# "Asocial media" and collective self images



## notimp (Sep 16, 2018)

Yesterday I posted a provocative thread on my image of "the typical millennial" in the offtopic subsection of this forum (here) to encourage discussion about perceived behavior patterns within this community.

The content apparently was allowed - but the discussion not wanted, because the posting was instantly moved to the "my personal blog" section - where it was basically left to die, because of the suddenly established power mismatch between me as "the blogger" and commenters.

(Think youtube comments section.)

I also got the subsequent comments by peers, why I always have to talk about offtopic themes - when I initially started the thread in here. The offtopic section.

I want an open discussion about online behavior within this community, but also outside it - and to learn something about peoples collective self images along the way - but everytime I try to focus discussion around the notion that most peoples behavior in here distinctly is not ok - the discussion gets maligned or censored.

I dont get any feedback - and now I know, that the content itself is not the issue - because its allowed to exist in here, just not in a place where it could lead to actual discussion.

Here is the content I posted: https://gbatemp.net/entry/millennials-an-epistemology.15152/

I would be delighted, If we could talk about the concepts, that made this behavior (service culture, self entitlement, fake smiles and optimized public online selfimages, replacing discussions about sensitive topics with the *toxic* meme, being acritical, demanding PC and safe space culture, ...) the online default for an entire generation.

"Asocial media" already is a concept people talk about, and I am experiencing it in here, pretty much every time I visit the community - I would like to have a discussion on why this is ok as a default. Or even, why it is the current default.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> everytime I try to focus discussion around the notion that most peoples behavior in here distinctly is not ok - the discussion gets maligned or censored.


Probably because people don't like being told that they're behaving wrong by someone they most likely don't know.  Forcing ideas down peoples' throats, especially provocative blanket statements that force everyone into tidy little boxes, isn't a good way to win the hearts and minds of people.  Your blog was basically imposing a world view upon everyone.  World views are subjective, no matter how deeply we may believe in them.



notimp said:


> I would be delighted, If we could talk about the concepts, that made this behavior (service culture, self entitlement,


GBAtemp is best known as a console hacking forum, with many members who are competent in the process of hacking consoles and maintaining them.  If they have questions, the forums here are probably the first place they'll think of heading to, with the assumption that people here are knowledgeable and willing to help.  While it'd be great if more people knew how to properly Google, or if everyone who ever joined the forum stuck around and became regulars here, this is simply not the case.  People who ask questions here are not obligated to become a part of the community, just as the people who answer said questions aren't obligated to do so.  You also forget that many of the members that decide to ultimately answer the question or help out in some way can be considered millennials themselves.  Your statements, after reading through your first thread/blog, seem primarily anecdotal in nature anyways, and ignore the context behind the forum in the first place (assuming that was the context you were phrasing your argument in, which you most likely were).



notimp said:


> replacing discussions about sensitive topics with the *toxic* meme


Because many communities that are labeled "toxic" aren't always just discussing sensitive topics.  As is the case in many Discord groups, it can involve actual harassment towards members of the community.



notimp said:


> demanding PC and safe space culture


Just as there is a demanding PC and safe-space culture in our generation, there's also a lot of backlash and decidedly anti-PC attitudes and sentiments as well.  All you need to do is just visit 4chan's /pol/ or some choice subreddits to see how millennials can act decidedly anti-PC as well.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 16, 2018)

What you posted was very clearly a personal piece that was better suited for the blog section, that's the reason why we have a blog section for personal pieces. If it was intended to be anything other than personal, then your comments failed to present that. The outcome just became you considering any reply as an "attack on your character." Thus proving the point that your thread was a personal piece and better suited for the blog section.
Also are you really that butthurt by the staff moving your blog that you had to make a topic about it? You consider others to be overly sensitive, yet decided to make this thread without considering the irony upon the creation of this thread?


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2018)

Lets structure the argument.

1. Asking for "support service", in an online forum - if you are not able to "give back" along the line (because you have no in depth knowledge about a topic, and no intention to ever change that) is not ok. It shifts the burden to answer the bulk of the questions to a small group that gets not much in return - and when they stop responding, you usually are left with "communities" that disseminate wrong answers and false information for a long time, before people notice, that they arent "working" anymore.

Prerequisites to getting your questions answered should always be:

- Actual participation
- Getting some base level knowledge to be able to ask informed questions

What takes place in here instead:
"What is best" polling attempts and "It doesnt work, someone help me" service solicitation.

2. The general culture in most of the social media outlets is one of "everyone should be allowed to participate" which is directly related to ad financed monetization models, and directly responsible for -

- The demise of "debate culture". Arguments dont count anymore in everscrolling feeds what counts is high emotional impact. Discussions always are won by character assassination, and virtue signaling because it feels "right" at the first glance, and then its gone - the next day.

The issue here is, that people are actively trying to mold forum culture to become the same thing, because thats what they came to expect from online interaction. The amount of people in here that post without having read anything prior to their own "statement" - on really any topic at hand is staggering.

- Lurking (reading around to get to know what drives a community) is pretty much a thing of the past - everyone just wants to pull people into "signing up for something" - so the interaction can be monetized.

- Because arguments arent "sticky" enough in this environment, censorship is rampant, and far exceeds the amount ever expected to be needed in earlier days of online communities. In fact, we came to admire the "universal Facebook culture", where what we are about to see is decided by minimum wage workers on the Philippines, acting on behalf of a fortune 500 companys idea of "universally acceptable values". We have discarded the responsibility to manage our own cultural spaces - in fact, we have even outsourced it.

- Moderators today almost "usually" dont take part in communities anymore - they simply are "flag and censor agents" - at least from the outside perspective. This correlates with a demand to have "safe and sanitized" communities, where everyone gets helped with a (usually fake) smile, because - everything has to have an inviting aura of inclusiveness and support friendlyness. Its good for business.

3. There are oxymorons all over the place -
- People think that they want help with "getting privacy settings right on facebook" // but at the same time they want to overlook the simple fact, that FB is an ad network, that designs their settings so most people get them "wrong"
- People think that labeling everything *toxic* gets rid of issues // but its actually preventing some of them from being discussed
- People want PC and safe spaces // but also to participate in every sh*tstorm that comes along
- People acknowledge that social media profiles are not "their real selfs" // but then tend to engage in parasocial relationships with twitch streamers and instagram influencers because of celebrity appeal ("Have you seen how many followers?")
- If you want to get a community like gbatemp "going", you pull all the tropes of a millennial lifestyle you can think of ("Watch us twitch stream and sponsor us on patreon!1") // Even if this results in 50 active viewers at a time like it is for 99% of all Twitch streamers, because there are no platform synergies whatsoever, and people really only need about 20 celebrities accounts to follow at a time.

4. We can dance around the concept, that support forums are set up so people can get exploited by entering in social contracts that never get fulfilled - all we want, but thats whats taking place in here every day now. Its a wonder that even 25% of users in here might know my online handle by now (the fluctuation of "users" simply wanting to ask something, is that high) - but they usually do, because I'm the guy that always berates millennials for championing a pretty much defunct online environment, virtue signaling all the way to actually get what they want, while living in a society where for the first time in decades, open racism and fascism is on the rise again. Back to - there is no place for actual arguments on facebook, ...

5. If you demand, that we have to pretty much ignore all of this - just to have a not necessarily real, but decent online experience - something has gone wrong a while ago. The structures are still here, forums arent dead yet, lets have the discussions about whats "expectable social behavior" right now.

I'm pretty much fed up accepting all this, and putting on a smile while at it. So that as much people as possible can participate - even though participation nowadays in more than 50% of cases might look like this:

https://gbatemp.net/threads/development-thread-retroarch-libnx.505672/page-193#post-8280982

This has nothing to do with "we are a community where we want to talk about games, because they are fun!" - this is verging on structural abuse - that constantly gets overlooked, because it makes for a much more "accessible" experience.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> Lets structure the argument.
> 
> 1. Asking for "support service", in an online forum - if you are not able to "give back" along the line (because you have no in depth knowledge about a topic, and no intention to ever change that) is not ok. It shifts the burden to answer the bulk of the questions to a small group that gets not much in return - and when they stop responding, you usually are left with "communities" that disseminate wrong answers and false information for a long time, before people notice, that they arent "working" anymore. *This is actually really common in new communities. The Switch hacking community is extremely new and there really are only a few members who know enough about the topic to help others. It's going to take time before things start moving in that community. When I entered the 3DS community I had no idea what I was getting into, now I am one of the legends of that community. People find their footing through research, practice, and getting things wrong. People are going to get things wrong and get corrected, that's how knowledge is developed.*
> 
> ...


Seriously if you don't like this site, just logout. No one is stopping you from leaving and no one will give a shit if you do. It's your choice to stay here and you are free to express yourself. At the same time no one has to respect your opinion nor is anyone obligated to play by your rules.


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2018)

I refuse.

Seriously.

I'd actually want to work on changing this in this community.

The other reason is, that information and homebrew apps get actually published in here first, so I always have a reason to at least read peoples attempts to get by never learning even the basics, but "get stuff for free".

Seeing all this entirely asocial behavior and being guilttripped NOT to react to it is something that only sounds right to someone who grew up in an ecosystem that doesnt care the slightest about how you get your free service response in the process. ("It comes out of the internet socket right into me smartphone...")

There is no considerable factual argument for why - this - pointing around me, is a desirable state of things. Everything is artificially either "the greatest" or "the worst thing ever", because people dont care about any of the details, and cant have any nuanced discussions about any aspects of their online lives. People who tend to participate most, and are the most invested - are the ones mostly exploited by a general notion, that they could support everyone and their brother as well - for free, because its fun.

And you don't want to adhere to any "rules" that would reduce the issue and actually promote social interaction - out of what? A fear, that you would loose the ability to do something, you are only able to if someone guides you through the process step by step?

If you stand up for "I do what I want - I dont have to acknowledge your reality" - that at least bring up an argument for why you think your position is actually more correct, or valid.

Otherwise we are back to the "self entitled to getting stuff for free" thing, with an entire neglect of the social ramifications.

If you only get triggered by someone telling you that participating in an online community should be more than behaving online like a jerk, then rest assured, that I know that I won't be able to change your behavior anyway.

But also rest assured - if more people actually openly stand for minimum standards for acceptable behavior when trying to sollicitate something like a free service, your behavior will change very quickly. Because wherever communities exist, they drive whats seen a acceptable behavior.

You just have to allow them to form opinions and ultimately implied codes of conduct. Thats not implausible, I've even done it before.

Last comment on the "Millenial" self image - if you feel so self entitled, that you don't have to think about any ramifications of your behavior - and at the same time, people tend to attribute some of the worst notions and mannerisms of humanity to you as an agegroup (again, I'm technically a millenial myself), you know that there have to be external factors at work.

Like "you cant get support from companies in the  digital economy, because you individually make them only very little money - which they have to heavily aggregate". Have fun in your support communities, and good luck.Bank on the fact, that random strangers want to help you because you bought into their "lifestyle brand".

Why you'd have to talk to them like they were your "Alexa" is still beyond me - but hey, anything just to not have to show any self reflection. And close you eyes, ears, mouths, and cast those peoples having something to say about that away as far as you can - because that image in the mirror, is one that reaaally makes you swallow - the first time you look at it.

Politics and activism is self organization. So do something about the issues you are identifying around you, the people who are making money from prolonging the current status quo - usually wont. Also we have already established, that most people in here find it great, as long as they "get stuff for free".

But thats not responsible behavior.


----------



## DodgyJudge (Sep 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> I refuse.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...


I think you got a mental illness problem but hey that only my opinion.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> I refuse.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...


Honestly I am not going to go through your word salad again because it's obvious that you are just going to continue to muddle words. If your idea of changing the community is gate it off and demand others confirm to your standards, that's your opinion on the matter, but your logic still is extremely flawed and one-sided. You want to talk about acceptance, but also talk about gatekeeping because you don't like something in the community. You wanted to hear what other's thought about your opinion, but then took it as a personal attack when they didn't agree with you. You are upset that The Temp is following current trends to bring in more users and monetizing on them, which seems to be linked back to your want to gatekeep. You are upset that TOS's don't confirm to your needs and decide it's "censorship" and somehow personal to you. The simple reality is that you aren't fighting a problem, you are the problem. You didn't open a conversation to have others contribute to them, you opened them expecting others to agree with you and then started throwing a fit when they didn't.


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2018)

DodgyJudge said:


> I think you got a mental illness problem but hey that only my opinion.


How do you take the high road on that one.

How do you take the high road on people finding this likeworthy.

You don't.

Still - I'm not prepared to let the discussion be killed by a strawmen argument.

Also - I'll now look up some scientific texts on how online communities are structured conceptually with letting random people do all of the content production, and then selling the content to advertisers in return.

Freaking character assassination - people never are willing to stop hitting lower, not to lose an argument. Eff me, this reaction has actually shook me - because thats a first.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lilith Valentine said:


> You are upset that The Temp is following current trends to bring in more users and monetizing on them, which seems to be linked back to your want to gatekeep. You are upset that TOS's don't confirm to your needs and decide it's "censorship" and somehow personal to you. The simple reality is that you aren't fighting a problem, you are the problem. You didn't open a conversation to have others contribute to them, you opened them expecting others to agree with you and then started throwing a fit when they didn't.



I politely asked for a factual argument, why prolonging a code of conduct that leads to repeated abuse in regards to help services is a positive thing from the communities perspective.

I got a "I think you are crazy" in return.

Also in my attempt to get the discussion started, I got censored twice, then my posting moved to a place where people wouldnt see it - then sidelined in the most offensive way imaginable.

If you think that this is conductive to a discussion - I dont know what to tell you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also - I'm not alone in my sentiment. These are posting from the past 24 hours mirroring the same sentiment/issue:

Here are two:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/development-thread-retroarch-libnx.505672/page-193#post-8281358
Also on the page before were two that got deleted.

But whats more important - we now are at the stage, where we get five, six "I want service support" on any open project thread in a row - in the most active platform for gbatemp:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/psnes-switch-snes9x-port.507847/page-28
or
https://gbatemp.net/threads/mame-nx-0-72-release.515544/page-4

But you can look into many threads.

People are not willing to keep up with answering them anymore, the support community has "stalled" so to speak.

None of the efforts to Twitch stream Splatoon 2 have prevented this from happening - and every time people are hinting in the direction - in the last four months has been met by a deletion of the posting because of being "off topic".

This does not represent a working community. At least not one working well.

Also - I can't not for the life of me rationalize how "If you don't like this - leave" directly translates into the sentiment I just was met with above.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> How do you take the high road on that one.
> 
> How do you take the high road on people finding this likeworthy.
> 
> ...


You literally made a thread based on blanket statements about an entire generation, then made a thread upset that your opinion piece got moved to the blog section. Looking through the blog shows literally no one attacked your character, but did however reply with information given to them, to which you then took as an attack on your character. Everything you've done so far only shows that you want things to go in your direction. You are acting like everyone's Conservative Uncle who's upset over something crazy like tree taking jobs from hardworking men.

Looking through those threads I mostly just see people saying, "Nice work" and asking questions about the software. As well you can't speak on behalf of other people, chances are they aren't replying because they have lives. The members on this site aren't paid to answer questions, they are people using their own time to reply to these threads for free. There's no such thing as a "support community" on the Temp, there's only a community of people who help when they want to.
You are showing me series of deleted posts with no context and chance are high that they were off topic. Off topic post happen all the time and often get replies, then deleted, it's a normal thing that happens in forums. If you don't like the choices the staff made, then bring it up with the staff member who made that choice. Making a thread ranting about it doesn't win anyone over, especially when you've already show so little to support.
I don't understand how the Twitch streaming has anything to do with this. You are connecting to different things and presenting them like they have something to do with each other.
We have a community with projects always going on and work happening the background. Just because something isn't happening in the forums, doesn't mean there isn't a "working community." Or is the issue that it's not working to your standards and that things just aren't about you?


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2018)

Here the promised scientific publication hinting at the interaction I just called crazy for referencing:



> Conversely, Ekbia (forthcoming) contends that the nature of user contribution should be articulated in the digitally mediated networks that are prevalent in the current economy. The winners in this “connexionist world” (Boltanski & Ciapello, 2007) are the flexibly mobile, those who are able to move not only geographically (between places, projects, and political boundaries), but also socially (between people, communities, and organizations) and cognitively (between ideas, habits, and cultures). This group largely involves the nouveau riche of the Internet age (e.g., the founders of high-tech communications and social media companies) (Forbes, 2013).
> 
> The “losers” are those who have to play as stand-ins for the first group in order for the links created in these networks to remain active, productive, and useful. Interactions between these two groups are embedded in a form of organizing that can be understood as “expectant organizing”—a kind of organization that is structured with built-in holes and gaps that are intended to be bridged and filled through the activities of end users.
> 
> _(PDF) Big Data, Bigger Dilemmas: A Critical Review_. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270345647_Big_Data_Bigger_Dilemmas_A_Critical_Review [accessed Sep 16 2018].



So reading this - I was reluctant to call me and others here loosers, but then I got called crazy instead - so I guess its back to "this interaction is known" and its well worth to criticize it once in a while.

If you lead an online community and haven thought about it in the past, you are welcome. We learn something new every day.

edit: Also, there is this Gallup poll if you find the notion that most Millennials think that they have uninteresting, inconsequential jobs hard to believe - or not descriptive of the demographic:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carmin...tionally-disconnected-employees/#46670b8742d5
edit: More current poll: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-so-many-americans-hate-their-jobs/ We are up to 86% in 2017.

And I think the rest of what I formed into an argument has already reached the level of more or less general knowledge (again "asocial media" (or more aggressively: "antisocial media") is already a talked about concept), If you want to call me crazy for any of those, please do so with an actual quote, so I have the chance to counter.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> Lets structure the argument.
> 
> 1. Asking for "support service", in an online forum - if you are not able to "give back" along the line (because you have no in depth knowledge about a topic, and no intention to ever change that) is not ok. It shifts the burden to answer the bulk of the questions to a small group that gets not much in return - and when they stop responding, you usually are left with "communities" that disseminate wrong answers and false information for a long time, before people notice, that they arent "working" anymore.
> 
> ...



I don't know how much of that is aimed at here or the world at large. Also I would say rather than provocative maybe go for... not faux but maybe some kind of mock scientific next time. Granted responses for that format tend to be a bit less.

1. Nah. I am OK with the free tech support model. Works fine here and other places I care to watch. I am sure there are some that either fail to achieve critical mass or handle turnover but law of the jungle and all that. Indeed I find it useful as a filter for those that can't handle placating the masses from time to time but might have tech skills. If you can't handle such a minor thing then chances of being able to do something when it gets real...
Better yet such a thing is a reliable source of almost black swan events.
I have seen a few forums over the years where you have to basically interview and prove your worth. Interesting places and a model which can work well enough (and may even work better for you). I wonder then if you are trying to fit this site to that model, certainly I have no real objection to the post you linked as an example of bad things beyond it not being the best bug report.

2. You specifically say most social medial stuff so we will go with that for this.
I have witnessed something like what you describe. I would view it as a technological/business problem though. To make social meejas work you seem to have to have endless amounts of new people joining. As every pyramid scheme in history has shown, and many a pension fund in the world will soon show, though that runs out quicker than you might like. First step of damage control is "everybody likes candy" so you twist your thing to be saccharine, your mainstream advertisers* will also thank you for that for reasons I have never quite figured out.

*I once read a fascinating series of articles on the money of the porn world after everything went free. At the time no mainstream advertiser (still largely the case today despite a few notable events) would touch it and the technical workarounds were getting harder and harder. It was then noted that while there was a lot of money it was all circular between purveyors of such things but as fixed costs like servers and salaries still need to be paid the place got a whole lot less wealthy.

3. Is patreon a modern trope? For decades now, and it was a trick learned from people older than myself, we have tossed up and thrown some stuff in the hat to rent places for fun, get fancy tools and fund a nice workshop that individually would have been mightily difficult. Seems like an online version of that.
"platform synergies" is a fun one. The walled garden/lack of cross platform APIs approach (something which entices people that matter at the start) is one of the further symptoms of the shrinking user growth.

5. I am beginning to see a resurgence in forums and such. How many people are moving back to their own sites as their primary output, starting podcasts and such like?

Anyway I do find the desire to police language, the mistake of innate traits as personality, the at times dismissal of meritocracy (I find the this entity does not match percentages with the population at large therefore bad thing to be utterly perverse), the feels over reals mentality and all the other jazz associated with a lot of at least the more vocal younger peeps and people that taught them to be disturbing. With that said I am content to sit here having a giggle though and let it burn itself out, maybe with a few well placed shots if something that would take effort to undo is set to happen.


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2018)

Lets talk about 1. in specific. (Havent read the other points yet, but will respond.  )

My experience in the past couple of years has been, that many product support communities I attended, from small reddit communities prior to mass recognition to XDA boards that are now scorched earth (Amazon Fire TV) - hit an inflection point around not being able to handle the influx of people only in there trying to game the system - and within a few months basically faltered.

In all of them a minority complained about an unusable social state, then moderators never to be seen around came in there and played damage control for a few days.

I've also whitnessed a few other communities, where critical discussion basically got phased out as a result, and where they are now basically functioning as marketing channels in their respective fields.

So I've had the opposite experience. But that may have to do with the notion that I want to see people investing effort in communities - even when they arent on an upswing.

The notion that all your support requests ultimately end up at a very concentrated group of enthusiasts that arent incentivized in any way to stay - socially is very real in my experience.

This is where the "abuse" rhetoric is coming from. They are literally incentivized to stay on as long as possible by their intrinsic motivation (dont let the wrong suggestions get out of hand) - which makes this an almost cynical process - as soon as you have reached "five unanswered support requests in a row" levels in every thread.

Also I dont call for a state, where we'd give up "free support forums", because there is literally nothing out there we could replace them with - (no one is paying for support these days, people have problems - forums usually dont operate as NGOs) - what I'm propagating is a change in conscience on how to look at these processes.

There are externalities. And those are people.

And if TEMP produces a bunch of threads with devs that arent interacting with the public anymore - because they've had it - and furthermore, even users stop responding to the fifth "What I want is..." posting in a row - we have to acknowledge this somehow.

The innitial trigger that caused me to go on my controversial postings rampage spree was - that, moderators have started to "clean" threads from the cynical responses to what I'd identify as entirely self motivated, and uneducated questions as well.

So the response was already there - and kind of baked in, and the moderation chose to "on topicify" the debate, clearing it from all signs of actual discontent that came as a result of it.

Leave social commentary in. Dont use "offtopic" as your cencorship tool due jour. You dont know how it is to read through threads with nonstop help solicitation three days of the week, you aren't there. You spring into action, when someone flags something that - for a large part - might have hurt their inflated sense of self worth. (Yes, I get the irony).

Also -- if you propose isolated forums as a solution, this becomes elitism, which is actually something I would like to prevent, if possible.

This really - at its core, becomes a discussion about how to behave in a community you know nothing about (+/-) but want something out of. Chances are that you will get it somehow - but the how also matters, at least longterm. But then - hardly anyone sticks around here - once they've got their problem solved.

Again this is just my perception, but then - look at those threads...

When I start generalizing those concepts and attributing them to growing up within platforms, that dont promote, or deliver on constructive dialogue in any way - this becomes dicey, because it gets political. I understand that. But the smaller issue - on how are we allowed to react towards selfcentered service solicitation - when critical mass is long lost - is a solvable one.

Thats really just a matter of code of conduct.

You could educate people in the early days of the internet, that participating in a community isnt an automatic free for all - why cant we at least try to do the same right now? (Commercial interests not excluded, but also not always optimized for).

We can do that by talking to people. We wouldn't even have to enforce new rules. But talking about those systems is a prerequisite.

(Also, notice how I retracted from the "help me understand what the self concept of you as a millennial is" question? Because the heck am I doing this in a community that is more than willing to call people insane just to win a simple argument in a forum, before having posted any factual response, just by killing off all reputation the person on the other end has. Facebook raised em well.))


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2018)

ad2:

Nope.  Basically - facebook "invented" the microtargeted ad and the individualized news feed and one to many publishing for "everyone" (Trump has more followers on FB than on twitter.  ). This made every advertiser in the world weep out of joy, and ruined the business models of:

- most journalistic entities
- most institutions with a gatekeeping function (think public forums (as in not internet based)) - as even politicians can reach their target demographic much more easily on facebook
- democracy (usually Duterte (Philippines) and Modi (India) are the most substenciated, but Trump gets the most press..  ) (this only arguably)

Facebook doesnt get many new users in the US - because they are basically saturated at 200+ Mio, but they still are healthy and growing in the developing world like the aformentioned India - and their future is in facilitating transactions and interactions of all kind. In short - every field that they can "quantify" and sell to their users to use - they almost get market leadership for free. If the future is close to an AI enabled service driven world - they are positioned to basically become the OS. 

Facebook usage amongst young US americans decreased by around 25% and only every second american uses Facebook on their smartphone anymore - but it doesnt matter, because they opt to use Instagram instead, and thats a Facebook company as well. Also most of them will transition into Facebook starting their professional lives, because it is the default social platform - where you can reach most people.

Also it serves a "god hand" function for most of the social sciences and media studies, because they know most about what actually motivates people out of any entity including universities - and they just starting to opening themselves to scientific entitys. Essentially I see the becoming a societal staple for many years to come.

It would take decades for another social network to even get half of the saturation (the need already is "filled"), and it would have to do it against investor and consumer (= advertiser) interest, because what whe'd like as a replacement, none of them will like more than facebook. So no one currently is even trying to finance a competitor.

Also advertising cost for a facebook competitor, compared to facebooks internal rate - is a mismatch no company in the west can compete against.

I think currently Samsung and Google are trying to make a joint play in the messengers market - but they arent getting anywhere either.

If facebook "gets better" that change has to come from within the company. In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal a few entities tried to call for dismantlement and a break up, they didn't even get much recognition within political or public fields. Their loss because of the bad press they were getting was marginal. You can look at their stock price again, their losses there werent permanent either. 

On the other points we basically agree. 

edit: Despite pension systems usually not being set up as pyramid schemes, but in a "one generation pays for the older one" way - which is entirely future and inflation proof - if it werent for the demographic development, which caused pension funds to become market driven investors as well. Oh, well...


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> ad2:
> 
> Nope.  Basically - facebook "invented" the microtargeted ad and the individualized news feed and one to many publishing for "everyone" (Trump has more followers on FB than on twitter.  ). This made every advertiser in the world weep out of joy, and ruined the business models of:
> 
> ...



On pensions I was thinking more people are looking out into the world and realising fewer people are having kids, and even those that do tend to have them below replacement levels. Similarly the medicine which they offered to pay for is getting not more expensive in general but able to do more and thus as a net cost more expensive, to say nothing of allowing people to live longer.


Another network not likely? I still remember AOL, msn messenger, myspace, digg, fark, slashdot and a dozen other defunct or shadows of their former shadow being the biggest thing on the block. Unlike banks I don't think a government will prop them up either. There might be something in the saturation in the technically inclined or capable population (most of those listed) vs population of a country saturation but eh. I would also look at types of use -- more anecdotal than anything at this point but "funny pictures and contests" seems to be that for many nowadays, though you appear to be heading somewhere similar from a slightly different direction.

That said I am curious to see what goes with the transition to "their professional lives" for those that grew up with such things. Given Facebook was exiting its "just for colleges" phase some 12-14 years ago then I imagine I shall no be waiting too long.

On elections I quite like https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/ myself.

As far as a change in mindset then nah still. I am all for more people trying for the free rider -- so few people can do it well that it is no big deal (I might even speculate on whether that is what you find aggravating more than the other stuff . Do a drive by if you want, better if said drive by is formatted well with proper spelling and grammar but that is neither here nor there.

In the end mass social engineering is a tiring hobby. Build it and they will come still works though and I find it far easier to start dozens of potentially interesting topics, discussions and projects and getting something to stick.


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I still remember AOL, msn messenger, myspace, digg, fark, slashdot and a dozen other defunct or shadows of their former shadow being the biggest thing on the block.


None of them, and I mean none of them reached the saturation point, where your family would start to share their family photos over those networks. Facebook is in an entirely different league, and the question then becomes if this initiative could even be close to potentially repeating - at any time in the future and all indicators I know actually point to no.

The thing is, that you dont start by comparing facebook to prior networks, but to what actually needed to take place for it to get its market penetration.

It becoming hip with a certain crowd, then others imitating and wanting to assimilate within them, then it reaching enough critical mass, that their parents got interested, then this repeating for grandparents - every platform that even reaches step 0.5 in this process will be instantly bought out by one of the bigger players in the field. The notion that a natural competitor to the company that owns the targeted advertising space could develop as a "trend" is close to zero.
When you look at normal consumers (actually the product  ), most of them arent interested in even learning a new interface much less leaving a platform that manages most of their social lives (invites, images, contacts, ..). And then we havent even talked about network effects, because the platform with half as many users is probably only 20% as "exciting", so if a number 2 player should be able to establish itself, it will be much less interesting simply in terms of reach. "We are getting the younger demographic" was really the only potential play for any of FBs competitors. (Marketing about 40 years ago basically started to to build brand habbits, instead of selling product features.) And all of them got bought out. You don't compete with facebook.

A potential point of contention could be that people might start using it less - but then, its future is always in the the "service" market (they basically want to get to the point where they would fulfill similar functions as wechat does in china, so where FB is weaved into your daily "life service" experiences.), and there is the point - they have the most behavioral data of anyone out there.

Facebook trying to own the dating market sounded creepy to you? Thats just the beginning..  (People might be more sensitive with their dating profiles - but convenience stuff for their daily actions? There will not even be second thoughts. (Maybe in terms of monopoly litigation within the EU, we'd have to wait and see.  ))

And then there is the transitioning costs, so think about companies having to retrain their staff on other platforms, or political campaigns having to hire other consultants. And for what - no other platform in the forseeable future will get a higher market penetration in the west, it simply isnt possible (we already have everyone looking for hookups and their parents wanting to know whats going on  ). So whats their incentive?

Also there will not be a mass "exodus" from facebook - probably ever, because they already went through the most damaging scandal you could imagine - basically unscathed. While all conventional media made the stories extra gory - for impact (they are competing directly with facebook). As a result a sizeable number deinstalled the app from their phones in the US - but kept using facebook regardless.

You could compare it to the desktop OS development, where everyone and their brother wrote a basic, and a Gates business partner DOS on his own, and once Windows 95 came around, there was no other competitive OS left on the market. This is how network effects work. Firefox and IE got overtaken eventually, but those were based on open standards. FB is proprietary secret sauce.  Nothing is compatible to it. In the last weeks they reduced the usability of the sites - while not logged in even further... (Because so many people uninstalled it from their phones  )


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 16, 2018)

I did go on to ponder tech saturation vs population saturation but at this point I would wonder if they taught the market similar to how everything was a sega or nintendo or playstation for computer game consoles for those of a certain age.

I think there could be bigger scandals, and assuming you mean the analytica stuff then I would rate that as fairly mild as these things go.

Equally I don't expect the successor to be another company, or at least another US company. I would expect something closer to an open distributed protocol (think usenet peering meets ldap meets distributed storage) to eventually take it. On the other hand I have seen the instant messenger market go back from nice open protocols with user ran servers back to closed off crap so who knows.


----------



## notimp (Sep 17, 2018)

So out of curiosity - is it normal for this forum to leave a posting about someone calling another person mentally ill up for two days - or is this only a special treatment for people that dare to comment on the forum culture being - exploitative (with many more people exclusively being in it just for their personal support experience, than to learn anything or actively participate - and threads frequently just becoming "help me request" repositories)?

Because it strikes me as kind of keeping others out of the discussion - if they see, that people talking about those things get labeled as mentally ill, with the good graces of the moderators and admins of gbatemp.

Its basically the most disgraceful thing you could do to kill a discussion - well except from leaving it up for two or more days so more people can get repulsed by it.

Of course this is only common sense talking.


----------



## notimp (Sep 17, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I think there could be bigger scandals, and assuming you mean the analytica stuff then I would rate that as fairly mild as these things go.
> 
> Equally I don't expect the successor to be another company, or at least another US company. I would expect something closer to an open distributed protocol (think usenet peering meets ldap meets distributed storage) to eventually take it. On the other hand I have seen the instant messenger market go back from nice open protocols with user ran servers back to closed off crap so who knows.


Open protocols would be nice - but no. Too complicated for people (closed means faster iteration, better integration, more seemless setup), and they dont care. Its not so much that it couldnt be implemented, its that literally no one "important" is interested in it.

And by that I'm referring to facebooks actual customers which are businesses and smaller ad networks.

Could this change with "bigger" scandals? Yes, but there is no bigger scandal imaginable. 

What FB did is to "encourage" third parties to do a full take on users friends data, to use it anyway they see fit. "Hey its disruptive". 

The whole "whe didnt know what they would do with the data" is BS, they gave them card blanche. In colloquial terms, "do your worst" - and people did.

Acckording to the New Yorker article, Zuckerberg isnt entirely convinced, that foreign actors toppled the US election, and cosing up to leaders of nations, supplying them "staff" for election purposes - is still a thing (see: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHloYymVIZQ ) they do, as is allowing microtargeting for voting purposes.

Which is essentially disabling democracy - depending on how much of a proponent of "believing in rational actors" you are.

(People have to "break down" complex problems in regards to how they would impact their lives, based on their internal process, and discussions with their peers - not because an ad triggered exactly the emotional decision system they respond to best - but targeted towards 20 personality types, without other seeing what the first person was fed.

They now promise more transparency - but people wont even look at the 20 versions of targeted ads, they get bored halfway through the first one - and usually are convinced, that they cant be impacted by advertising - much. Which of course is entirely wrong.)

But hey - facebook is happy to supply you with the tools. They do it to "normal" advertisers every day - so why not to political advertisers as well. And the results are amazing. One targeted facebook voter mobilization campaign triggered more resonance than any other means of voter mobilization ever devised.

They are optimizing for "personal feel good" news feeds (now more than ever, because of the fake news controversy) which essentially cements "bubble think", and they not only have no idea and no ambition to change that (it keeps you on the platform longer).

People don't care.

Facebook and Instagram basically are trials for how a society will look like - where you replace media gatekeeping with an advertising company. Most of the things your read will be referred to you by your friends. Some of them will be created by your friends.

There is no higher "purpose", other than the third kind of stories - stories created by advertisers and then paid for - for you to read. Facebook claims "universal neutrality" - so essentially your bubble really gets as dumb as your friends circle, and advertising really gets/got better.

As you see - this becomes more and more a discussion about "the purpose and responsibilities of media in society" - and the outcome becomes "no one cares about higher theoretical values anymore" (thruths, integrity, fact checking, rationality over emotionality, ...) facebook will feed you those things (fact checking sites are now externalized entities, yipiiie!) as well, if you like them - but they aren an integral part of FB as an entity anymore. (Facebook refuses to take responsibility for the content they are distributing.)

Now the argument goes, that they never were with NBC or FOX News either, but the point is, that facebook isnt even proclaiming or trying anymore. This kind of has warped the self image of media as well - where most outlets trying to address the masses (in accordance with financial pressures) lowered their quality standards - but now, thanks to the success of facebook - its the new hip.

"Quality media" now explicitly addresses intellectual and business elites, and why wouldnt they - micro targeting has become so easy. I've spoken to several journalists about this, and their self images have changed/are changing - the notion that they write to their best journalistic standards, while addressing an "opaque" mass of people, is gone. They get presented everyday - that the mass out there loves senseless listicals with linkbait headlines - and that overly played out emotional content has the highest impact.

Now again - this isnt new, but the notion that everyone successful is optimizing for it is.

More "scandal" you cant get.

Well of course apart from the "whatsapp lynchings" (also a facebook company), but those only are to be expected in regions, that barely had telephones, and no newspapers, before everyone got smartphones. Also no one is doing anything about those either (we will hire more native language screeners is BS). They just wait for societies to adjust.

Well of course apart from google and FB actively censoring news stories prior to elections in Brasil (and they really had a point, and it was fake news), and supposedly more actively in china in years to come - but then, hey - chinese democracy is the new hip thing.. 

Well also of course apart from the usuals social meadia account hacks of celebrities that resulted in nude photo leaks, but most people rather liked those.

No one cares. (As long as they are entertained.)

In fact, some people rather like the new system. Its more engaging, you can target people easier, everyone gets delivered exactly what they want to read/watch, advertising has become more meaninful to their lives... Nudging is more effectfull. Companies recruitment efforts become "easier". There is less propensity for social unrest. You'll learn to trust your virtual assistant more in years to come. It will show you many more restaurants and interesting things to do (so while your not driving home the traffic flow is optimized..  ). And Facebook, like google - really is at the heart of all that.


----------



## smileyhead (Sep 17, 2018)

Jesus Christ, the walls of text in this thread


----------



## notimp (Sep 17, 2018)

Very astute observation.

Here is a summery. Smartphoneusers are ruining gbatemp by asking for "services" but providing nothing in return. That social interaction was mainly learned on social networks, where stuff like this flys, because the result of interactions doesnt stick - for them to get a bad rep for trying. (Everscrolling newsfeed.)

Then someone tried to end the discussion by calling people mentally ill.

Then someone liked that.

Then we talked about if facebook can get replaced in the near future by a random competitor (answer: not likely).

Then we talked a little about a world without gatekeepers, where everyones opinion becomes so important, even posting how you feel about a subject if you know nothing about it (/havent read anything about it), is seen as worthwhile (summery: some people like it, its just their jam).

Also - it all started with a rant - link in the first posting.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 17, 2018)

notimp said:


> Open protocols would be nice - but no. Too complicated for people (closed means faster iteration, better integration, more seemless setup), and they dont care. Its not so much that it couldnt be implemented, its that literally no one "important" is interested in it.
> 
> And by that I'm referring to facebooks actual customers which are businesses and smaller ad networks.
> 
> ...



I would have said the complete opposite.

I can have my email organised however I please, as do many clients of mine. Filters, ordering, threading.... and this is something as crusty as email and usenet is not much different. While myspace, bebo et al probably taught us that user customisation others can see is not ideal in the real world. Focus it with a default client (or prebaked clients) and go from there.

I would still maintain whatever that was did little in the long run. Among the general populous nobody really understood it, indeed I might look to the line of high profile hacks of things prior and ponder if that did something to promote a nice bit of apathy, and having the various C levels talk to politicos was a farce most of the time.

As for the rest. Possibly. I am content to watch it burn though.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 17, 2018)

notimp said:


> Very astute observation.
> 
> Here is a summery. Smartphoneusers are ruining gbatemp by asking for "services" but providing nothing in return. That social interaction was mainly learned on social networks, where stuff like this flys, because the result of interactions doesnt stick - for them to get a bad rep for trying. (Everscrolling newsfeed.)
> 
> ...


You continue to make blanket statements and expect people to agree with you coupled without actually giving a solution that isn't just gating off the community. Are you suggesting that people requesting help and getting help are to be expected to give something in return? What are you suggesting that they provide to the community if their services are met? You aren't suggesting much in the manor of solving the problem, you've just been throwing out blanket statements.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 17, 2018)

I am probably falling into a couple of your "millennial stereotypes", but I will share my opinion here regarding your original post.

Please, try to write your posts better, specially the one opening a thread. *1

It is not immediately clear that you want to start a discussion, or what the details of the topic are... actually, it is quite hard to follow.
Not even your position on the topic is clear.

And then comes the next problem, you've posted quite a lot of text that takes a long time to read, but it lacks a proper and clear introduction/persuasion/invitation segment. *2

It would be great to understand what is your point, to what exactly are you inviting the reader, what type of interaction are you proposing. The information is kind of there, but not clearly, and way to late in the OP (in the blog thread).

Perhaps you have already rectified this in following posts, but after reading many posts on the original blog and a couple here, I decided that I had already spent too much time in this and needed to go back to my usual tasks (work?). *2++

*1: Yeah, perhaps that's a bit of "you do/help me", "not being part of the solution"... but you know, if you write it clearer you are saving "decoding/interpretation" work for a lot of readers, so you do more work but a lot of others do less, it's more efficient! (lazy person excuse)

*2: People like things served in a silver platter, I wouldn't say it is just "millennials" but actually people from any generation today. They have kind of become used to having solutions served to them... in any case that may be related to the lazy and too specialized modern way of life.


----------



## Flame (Sep 17, 2018)

here is a gbatemp; in fact any forum secret.

and why I have more likes then post.

keep it nice and short and get to the point.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 18, 2018)

Flame said:


> here is a gbatemp; in fact any forum secret.
> 
> and why I have more likes the then post.
> 
> keep it nice and short and get to the point.


Always remember the KISS principle


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 19, 2018)

Image related.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 19, 2018)

Your original thread-turned-blog post critically generalizing the behavior of an entire generation didn't get the attention you wanted it to, so you make a new thread critically generalizing site dynamics rather than just... accepting that nobody cared?...

Yike


----------



## notimp (Sep 19, 2018)

The original thread was moved from here to the "blog section" by moderators, without any comment, within 15 minutes of it going online to prevent any resulting discussion, if any should have been possible. There was an argument to do so, because it was written to be very provocative - but there was no feedback given at all. It just suddenly was moved out of the public eye. Also - I wouldnt for the life of me consider to "write a blog on gbatemp" ever, because structurally not owning the publishing platform for your own blog to me makes absolutely no sense.

Also - touching a little on the mental health subject, but in a more sensitive way. Here is a The Guardian article from today referencing a consensus in the field of psychology - that faking working social structures on social media makes people miserable. They use instagram as an example.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...endly-so-why-is-it-making-people-so-miserable

But gbatemp with the usual 10 unanswered "I want support" requests in any given homebrew release thread in a row strikes a similar vain. (The community is proposed - but ultimately isnt there.) Talking about that this is dysfunctional is not seen as acceptable, people who do, get played with, censored and heckled.

Discussion attempts about this - and how this default resulted because of the ad financing focus of social media - is now met by indifference, and heavy mobbing.

That said - I plan to return to this thread and link interesting tidbits and newsstories once in a while - I'm still trying to make the behavior of most people here a general topic of discussion. And I commend moderators for at least allowing that.

The third time around.

In regards to fellow users I'm not so sure.

I've already been called boring, insane, and an attention seeker in here - just because I chose to make this a topic of discussion. The 4chan treatment would have been more favorable.

And this while bringing up an argument - that the cliche representation of a millennial/snowflake - learned to never win arguments online by means other than attacking another persons character.

The thing is, that forum structures actually allow for arguments like this (but not exclusively) to actually stick, and be had. The social media newsfeed (or "personal gbatemp blog" feed) just scrolls them out of the picture.

Talking about complex and difficult issues - takes more than the typical guttural emotional response.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 19, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> *Image related.


If a tree falls in a middle of the woods and Newspaper editor isn't around to see it, are Millennials still at fault?


notimp said:


> The original thread was moved from here to the "blog section" by moderators, without any comment, within 15 minutes of it going online to prevent any resulting discussion, if any should have been possible. There was an argument to do so, because it was written to be very provocative - but there was no feedback given at all. It just suddenly was moved out of the public eye. Also - I wouldnt for the life of me consider to "write a blog on gbatemp" ever, because structurally not owning the publishing platform for your own blog to me makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Also - touching a little on the mental health subject, but in a more sensitive way. Here is a The Guardian article from today referencing a consensus in the field of psychology - that faking working social structures on social media makes people miserable. They use instagram as an example.
> 
> ...


It would help if you just made one post that focused on one topic at a time, then maybe people would be able to follow along. You are making lengthy walls of texted that are filled with generalized opinions on topics, coupled with only pushing your own opinions on others. You don't leave any room for conversation, yet expect a conversation to happen.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> The original thread was moved from here to the "blog section" by moderators, without any comment, within 15 minutes of it going online to prevent any resulting discussion, if any should have been possible. There was an argument to do so, because it was written to be very provocative - but there was no feedback given at all. It just suddenly was moved out of the public eye. Also - I wouldnt for the life of me consider to "write a blog on gbatemp" ever, because structurally not owning the publishing platform for your own blog to me makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Also - touching a little on the mental health subject, but in a more sensitive way. Here is a The Guardian article from today referencing a consensus in the field of psychology - that faking working social structures on social media makes people miserable. They use instagram as an example.
> 
> ...


Ah yes. The site moderators are out to get you, specifically, because of your revolutionary views on millennial culture. If you weren't right they wouldn't be after you! Keep it up I say!

Oooooor it could be that the topic was a matter of personal opinion, which would make it better suited for a blog post?...


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 19, 2018)

Also never mind that blogs appear in new content for most people, to say nothing of them routinely hosting hundreds of reply topics about all matter of things that seem to fall under the realms of politics, morality, communities and human psychology.


----------



## notimp (Sep 22, 2018)

In the following thread ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/pfba-final-burn-alpha.497188/page-37 ) responses in regards to the same question asked on page 37 of the topic, already having been answered on page 1 of the thread, and in 12 (!) out if the 37 pages of the same thread - have just been deleted on grounds of "bickering".

Yes. Telling people to read actual threads instead of abusing them as service repositories, now constitutes bickering.

I certainly am not considering answering questions anymore - if they get repeated every second page within a topic - and the forum moderation is still considering censoring that this is pretty much the business model of gbatemp these days.

Let people be exploited by others for free. Its not information sharing thats at stake here - because the information is  there, its just, that most people don't care to look for it, before filing another service request.

And again "bickering" is a fake excuse at this point. Lets get honest.

Also, I have yet to see one of those fabled moderators in the daily interactions within these community. Its like they are representing the business case for gbatemp, and not much else.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2018)

John Oliver did a piece about Facebook last week, that mainly focused on their international activities, and thereby doesnt represent an extensive overview - but hey, better than nothing.


But you are using Whatsapp and Instagram? Both owned by facebook.

One of the Whatsapp founders finally spoke out about why the founders left over a disagreement, after they have been bought:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyo...efacebook-and-why-he-left-850-million-behind/

This comes in the wake of instagrams founders being let go as well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/instagram-facebook.html

In other news, still no one cares.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 30, 2018)

notimp said:


> In the following thread ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/pfba-final-burn-alpha.497188/page-37 ) responses in regards to the same question asked on page 37 of the topic, already having been answered on page 1 of the thread, and in 12 (!) out if the 37 pages of the same thread - have just been deleted on grounds of "bickering".
> 
> Yes. Telling people to read actual threads instead of abusing them as service repositories, now constitutes bickering.
> 
> ...


You know I actually read the posts before I reported them. Reading through the vast majority of your posts that I've read were not actually helpful, they were just you being like, "WOW! Look at this self-entitled Millennial!" then a wall of text completely belittling the user for asking a question. You weren't helping the user, you were being a self-righteous dick to the user for asking a question.
You are painting yourself as a victim, when in reality you are just a complete asshole.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 30, 2018)

Why is this even a thread? People are allowed to do what they want to do.
End of discussion.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2018)

As a showcase how to sideline necessary societal arguments, I suppose.

Also, the critical argument in the initial posting was meant to be provocative - but also helpful. I'm sorry that it wasn't received this way.

Censoring the argument, that we are often not dealing with "questions" (trying to understand concepts) necessarily, but with service demands (make problem go away ) - that hit this forum by the dozens (the same 'question' being asked 12 times in a 25 page thread, or 50 times over three months, ...) - also doesnt solve the underlying issue.

Making people think about collective behavior, and that "always act supportive and helpful", can also lead to abusive tendencies, is important as well. Its part of the social makeup of cultures.

There are always people who start bickering, when they perceive a structural issue, thats actively overlooked and not addressed in any way. And there are always people that will proclaim "if we could just get rid of the instigators" - all our problems will be solved.

Theres nothing out of the ordinary about it.

I challenge anyone to bring the issue of repeat social contract abuse (asking and answering the same question 12 times in a 25 page thread, asking the same question 50 times in one forum over the span of 3 months -- saying thanks, and never being seen in in this "community" ever again) in front of a generation whose online habits have been formed by interactions where no counterargument would even be able to stand for two days. And moderation was never anything beyond actual censorship. Because it was faster, even cleaner, and so much more economical.

As I said in the original thread - the only coping mechanisms you'll encounter on social media these days are character assassination based on purely emotional grounds and bubble forming. ("We really hate people thinking differently. We perceive our differences to be unsurmountable. It gives us identity.")

Not once - has anyone in here actually considered, that having the same threads with the same 'service related' questions (essentially requests for micro customized FAQs) popping up in here for months, is an actual issue that we have to talk about to even attempt to solve.

If we can't touch on the mindset that produces it, because people wont tolerate it if you depict them in a certain fashion (*hrm*) so be it. Flaming s/o can be used to garner attention. But it should never be used to drive out a differing opinion, or attempt to end an argument.

Also - actually reading my opinion, before attempting to get it removed, was very liberal of you. I'm actually impressed.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2018)

The essential 'conflict' here is that of a "third place" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place - you also might know it from Sonys marketing a few years ago -  ), and the increasing notion that - structurally - many companies would rather market themselves as such, but follow a different conceptual model. (a-social media sites, ...)

The third place essentially is a an idealistic concept, where people choose to congregate, because they feel like belonging, and simply 'good' when they do. (Think the cafe in the 90s sitcom Friends.  ) Its a place of discussion, where they are among equals, where they can voice opinions, and yes - where they tend to help each other.

That conceptual model of an important societal place was taken by marketing in the 80s, and implemented for brands like Starbucks or Apple, who now offer a different version of that to brand loyal customers. Its all about the flair of actual community building - with none of the actual community.

And here is the main point. When 'helping others out' whos main barrier of entry was 'owning a smartphone' and nothing else really (well, maybe also buying a certain product - or "thinking of buying" - in which case they ought to be pampered especially well), and this is seen as a very positive thing (because we are talking about ad economies), becomes the main purpose of a "community" - and is universally accepted as the main reason, for why people attend, and the main purpose thats expected of it ('You haven't even been very helpful, at all...') the purpose changed from "third place" to "business venture".

Lets put it that way. If peoples role in here has become 'non payed helpers of others' and not a meeting or gathering place of likeminded folks, enjoyment amongst the 'expected unpaid helpers' will plummet. It simply looses the function of said 'third place'. Which is first and foremost a social function, not an economic one. No one visits this forum, because in here they get to work for others.

If your 'social networking platform' starts to feel, like it is mostly economically motivated ('that networker from highschool tried to connect with for the third time...'), the interesting people tend to move away, because for them it has lost the social function it has delivered to them.

That said, most people often dont notice, because they might be attending for the notoriaty, or because they want a question answered, or simply - because they think that their posting scores are what matters most (hierarchy). It still might be the place, where developers announce products, but to talk to peers most of them have resorted to far more controlled channels (discords, ...).

From my perspective - it has become hard, to even follow the scene, because regardless of subforum, there is a constant barrage of 'I have a quick question', highjack attempts or threads, with constantly the same questions, and simply trying to ignore them becomes harder and harder, because the quality of answers has gotten lower and lower.

Thats where the conflict comes in.

In an actual 'third place' this is an issue, because its a dysfunctional culture.

In a 'mockup third place' where moderators may only drop by once in a while, because something got flagged which is seen 'offensive', the intended goal is mass satisfaction - and if people want their service requests filled - this becomes the new primary goal the structure gets targeted around. Again, ad economies.



Now, with facebook and other social media platforms always having intentionally blurred the difference between a friend and a "brand worker", peoples expectations about who's responsible for "service" also have altered, so have their notions of what constitutes a "friend" ('I prime subbed my favorite twit streamer today! He mentioned my name and was so greatful.').  But then the notion was always to capture that concept of a "third place", so you cant really blame them.

Just dont conflate the two.

If something is a genuine community, we have the responsibility to talk about aspects that are going wrong within it.
If something is just a trendy front for people with smartphones to get 'help services', expect everyone to judge you on your 'helpfulness to others' as a first reaction.

The difference between mock communities and actual ones is stark. And yet most people still tend to overlook it. Its part of acting PC, I suppose.. (Also brand loyal individuals, really love their brands - its an identity thing..  )


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2018)

Here is one such 'service request' i remember from yesterday.

The proposed 'question' basically was:

"I want to play current games on my Switch, and also pirate, but if I do Nintendo might ban me. So if I dont go online while pirating, and restore a nand backup before I do - will I still get banned."

After no proper response, the stakes were raised:

"I really hope an expert with deep knowledge of the hardware can answer my question."

If we take this as a blueprint of what we should see gbatemp as being famous for, let me ask you one thing.

What community on earth - would help/deal with this customer?

He wants to pirate, but not suffer anti piracy measures.
He wants the benefits of staying on lower firmware - but also play newer games.
He wants to downgrade, but also be ensured, that Nintendo cant catch it.

Those two things:

- I want to pirate and

- I want to use Nintendos online services while playing current games


are about as mutually exclusive (contrary, two sides of a coin), as they can be. (Its the thing with always online and DRM, maybe you have heard about it...) But in our casual conversation - we are supposed to "stick to his request" and "help him with his problem" - and not talk about the ramifications around it. Also - please deliver him a "high level expert", because he asked, and really wants to pirate without consequences.

Thats community right? Any hobbyist establishment would help that guy. Right?

I mention this, because that was the last time, I actually insisted that someone should look at the bigger picture, and not outsource problem solving or risk to a "community". Which I just got called out for.

Context, you know... And yet, I gave him the actual answer he was looking for. Together with a talk about risk assessment, complex systems, and the thing about not being able to read Nintendo source code. Especially server side.

But if I really could have just stuck to helpful 'personalized FAQ', the whole thing would have been so much better. Really?1? Context, you know...

(This being a futile attempt of not getting character assassinated - at least for once. You know - sometimes its the minor victorys that count.  )


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 30, 2018)

Even if you were being personally censored by the staff (which you aren't,) that's something you agreed to. You agreed that the staff have the right to delete your posts and equally you agreed to several rules that you actually have violated. Using "Millennial" in the manor that you have been doing so is a violation of the rules as it attacking a person based on their age. Equally you are violating the rules right now, staff action is up for debate. Your entire notion about being "censored" is eternally self-induced by your own actions. I actually do read your entire posts before replying, I just choose not to make a wall of text because the vast majority of your posts are just personal rants. I am not here to change your opinion, just address the issues that part of your opinion.


----------



## Jonna (Sep 30, 2018)

You're not changing the forum, sorry, man. 

I was and am part of a forum older than this one, and no matter how much we tried to change, being more sensitive, less sensitive, varying strictness levels, activities, rewards systems, rules, etc, it still doesn't stop the behaviour. 

Huge forums like this are made up of a hell of a lot of people, and you won't get them all or even a decent portion to suddenly switch gears and change their methodology. 

You just roll with it. Post the way you think is positive and a role model, and hope others see it and get inspired.


----------



## notimp (Oct 9, 2018)

I'm fairly certain that being inspired by others "gentleman like" behavior doesnt work either. 

As I'm coming out of communities, where self organizing worked - I was initially wondering, when and if there was something of an inflection point - where everyone realized, that exploiting real life social codes on webforums, was the new hot thing - and everyone started acting like this was the new normal.

And the best thing I could come up so far are two hypothesis.

1. Its a generational thing ("I'm entitled to act like a *insertwordnoonelikestousestartingwithm*")

2. Its a cultural thing learned in communities where everyone is just faking out others in terms of how *insertpositivesoundingverb* they are, trying to get a leg up in a race towards nowhere.

The utter rage that usually follows once you point out that the other person knows nothing, didn't try anything - but expects personal attention focused only on them - supports both. The second one basically - because everyone is so concerned about public self image, that they find it utterly revolting, if someone gives them an honest answer ("You know nothing, read up on things" - as a rather bland example).

In most forums I attended in my former years this was actually a thing people accepted as something to do in general. Sure we don't liked the answer, when we got it - but we understood that others thought, that we could find out the answers on our own, with little effort.

The other thing that was accepted as a normal convention is, that if people started to show signs of being bothered or stressed, people actually acknowledged that and modified their behavior - although admittedly not for very long - but at least it gave the feeling of there being situational awareness.

Nowadays - if you look at this (others as well) forum, people seem relentless to "get their question in" - because they almost "demand" an answer - and be it even the wrong one, as long as they feel attended to. And if they are not, they subsequently even start complaining.

Polls have replaced the "search for excellence" - and everything is a free for all. ("Everyones voice is important to us!")

Interestingly - also moderators never are part of communities anymore - not in a tangible sense. So the rolemodel effect (only ever has worked through reputation structures) is all but lost from that one aspect alone.

Now - in this form of "community" - it all becomes a numbers game.

As soon as anything becomes "popular" - all the discerning voices get swamped by sheer volume, and self organizing breaks.

In talking to folks out there - it also is apparent, that there is no responsibility people feel towards the overall state of things - its like they expect things to work, because others cared about setting this stuff up, while they dont have to.

Everything that doesnt feel good on a surface level gets flamed - while counterspeech or teaching people not to solve their issues with flaming, doesnt even exist anymore. If you get out of an actual discussion not being called all kinds of pleasant things, just for sticking up against popular opinion you consider yourself lucky.

- This one is easy to pinpoint on the structural nature of social networks (content streams (nothing ever sticks for more than a day > no ramifications), and bubbles) - which in return is "ad financing" optimized ("- your voice is very important to us" because you customer(/product  ) - kind of attitude)
--

What does work strangely enough is

- authority through celebrity
("Our favourite PR manager has blogged a leak!" - where popularity > intelligence, of course - but thats an accomplishment of the advertising industry going back to the 60s of last century..  (Internet as a counterculture later was lost, that sort of thing... very idealistic. Long story..  ))

Where celebrity can either be bought, or attained by being the most plain and PC person imaginable - while hitting all the boyband member checkboxes... 

and

- authority through majority
(with the obvious populism setbacks)
---

In any case "just act politely and hope that others will imitate your behavior" is probably the worst thing you can do. (Life lesson fail.  )

I'm still trying out a few concepts...  Yet, I'd be really interested in the self image of the generation that "doesnt know it any other way". I mean I get the libertarian spirit and draw of places like 4chan to a certain extent, what I don't get - is everyone acting, like not caring about social ramifications of your actions (Hey guys, short question, visit my youtube channel, like and subscribe!) is totally ok - and maybe even trendy to a certain extent.

There are no real epiphanies in this text either - Its just spelling out what drives current community behavior. "Can you do the thinking for me?" Is a good tagline, that not even I coined, but only borrowed...

When did this become the internet of our choice? If you have better ideas - maybe even links to some more scientific studies - I'd be interested in reading up on them.


----------



## notimp (Oct 13, 2018)

Southpark S22E03 tried to tackle the social media public self image issue in a way that was deemed "too subtle" by the bloggeria, which reported the opposite of the actual story.

Plotpoints in the Episode:

- Mr. Hankey, one of the most beloved characters in the Southpark universe, gets half of his Job budget cut, because of a funding crisis, and because he is deemed "the weekest link" by the city council.
- As he gets depressed over not being able to organize a decent Christmas parade for the town he takes to late night twittering, to vent his anger
- Because of the highly inaporopriate nature of his tweets he gets in trouble with his peer group, which only care about the tweets defaming them, not others
- Mr. Hanky rectifies this, by stating - that he cant sleep, and resorted to ambian [sic?], a reference to Roseanne Barr
- While everyone distances himself from the character - "because in 2018 - you dont help those kinds of people", Kyle tries to support Mr. Hankey
- As they set up and perform a christmas festival for the town (with fireworks) - the towns opinion about Mr. Hankey seems to shift, when Mr. Hankey is seen performing in his element again.
- When five Political-Correctness Babies (the children of PC Principal and Strong Woman - who never will be allowed to know their parents, because their relationship was neither PC, nor appropriate for a strong woman) start to cry at every mention of "Christmas" an "that its a time that _man_ should show love for each other" - Mr. Hankey is caught off guard - and ultimately lashes out against the babies, for being devoted to an ethic he cant understand.
- At which point the entire town turns against Mr. Hankey and decides to cast him out of Southpark to never come back.

- As Mr. Hankey leaves the town in a Lift, one citizen starts to wonder, what will become of him eventually - at which point the Randy character states that “He will have to live in a town that still accepts racist, awful beings like him, where people don’t care about bigotry and hate.”

- The show then cuts over to a facsimile of Springfield (Simpsons) where the Apu character welcomes Mr. Hankey - with other iconic Simpsons characters present. And a black screen with the hashtag
#cancelthesimpsons


The bloggeria saw the hashtag and ran with "omg southpark trolling the Simpsons" - they want them to be canceled, headlines.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...sons_us_5bbebe99e4b054d7ddef75e2?guccounter=1

Hari Kondabolu who in his documentary _The Problem With Apu _made the case for the Simpsons being  responsible for cultural opropriation, because of them creating the role of Apu the convenience store owner, partly because he was voiced by a white guy - saw the headlines and tweeted a very nice: "Thanks for the support and attention I guess, but I dont want it from the Southpark guys" (too edgy).
Then deleted the tweet a few hours later ( h**ps://twitter.com/harikondabolu/status/1050213030011826176 )

Then the bloggeria complained - that Southpark might have made their point in a way that was way too subtle.

Then no one cared anymore - because its Southpark - and we are in 2018.

src: https://tvline.com/2018/10/11/south-park-cancel-the-simpsons-apu-controversy-video/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/south-park-cancel-the-simpsons_us_5bbebe99e4b054d7ddef75e2

edit: Post episode discussion on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/southpark/...episode_discussion_s22e03_the_problem_with_a/


----------



## notimp (Oct 13, 2018)

Also: Here is the top comment beneath the tvline article:


> David Graf says:
> October 11, 2018 at 5:42 AM
> Truly tacky and tasteless but that’s South Park for you.



and here is the seventh one - which prompted the switch of the blogger to "they made their point too subtle".



> Dillan Gandhi says:
> October 11, 2018 at 6:21 AM
> The hashtag stuff is satire of online culture of wanting everything cancelled when they don’t agree with it. The joke went over this article writer’s head!



Here is a response to that posting:


> Love says:
> October 11, 2018 at 12:04 PM
> It’s not that TvLine doesn’t get that, it’s just that manifactured outrage means more clicks and higher ad revenue.



The Huffington Post never corrected their original story, and neither did about 30 blogs that copied them and ran with it.


----------



## notimp (Oct 13, 2018)

Johnathan Pie about the work of "UK Hate Crime Units" - which apparently is a thing:


And thanks to the google recommendation algo - Stephen Fry with an argument against political correctness:
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPEHbJgomgA

(Part of the Munk debates circle)


----------



## notimp (Oct 13, 2018)

Watching the entire debate right now.

Most interesting argument constructed so far (imho):

Michelle Goldberg on the "Failure of the left" as it is connected to political correctness". The argument takes a while to develop, so give it time. (3-5 minutes.)

h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNjYSns0op0&t=3830

It also ends with "social media has the tendency for some actors to swarm individuals, who are able to turn stray remarks into social media campaigns" - her proposed solution is for reasonable liberals to denounce it.

On a debate if social media is terrible for democracy she also would be on the yay side. 

Doesnt mirror my opinion fully - but is interesting as a perspective, nevertheless.

edit: A #metoo movement (and potential dangerous overreactions being at play) position is discussed from 01:14:00 forward. Just reached it, havent listened to the debate unfolding.

edit: Debate was rushed at that point, comments where interesting regardless.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 18, 2018)

I hate the newer generations because thanks to the Internet I have to look at them swarming into my favorite social media and ruin everything. Look at what they did to Reddit for example.

At least all the creepy 40 years old and older use secret groups.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2018)

Fun fact of the day:

Twitter is rumored to remove the "like" function from its service in an effort to improve debate quality.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technol...-remove-like-tool-bid-improve-quality-debate/

Rumored as in its founder dislikes the "feature" and thinks that it might actually work.

Only comment thats fitting:

But how will we actually live?!

People expressing their regards with a no effort click was a bad idea to begin with, but hey - how do you meassure active engagement in any other way?

If tl;dr please like and subscribe, you dont have to read anything, just like and subscribe.

To make the obvious prediction, their stock holders wont like it. It wont happen. What is he thinking.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 29, 2018)

notimp said:


> To make the obvious prediction, their stock holders wont like it. It wont happen. What is he thinking.



Do said stock holders have user growth numbers and other metrics as well? We seem to have left the exponential growth period so many investors enjoy and thus far they have not quite managed proper monetisation.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 29, 2018)

Twitter confuses me a lot. I see conversations and I want to reply to them but it posts my response to my own account? What?


----------



## Xzi (Oct 29, 2018)

notimp said:


> It also ends with "social media has the tendency for some actors to swarm individuals, who are able to turn stray remarks into social media campaigns" - her proposed solution is for reasonable liberals to denounce it.


What?  It's not the job of either political party to denounce or promote specific social media platforms, and I don't see how that would be a solution to anything.  The problem you're referring to consists mostly of groupthink and tribalism, which can occur in all age groups, all political groups, and through any interactive medium, offline or on.


----------



## weiff (Oct 29, 2018)

As a forum lurker and someone in the service industry, I can say that the original poster as a lot of valid points. I will also say the prevalent culture online is one of the "lowest common denominator" OR "we elite few." There tends to be very little middle ground no matter how hard an individual or community tries to eschew that. There is also the issue of the individual users, quite often they do not want any more than the basic knowledge required for "instant gratification" and will take the fastest short-cuts to get there.

These are just my observations.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 29, 2018)

It is a real thing that current "communication" through social media is dysfunctional, and having a critical voice or getting into any kind of relevant debate is not really looked for, it's even discouraged. Well, that's intensified lately but it's not anything new. 

That's been the function of the school system since the industrial revolution, creating slaves that supply workforce and don't comply or get any revolutionary idea. Living in a worldwide "safe-space" where people have no real opinion, and this was predicted by dystopian Sci-Fi probably long before anyone in this forum was born.
Not saying this is good at all, but that is not new.

The thing is OP is only talking about this to justify his behavior. He is not establishing any conversation or entering any debate. He is just showing his lack of summarizing skills writing tiring TL;DR worth pieces that don't say much, but only try to push his ideas and justify his behavior discrediting everybody else. He is even playing victim in the process. 

What he quotes as an exemplary case of "establishing a debate" is nothing else but he showing some entitlement to be an asshole with someone that was asking for advice and was unable to test the results for the moment. It is no debate about anything, it is just bullying for the sake of it. But that seems to be something exemplary... I have to agree with Lilith here, he is just trying to justify him being an asshole and passing the "blame is on the millennials" blanket statement, something sure used to no avail by the lazy aging press that seeks the problems somewhere outside whatever group they think they are into instead of taking the time to look for them inside, where they really are.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2018)

In regards to what fuels this thing, my understanding is the following:

So facebook basically invented microtargeting, based on lets say 40 characteristics of yourself. They do the matching - to sell advertisers anonymized profiles en gross - but in targeted subgroups. Analytics on those stuff pre GDPR (new european law) were through the roof, as in "very accompanying". Companies and andvertisers loved them to pieces for it - hence the death of the entire media industry. (They cant do hyper targeting, so their ad prices plummeted.)

Facebook still is mostly an advertisement company (and people are still mostly idiots, for doing their communication and family photo sharing over an advertising company  - and their dating, if it goes according to Zuckyboy ) - but the stock price is already at a level where most analysts argue, that investors have different data use priced in there already. The field where personal data based analyses just skyrocketed last year to a significant volume, was "risk assessment" (think your insurance company, banks, the state, ...), others soon to follow.

Facebook also made a carbon copy of snapchat, to capture the entire young demographic - but in doing so they allowed for a change in the usage model. Nowadays most users share, and spend time within friendgroups again, and not within the general facebook feed, where facebook sells the advertising - so currently they are on the look out for new revenue models.
--

On the "dysfunctional communication" part - eh...

- The new rolemodels of an entire generation became liars, fakes and frauds, whose only qualifications were having a sexy smile, and selling out to lifestyle product manufacturers faster then the next guy. While acting very personable. (Parasocial relationship is the psychological term, if you want to look it up. Before Youtubers, it was mostly an old ladies thing - with TV ankermen..  )

I'd not call that a "communication failure", I'd call that a social hack. No one knew that most people where that shallow and dumb - but then it turned out they were. *bummer*

- The new sport of an entire generation became acting out a fake personality online, and making smartphone pictures of their food, because it didn't move. They did so, because they saw that stuff in cellphone commercials and had those great youtube rolemodels.. 

- Any model of life, that did not subscribe to those principals, was mostly let go of the public sphere. (Follow me, like and subscribe is _everywhere_)

- Former fringe groups, that never achieved political weight or recognition before, all of a sudden flurrished, in a new ecosystem - where everyone wanted to be seen as liberal an progressive, and faked the living S out of their motives. But that those groups are now recognized also has a real positive side to it.

(To fight for Identity politics (groups that you are born into) is "in", and thats being more and more recognized as a problem by liberal political thinkers. To talk about anything that wouldnt fit the plotline of a second grade musical, is entirely out though - partly, because it wont fit the social media landscape. (Wealth distribution, social systems, healthcare, education, ...))

- Furthermore, and also part of what we see here, people have learned how to exploit the "everyone has to behave friendly and smile" social media economy - by again - lying and farm out any and all work to others - with as little interaction as possible.

Solve this problem for me via a short message in a webforum. Do my laundry via Taskrabbit. Go somewhere else via Uber... All those "jobs" are paid much, much less then in the previous economy - where people still had to look each other in the eye, and see themselves more than only once in a lifetime. Also the idea that a webservice does absolutely nothing, and gets 30-60% of the actual profit, never was a thing in prior economies either. Fun stuff like that.
---

Going back to the risk assesment thing.

Whats happening there is a tidal shift as well. In the past people were judged on metrics based on how "groups of them" would behave. The individual assessment was always seen as something not mappable via statistics - so everyone always had a "fighting chance".

In the newer metrics, your life (thanks to facebook an co  ) is whats being mapped and the internal thought model of people working in those data driven assessment structures is, that they are mapping your actual chances. So bye, bye group, hello individual assessment.

This removes the concept of free will. Entirely. Which is fun.

Furthermore - the new structures are designed to be "constantly changing". Yesterdays algorithm already is old. This is done to create the notion of a self correcting system. The flipside of it is, that there can be no second opinion (scientific modeling based on a subset of data and then extrapolation) anymore - because the model itself is everchanging.

So you lost free will, and the option for a second opinion - but hopefully the algorithm decides, that your child will get a higher education at some point in life..  Btw, what is he posting on facebook these days?
I hope many vacation pictures with picturesque smiles.

And look how politically engaged he is! He fights for the right of a fringe groups idendity politics - something that will never change any of the bigger societal structures in a meaningful way. 

Read a little bit about the Zuckyboys thoughts about "social stability" if you have time. Thrilling I tell you.. 

The thought here is basically, that those chinese model cities with a citizens social score, are partly being adopted "for the western customer". Those are todays biggest future markets. (Fitbit for a cheaper insurance plan, .. )
...

Back to the media of olden days --

Currently it has no Idea what todo. Follows gurus that tell it "we have to talk to our audiences, where they are". Facebook and Twitch should be seen as "new opportunities" to reach people. That those are entities, that cash in 30-50% of the profits should be ignored. This is what you pay for in perpetuity for them having invented microtargeting. Or having all your data. Not sure.
---

Social issues that follow - well... If you only portrait a fake world with no meaningful discent, and the only tool of societal action being a social media shitstorm that by now every commercial entity knows how to deal with... Ehm. Good luck?

Thats why I asked what peoples self images in this new world were. Because by all metrics that we can look at, this is turning out to be a generation thats more conservative then their parents, as self censoring as former sovjet union countries, but at least they are willing to spend money on the spot, and not safe up - (ah the financial system...), which is why they are held in high regard by... The corperate sphere and advertising companies. Which talk to them on Instagram.

Full circle. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Francis Fukuyama on the problem with identity politics:
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QJ_WdBzTrU
(Interview from about a week ago.)


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2018)

To be less preachy, and more topical for a videogame related forum  - here is what Dan Houser (Rockstar Co-Founder) had to say about the prospects of making a GTA in the current social climate:



> “It’s really unclear what we would even do with it, let alone how upset people would get with whatever we did,” he said. “Both intense liberal progression and intense conservatism are both very militant, and very angry. It is scary but it’s also strange, and yet both of them seem occasionally to veer towards the absurd. It’s hard to satirise for those reasons. Some of the stuff you see is straightforwardly beyond satire.”


http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018...es_not_making_grand_theft_auto_6_in_trump_era


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 31, 2018)

notimp said:


> So facebook basically invented microtargeting, based on lets say 40 characteristics of yourself. They do the matching - to sell advertisers anonymized profiles en gross - but in targeted subgroups.



Facebook did not invent shit there. They just happened to use it at a time when they could gather the data, have the computational capabilities to do something with it and own the platform to boot.

Simple demographic surveys have been around forever but the personality based stuff probably came in (as with a lot of things in advertising) with Edward Bernays. I forget the full story here but it went something like some company did the usual age-sex-location-earnings surveys and was getting the usual 10% or so response rate, they drag someone in and he tweaks it for personality traits... response rates went through the roof. Most of his work was the 20s through 50s, more in the 20s and 30s.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2018)

You are almost certainly right. Oversimplification on my part.  They "invented it" from the market or societies perspective - as in, they had that data en masse, and they sold it in those packages that werent available (on that scale) before.

I find the reason why they were able to do so morbidly fascinating, because the story involves "everyone wanting to f*ck, or be seen as mingling with ivy league graduates" > "groups of moms wanting to see what heir children were up to" > "groups of moms playing voyeurs on whats happening in the neighborhood" > "networkers" wanting to get in touch with old school friends > Grandparents wanting to see pictures of their grandchildren - all in an environment where people actually believed, that this was post privacy, and sharing everything about their lives with the world was caring.

Those motives are incredibly strong motivators for action, and I'm almost certain, that you cant replicate them today anymore. But that was what was needed to get this network structured towards mass adoption. This was the one that wasnt just a fringe "hobbyist" network. This became social fabric. 

Thats why I am so utterly astonished - when "experts" argue, that the market will hold facebook competitive, and solve the lets call them "democracy deficit" problems the platform fosters. Those were once in a lifetime events - naivité mixed withthe adventurer spirit mixed with peoples curious trust in advertising companies. 

That was their real achievement. Everything that followed from a users perspective since then, was the gamification of multiple aspects of the plattform to drive platform usage.

But from an industry perspective - they bought into the promise of microtargeting. Hookline and sinker. And if you look at what drove the "facebook culture" it always was advertiser expectation. From political speech, to no boobies, to brand accounts. Thats the DNA of the structure. And also the sales part of the "success" story (what does it produce > microtargetable consumers).

And to that extent, that was new. People didnt post their maiden names, and graduation dates and honors on other platforms. Together with data about their three ex girlfriends, and favorite cars. And full names. But on facebook they did - because they first expected it would get them laid, and later - because it had become a social norm.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 31, 2018)

In that case an amusing extra detail from the surveys stuff above. Some of the responses they got actually said things like "this was enjoyable to fill in, more of this".

A documentary series you may enjoy (Adam Curtis' century of the self in case of shifting links).


----------



## notimp (Nov 1, 2018)

On part of the anger and intensity on both sides (liberal and conservative), I'd say, that this is an extension of "post privacy". You propose, that everyone has to live a public life now, you take away privacy (everyone can be themselves in private without being judged) and what follows is tribalism. We against the other. And a rise of identity politics (we against the other on a societal level).

Stephen Fry in the debate above talks about a lingering fear, to speak out about edgy topics with friends in public - because of the lingering notion that it could destroy you in the public sphere. The other part of that is people finding peer groups (bubbles) where they can speak openly, and what follows then is desensitization.

The rise of the alt right, could be seen analog to the "everybody has a drunk party video of them on facebook now" desensitization. Because everything is public now - even having xenophobic, racist views - is here to stay. Again, there are no media gatekeepers anymore (facebook doesnt want to be treated as a media company, only as "infrastructure").

Of course thats polarizing to the extreme. Because on the other side you have liberals fighting for the rights of other fringe groups to have no privacy either. (Attention, there is prejudice backed into this statement - as in "you can be yourselves only in private (the private that doesnt exist anymore)" - but then social norms, dont change as fast as SJWs would want them to - and if you are taking privacy away, those groups seemingly are fighting for survival - because their antagonists are more visible than ever).

Sounds logical to me.

edit: Ah, good old Adam Curtis..  (Making sense of a complex world...  You'll find a good argument for the loss of the lefts utopia of the "web" in his documentaries as well. Also - they are made to have a trippy, lucid quality to them - but usually are well researched and sport interviews with primary sources. BBC at its best.  )

edit: You didn't just take away privacy, but also the concept of anyone, someone, holding up a mirror to those societal developments, being featured anywhere close to the mainstream. You replaced "critical insights" with stonewashed smiles - everywhere in the business of mass entertainment. Because the ones with the stonewashed smiles had the biggest twitter followings - that were seen as driving the highest viewer or reader numbers. Everything was market optimized. After the point, we definitely found out that most people were massive idiots to be baited with linkbait, and "10 astonishing things you certainly wouldnt believe" listicles.

Thats why I personally hate PC with a passion. Its not so much that things have surpassed the point of irony - its that people cant handle irony and self reflection at all right now. And that thats their reason for demanding the PC treatment.

Where are this generations "Monty Python"? Where are their Jon Stewarts? Where are their David Lettermans.

The non netflix special compatible comedians are strung up and flailed while performing their programs in front of test audiences, who have to twittercast and public outragebomb everything that makes them feel bad. Usually coincidentally also the dumbest participants of society (I don't know if you searched for "movie review" on youtube lately...).

And that leads me straight into "what is this generations self image" again? Even comedians in cars getting coffee was too edgy for them, so "Carpool Karaoke" it is. And Trump jokes on TV, because those are target demographic compatible. Follows the same logic as reality TV - laugh about someone dumber than you are - feel better about yourselves. Thats about as much reflection as society can handle nowadays. (*Grumpy rant mode off*)

Those where some of the rolemodels of yesteryear. (All replaced by Vidcon, Logan Paul, ...

But have you tried swallowing a spoon of cinnamon in front of camera? It could make you famous! Eaten a 100 salt crackers? Put food on your face? Cooked, while being drunk? Pivoted towards a more healthy lifestyle? Filmed corpses in a japanese forest? Designed a fake celebrity feud? Worked the camgirl business model as a Twitch streamer for amazon? (h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE-ip9s5dUY) Oh my, there are so many clever things to do nowadays! Animoji everyone!

That culture didn't develop on its own. Many of the streaming collectives where created out of the former commercial youth magazine sector (the ones that brought you "Boybands - the concept", and "Britney - shaving her head" *duckface*), and whats driving the homogenous "Vidcon" type behavior, is yet another advertising entity - sponsering their whole futile existence, for commercial reasons. Those cats are fed, as long as they are tame. Its created youth culture, much in the vein of certain music cultures, that were created in the past.

I'm looking into if I can find a certain documentary that springs to mind, underlining this point... (The youtube "suggested video" algorithm on the trailer below agrees btw.  )

edit: Only found the trailer, but watch the documentary, If you have a chance. I'm talking about the parts, where the girl gets into contact with her first agency.


edit: Documentary (sadly not entirely in english.  ) h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzkr4ZQaIXs


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 1, 2018)

notimp said:


> Where are this generations "Monty Python"? Where are their Jon Stewarts? Where are their David Lettermans.


I was kind of hoping Jim Jeffries would be it, however it seems they got to him.


----------



## Song of storms (Nov 1, 2018)

I hate all social media. Bring back forums for everyone!


----------



## notimp (Nov 16, 2018)

Facebooks internal decision model during the trust crisis followed the "predatory wall street company" template (delay, deny, deflect...), 40 whistleblowers currently tell the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/...tion=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

What an astonishing surprise.

Its about time John Oliver also makes a show about Facebooks domestic policies.  :/

Millennials still huge fans of the instagram though. They very smart. Also love to buy products advertised.


----------



## notimp (Nov 18, 2018)

Zuckyboy reacts.


> In an hourlong videoconference broadcast to Facebook offices around the world, Mr. Zuckerberg responded to questions [...]



Drums up a company meeting. Tells employees - 40 whistleblowers aside - media just unfair, and printing fake news.

src: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/technology/facebook-mark-zuckerberg.html

Huh.

But allowing alt right to create the "fake news" trope on Facebook was a mistake, right? Facebook?

Lets see what Yuval Noah Harari, current California Tech szene technology philosopher darling says to this form of reality management:

Ah -



> An Alphabet media relations manager later reached out to Mr. Harari’s team to tell him to tell me that the visit to X was not allowed to be part of this story. The request confused and then amused Mr. Harari. It is interesting, he said, that unlike politicians, tech companies do not need a free press, since they already control the means of message distribution.
> 
> He said he had resigned himself to tech executives’ global reign, pointing out how much worse the politicians are. “I’ve met a number of these high-tech giants, and generally they’re good people,” he said. “They’re not Attila the Hun. In the lottery of human leaders, you could get far worse.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/business/yuval-noah-harari-silicon-valley.html

Essentially, message control is the future - no one needs media. Come work for a megacorp. They are good people.

Ehm...

Lets have this conversation again after most of you have played CDPRs Cyberpunk.. 

Also, that last instagram posting of yours - wonderful. I mean, that jacket is -heaven- I'll bet it will go viral. Cant do that in the New York Times.


----------



## notimp (Nov 18, 2018)

For anyone interested in the actual proceedings of the companies internal messaging video sessions - after the NYT article hit:

Its the usual stuff.



> But Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg said The Times’s investigation was “completely unfair” and at times “simply not true.”
> 
> Much of the discussion centered on boosting employee morale. Elliot Schrage, Facebook’s former vice president of global communications and public policy, returned to the company for the meeting on Friday.
> 
> ...


Ah, Mr. loves his roman emperor Augustus knows a thing about morals, and is not afraid to tell you all about it. 

src: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/technology/facebook-mark-zuckerberg.html

So the typical millennial not only is fine with a world without independent media, he is also fine with a world without leakers. And he will make sure of it, because he will deplattform them by calling them amoral (probably toxic, thats more a word he is familiar with) - just as the company said. Then he will visit the company store and get todays news from it.

Then he will clap, when someone tells him to do just that, because thats exactly what just happened at Facebook (the Instagram company).

The greatest generation.


----------



## Gimzie (Nov 18, 2018)

You seem to have a large obsession over millennials, man.

No community is going to be perfect, and especially not one of this size. You can't change every single person in the world for the better; which means you'd be much better off just accepting this as it is.


----------



## notimp (Nov 18, 2018)

Dont worry - I just use the term as bait for people to care about social issues.

For the probably 10th time, I'm a millennial myself. 

It works, because no one wants to identify with the public image this generation has. Wonder how you could change that... 

(By not falling for easy emotional bait, and actually reading the content/context of a story as well - would be a start. Then you could continue by actually forming an opinion, that doesnt have to be mine, but that isnt just "kill the messenger, he made me feel/look bad". 

God I would be so loved in here, If I'd hand out coupons for free Gucci bags, for people to take instagram selfies with to share with their friends, but sadly - I'm all out of coupons.  )


----------



## notimp (Nov 18, 2018)

There is an addendum to that. 

People still line up for free service treatments in here every day. If you act PC - they leave an entirely meaningless like in return. Means nothing. I have several hundred thousands in my lifetime - just from helping people out. (Different from posting a puppy video and getting the exact same in about three minutes..  Also tells you something about the worth of a like. (like inflation  ))

For them the transaction is over at that point. They dont care to give something back. Much in the same vane, as they dont care - if a company like facebook just told their employees in televised telescreenings, that the New York Times, just prints fake news, and they should continue to work hard - as the news cycle will eventually shift. And their families wont ask them those hard questions anymore.

(There is a big logic gap I jumped, but bare with me if you like - because at this point the story becomes personal.)

In their mind, there is a certain kind of people out there, who just loves to give them free and personal basic tech advice in their sparetime, and which they shout at - if they dont do it with a smile on their face.

This comes from them growing up in ad financed online models, where people act as they do in normal (capitalist) economies. "Customer is king" - works in tid for tad models (give cash, get service).

But then you took away their function as customers. You made them the merchandise, by collecting personal data, and showing them ads in return. And because they had nothing to do in any exchange - you gave them a like function, so they could click on something - and think, that from that point, things would just work out. (Clicktivism, but even more low effort..  )

But those likes simply fuel empty attention economies, where all I could get for them is a .jpg of a "medal of participation", and the odd dopamine fix from feeling that I helped an old lady over the street today.

In economies like that you cant optimize for "customer is king" because the economical thing thats driving growth - is essentially decoupled from the product they are producing.

The product gets produced as voluntary, self organized work by a handful of idealists, who cant stand it, if people trade along misinformation. Especially long term.

So for example you can try to make them think about that the "ad financed (optimizes for visits, promises you free, personalized, and friendly support) - keep the site running", and the "producing individual support services - most people are in here for" models arent coupled in any way. The people with the ad money - just give the space.

So if you post request like "Has this program an update function already, I was on Discord a few months ago, and they said - it would probably get it in the future" - as their own "items", content bubbles for people to address. And you do that - collectively - in the thousands. You actually take away the opportunity for a platform to exist where people could learn (search as a paradigm, by the tech industry has been replaced by "personal assistance") stuff - and make it a place for volunteers to become very cynical indeed.

Also, not something made up, but a real example from the switch emulation subforum about an hour ago.

Think about it as opportunity space.  Every low effort "support me" post, is 1/100 of the decision of someone somewhat intelligent to leave. 


I know tldr; ...

Short version is - pay for your news outlets, thats more important than this silly argument here.  You expecting everything to be run by ad economies, has produced 100.000 professional youtubers and nothing else. Or Twitch streamers, if you prefer them to work for amazon and not google.


----------



## notimp (Nov 26, 2018)

Rob Feris on 'The rise of fake news'.


The essential quote I'm after for the purpose of this thread is: "[...] being honest and accurate apparently didn't play an essential part in popularity on social media." Which is a small understatement. 

He also pronounces the theory, that more people are trying out new stuff, to see what works in the new arena.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Nov 28, 2018)

This community still thinks the "worst" generation are the millennials, heh, that's funny in itself.

@smileyhead amen to that.


----------



## notimp (Nov 28, 2018)

To clarify, in public, they are not. (Damn, that smarts...  ) From my perspective. Also, because if you start to believe in labels for entire generations, you are doing something wrong.  (Asked about self image*s*.  )


----------



## notimp (Nov 28, 2018)

Since no one else jumped in with the (cultural) positivist side of current social media - let me now take some time, and helm this position as well. 

Best illustration of the concept I came across is the following video:
https://alpbach.apa-ots-video.at/video/5333013067a14a6eb3013067a17a6ef3

You have to click through, it isnt on youtube. 

The position helmed by the futurist philosopher in there is roughly the following.

We all have to overcome the "social imprint" of only having 200 followers similar to us (tribal) and have to instead basically teach people how they can get 5000 followers instead (social nodes). Then everyone is a social node, and can be happy - potentially even become an entrepreneur by selling products to people.

The other side of the spectrum is seen as a majority of people stuck in consumerism as well - btw who identify through "products". And trolls who rank even lower. 

So thats instagram and facebook currently. With -let everyone strive to become an influencer- attached to it. 

It also acknowledges that people are self censoring as a result and that you are optimizing towards popularity - but, then thats argued to be a social norm anyways.


----------



## notimp (Nov 28, 2018)

And here is the animated/racy speech (much in the same manner as the millennial rant up front - but coming from the opposite end  ) laying out, why people not optimizing for a "PC" public culture are now deserving of help:



According to his wikipedia entry (/an entry on speakersnet ):
Bard has given public lectures since 1997, including three TEDx presentations (as of 2013), with a major focus on the social implications of the Internet revolution and has become one of the leading speakers on the international management theory lecturing circuit.[4]


----------



## notimp (Dec 8, 2018)

What happens, when facebook "combats sensationalism, misinformation, and political polarization, by emphasizing local networks over publisher pages"?

Well - according to buzzfeed of all sources - this:






Moneyquote:


> These [yellowjacket protester network] pages weren’t exploding in popularity by coincidence. The same month that Nogueira set up his first group, Mark Zuckerberg announced two algorithm changes to Facebook’s News Feed that would “prioritize news that is trustworthy, informative, and local.” The updates were meant to combat sensationalism, misinformation, and political polarization by emphasizing local networks over publisher pages.


src: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/france-paris-yellow-jackets-facebook

Now this is the first time I might call into question if this was actually fbs (the instagram company) "fault", but its an entertaining read nevertheless. 

Ah - the new social graphs driven world is all here to benefit us all. And then france burned...  This has a poetic quality to it. 

(Is that a HDR picture, btw?  )


> Ludosky, an entrepreneur who currently sells organic cosmetics and aromatherapy advice online, told Le Parisien that she started the petition after she googled fuel taxes and was scandalized at how high they are.[...]
> 
> So, in less than two weeks, what you end up with is this: A Change.org petition with fewer than 1,500 subscribers gets talked about on a local radio station. The radio appearance is written up by a local news site. The article is shared to a local Facebook page. Thanks to an algorithm change that is now emphasizing local discussion, the article dominates the conversation in a small town. Two men from the same suburb then turn the petition into a Facebook event. A duplicate petition goes viral within the local Facebook groups. Then a daily newspaper writes up the original petition. This second article about the petition also goes viral. So does the original petition. And then the rest of French media follows.
> 
> Ludosky’s petition now has over a million signatures.


No further questions, your honor.


----------



## notimp (Dec 16, 2018)

Journalists don't want to work for facebook as "factcheckers" anymore, as they realize, that facebook just uses them for crisis PR purposes.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...g-in-disarray-as-journalists-push-to-cut-ties

Now quickly, all act surprised.


----------



## ThoD (Dec 16, 2018)

Dude, why keep bumping this pointless thread just to "inform" everyone of what they already know, only in the most unproductive way imaginable?:/ I see the last 5 posts and 8 of the last 9 on here are just by you monologuing as if you are proving some major hidden point to the world and everyone should accept your opinion as fact, but you are preaching to the choir, what are you even trying to prove? You tried to revive this twice in the past half month, get a hint no one cares...

PS: I'm not one to shut down discussion, but isn't this too pointless to be getting the spotlight in the recent threads on the FP? It's time to lock this if you ask me...


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 16, 2018)

Hmm. I was busy watching vox, vice, buzzfeed et al come crashing down and missed that one. Only thing that came down to me was pondering their human image scanners getting PTSD*.

Hopefully we do get some decent fact checking sites though. There are a few that rate journalists and news companies but going down to individual stories is harder.

*actually a subject I find quite fascinating. Nothing like that affects me (finally got over my dislike of skin grafts), though I suppose I have not really been immersed properly for days on end and face only that tomorrow, but I have been places and seen things happen since I was very young so the idea of images on a website causing me trauma is almost laughable. On the flip side the sufferers of helicopter parents that shield their kids from everything until traditionally they would have landed in the real world many years prior might well have no mechanisms for dealing with such things, and depending upon how old they actually are may truly struggle to get them (I don't know the full psychology here, indeed I don't know if anybody does, but general discussions of risk aversion, neuroplasticity, means of learning as it pertains to age and such will probably be the things to look at, I imagine militaries probably have something here as far as what they do with older recruits).


----------



## notimp (Dec 16, 2018)

Factchecking wont solve this. Talked to people who are in fact checking consortiums already. They are actually grateful for every visibility push they get on facebook or whatsapp, and they currently are pondering how to reach the 40+ demographic, because they dont reach it at all.

Which is the same conclusion the factcheckers complaining in the Guardian article just came to. They only are used for crisis PR purposes. (Their work has almost no impact.)

They even see state side censorship of fake news as a positive, if you talk to the ones situated in Brazil. 

Then there have been amusing occurances, where state sponsored PR agencies (foreign office, military) use dark PR on social networks against instate targets, while their neighboring agencies are supposed to protect the public from fake news..  See: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/foreign-office-funds-2m-info-13707574

Facebook has been caught doing the same, namely hiring PR agencies, to use right wing PR tactics, to discredid their critics. Not one agency, several. Which is also partly what the guardian article is about. 

If you want to take this even one step further - you are talking about "influencing elections with limited candidates" by "distributing fake news optimally" all of a sudden becoming a solvable problem - as this AI whiz at Ben-Gurion University set out to proof:
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/mel...ziente-Algorithmen-und-Fake-News-4250939.html
(article in german - but you should be able to cross reference his name - and maybe even find his talk at the IJCAI)

So - to condense this down - fact checking to counteract this will never work, because there is no "consensus majority anymore", Basically people trust their friends and closed facebook groups more, than journalists, politicians, ...

So if you are spreading fake news efficiently, you are targeting social nodes ("influencers") with sponsored messages, that no one else will ever see, but that can be micro targeted to "what works to convince them", then they get to influence their peers. No big trending news story needed. 

The way to solve for this is to --

- make facebook not to allow targeted ad campaigns for political purposes

- and make them actively censor ads based on quickly adopting algorithms on what could be seen as a political campaign

(edit: An unforseen negative could be that people then wouldnt participate in the political process any longer, because -simplyfied- instagram doesnt allow for political messages to be shared... )

No one wants to do that of course, so you are left with a broken system, that basically destroys the democratic process - and can be instumentalized, by really anyone that comes along.  (This is what the political hearings with Zuck are about (despite teaching old people how tech works..  ). They are demanding, that facebook gets a grip on this.)

Another way to look at it (from the Ben-Gurion AI research chap) would be to look at facebook as a general sociental system and just bow to the new default - but then you are left with a system that -

- disallows for the opposite party of an argument to be heard (thats a pre roman society setback  )
- optimizes for emotional impact on every story
- allows people with money to buy visibility, but this time without efficiency loss (buing and running a newspaper in the past wasnt very efficient...  )
- isnt reliant on common narratives, or commonly shared public opinions to influence, or direct action
- allows for anonymized public influence campaigns at never before seen cost/benefit ratios
- doesnt have any channels for that content to become visible to anyone but the person (group) that was targeted with it.

Factchecking would solve part of this if people would lend credence to those factchecking accounts, but in the overall scope of things, they dont.  Even they have a visibility problem. (Mostly because they are even more boring and non personal than conventional media.)

Some of this is edgy stuff - but then, I listed sources.. 

Yet, people still dont want to stop feeding instagram.  Where just a few days ago, news reported that Kendall Jenner was the highest paid model of 2018. Reason, even that has become a mixed calculation, because you now also pay them for the people they are able to influence on your companys/entitys behalf on social media.


----------



## notimp (Dec 16, 2018)

For people that dont click through anymore, this is the lead in paragraph of the guardian article:



> Journalists working as factcheckers for Facebook have pushed to end a controversial media partnership with the social network, saying the company has ignored their concerns and failed to use their expertise to combat misinformation.
> 
> Current and former Facebook factcheckers told the Guardian that the tech platform’s collaboration with outside reporters has produced minimal results and that they’ve lost trust in Facebook, which has repeatedly refused to release meaningful data about the impacts of their work. Some said Facebook’s hiring of a PR firm that used an antisemitic narrative to discredit critics – fueling the same kind of propaganda factcheckers regularly debunk – should be a deal-breaker.
> 
> “They’ve essentially used us for crisis PR,” said Brooke Binkowski, former managing editor of Snopes, a factchecking site that has partnered with Facebook for two years.


https://www.theguardian.com/technol...g-in-disarray-as-journalists-push-to-cut-ties


----------



## Subtle Demise (Dec 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> 1. Asking for "support service", in an online forum - if you are not able to "give back" along the line (because you have no in depth knowledge about a topic, and no intention to ever change that) is not ok. It shifts the burden to answer the bulk of the questions to a small group that gets not much in return - and when they stop responding, you usually are left with "communities" that disseminate wrong answers and false information for a long time, before people notice, that they arent "working" anymore.
> 
> Prerequisites to getting your questions answered should always be:
> 
> ...


Have you not been on any other forum ever? The ratio of questions to people giving answers is alwayd going to be very high. That's just how it goes. Very few people are experts on a particular subject. That's what makes forums and the internet so great, the people with knowledge can volunteer that knowledge. That's the thing, all that "technical support" you hate so much is completely voluntary. No one is being compelled or coerced into helping each other. If they don't want to answer questions, they won't. Don't see the problem here.

If we did things your way, this site would have closed years ago due to lack of activity and resulting loss of ad revenue.


notimp said:


> open racism and fascism is on the rise again


It's been on a constant decline since the Civil Rights Movement, but those millenials you mentioned changed the definitions to include things that were innocuous before just so they'd have something to be outraged about.


notimp said:


> 3. There are oxymorons all over the place -
> - People think that they want help with "getting privacy settings right on facebook" // but at the same time they want to overlook the simple fact, that FB is an ad network, that designs their settings so most people get them "wrong"
> - People think that labeling everything *toxic* gets rid of issues // but its actually preventing some of them from being discussed
> - People want PC and safe spaces // but also to participate in every sh*tstorm that comes along
> ...


I tend to agree, but I don't think it applies here so much.


notimp said:


> . If you demand, that we have to pretty much ignore all of this - just to have a not necessarily real, but decent online experience - something has gone wrong a while ago. The structures are still here, forums arent dead yet, lets have the discussions about whats "expectable social behavior" right now


Who's to decide what's acceptable? You? Your writing style comes off as belittling, demeaning, berating, exclusionary, and off-putting. If that's your idea of acceptable social behavior then maybe some introspection on your part may be necessary. 

I believe in being kind to others and caring for one another, and trying to plant a seed of positivity. All we have is each other in this cold, dark, uncaring universe, why can't we be more empathetic to others? When a random stranger is venting about a recent break-up and how he has no luck with girls, why ignore him or worse yet, call him an incel or tell him to get over it? Why not a simple "it gets easier, pick your head up and try to be more confident"? Why not help a young teen who tried his best to follow the directions to hack his 3DS or Switch, but missed some minor detail? We have all been in these situations, why berate and belittle others for doing the same thing? You don't have to hold their hand, you only need to plant a seed of knowledge and the motivation for them to seek out knowledge and solve their own problems in the future. As the great scholar Keanu Reeves once said: "Be excellent to each other."


----------



## notimp (Dec 16, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Have you not been on any other forum ever? The ratio of questions to people giving answers is alwayd going to be very high. That's just how it goes. Very few people are experts on a particular subject. That's what makes forums and the internet so great, the people with knowledge can volunteer that knowledge.


The crucial difference is knowledge generation/sharing versus service arrangements. People in here dont want to learn anything, they want their problems to be fixed - and dont care what it takes.

If they are ignored the first time, because they havent shown any chops or even preliminary understanding of the matter they repost their query three times in different threads. Stuff like this is not moderated.

If they dont get any traction in the corresponding thread, they post their own mainline thread version, of "help me personally - I'm so confused, lol". Usually with a nonsensical title, so the thread cant even coincidentally help another person who finds it.

The Choixdujournx software thread is currently abused for "should I update or not, and to which version, and how" baselevel support.

The Switch emulation forum is frequently overrun by people reading "softwareprojects" in the title and thinking that every softwareissue they've ever experienced in their life would fit in there.

None of the just mentioned issues are issues of "information distribution" - every single one is expecting personalized support, from the baselevel up.

Information is free - support is not. As simple as that. If someone has a hard time understanding a somewhat new concept - I'd be the first one out of the box trying to assist him or her in their effort - if the 500th voice tries to trick people into assisting them in correctly updating to "most recent version" easily. Thats something different.

You see it in the posting frequencies of support requests on these forums, the target is not any longer, that people should have access to information (use search), the target is to serve every one with a service wish and a smartphone.
(More people being able to "participate", more traffic, more ad revenues.)

Because high quality service for free, doesnst scale (its the same ten people...) you are forced to choose between "do you let the overal information quality suffer by also having some wrong solutions, and made up memes circulate" or do you try to educate a generation of users that "visit this forum, there is where you get helped", isnt a concept that is economically supposed to be provided by forums at all.

No one gets paid, they are abusing the system. If their insisence on getting "personal support services longtime" doesnt stop, actual information quality suffers. Communities (some of which I have co managed in the past) are destroyed this way.
--

I initially mounted this as a distributed campaign, to at least get the Switch Homebrew forum to a point, where people could visit to read release postings, changelogs and converse with developers again -- without being interrupted by "fix my thing" solicitations five times a day.

I was under no illusion to be able to "fix" the rest of the forum.

A community never is and never was a place, where you get all this great free help, without being able to provide anything on your own. They only became that, once corporations started to popularize the concept of a "service community" ("this is where you get helped") which is an oxymoron. (People hunting for points to get a jpeg of a participation medal, as the underlying economy?)

People growing up on facebook never quite realized that, because to them, what ever they did, had no consequences - everything just scrolled away after a while -

Facebook never was about search or information distribution. It was about 800 "nice to meet you" on the street encounters a day. And wishing four people a day happy birthdays.

Thats was originally the "asocial" aspect in the titled of the thread.)


----------



## Subtle Demise (Dec 16, 2018)

notimp said:


> The crucial difference is knowledge generation/sharing versus service arrangements. People in here dont want to learn anything, they want their problems to be fixed - and dont care what it takes.
> 
> If they are ignored the first time, because they havent shown any chops or even preliminary understanding of the matter they repost their query three times in different threads. Stuff like this is not moderated.
> 
> ...


The type of people you describe usually don't last too long. They either get called out or ignored and eventually leave or end up changing their ways. Moderation is lax, yes, but I think that's a good thing. Unless you want this place to become another resetera or gamefaqs. I know I don't.

Again, I have to point out that the help provided is entirely voluntary, and only an insane person would try to charge for any of the advice given here.


----------



## ThoD (Dec 16, 2018)

I don't even know why I'm bothering but oh well, here we go:


notimp said:


> The crucial difference is knowledge generation/sharing versus service arrangements. People in here dont want to learn anything, they want their problems to be fixed - and dont care what it takes.


Altruism IS masochism, by human nature everyone first and foremost is looking for THEIR best interest, so of course they will by default want someone else to offer a solution, otherwise they wouldn't even make threads/topics and instead solve it themselves. Why do you think people make threads asking for help and whatnot to begin with? Everyone wants things simplified and asking other people for help with some of the hassle is part of that. For a beginner especially who couldn't care about anything past just having basic functionality, expecting them to go through the hurdles to learn is idiotic. I've been involved in the 3DS scene for pretty much 5 years for example and still hardly know half the things, learning so you can problem solve is not as simple as you think and expecting that out of every person who has a tiny little easy-to-fix issue makes no sense.



notimp said:


> If they are ignored the first time, because they havent shown any chops or even preliminary understanding of the matter they repost their query three times in different threads. Stuff like this is not moderated.
> 
> If they dont get any traction in the corresponding thread, they post their own mainline thread version, of "help me personally - I'm so confused, lol". Usually with a nonsensical title, so the thread cant even coincidentally help another person who finds it.


Do you mean... EXACTLY what you have done here?:/ You made a topic, didn't get the traction you were looking for and the responses it gathered, so then started this pointless thread way back just to get more people to pay attention to your drivel and to throw tantrums or butthurtedly accuse staff just for moving your thread to where it was supposed to go... Want people to not do something? Start by setting an example for them to look after by not doing said thing, simple as that!



notimp said:


> The Choixdujournx software thread is currently abused for "should I update or not, and to which version, and how" baselevel support.
> 
> The Switch emulation forum is frequently overrun by people reading "softwareprojects" in the title and thinking that every softwareissue they've ever experienced in their life would fit in there.


While not versed whatsoever in the Switch section and while that always happens on any system hacking scene, on top of the answer being relatively simple to find, you gotta remember one important thing, ongoing development on a regularly updated system is VOLATILE, so while one version may work with everything just fine, a single update could potentially mess everything up, that's why people are so afraid and keep asking about it. As systems get older, you see a lot fewer of those questions, as things stabilize of sorts. I do agree though that people should try searching at least a bit first...



notimp said:


> None of the just mentioned issues are issues of "information distribution" - every single one is expecting personalized support, from the baselevel up.
> 
> Information is free - support is not. As simple as that. If someone has a hard time understanding a somewhat new concept - I'd be the first one out of the box trying to assist him or her in their effort - if the 500th voice tries to trick people into assisting them in correctly updating to "most recent version" easily. Thats something different.
> 
> ...


Helping with troubleshooting IS a form of information distribution, just because it's meant to problem-solve instead of educate it doesn't mean it's any less informative, especially if properly written like I've seen most people reply to such topics with. Nothing is free though, that couldn't be any more idiotic... You go to the library for information for example and pay a fee or pay for internet in order to be able to access it. You sound too spoiled to even realize these things, besides the air you breathe, you pretty much have to pay for everything else in life in one way or another, information and support are the same in that matter. Why would someone write the same "piece" on something for example explaining how it works, which in turn explains how to solve issues on it and give it for free ONLY if not for support? Wouldn't that be weird? You think all guides and educational materials you find all over the place have been written for nothing? If you pay for them, then not and if they are free, it's because whoever wrote them wants to share the knowledge, in which case, what's wrong with them also helping to solve issues free of charge? Part of my job is repairing things, I get paid for it, yet sometimes if the issue is ridiculously minor I'll just decline and tell them what to do to fix it. Just for you though if you are ever my client I'll charge you premium for even a simple resistor replacement since you want that You can't expect people asking for monetary incentive just to tell someone "you simply are missing X file, download and copy it to X directory, that's all" or "it's safe to update, go ahead". And of course, there are tons of guides, so the "service" you think should be paid is almost always just directing them to the proper guide, so there's that too...

Since I feel like I got out of point, gonna leave things here, hope you at least are starting to understand that people online have the freedom to choose whether they help for free or not and build a community around helping each other, while also having the freedom to simply leave such places if they are not to their liking, which I implore you to consider, better for everyone! Unless of course that's all a pile of bullshit and you are attention whoring, since there's no other reason for you to stay on here so insistently when you dislike this place so much...


----------



## notimp (Dec 16, 2018)

ThoD said:


> Helping with troubleshooting IS a form of information distribution, just because it's meant to problem-solve instead of educate it doesn't mean it's any less informative,


Thats a meager point though, if we are real. The overall argument is about that the "effort cost" rises into unlimited territory.

If you need it that simple:

Open source software development scales - because you write software once - then can freely distribute it to thousands. Recouping your cost, or attracting other developers, making the thing you are working on better.

Open source "information distribution" scales - because you write an article once, then through the power of search, and by Amazon abusing it, have wikipedia articles, that are read to people via their Alexas at request, or at least are findable and serve a public purpose.

Free and on the spot "support services" - still need service centers filling several football fields of space in either the Philippines or former eastern block countries, by whom people expect to be treated with respect and understandment, because they bought a thing.

The argument, that my support session with aunt Judy explaining to her how stuff works "scales" simply is defunct, because - once we reach that point, the next honcho also wants a free and personalized support service, and not extrapolate information out of my "intensive talk" with aunt Judy. (For information distribution purposes there are better formats than publizised support sessions.)

I mean its all fine and dandy to have to explain to people, that if you request personal support, someone has to individually attend your needs - and your lofty "thanks" in the end - isnt even worth getting that persons attention, if we talk about this being requested at scale - but, can we get real for a moment?

How do you think all those "free work" you are demanding gets sourced? I mean really? Just from the standpoint, of people being quite sure, that 90% of users in here never even possibly could return the favor. What "social accolades" do you have to offer to people for that to make sense in any society? "Work for me for free" never sounded that entising, or what?

This is good will farming, exploitation - however you want to call it - but personal support - never is free.

"Support communities" - if such a thing ever existed, only worked if people where somewhat on the same information level, and would help each other out "equaly" - which often is the case among early adopters. This radically changes, once the "support me longtime" folks enter the field later down the road - then its hoping, that you can get them educated enough so that the support base broadens. But to be honest - in a homebrew community, this barely possible with people who have only learned to swipe right s o far ("whats the most easy way, ..").  When ever you read the sentiment in the bracket, you can replace it with "never has a chance to become a "supporter"" almost instatlly.

Which is why in the market economy support is still a paid occupation. Am I really telling you stuff  there thats completely new to you?

I mean I appreciate people actually tackling my arguments here but "support also is information" is rather beside the point.

Information as long as it can be copied freely and accessed universally does "scale" (net positive effects), personalized support never does.


----------



## GhostLatte (Dec 16, 2018)

Okay, Mr. Shapiro.


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2018)

What does "the facebook bubble" mean, when it comes to political advertising?

Basically a sea change in how people get addressed by advertisers.

Backgorund: Facebook created a "transparency database" of election ads, that was partly scrapable - before they blocked scrapers, but now they allow US researchers only access via an APi that allows for limited queries a second.

Also facebook didn't include the actual targeting data. So which keywords advertisers used to reach you. Google and Twitter did, or at least partly did.

The researchers giving a talk here - https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9419-explaining_online_us_political_advertising - scraped that data, and similar data from google and twitter - and did some basic analysis on it.

Here are the most important (imho) findings on two slides:







81% of ads on facebook are microtargeted. With a spend of only up to 100 USD they are supposed to reach about 1000 people, and are only very short lived.






Looking at the disparity between political ads on facebook and google, facebook has 2x more advertisers than google, but about 10x more total ads commissioned, with total impressions not accounting for that difference, so what this means is - that you have people tailoring their ads on facebook to be microtargeted to an extreme. Probably to be more current, more short lived.

They also had listings of ad groupings per PAC (political action committee), and left with the notion that people who know what they are doing are almost exclusively using micro targeted ads to reach their potential voters. The Trump PAC, for example spent 95% of total money spent on micro targeted ads.

Still have questions, why there is no potential about a common discourse anymore? I've got one more question: What does this do to democracy exactly? Because we never had that discussion.

General statement: The overall landscape for advertisers changed like night and day, from the times where they would buy ads in a paper, or on the side of a building. And you can be sure, that if facebook has you down for interests: cats, that that will be used to affect your voting decision in the next elections.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 29, 2018)

Does that mean ad blocking tech is going to see a new assault in years to come? Most of the ad market is fraud and money laundering so you get a few people making token gestures against it and not a lot else, but if the politicos are seeing something in it... 

Am I going to be having my very useful for web development regex filter and have to visit dark corners of the internet and gain an appreciation for... poetry ( https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/decss-haiku.txt )? Would installing ad blocking tech via malware be a politically subversive act? Or worse if I DDOSed such a platform? What about if I added a whole load of fake users and rendered the database inaccurate?

More seriously "What does this do to democracy exactly?". Nothing you can realistically argue against, and nothing a lot of the already existing techniques did not brush up against (is micro targeting all that different to something like robo calling a conservative area saying your opponent, albeit in an nominally for them, is supportive of the gays?). I am good at two things in this world, maybe, and neither are country level economics* but apparently via the means of a vote I am still allowed to express an opinion which theoretically becomes the way it is done. We already knew it is a money game, and nobody really cares to limit it in the US (contrast to say the UK's various limits on spending in elections), and all this really does is change the theoretical effectiveness of certain things. I am about as curious as I ever get with politics to see the effects, experiments and more with this sort of thing, more so if I can be an arsehole and mess with it somehow (messing with TV, phones, newspaper, billboards and radio is difficult, the internet is my world though) just for giggles.

*though as we are still having a debate with regards to methods of control, top down, bottom up, trickle down... one might argue nobody has a clue else we would have something that demonstrably works, and the rather chaotic/unpredictable nature of things means there is a reasonable argument that nobody will ever know enough. At the same time pure laissez faire is also demonstrably fraught with difficulty. Guess we now have a bloody spectrum.


----------



## notimp (Dec 30, 2018)

No - dont.  DDOSing is only used by extortion scammers these days, and is a frequent excuse high on the list of apparently german agencies, when they are trying to convince the legislative body, that they need partly offensive "cyber, cyber" capabilities.  (Because its the only "hack" they arguably have the time to mount a "counter offensive" against.  )

Also - the issue is being discussed in NGO cycles - even though the last time I set in such a presentation, people argued, that if we'd restrict facebooks ability to allow people to be microtargeted for political ad purposes, we would also have to do that for send outs over the postal system - because "where is the difference".

So ignorance is still at about 120% and thats the main issue you are up against.

I've also looked a bit into the local election campaign system in the US - and many candidates there actually "like" facebook - because its really made for clean cut politicians to fakerepresent values in picture form, and fake interact with their voters - so.. thats an issue you are up against as well. They love their targeting abilities.

But people are looking at the data (also at the ads that facebook "missed" in their transparency database  ), and they are looking at the networks that are buying, and at the astroturfed (= fake grassroot movements) messages that get traction. And by people I mean maybe five gals and girls. 

Concerning the issue, that people really get fed with what they want to hear (see: https://www.economist.com/united-st...eriments-tell-you-about-why-people-deny-facts ) thats a media competency issue. You tackle that with education.

Oh and may I suggest, that you build no more safe spaces? The opposite is needed right now.  Be polite though. (I know, pot calling the cattle black...)

Microtargeting isnt robo calling though, its psychologically exploiting your existing behavior patterns to integrate a desired action - but heavily customized. Cambridge Analyticas claim to fame was not that they had 87 mio datasets of americans, which facebook sold to them very willingly, it was that they had a new psychological classification method for people, that allowed for higher desired rates of response, and more important to them - faster classification, that previous models.

Its the "boy if you like dogs, do I have the political candidate for you" thing you do at local "go out and vote" drives (political "activists" with an I pad and a list of your interest, being sent to them, at your doorstep), but scalable - and with actually never seen before rates of response. (Researched with survey return rates f.e. increasing manyfold.)

Also you dont have to convince people to vote for the opposing candidate - you just have to convince them to be lazy and stay at home - because the race "has already been decided". For example. With microtargeting - no problem whatsoever.  (Convincing people not to set an action is much easier.)

There is only one argument that people use to indicate that this would be fine - and this is pointing back to an electoral tradition in the US, where it was normal for votes to be bought anyways - and really going for "exploiting people psychologically - in ways they will not be able to defend against" -is just "fair game", because "everyone can do it equally". Money being a limiting factor of course.

For me you dont have to proof fraud - though. Its enough, to prove that "informed decision making" has limited to no effect on opinion forming any longer - and we are talking serious damage towards the democratic principle.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 31, 2018)

"These days"
Times change, even more so in hacker world. Just because DDOS has become the tool of scammers today does not mean it will not be back in the hands of someone with an even more fun use tomorrow.

Does potentially orders of magnitude more specificity really make enough of a difference to warrant a different approach in law? Laws will almost inevitably be poorly thought out and probably prevent things from reaching an equilibrium as quickly as they otherwise might.

As far as robo calling though I am not going to be so quick to draw the distinction you make. I have seen plenty do things along the nicely gerrymandered district lines.


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2018)

Argument is, that people are actually willing to bring criminal cases against people that used it for political action. So you cant rectify encouraging people to do it in a distributed fashion any longer. 

I almost added "sadly" - because the argument was possible to say, that those are just "virtual sit ins".

But then the people with the highest capability of those sitins today are actually bot net maintainers.. 

edit: District lines arent the same. They dont tell people, that I get your attention better by adhering to fear tactics, than your general sensibility as a caring mom/dad, for example. Think of the famous Lyndon B Johnson  "Girl with Daisy and Atomic Bomb explosion" ad and think about that this, and probably 500 different other ads, will be run in every election, but only to the people psychologically susceptible to it, while the pro gun ads will only be run for the NRA sympathizers, and the ethnical support ads will only reach the ethnical minorities, and the animal activists amongst the old ladies get the "loved his dogs, and had puppies three weeks ago, which his children loved" ads...

Thats microtargeting. Targeting people by gerrymandered districts, is old school. 

You'll have quite a few more instances, of people voting because of a "wall" - while four fifths of the country will be wondering, what the heck they are talking about - but to them, this was the concept that held their imaginations. Also they never got the chance to talk to someone that told them "hey its BS" - because their decision making structures, do not include to "talk to Bob at work about this" anymore - because they feel sufficiently informed by whatever bubble serves them - in a customized feed.

The question being, if this is a new quality of forming peoples opinions, and the answer is actually - yes. Am I especially afraid of election fraud? No - but I'm afraid, of only candidates having a chance any more that can be 500 different things to different people. And I dont mean what people are projecting into them, but what they are actually telling folks..


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2018)

Ah, right around the 35C3, you get all info material delivered to you without any further research. 

Konstanze Kurz and Ingo Dachwitz delivered a talk on Microtargeting in the political spectrum - and it is available in simultaneous translation in english.

https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-10037-microtargeting_und_manipulation

Simply download one of the video files, and use your video player to switch audio tracks to english.

So you can listen to a second opinion as well.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 31, 2018)

notimp said:


> Argument is, that people are actually willing to bring criminal cases against people that used it for political action. So you cant rectify encouraging people to do it in a distributed fashion any longer.
> 
> I almost added "sadly" - because the argument was possible to say, that those are just "virtual sit ins".
> 
> ...



People are willing to bring cases for any number of things, and for any number of reasons. As a general principle I have no problem with it. All the notable cases I see have been more that the data was obtained by less than legit means, or some quirk where entities outside the boundaries of a place are not supposed to play or something.

I am still not prepared to dismiss district lines and the extensive nature of polling done by various groups, and some of the things they teach those canvassing to do (many of those doing low end cold reading). It might not be quite as fine grain as some things the modern world affords but it is not a massive leap forward from where I sit, and even if it was then so what?
I can't say that at some level I don't find it a bit disturbing, and not having to have such things come my way is why I never engage with such sites, block adverts for everything I own and everybody I meet and generally take measures to keep my data out of their hands or so corrupted/noisy as to be useless. At the same time though I can't think of a reason to shut it down by force of law.


----------

