"Asocial media" and collective self images

[notimp]

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]

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.

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).

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

Prerequisites to getting your questions answered should always be:

- Actual participation
- Getting some base level knowledge to be able to ask informed questions
That's not how it should always be, people learn differently in their own way and forcing others to learn at one level doesn't work. People are going to say the wrong and they are going to be corrected, it should only matter if they learn from that correction.
What takes place in here instead:
"What is best" polling attempts and "It doesnt work, someone help me" service solicitation.
You act like this is something special or horrible. This happens even outside of our community.
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 -
So do you want to gatekeep and prevent people from being part of this community until they follow your standards? This is a public forum, everyone can join, everyone can make a thread, and everyone is welcome so long as they follow the TOS. That's how most forums work and that's how the community grows. If we closed off the community to people who already know what they are doing, then we only prevent people from learning. You create ignorance through isolation, while slowly killing the community due to lack of new blood.
- 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.
Not everything has to be a debate, it seems you've taken that as personal attack against you. It sounds like you want to debate in situations that don't warrant a debate and now you are pissy because the unnecessary debate was deleted.
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.
This is gatekeeping and gatekeeping is toxic for the community. Wanting people to join to get money for one's site is what every site does. These sites cost money and money doesn't just come out of thin air.
- 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 outsourced the responsibility.
You agreed to the TOS and you agreed that the staff can decide that is appropriate to have the site. You agreed that your comments can be removed by the staff if they feel it to be necessary. If you no longer agree with that, then that's your problem. That's how the vast majority of sites are run. Being part of a site is privilege, not a right. You are the one agreeing to play by their rules.
- 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.
The staff are people too, people with personal lives and personal issues. They are under no obligation to do anything and that even includes partaking in the forums. Although this just sounds like you don't like something the staff did and now you are throwing a childish hissy fit about it.
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 are aware of what facebook is, what they want is not have a setup where someone like an ex can find them and find out personal information on them. I have a facebook to talk to my friends and family that live over 800 miles away from me, but I don't want my abusive ex to know when/where I move. That's the kind of privacy issue people are talking about.
- People think that labeling everything *toxic* gets rid of issues // but its actually preventing some of them from being discussed This is a blanket statement with nothing to work with.
- People want PC and safe spaces // but also to participate in every sh*tstorm that comes along This is such an abused term that most people don't even know what they are talking about anymore, including you.
- 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 celebrity appeal Yeah, and? People get attached to their favorite streamers and enjoy talking to them and even talking about them. This is nothing new, people did it all the time with celebrities of the past. But unlike the past people do have the option to communicate directly with these steamers.
- 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) // Even if this results in 50 active viewers at a time like it does for 93% of all Twitch streamers, because there are no platform synergies whatsoever
This is a gaming community and these "tropes" have become a norm in gaming communities. Not following the current trends does bring the risk of ending up like sites like ds-scene. As well everything mentioned is a personal choice that user can make to help the site. People choose to help pay for the site, people choose to watch the screams, people choose to be here because there's something here for them to enjoy. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean others shouldn't enjoy them.
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 know - but they usually do, because I'm the guy that always curses millennials for 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, ...
What? Seriously what? This is just word salad.
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 am not demanding anything. You wanted feedback and I am giving you feedback. You were the one who asked for this.
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:
Then go somewhere else, no one cares. You don't have to be part of this community, you are the one choosing to sit here pissing and moaning.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/development-thread-retroarch-libnx.505672/page-193#post-8280982

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[The Catboy]

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.

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]

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 ---------------------------

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]

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 ---------------------------



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 outlined 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 man 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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Jesus Christ, the walls of text in this thread