[News] The Internet Was a Mistake

A thread for updates on the various ways the internet is destroying everything and the undying hellsites of social media. Let's all laugh at the abyss.

I haven't fleshed it out as an argument, but I genuinely do feel that the rise of "content" has been a net negative for us all, across so many different fields.

Stengah wrote:

The language filter messes up the url. Changes the i in batsh*t

I think I fixed that by URI encoding one of the letters. I hope. At least it was working when I tried it.

Was working when I tried it earlier (Edge, PC). Not now (Safari, iOS). I would use a URL shortener but I know some people don’t like them (for good reason). I don’t know how else to fix it.

Prederick wrote:

I haven't fleshed it out as an argument, but I genuinely do feel that the rise of "content" has been a net negative for us all, across so many different fields.

Having recently re-read Doctrow's piece on ensh*ttification, I'd say "content" is a byproduct of the whole "attention economy" scam. Basically, in order to participate in the attention economy as anything but a consumer, you have to have content. The rise of "content" is people trying to figure out how to game the algorithm of the various platforms to make their money. That the algorithm is rigged the entire time doesn't lessen the demand for content.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...

I predicted this at the start of the mass layoffs. You don't need a compliance team - until you have to demonstrate compliance to the regulators of your industry. Then you need a legal team - and they are much more expensive.

I haven't stopped using Reddit, but I'm using it a LOT less than I used to, with more time on Mastodon and Bluesky.

I don't ever actively go to Reddit but sometimes searches for whatever game I'm playing take me there and I find answers.

Prederick wrote:

I haven't fleshed it out as an argument, but I genuinely do feel that the rise of "content" has been a net negative for us all, across so many different fields.

Well, if you're looking for resources:

Bruce wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...

I predicted this at the start of the mass layoffs. You don't need a compliance team - until you have to demonstrate compliance to the regulators of your industry. Then you need a legal team - and they are much more expensive.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that this did violate MANY MANY things.

Stele wrote:

I don't ever actively go to Reddit but sometimes searches for whatever game I'm playing take me there and I find answers.

I still prefer game searches that go there. I'd rather read a 1 line answer on a scummy site than hit IGN or PCGamer or 1000 other identical sites and have to read 9 paragraphs and dodge 10 ads to maybe get an answer. Or worse, skim through a 9 minute video about a simple topic, that's probably wrong.

Bruce wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...

I predicted this at the start of the mass layoffs. You don't need a compliance team - until you have to demonstrate compliance to the regulators of your industry. Then you need a legal team - and they are much more expensive.

In many cases, the CEO responsible for this has spun off the company and moved on to a new gig. So why care what happens after the fact? Elon’s mistake is he held on to the hot potato way too long.

Most CEOs are not household names to the general public. Musk's problem is that he wants to be a celebrity, and being visible that way means passing the potato would be publicly perceived as admitting defeat.

Whoever is writing this timeline is sniffing glue.

It is totally Lloyd Bridges!
IMAGE(https://www.epsilontheory.com/wp-content/uploads/sniffing-glue.jpg)

@DaveLeeBBG wrote:

Elon Musk revisiting an idea apparently floated privately in the past -- charging *everyone* to use Twitter. A lower tier than premium. "We’ve moving to a small monthly payment for use of the X system," he just told Benjamin Netanyahu, saying it's only way to stamp out bots.

Adam Wilsher wrote:

Hello

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/fxFfGA5.gif)

Prederick wrote:
@DaveLeeBBG wrote:

Elon Musk revisiting an idea apparently floated privately in the past -- charging *everyone* to use Twitter. A lower tier than premium. "We’ve moving to a small monthly payment for use of the X system," he just told Benjamin Netanyahu, saying it's only way to stamp out bots.

GREAT IDEA, ELON! PLEASE DO THIS. YOU'RE A GENIUS, ELON!

I am 100% behind this idea.

Anything that gets people off X is good.

I wonder if Elon has open himself up to a attack from Ukraine. I think he made himself a valid military target for he did. The only problem would be his location puts him out of reach for retribution.

*Legion* wrote:
Prederick wrote:
@DaveLeeBBG wrote:

Elon Musk revisiting an idea apparently floated privately in the past -- charging *everyone* to use Twitter. A lower tier than premium. "We’ve moving to a small monthly payment for use of the X system," he just told Benjamin Netanyahu, saying it's only way to stamp out bots.

GREAT IDEA, ELON! PLEASE DO THIS. YOU'RE A GENIUS, ELON!

To be fair, he's right. It won't be profitable for bots to be there anymore.

Granted, that's due less to them being charged and more to the fact that there won't be any users at all, but still...

You know, I just started watching the second season of Foundation. 5 minutes in to the first episode there is a quote "any man can be a success, it takes a madman to be great."
I cannot think of anything more appropriate for our age of megalomaniacal billionaires.

How to kill a trend in two days: The fall of men thinking about the Roman Empire

My rule reporting for Embedded: Two’s a trend. For most of my career as a pop culture writer, we held off on declaring a trend until we found three examples to cite. In the world of internet culture, however, trends don’t build on one another, but multiply exponentially. If you’ve spotted three instances, that means are there are almost certainly at least nine in the wild and too many people already talking about the trend to make reporting on it novel. And if The New York Times publishes an explainer, it’s already dead.

“Asking men about the Roman Empire” may have set a new record for the, well, rise and fall of a trend. On Tuesday, I texted Nick—the faceless man behind the curtain of this newsletter—if I should write about it, since I had started seeing it on my FYP. By Thursday, I realized it was already too late. “Tomorrow we’re gonna start seeing a waterfall of Roman Empire posts,” I said.

Lo and behold: “How often do men think about ancient Rome? Quite frequently, it seems.” —The Washington Post; “Are Men Obsessed With the Roman Empire? Yes, Say Men.” —The New York Times; “The Brain of a Man Who Is Always Thinking About Ancient Rome” — The Atlantic; and my personal favorite, “Can't Stop Thinking The Roman Empire? Check Out This HBO Series” from Collider. (The show: Rome.)

A quick Google search unearths explainers in Wired, Time, Today.com, Elite Daily, Cosmopolitan, and more. Now, I’m not saying men thinking about the Roman empire is not a thing, but it certainly isn’t this much of a thing—and certainly isn’t one anymore now that it’s been yanked out of its organic origins on TikTok and into an inauthentically manufactured cultural moment. I’m reminded of Rebecca Jenning’s great recent piece on “girl” trends:

This is sort of what all trend journalism feels like to me these days. A single video goes viral, some people start talking about it, the media picks it up, and suddenly it’s used as fodder for the kind of lowest-common-denominator broadcast news segments where old people marvel about how foreign young people have become—and it’s not a coincidence that it’s almost always young women they’re referring to here—even though the thing they’re talking about isn’t even really happening on a scale that’s by any measure newsworthy.

While these trends may not be newsworthy, they are fun to participate in—until, that is, they’ve been explained to death. I mean absolutely no shade to the writers of these stories, who did what they were called upon to do in the course of covering internet culture.

The internet popularizes some weird things, like DJ Crazy Times and the Tabi Swiper, that are fun to read about. But more often, to explain an online joke in real, AP-style-approved words is to pop the balloon. People on TikTok joking about men earnestly loving a period of history? Fun, playful. “A new social media trend prompting women to ask the men in their lives how often they think about ancient Rome reveals that it crosses the minds of many men on a weekly basis”? Clinical, feels like a survey I’d fill out while waiting for the gynecologist.

And the explainers aren’t even the terminal stage of the trend. It now filters down to marketers, social media workers, and engagement-hungry creators: the guides to the ruins of a once-mighty meme, echoing with the shouts and laughter of the people that it once entertained.

We've moved on to thinking about the Byzantine empire and barbarians.

I did just start reading a 40 year old alternate history book about a magical version of the 1100's in Europe and Constantinople. (book)

I was hoping the Roman Empire trend would take off so much that HBO would bring back Rome.

polypusher wrote:

I did just start reading a 40 year old alternate history book about a magical version of the 1100's in Europe and Constantinople. (book)

Thomas Harlan's Oath of Empire books are pretty good, if youre looking for Roman history with fantasy.

Or Gene Wolfe's Latro in the Mist.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/sSkLKVS.jpg)

I have seen about 1,000 different variations and takes on Steamed Hams, but this is a new one.