I'm kind of astonished at how much I hate this author's voice. Even at the very beginning I couldn't stand it because he's basically starting with "So I've been thinking..." which is already...
I'm kind of astonished at how much I hate this author's voice. Even at the very beginning I couldn't stand it because he's basically starting with "So I've been thinking..." which is already enough of a trope to make me dislike it, but he does so in such a flowery and unnecessarily imagery-laden way that it makes understanding what he is trying to say more difficult than it needs to be. And then he continues with that style throughout the entire thing. I tried to skim through this and I'm honestly not entirely sure that I completely understand what his arguments are because of all of the figurative language and exaggerations.
It sounds to me that he's not saying that the internet is going away, but the things that are supporting the unhealthy para-social aspects are going to lose their popularity and some of the big businesses behind them might collapse.
To be honest, this feels more like a rant about how he feels rather than a real attempt to predict the future. His arguments as I understand them aren't terribly convincing to me. For instance, he states that things that survive will be the ones that have managed to "insulate themselves from the internet", especially in regards to media. In the meanwhile, 2020 saw the tides shifting with The New York Times Company making more money from digital services than from print.
As Hemmingway is rumored to have said, "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are...
I'm kind of astonished at how much I hate this author's voice.
As Hemmingway is rumored to have said, "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."
Or, as a friend of mine would say, "this dude must really like the smell of his own farts."
This seems like a general trend with think pieces about online culture where people will say “the internet” when they mean “a handful of social media services I use.” I guess it’s a generational...
It sounds to me that he's not saying that the internet is going away, but the things that are supporting the unhealthy para-social aspects are going to lose their popularity and some of the big businesses behind them might collapse.
This seems like a general trend with think pieces about online culture where people will say “the internet” when they mean “a handful of social media services I use.” I guess it’s a generational thing? Because I think of those as things that ruined the internet rather than the internet itself.
Seems like a pretty dim view of the internet to me. IMO it's not about the actual internet, but moreso about the platforms that have used investments and the economic cancer that is advertising to...
Seems like a pretty dim view of the internet to me. IMO it's not about the actual internet, but moreso about the platforms that have used investments and the economic cancer that is advertising to survive far longer than they should have. Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, etc all should have died long ago. That's what the article is really about.
Yeah, this feels like an even edgier, more nihilistic version of the Enshittification article that was posted a few weeks ago. Enshittification was a joy to read, this was more of a slog.
Yeah, this feels like an even edgier, more nihilistic version of the Enshittification article that was posted a few weeks ago. Enshittification was a joy to read, this was more of a slog.
Reading the subnotes, I feel differently. One of the author's points had an alternative explanation, wherein the combinatorial explosion of content quickly exhausts anything "new" of interest. So...
Reading the subnotes, I feel differently. One of the author's points had an alternative explanation, wherein the combinatorial explosion of content quickly exhausts anything "new" of interest.
So I think the author includes pretty much all online content, media included; at least that which becomes of the internet, optimizes for the internet, and in the author's view, dies on/by/with the internet.
This is it (and why its also not very much like Enshittification, as someone else argued). The article is about how the Internet is a world outside of the real world, which operates under...
This is it (and why its also not very much like Enshittification, as someone else argued).
They might be right, but you could go deeper. The internet has enabled us to live, for the first time, entirely apart from other people. It replaces everything good in life with a low-resolution simulation.
You lose hours to—what? An endless slideshow of barely interesting images and actively unpleasant text. Oh, cool—more memes! You know it’s all very boring, brooding nothing, but the internet addicts you to your own boredom.
Online is not where people meaningfully express themselves; that still happens in the remaining scraps of the nonnetworked world. It’s a parcel of time you give over to the machine. Make the motions, chant its dusty liturgy. The newest apps even literalise this: everyone has to post a selfie at exactly the same time, an inaudible call to prayer ringing out across the world. Recently, at a bar, I saw the room go bright as half the patrons suddenly started posing with their negronis. This is called being real.
The article is about how the Internet is a world outside of the real world, which operates under different rules and regulations.
Movements that take place on the Internet have a very limited affect on the real. Some examples: JK Rowling's political views and Hogwarts Legacy sales numbers. Black Lives Matter protests in city squares versus corporations (and people!) changing their profile picture to a fist.
I had read the Sam Kriss piece around when it came out, but missed "I Do Not Want To Be An Internet Person" until just now. That was a tremendous read.
I had read the Sam Kriss piece around when it came out, but missed "I Do Not Want To Be An Internet Person" until just now. That was a tremendous read.
Declaring things “over” or “dead” is such a tired and self-centered trope. Religions didn’t stop when Nietzsche declared God dead, people continue to play and listen to jazz no matter who declares...
Declaring things “over” or “dead” is such a tired and self-centered trope. Religions didn’t stop when Nietzsche declared God dead, people continue to play and listen to jazz no matter who declares jazz to be dead, and surely the Internet will go on no matter how much you hate it.
It will go on without you. If you don’t like your media diet, change your subscriptions and find better things to read, or something else to do.
In the sense he was saying it, they kind of did. Religious authority as being THE force that structures peoples worldview and society’s expectations did die outside of some fringe movements and...
Religions didn’t stop when Nietzsche declared God dead
In the sense he was saying it, they kind of did. Religious authority as being THE force that structures peoples worldview and society’s expectations did die outside of some fringe movements and monastic societies. The fundamental challenge of determining what should be the metaphysical framework that buttresses moral and ethical norms seems to have been replaced with a vague hedonic positivism instead.
Yes, if you read beyond the headline. I still prefer titles that try to accurately summarize their arguments rather than being primarily provocative. Though of course, people will keep using...
Yes, if you read beyond the headline. I still prefer titles that try to accurately summarize their arguments rather than being primarily provocative. Though of course, people will keep using “clickbait” headlines no matter what I think.
(Also, theocracies still exist, and the use of religious arguments in politics still carries weight in other countries, even if we think they shouldn’t.)
"God is dead" is an aphorism that encapsulated the conclusion of multiple works of philosophy, not a clickbait headline. Your reference to theocracies seems like you don't understand the thrust of...
"God is dead" is an aphorism that encapsulated the conclusion of multiple works of philosophy, not a clickbait headline. Your reference to theocracies seems like you don't understand the thrust of those pieces, and so probably don't have a ton of useful criticism to offer Mr. Nietzsche.
Well, Nietzsche died in 1900, so of course I don't have anything to say to him. My complaint is about writers who still use this trope today, and not to talk about God or religion, either. The...
Well, Nietzsche died in 1900, so of course I don't have anything to say to him. My complaint is about writers who still use this trope today, and not to talk about God or religion, either. The reason I referenced Nietzsche was to show how old it is.
It's really just a shallow complaint about headlines; let's not make it more than that.
I'm kind of astonished at how much I hate this author's voice. Even at the very beginning I couldn't stand it because he's basically starting with "So I've been thinking..." which is already enough of a trope to make me dislike it, but he does so in such a flowery and unnecessarily imagery-laden way that it makes understanding what he is trying to say more difficult than it needs to be. And then he continues with that style throughout the entire thing. I tried to skim through this and I'm honestly not entirely sure that I completely understand what his arguments are because of all of the figurative language and exaggerations.
It sounds to me that he's not saying that the internet is going away, but the things that are supporting the unhealthy para-social aspects are going to lose their popularity and some of the big businesses behind them might collapse.
To be honest, this feels more like a rant about how he feels rather than a real attempt to predict the future. His arguments as I understand them aren't terribly convincing to me. For instance, he states that things that survive will be the ones that have managed to "insulate themselves from the internet", especially in regards to media. In the meanwhile, 2020 saw the tides shifting with The New York Times Company making more money from digital services than from print.
As Hemmingway is rumored to have said, "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."
Or, as a friend of mine would say, "this dude must really like the smell of his own farts."
This seems like a general trend with think pieces about online culture where people will say “the internet” when they mean “a handful of social media services I use.” I guess it’s a generational thing? Because I think of those as things that ruined the internet rather than the internet itself.
Seems like a pretty dim view of the internet to me. IMO it's not about the actual internet, but moreso about the platforms that have used investments and the economic cancer that is advertising to survive far longer than they should have. Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, etc all should have died long ago. That's what the article is really about.
Yeah, this feels like an even edgier, more nihilistic version of the Enshittification article that was posted a few weeks ago. Enshittification was a joy to read, this was more of a slog.
Reading the subnotes, I feel differently. One of the author's points had an alternative explanation, wherein the combinatorial explosion of content quickly exhausts anything "new" of interest.
So I think the author includes pretty much all online content, media included; at least that which becomes of the internet, optimizes for the internet, and in the author's view, dies on/by/with the internet.
This is it (and why its also not very much like Enshittification, as someone else argued).
The article is about how the Internet is a world outside of the real world, which operates under different rules and regulations.
Movements that take place on the Internet have a very limited affect on the real. Some examples: JK Rowling's political views and Hogwarts Legacy sales numbers. Black Lives Matter protests in city squares versus corporations (and people!) changing their profile picture to a fist.
The article this is closer to is I do not want to be an Internet Person.
I had read the Sam Kriss piece around when it came out, but missed "I Do Not Want To Be An Internet Person" until just now. That was a tremendous read.
Declaring things “over” or “dead” is such a tired and self-centered trope. Religions didn’t stop when Nietzsche declared God dead, people continue to play and listen to jazz no matter who declares jazz to be dead, and surely the Internet will go on no matter how much you hate it.
It will go on without you. If you don’t like your media diet, change your subscriptions and find better things to read, or something else to do.
In the sense he was saying it, they kind of did. Religious authority as being THE force that structures peoples worldview and society’s expectations did die outside of some fringe movements and monastic societies. The fundamental challenge of determining what should be the metaphysical framework that buttresses moral and ethical norms seems to have been replaced with a vague hedonic positivism instead.
Yes, if you read beyond the headline. I still prefer titles that try to accurately summarize their arguments rather than being primarily provocative. Though of course, people will keep using “clickbait” headlines no matter what I think.
(Also, theocracies still exist, and the use of religious arguments in politics still carries weight in other countries, even if we think they shouldn’t.)
"God is dead" is an aphorism that encapsulated the conclusion of multiple works of philosophy, not a clickbait headline. Your reference to theocracies seems like you don't understand the thrust of those pieces, and so probably don't have a ton of useful criticism to offer Mr. Nietzsche.
Well, Nietzsche died in 1900, so of course I don't have anything to say to him. My complaint is about writers who still use this trope today, and not to talk about God or religion, either. The reason I referenced Nietzsche was to show how old it is.
It's really just a shallow complaint about headlines; let's not make it more than that.