At the heart of The Discourse is always one simple, presumed truth: that tweeting is a meaningful act with some connection to the off-line world.
[...]
If Facebook embodies the nameless, faceless, diffuse will of the masses, Twitter represents the stomping ground of elites whose real-world clout imbues this platform with a kind of cultural authority that rival social-media outlets lack. This both legitimates the content of some of these users’ tweets — this isn’t just some random account talking — and allows them to amplify and elevate narratives in distinctly old-fashioned ways. This all conspires to give the impression that Twitter, instead of merely commenting on the world, can actually influence it in a far more targeted way than, say, a haphazard bundle of Facebook ad buys during a major election.
[...]
The platform had previously promised users the opportunity to make themselves heard. To what end, and in what, if any, context was an open, and perhaps unanswerable, question. Giving them something to participate in — a process that they could inhabit in something more than a purely rhetorical sense alongside other individuals — made screaming into the void feel less pointless and lonely. It also solidified the fantasy that Twitter was about anything other than itself.
[...]
It has also, in certain circles, become de rigueur to care about the world, or at a minimum to be appalled by Trump. At least for the moment, disengagement is no longer socially acceptable. But this relationship to what can be broadly described as “politics” isn’t just a newfound refusal to turn a blind eye to the world. The Discourse was a coping mechanism masquerading as a moral necessity, a form of “empowerment” passed off as an exercise of a new kind of power.
[...]
As bad as the Age of Trump has been, it has also succeeded in granting people an entirely new, and altogether more thorough, way to distract themselves, while maintaining the illusion that they are in fact more engaged than ever.
This article uses the best words to state what I've felt for a while, now, about "engagement." Very sage, very cool! Recommended reading for everyone, for sure.
This article uses the best words to state what I've felt for a while, now, about "engagement." Very sage, very cool!
~tech is not for technical articles, it's for technology related articles... I suspect you're thinking of ~comp. But if this article is more sociology/psychology focused then that is definitely...
~tech is not for technical articles, it's for technology related articles... I suspect you're thinking of ~comp. But if this article is more sociology/psychology focused then that is definitely appropriate for ~humanities. The reason I asked is because I honestly couldn't really make much sense of the article itself so was just judging whether it should be here based off the tags.
Oh, I understand the distinction. But I imagine technology-related articles would have a large focus on the tech stack, itself. Which this article didn't have. Having read the article, I feel like...
Oh, I understand the distinction. But I imagine technology-related articles would have a large focus on the tech stack, itself. Which this article didn't have. Having read the article, I feel like ~humanities is the right spot for it as it's certainly more about the sociological connotations of online discourse.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. No big deal, in the end.
I think this would still fit fine in ~tech as well, even with the more behavioral focus of the article, as there is still a ton of overlap... but yeah, it's no big deal anyways. I was just curious.
I think this would still fit fine in ~tech as well, even with the more behavioral focus of the article, as there is still a ton of overlap... but yeah, it's no big deal anyways. I was just curious.
No particular reason; I could see it going either way. The article seems to be about writing, culture, and politics, as much as it is about about the platform that makes it possible. I wonder if...
No particular reason; I could see it going either way. The article seems to be about writing, culture, and politics, as much as it is about about the platform that makes it possible.
I wonder if there was a time when writing about movies, radio, or TV was classified under tech?
That's an interesting question! To some degree I think those still are "tech", depending on the focus. E.g. techmoan does lots of videos on older movie/radio/tv tech. But at least for me, once you...
That's an interesting question! To some degree I think those still are "tech", depending on the focus. E.g. techmoan does lots of videos on older movie/radio/tv tech. But at least for me, once you get to analog/mechanical stuff, the only way it can really be classified as "tech" is in the purely historic context. I would be curious to hear other people's thoughts about this though. Where do you draw the line (if any)?
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
This article uses the best words to state what I've felt for a while, now, about "engagement." Very sage, very cool!
Recommended reading for everyone, for sure.
@skybrian, is there any particular reason this is in ~humanities instead of ~tech?
The tech discussed in this article is merely the means by which (some) human nature is revealed. This is not a technical article.
~tech is not for technical articles, it's for technology related articles... I suspect you're thinking of ~comp. But if this article is more sociology/psychology focused then that is definitely appropriate for ~humanities. The reason I asked is because I honestly couldn't really make much sense of the article itself so was just judging whether it should be here based off the tags.
Oh, I understand the distinction. But I imagine technology-related articles would have a large focus on the tech stack, itself. Which this article didn't have. Having read the article, I feel like ~humanities is the right spot for it as it's certainly more about the sociological connotations of online discourse.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. No big deal, in the end.
I think this would still fit fine in ~tech as well, even with the more behavioral focus of the article, as there is still a ton of overlap... but yeah, it's no big deal anyways. I was just curious.
No particular reason; I could see it going either way. The article seems to be about writing, culture, and politics, as much as it is about about the platform that makes it possible.
I wonder if there was a time when writing about movies, radio, or TV was classified under tech?
That's an interesting question! To some degree I think those still are "tech", depending on the focus. E.g. techmoan does lots of videos on older movie/radio/tv tech. But at least for me, once you get to analog/mechanical stuff, the only way it can really be classified as "tech" is in the purely historic context. I would be curious to hear other people's thoughts about this though. Where do you draw the line (if any)?