | years, even on iPlayer. It's all YouTube for me and I don't
       | begrudge the Premium subscription at all - it's changed my life
       | so much for the better.
        
         | wayanon wrote:
         | In case not obvious I'm living on my own - I can see that
         | normal TV viewing is more of a communal/social thing.
        
       | 0x4d464d48 wrote:
       | Good read.
       | 
       | This is from 2008 and hindsight is 20/20 but theres a couple of
       | disturbing omissions that have started making themselves
       | apparent.
       | 
       | The piece emphasizes how all of this "cogitive surplus" is going
       | to promote sharing and in the hands of good actors that's
       | fantastic.
       | 
       | E.g.
       | 
       | "Just to pick one example, one I'm in love with, but it's tiny. A
       | couple of weeks one of my students at ITP forwarded me a a
       | project started by a professor in Brazil, in Fortaleza, named
       | Vasco Furtado. It's a Wiki Map for crime in Brazil. If there's an
       | assault, if there's a burglary, if there's a mugging, a robbery,
       | a rape, a murder, you can go and put a push-pin on a Google Map,
       | and you can characterize the assault, and you start to see a map
       | of where these crimes are occurring."
       | 
       | But now for the other side of the coin. What happens when the
       | people providing and sharing content are _bad_ actors?
       | 
       | E.g.
       | 
       | https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-ch...
       | 
       | Further, you're always assuming the provided data is accurate. It
       | mandates a level of trust with the data provider. Sure, there may
       | not be much incentive to provide fake data to a simple crime map
       | but this can change quite readily when commercial interests are
       | involved or some coordinated group of malicious actors. My mind
       | jumps to small business owners being 'brigaded' on Yelp and state
       | funded troll farms.
       | 
       | One final piece that I found particularly disturbing.
       | 
       | "Media that's targeted at you but that doesn't include you may
       | not be worth sitting still for."
       | 
       | It's hard to argue that finding a niche for oneself is bad but I
       | don't think that there are many intelligent people left that
       | would argue media bubbles are a force for good. That's not to say
       | the author would disagree but this is not an endorsement it seems
       | to border on sympathetic.
       | 
       | I don't learn and grow from media that targets me. If anything
       | it's antagonistic to that. Media that targets me makes me feel
       | comfortable. It promotes narrative formation over reality
       | testing.
       | 
       | Media not targeted for me, or that doesn't include me on the
       | other hand, requires analysis. It requires comparison and
       | contrast to my ideals and beliefs. It requires assessing why that
       | media _doesn't_ target me and understanding who it's intended
       | audience is and why _they_ consume it.
       | 
       | /rant
       | 
       | Felt the need to work on my writing this morning.
        
         | heresie-dabord wrote:
         | > What happens when the people providing the content are _bad_
         | actors?
         | 
         | Manipulation for economic gain, creating a sacrifice zone to be
         | depleted, exhausted, and discarded like a landfill of souls.
        
       | Lammy wrote:
       | I love this metaphor:
       | 
       | "The way you explore complex ecosystems is you just try lots and
       | lots and lots of things, and you hope that everybody who fails
       | fails informatively so that you can at least find a skull on a
       | pikestaff near where you're going. "
        
       | codeulike wrote:
       | Clay Shirky wrote a whole book about this - "Cognitive Surplus"
       | (2011)
       | 
       | That key bit about the person-hours in Wikipedia always stuck in
       | my head - 100 million hours to build wikipedia, versus 200
       | billion hours per year watching TV.
       | 
       | And when people panic about kids amount of screen time these
       | days, I think 'well at least it involves making choices' - which
       | link to click, which tweet to like, which bit of candy to crush
       | etc. Whereas in the decades that our societies spent glued to tv,
       | a handful of massively centralised outfits somewhere got the
       | privilege of beaming their own curated stuff straight into
       | millions of peoples faces. They chose the content and the
       | schedule and millions of people just turned up every day and sat
       | infront of it.
        
       | wrs wrote:
       | Great speech. There does seem to be an optimistic assumption here
       | that more participation in media is always better. But from a
       | 2021 viewpoint I would now add the discovery (through mass
       | experiment) that there are some forms of _participative_ media
       | that are just as empty of value as, and far more toxic to society
       | than, just letting people watch TV. So, as they say, "it's
       | complicated".
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-11-13 23:01 UTC)