Can You Watch This Without Getting Angry?

> the divide has originated from taking unlikeable behaviour and labeling that as ‘woke’ (in bad faith of course) and some people have just bonded to that definition so much that they see it as that CPG Grey’s co-dependent memes video comes to mind [1]. Each group defines wokeness (and defines how other groups define it) to maximise outrage. To the extent there is a mind virus it’s in using the term at all. (Which is where I appreciate Graham bringing the term prig into the discussion.) [1] ▶ this video

You're correct. But I would argue there are more areas of agreement than you might think. Areas of disagreement are more emotionally salient, and tend to receive more attention. See this essay link or this video ▶ this video The world could use a few less people quarreling about their conflicting ideas, and a few more people seeking the intersection of what everyone thinks is good, and working in it.

> presumably the people who post on twitter enjoy it I do not share this presumption. ▶ this video Disagreement (like mine with you :P) also drives engagement, and quite possibly more than positive vibes do.

I'm sure you're very smart and realize how stupid the meme is, but for every one person who is as smart as you, there are ten people who aren't, and who see the meme, and decide that, y'know what, things are fucked, and it just deepens their cynicism and hatred of the world. This Video Will Make You Angry - ▶ this video

Social media algorithms might not be the only thing keeping people within a bubble. For example, Fediverse instances or Reddit communities (infamously known for the “hivemind”). People might simply be tribal in nature, however this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t improve. Related: ▶ this video

It's not just that there's no incentive for that, but there's a very strong incentive to do the exact opposite: ▶ this video

I don't like the turn this thread took, but weighing in here narrowly with something hopefully interesting... The memes themselves needn't be "adversaries" for it to be to the benefit of one of them to inspire rage against the other. "X makes people angry at people holding Y" can help X spread because people like talking about things they're mad about, and the presence of Y actually makes that more effective; the memes themselves are, to a degree, symbiotic within the broader society even as they maybe do bad things to the people in that society. For one particular perspective on this, I enjoyed ▶ this video - relevant stuff starts around 3 minutes in.

There is some flaws and limitations to the AI story, but we already have self-improving thought germs: ▶ this video

I don't think social networks are "evil" because of malice. They're evil because of our flaws as human beings. Of our biases. Social networks just amplify and exploit the way we think so mostly negative thoughts and emotions get amplified in an ever-expanding echo chamber [1] We get angrier, more polarised, more isolated in our tribe and cliques. If there has ever been an instrument of the Devil himself to sow discord on this planet, this is it. 1: ▶ this video

> People saying such have in mind some caricature of 19th century Freudian analysis Article mentions Freud's desire for death. Freud theory is bunk. It's unprovable, can't be verified, useless and outdated model. If psychology as a whole has a replication issue. Freud psychoanalytics has a deeply existential issue. > Which basically means "the final state the clickbait economy moves forward as its inherent tendency is fascist kitsch". I know what it means. In the end you didn't explain much, just explained what telos is. Let me help - Clickbait economy is a rage generator. > other words, if we talked down to his audience, assuming them to being half-illiterate Joe Sixpacks. I read my fair share of philosophers, I understand what he's trying to say. However it's all been said better and more eloquently by CCP Grey in his video on memes. ▶ this video Any halfwit, pompous, rudderless, telos lacking humanities reject could have written, a long, detalied, baroque word salad if the whippersnapper in question was so inclined - much like this sentence. Real artistry isn't saying as much as you can, but saying as much as you can in as few and understandable words. To quote a poet "Brevity is the soul of wit".

Oh I think it’s more about what’s being said than who is listening to who. For better or worse, human discourse is optimized for face to face interaction. It seems that widespread, anonymous speech turns even the most mild mannered individual into a raging maniac. On a similar note I recently watched this video: ▶ this video and completely agree with its premise.

I think "Fox New dominated" is the headline because the research it is reporting on shows that Fox News dominates the rankings in feeds. edit: also I did respond to the top level, but with a link to something which I felt contributed to my understanding of this topic: ▶ this video

A somewhat related video: "This Video Will Make You Angry" ▶ this video Script: link Linked Paper (from video description): "What Makes Online Content Viral?" link

> [...] notions of etiquette, self determination and even hygiene [...] will find it kind of gross and embarrassing to be caught up in somebody's disinformation. This reminds me of the CGP Grey video: ▶ this video

CGPGrey has a great description of this problem with his video "This video will make you angry": ▶ this video The gist is that pithy, low-effort strawmans of an opposing tribe are highly attractive and contagious memes. I don't think it has anything specific to do with Twitter. You see similar issues everywhere: Facebook, Reddit, and of course meatspace. It's a human problem. Twitter and the short character-limit may magnify it a bit, I'll admit that. But the actual problem can't be solved on Twitter or Mastodon. Each individual needs to be aware of this human problem and to constantly make an effort to notice and counteract it in their own brain (which is very difficult and error prone). Perhaps if enough people start doing that more, then cultural change will take place. I don't know.

Great TED talk on the original twitter kerfuffle referenced in the article: link CGP Grey's take on how outrage is used to exploit us through social media: (Yes, I link this often, because the message is valuable.) ▶ this video

> When putting these media ecosystems to political purposes, various tools are useful. Humour is one. It spreads well; it also differentiates the in-group from the out-group; how you feel about the humour, especially if it is in questionable taste, binds you to one or the other. The best tool, though, is outrage. This is because it feeds on itself; the outrage of others with whom one feels fellowship encourages one’s own. This shared outrage reinforces the fellow feeling; a lack of appropriate outrage marks you out as not belonging. The reverse is also true. Going into the enemy camp and posting or tweeting things that cause them outrage—trolling, in other words—is a great way of getting attention. This reminds me of this CGP Grey video: ▶ this video

I looked back at your story a couple of times but couldn't figure out how the outraged attacks are being rewarded. I do feel like you might be on to something in how critical comments are often the most discussed. Think about how the single like "thank you" or "thanks for that" comments are hidden as being empty of thought. I don't have any solutions but have you seen this CGP Grey video called "This video will make you angry" ▶ this video which says that outraged ideas are the quickest to spread.

As crazy as it sounds (by definition), there's a hypothesis that we get infected with viruses of the mind: link There's also a video explaining it in terms of funny cat video production: ▶ this video

Related, though less about brands, I really liked "This Video Will Make You Angry" by CGP Grey. ▶ this video - Thoughts/memes as germs trying to reproduce and spread, battling for attention and thriving when people endlessly argue as part of an us/them dynamic.