[HN Gopher] Fake Fans
___________________________________________________________________
Fake Fans
Author : performative
Score : 148 points
Date : 2026-04-03 22:26 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wordsfromeliza.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wordsfromeliza.com)
| jwpapi wrote:
| I've noticed a lot of fake Tik Tok comments recently and was
| wondering already..
| cobbzilla wrote:
| Modern payola. Fascinating but not entirely unpredictable. I'm
| excited by the focus on hyper-local, authenticity is the scarce
| resource. Great artists are usually not the best marketers, but
| nothing beats "I am here, this is real". No amount of algorithmic
| magic can create that experience.
| girvo wrote:
| > Great artists are usually not the best marketers, but nothing
| beats "I am here, this is real".
|
| Agreed 100%, which is why my local city's (Brisbane) post-rock
| scene of the 2000s-2010s was so important to me
|
| But it's also why despite being _phenomenal_ musicians, they
| all worked normal jobs (even those related bands who were
| indie-rock enough to be played on Triple J even though they
| weren 't) and they've all stopped playing because touring loses
| money.
|
| I will always have the music and the years of amazing
| experiences and the photos of the shows I took, but hyper-local
| means niche and niche means unsustainable, I think.
| cobbzilla wrote:
| Yeah art is art, it's never paid well generally. You do it
| because you love it, and your audience loves it. And that is
| awesome.
|
| And then commerce is commerce, and you make money and more
| money means you did something good.
|
| And then you put the two together and it's the same shit
| we've seen for thousands of years. tbh no surprises! This is
| all as expected.
|
| There's still phenomenal live music in every city I've ever
| visited, to the present day. Just go out and find it, it's
| not hard!
|
| Support live local music
| gedy wrote:
| I do think when rent was cheaper (globally) you could live
| even when not paid well.
| jfengel wrote:
| I have found that the great artists you've heard of tend to
| also be great marketers, or at the very least found great
| marketers.
|
| I know quite a few extremely talented artists who could never
| crack the marketing, and so nobody else has ever heard of them.
| Even local fame requires a fair bit of hustle. Talent alone
| doesn't get you there.
| cobbzilla wrote:
| Could this be confirmation bias?
|
| Isn't this the point of the unique & real discovery process
| that actual connoisseurs of an art form participate in? We
| find you (great artist), because you are brilliant at your
| art but terrible at marketing.
|
| Then you might become popular because 1) we (the finders, the
| influencers) talk about you (I mean personally here, friend
| to friend, in person, not social media) and 2) if your art
| has broad appeal, it just needed the marketing. word of mouth
| marketing is the most authentic kind so of course it's being
| faked!
|
| There are many artists that I love that "no one has ever
| heard of" and that's fine! At some point, some of them will
| make something with broad appeal and it'll catch on.
|
| There's money at stake so of course people are trying to
| juice the process, but that's been going on for a very long
| time, hence my original reference to payola (pay to play on
| radio) which started in the 1930s!
|
| None of this payola bullshit takes anything away from the
| true talent producing amazing art today! It just means, as it
| always has, that if you want the good stuff you have to do
| your own research. Most are too lazy and that's fine! They
| have other interests. But the art form itself does not suffer
| because there exist grifters who distort mass perception.
| Connoisseurs are less interested in mass perception.
| cobbzilla wrote:
| As a counterpoint to my own argument above -- the Ramones
| made more money selling T-shirts; every artist must market
| somehow; so yeah it's definitely more complicated, I am
| presenting an oversimplified view.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47473673
| mbb70 wrote:
| Reminds me of "a terrible project with a great slide deck
| might end up decent. A great project with a terrible slide
| deck won't even exist."
|
| In the real world there is no If You Build It They Will Come,
| you've got to get the word out
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Not at all. Saying something like that is the loudest signal
| for how out of touch you are with how audiences are made.
|
| From the article:
|
| > "...it's like the first thing that they see or that first
| comment that they see is their opinion even when they haven't
| heard the whole album."
|
| What is this trying to say? For every 1 person who thinks about
| truth in some independent way, I don't care if it's spiritual
| or because they do scientific tests for what the best music is
| or all of this other stuff; there are 19 people who are, "LIKES
| = TRUTH".
|
| Are you getting it? That has nothing to do with payola or
| authenticity or scarcity or whatever. You have no idea anyway,
| you've never had to make a creative product. Likes = truth.
| Authenticity is the seeming unlikelihood that social media
| content authors are bought and sold. It's the OPPOSITE of what
| you think. It is the OPPOSITE of payola. And look, they're
| right. The vast majority of opinions on TikTok are not paid
| for. This is the OPPOSITE of radio.
| cobbzilla wrote:
| > Likes = truth
|
| sounds like pop culture = art
|
| which is obviously not true
| t-3 wrote:
| But it's what at least some people making/selling music
| believe, or else they _wouldn 't be buying likes_.
| balamatom wrote:
| Yeah yeah, instead of manufacturing the consent they're
| manufacturing the whole consenters now. Afuckingmazing.
|
| "Clap along, if you feel that happiness is the truth..." Then
| one of those days someone comes along and claps back.
| 998244353 wrote:
| I cannot understand what you're trying to say at all.
| fwipsy wrote:
| Recently rereading William Gibson's "Pattern Recognition" and I'm
| struck by his belief that certain art or memes are objectively
| good and destined for virality. I think both Gibson and this
| author are wrong. No content is intrinsically destined for
| success. There are countless amazing artists, available to
| anyone. Any sort of quality, insight, talent, novelty are table
| stakes. If someone is big, they're either extremely lucky, they
| got in on the ground floor, or there's marketing money behind
| them.
| balamatom wrote:
| >objectively good
|
| >destined for virality
|
| Antonyms, in my book.
|
| >Any sort of quality, insight, talent, novelty are table stakes
|
| So that's why I ain't seeing much of those lately. You sayin'
| someone left 'em on the table?
|
| >If someone is big, they're either extremely lucky, they got in
| on the ground floor, or there's marketing money behind them.
|
| Yes. Meaning, if you're big, I simply do not wish to hear about
| you or what you have to express; you're simply the thing that
| ascribes to the money its value.
|
| Relatedly, an ancient saying: "I do not happen to be a
| connoiseur of the different flavours of excrement".
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Not antonyms. Some good art goes viral on its own merits. But
| certainly not synonyms either.
| ghtbircshotbe wrote:
| Lately when I watch a video on YouTube, every single one of
| the recommended videos is AI slop. Not sure what the next 5
| years holds. It does make me question the argument that bad
| AI generated content is equivalent to bad human generated
| content. And they all have hundreds of thousands of views,
| another mystery.
| AJ007 wrote:
| A dirty secret is the algorithms can't differentiate real
| users from fake. The universe of content is so large now,
| if you don't start with a fake audience you go nowhere.
| Slop rises to the top, because slopfarms can spend all
| their money on the farming rather than the content. It's
| even worse if you look at short form video because it's
| trivial to clone anything that went viral and alter the
| message, no real human or attractive 20 year old American
| required.
|
| If content requires a real human network for transmission,
| the cost of transmitting slop is your own reputation within
| your network. A bunch of bots circle jerking each other
| can't sell concert tickets or much of anything.
|
| The idea that some artist is exceptionally talented and
| good and they deserve to be famous or sell out concerts is
| a myth. There are so many exceptionally skilled singers,
| songwriters, and musicians that are all unknowns. Many who
| are more talented than (insert famous living or dead pop
| star here.)
|
| I think this is part of the reason why the AI ruins
| creativity is overblown. The music-art-talent pyramid
| always meant a tiny percent at the top walked away with all
| of the money. Look at the numbers from the last screen
| actor's guild strike, the majority of actors earn at or
| below minimum wage. It's a new world, and the old one
| people believe deserves to continue perpetually existed in
| but a blink of human civilization.
| fwipsy wrote:
| The objective parts of quality (technical skill) are fairly
| easy to saturate, most serious artists do so, but it's not
| sufficient to be successful.
|
| Objective quality is common, but it sounds like you've just
| defined subjective quality to exclude anything mainstream.
|
| You're right that Gibson would not have defined quality and
| virality to be the same. I should have used "or" in that
| sentence. However, he still seems to believe that they depend
| on properties of the content: some things have broad appeal,
| some things have genuine quality, some things have neither or
| both, and their success depends on that. I think it's all a
| crapshoot.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| Your definition, that most art (or even things in general)
| are of roughly the same quality above some bar of
| competency is... Difficult to defend.
|
| There are things that are just better than others.
| Sometimes it's because they take much longer to make (time,
| materials etc). Other times it's because they go into a new
| direction (inventions, new genres). Not all things doing
| these are good. In fact generally, spending more time on
| something or trying new things results in overbaked
| garbage. It's genuinely rare and special to hit upon a
| combination of all three - competent, new, and with high
| investment put into it.
|
| Just spend time thinking about airport novels, or the
| countless pop artists the music industry tries to push that
| get no traction. Or failed hollywood blockbusters. Quality
| matters.
| fwipsy wrote:
| Not of the same quality, just that the objective parts of
| quality have been mastered by many people. What sets art
| apart beyond that is individual taste. "Newness" is
| definitely subjective; it depends on what you've seen
| before (though it is correlated for people within a
| culture.)
|
| I suspect that you criticize airport novels, pop music,
| cliched movies because they are similar to stuff you've
| seen before. (I hope that you've _tried_ them, and aren
| 't just criticizing them on the _perception_ that they
| 're lowbrow.) But people who hadn't seen them before
| could still enjoy them.
|
| You eat at a Michelin-starred restaurant. I eat a bowl of
| oatmeal and I enjoy it just as much. What makes your meal
| better?
| RugnirViking wrote:
| I understand the hypothetical argument that you _could_
| enjoy a simple meal, a simple life, etc. And there are
| many that do - but that doesn 't mean some things aren't
| preferable to other things to some people. It just shows
| that people's preferences are different.
|
| But generally, we see that given the choice, people do
| rate art differently. That people prefer certain things
| to other things more often than chance. Some of it is
| perhaps cultural, sure. But does that really undermine
| the point? The trick of making good art/products whatever
| is literally hitting a thing a large group of people
| like. It's not cheating to try and make people of your
| culture, or any specific culture or subculture, like it.
| That's actually kinda most of the point.
|
| You really can distinguish between a competent but
| otherwise uninteresting thing and something truly special
| by just like... Putting it out there. Many things that
| were widely distributed were not especially well liked,
| and others remain literal classics. Why?
| SL61 wrote:
| It doesn't surprise me at all that this is going on. There are
| lots of social media fan pages that are run by real people who
| post real content 99% of the time but are willing to post promo
| material for a fee. Usually that fee is pretty high, easily
| $100-500 depending on the account's follower count, with
| different price points for how long it stays up (pay more for a
| permanent post, pay less and it gets deleted after X number of
| hours). It's really effective because those accounts already have
| a well-established presence and function as tastemakers.
| adamtaylor_13 wrote:
| Pieces like this all seem to be written with an unspoken
| assumption that anyone who wants to make a living wage from being
| an artist should be able to, as if it's some sort of right.
|
| It would be _nice_ if that were true.
|
| AI has exacerbated this issue. Suddenly we're faced with the
| uncomfortable truth that much of human artwork is "mid" as the
| kids would say and people aren't willing to pay for songs,
| writing, and/or graphics the way they otherwise might.
|
| Anyway, I'm very curious if anyone has a good argument for why
| anyone who wishes to be an artist is owed a living wage for
| merely their desire to be recognized as economically valuable.
| palmotea wrote:
| > Pieces like this all seem to be written with an unspoken
| assumption that anyone who wants to make a living wage from
| being an artist should be able to, as if it's some sort of
| right.
|
| Comments like yours seem to be written with the unspoken
| assumption that everyone's life should be hard unless they can
| please the market, which technology makes increasingly
| difficult. It's deeply anti-human.
|
| > AI has exacerbated this issue. Suddenly we're faced with the
| uncomfortable truth that much of human artwork is "mid" as the
| kids would say and people aren't willing to pay for songs,
| writing, and/or graphics the way they otherwise might.
|
| Is that news to anyone? But mid people exist, they worthy
| people, and they need to eat. AI is leading us to a dystopia
| where, unless you're in the top 0.1% of talent, the market has
| no use for you. And guess what happens to you then?
|
| > Anyway, I'm very curious if anyone has a good argument for
| why anyone who wishes to be an artist is owed a living wage for
| merely their desire to be recognized as economically valuable.
|
| Because that was the last promise the tech bros made: our tech
| will replace you, then you get to be an artist, be creative!
| Now it will take your creative job, and free you up for
| draining monitoring tasks and manual labor.
| y-curious wrote:
| People are only willing to pay for quality, mostly. I can't
| just say that I'm a neurosurgeon because I want to be one.
| There has always been reward for merit and suffering for lack
| of merit.
|
| Nothing "anti human" about social Darwinism
| wolvesechoes wrote:
| > There has always been reward for merit and suffering for
| lack of merit.
|
| But conflating merit with economical value is very recent
| invention.
|
| > Nothing "anti human" about social Darwinism
|
| It didn't arise until rise of capitalism and bourgeoise
| (lack of) morality. For most of human history, and among
| countless cultures, social Darwinism wasn't the case.
|
| Peak ideology, btw.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| What is the definition of "social Darwinism"?
|
| I am under the impression that for most of human history,
| the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what
| determined the social hierarchy. Would that not be the
| reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal?
|
| It seems to be a very, very recent phenomenon that simply
| selling goods and services can elevate one in the
| hierarchy, due to the advent of legal systems and
| policing (e.g. women's rights).
| defrost wrote:
| The social Darwinists that ran with nature red in tooth
| and claw and took survival of the best fitted to mean the
| physically fittest and most aggressively dominant win are
| the ones responsible for your impressions.
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
|
| They're very much a fork from the Alfred Russel Wallace /
| Charles Darwin theory of natural selection.
| wolvesechoes wrote:
| > I am under the impression that for most of human
| history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence
| was what determined the social hierarchy.
|
| As most things people today believe, this is not really
| true, at least not in such universal way as usually
| implied.
|
| > Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes
| were patriarchal?
|
| There is no data to assert that.
| leviathant wrote:
| >People are only willing to pay for quality, mostly.
|
| lol, lmao even.
|
| In America at least, people pay for branding, and to give
| the impression that they're of a higher standing than they
| are - whether or not what they're buying is quality.
| Whether that's someone deeply in debt sporting Luis
| Vuitton, or a US President putting gold-painted foam
| ornamentation on the walls of the oval office.
|
| When it comes to the arts, or boutique fashion, or small
| scale manufacturing, people also pay for parasocial reasons
| - a variation on the branding angle. Storytelling about the
| founder, or the people doing the work, pictures of the
| space where a thing is being made, will give potential
| buyers a sense that they're paying for authenticity. That's
| why there are so many garbage ads on social media of a
| twenty-something talking about the old "one weird trick"
| that changed their routine... just so they can dropship you
| some garbage from Aliexpress with a 300% markup.
| Unai wrote:
| I share the same opinion that, just because someone is or
| wants to be an artist, doesn't mean they deserve to make a
| living wage out of it. But I'm not a capitalist, far from it.
| I actually think people shouldn't have to work at all if they
| don't want to, but we're just not at all there yet.
|
| From experience, this seems to be a very unpopular opinion.
| Everyone see themselves as hard working, and hate lazy
| people. But since a few years ago, all of the sudden, and
| mostly in relation to AI, everyone thinks all artists deserve
| to make a living. I find this hypocritical.
|
| If you're not providing enough value for others to give you
| money, that's just how things are, artist or not. Too bad the
| mediocre work of a machine is good enough. The day the system
| changes, and it will, will be for everyone, so no one is
| required to provide value to be able to feed themselves.
| Artists are not special just for declaring themselves an
| artist.
| balamatom wrote:
| >if anyone has a good argument
|
| >Because that was the last promise the tech bros made
|
| Tech bros are to be believed?!
|
| >And guess what happens to you then?
|
| Nothing as simple as you might hope for ;-)
| adamtaylor_13 wrote:
| No, life is hard on its own unless you can please the market.
|
| Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket
| weaver should not make the same amount of money as a
| neurosurgeon?
| palmotea wrote:
| > Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket
| weaver should not make the same amount of money as a
| neurosurgeon?
|
| Because that's a hyperbolic exaggeration to make you feel
| fine about ignoring the plight of others?
|
| The machine should serve society, society shouldn't serve
| the machine. Unfortunately, what we have is far closer to
| the latter.
| conception wrote:
| Software engineers should be asking themselves that same
| question day in and out. All know workers actually. The cost to
| produce art has dropped to zero. The cost to get knowledge on a
| topic - effectively zero. The cost to write basic software -
| effectively zero. The cost to produce today's software will
| never be higher than today. In six months the chances that it's
| significantly cheaper to do so are very high.
| onion2k wrote:
| _The cost to produce art has dropped to zero._
|
| The cost to _produce an image_ has dropped to pretty much
| zero, but whether an image is 'art' is a question people
| have been struggling with for a long, long time. Art is
| usually considered to be the expression of something more
| meaningful than just making a picture, and in order to
| express something as a work of art you need to live, feel,
| and experience that thing (or a proxy of that thing.) There's
| a reason why we have entire art movements called things like
| "impressionism"; that's the artist creating what they believe
| impressed something on themselves, and trying to transfer
| some of that feeling on to the viewer of their artwork.
|
| That is entirely missing in AI generated artwork.
|
| The problem for artists is that very few people care about
| that aspect of art, and just want something nice to hang on a
| wall.
| ehnto wrote:
| I am on the side of humanity here, but people don't pay for
| art. People pay for status, consumption, image and
| authenticity. But commercial art consumers, where most
| artists make a living, ie ad agencies, game studios etc,
| they actually don't give a shit about any of that. Some do,
| you can probably think of some, but they are the notable
| minority. Most don't, most are just out here to make money.
| They begrudgingly pay artists, and will love the day they
| can stop (some already have stopped)
|
| Can we see that in their output? Absolutely, but if it
| doesn't affect their bottom line they will not care.
|
| Anyway, to the GPs point, that is true for software in a
| much larger way. Nobody ever cared about the soul and craft
| of software except the developers. The moment we can be
| replaced for cheaper, it will be nothing but business.
| leviathant wrote:
| >I am on the side of humanity here, but people don't pay
| for art.
|
| Man, maybe you don't hang out with enough artists. It's
| true, people typically don't make the equivalent of a
| tech salary for art, but people absolutely pay for art,
| and artists are able to not only survive, but have the
| capacity to thrive.
|
| I get what you're saying, and for ad agencies, game
| studios, etc. that's always been the case (I remember
| when office supply stores sold CD-ROMs full of Clip Art)
| All of the sound effects in Doom were from commercially
| available sample libraries. And this isn't even touching
| on "gallery scene and art auctions as money laundering
| facilities" side of things.
|
| I get the impression that most of the people who post
| about this topic in tech circles are general consumers,
| already primed for slop by mass manufacture and pop
| culture. But even through that lens, "people don't pay
| for art" falls flat - looking at what people pay for Star
| Trek prop replicas, or buying into the now very diverse
| Disney ecosystem. Now, a lot of those kinds of folks
| might be more prone to slurping AI slop (Hey Gemini turn
| me into a Funko Pop!) but there are still tons of people
| who value artists and their artistry. I suspect you're
| just not among those people.
| conception wrote:
| Sure i think i meant more consumer art. Mass produced art.
| The cost to take a professional level photograph from
| before 2010 is effectively zero now as well.
|
| But photography as art still obviously exists. It's just
| much harder to get paid for it.
| jemmyw wrote:
| I think that AI isn't the only thing exacerbating this issue.
| More people are doing artistic like things as hobbies. The
| internet makes it easier to learn and the cost of entry has
| gone down - paints, canvases, brushes, guitars, pianos, film
| equipment, the low end has gone up in quality and down in
| price.
|
| I do some painting and I've met quite a few local artists. Some
| are amazing and some not so much. I haven't met anyone making a
| living from it though, not the creative stuff anyway. A couple
| of them do make a living by doing commercial work. One friend,
| who seems to try the hardest, does book illustrations, runs
| classes, prints and sells her own work, and makes a loss every
| year so is supported by her partner, who is a builder.
|
| There are two art galleries in town. I go to both regularly.
| The work has never been flying off the shelves. And some of it
| deserves to.
|
| None of the above has anything to do with AI. It was the same
| before AI, and AI doesn't paint physical pictures anyway. I've
| seen some digital art prints but they're really not popular for
| whatever reason.
|
| To answer your question then: my argument is that most artists
| don't expect to earn a living from it at all. And if more
| people are engaged in creation (not a bad thing) then it would
| logically follow that there is less chance of making money.
|
| Probably the most tragic thing in my opinion is that if I visit
| the art exhibition for my local town, the artwork on display is
| wonderfully varied in quality, style and imagination, and when
| I visited a national gallery recently displaying the works of
| modern artists who have "made it" to that level, it was all
| absolute shite. Actual technical ability seems to be being
| relegated to poverty artists.
| balamatom wrote:
| >Probably the most tragic thing in my opinion is that if I
| visit the art exhibition for my local town, the artwork on
| display is wonderfully varied in quality, style and
| imagination, and when I visited a national gallery recently
| displaying the works of modern artists who have "made it" to
| that level, it was all absolute shite. Actual technical
| ability seems to be being relegated to poverty artists.
|
| The artist becomes the artwork. The artifice here is
| precisely in "making it", in the act of _convincing_ others
| of the value of the piece.
|
| It's an acquired taste; I agree with you that not all people
| appreciate it. But surely, at the end of the pipeline, all
| this money must buy _something_ of value?
|
| And with passively consumable art such as music (which you
| can have playing in the background while looking at something
| else) it's that much easier. IIRC Blixa Bargeld predicted
| Spotify decades ago. Music on tap - like the power line and
| water mains; and that's all.
| jemmyw wrote:
| > not all people appreciate it
|
| The problem is it's only whomever curates these spaces that
| needs to be persuaded. And they're hardly thrumming with
| people for all the millions they get in funding.
| balamatom wrote:
| >Pieces like this all seem to be written with an unspoken
| assumption that anyone who wants to make a living wage from
| being an artist should be able to, as if it's some sort of
| right.
|
| Yeahp, it's pure ideology.
|
| In contemporary civilization, the role of creator of shared
| aesthetic constructs (artist) is left to an elect few. This is,
| on the whole, a reduction in average individual capacity.
|
| So how about this instead: anyone making a living _should be
| making art, as if it 's some sort of obligation._
|
| The media technologies of the XX century (recording,
| photography, motion photograpy) made it that much easier to be
| audience, and that much pointless to be artist.
|
| This effectively robbed the common person of any reason to
| participate in the collective meaning-making process that is
| art. Eventually this was substituted by the clicktivism, the
| dogpiling, and all that. If you are never permitted to develop
| a sense of scale beyond the ouroborically narcissistic,
| participating social media fills a much similar psychological
| niche, to you, as influencing people through creative media.
|
| Those who aspire to star status must first sacrifice a fixed
| amount of integrity to reproducing the kayfabe. Speakers of
| dead balamatomic languages may be wise to observe induction
| into "artist" status by humiliation-transfer - those natives
| were so dumb they thought they had to show publically how it's
| done at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBaC0IRc1Bk
|
| >Anyway, I'm very curious if anyone has a good argument for why
| anyone who wishes to be an artist is owed a living wage for
| merely their desire to be recognized as economically valuable.
|
| Anyone [cut] is owed a living [cut]; done.
|
| No person asks to be born; much of "what you are" and "what
| your function in society is" is involuntary and immutable;
| nobody is owed a useful function; nobody is owed a _meaning_.
|
| But, through art, one can _make one 's own meanings_, and share
| them in a _voluntary_ way; as opposed to resource-
| constrainments (money) which is at its root an instrument of
| coercion.
|
| That's the thing about art which has always terrified the money
| people. Eager beavers that they are, they've built (well, more
| like had us build for 'em) these whole elaborate semi-sensible
| institutions for reducing art to a special ritual for emitting
| high-denomination banknotes (paintings, album profits, walking
| banknotes in the form of performing artists who "made it big
| (sus)" - always loved the honesty in how the Japanese call
| their pop stars literally "idols"...)
| drewbeck wrote:
| I believe that everyone deserves food housing and and security
| regardless of what they do or don't do professionally. I have
| no logical argument only a moral one, which I sense would not
| be sufficient to convince you.
| adamtaylor_13 wrote:
| It's hard to be convinced by your moral argument when you
| don't actually provide it.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Nobody has an intrinsic right to anything, but I believe art
| makes the world a much nicer place to live in, inspiring people
| to behave and advance society in more direct ways.
|
| It's hard or impossible to fairly select people, because
| someone has to produce food, shelter, etc. But I believe
| society should strive to allow more people to spend little
| enough time and effort in other work so they can devote
| themselves to art and other creative pursuits.
| svantana wrote:
| I'd like to know more about "Chaotic Good Projects" [1]. Isn't it
| fascinating that they so openly do "UGC" (user-generated content)
| and "Fanpages" even though they are neither users nor fans, but
| paid consultants. And even openly displaying the musical acts
| they performed these dark-pattern services for.
|
| [1] https://chaoticgoodprojects.org/
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Not sure how this is ethically different from industry plants or
| payola. Things which have been in the industry since the dawn of
| time. Astroturfing with fake fans is just the natural next step
| due to how easy it is. Back in the day some labels would drum up
| fake engagement by handing out tickets to influential people,
| paying certain people to go, and things like that.
| spongebobstoes wrote:
| I dislike music elitism, and this piece has a lot of it. music is
| both art and entertainment
|
| it's no secret that being an artist is a tough path with little
| chance of success
| probably_wrong wrote:
| > _One day after this piece went up, Chaotic Good made
| significant changes to their website -- including pulling the
| "Narrative Campaign" section completely._
|
| I checked the Internet Archive but I cannot access any of the
| archived versions. Apparently the website uses JS to display its
| content and the IA can't deal with it. Internet searches show
| that the page existed, though, so I'll take the content deletion
| as proof.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| https://archive.md/AjZPm
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-04 23:01 UTC)