[go: up one dir, main page]

Categories
Featured Learning Political Commentary Reflection

Stories help us find truth, but there’s a difference between fact and fiction

Stories provide a scaffold for understanding

When I read non-fiction, I’m less interested in learning facts than gaining understanding (though sometimes facts support the understanding). I want to build a mental scaffold to hook future facts and related concepts onto. I want to build a story.

In his XOXO talk, Ed Yong speaks about how this desire to synthesize the bigger picture influenced his Pulitzer-winning COVID coverage. There was no single protagonist in any of his pieces, but he set a rule for himself that half of the people he talked to for any piece should be new, so that he included a wide range of perspectives. He also discusses how shifting from a social to a medicalized view on public health made the cultural narrative of the pandemic one of man against virus, with vaccines as our saviors… a narrative which melted down when the vaccines primarily prevented severe illness rather than much protection against infection. It turns out that the broader, social perspective of public health — everything beyond vaccine-as-weapon — was the bigger barrier.

Categories
Culture Entrepreneurship

Paying for media

People pay $0.50-$2.00 for an hour of digital entertainment.”

+

The creator economy can’t rely on Patreon by Joan Westenberg

Creators who are burned out by renting space on someone else’s platform and playing the Shopping Channel game, squeezing dollars out of sponsored promotions, eventually shift toward a direct funding patronage model.

The promise of it is certainly attractive.

But it’s just not realistic.

Data from Patreon and Substack suggests the average conversion rate from follower to paying fan is about 5%. This means a creator would need a total fanbase of 20,000 followers to yield 1,000 paying supporters.

Categories
The Internet

Why we block ads

Replied to The biggest boycott in world history by Doc SearlsDoc Searls (doc.searls.com)

According to Business Insider, ad blocking is now “approaching 200 million.”† Calling it a boycott is my wife’s idea. I say she’s right. Look at the definitions: Merriam-Webster: “to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.” […]

I hadn’t thought of it this way, but yes, adblocking is a boycott. It is resistance to the online advertising system and its negative externalities, like its complete violation of our privacy, its toxic influence on news writing, and the way it incentivizes design to attract more eyeballs at all costs. Advertising online has brought us endless scroll and clickbait and data harvesting and enshittification of online shopping and political polarization and even genocide. Brands don’t want their name associated with anything “distasteful,” so advertising becomes a deterrent to political writing. This all fucking sucks, and it’s ruining the Internet — and our society.

Blocking ads is a rejection of capitalism’s claim on our constant attention. It is an assertion that we are more than consumers — that it is a human right to not be constantly manipulated by advertising designed to predate our paleolithic minds.*

It is a rejection of the implicit deal that we must trade ourselves and our loyalties for knowledge. It is self-protection from the otherwise overwhelming psychological forces of advertising that assail us every second we are online. It’s resistance to an Internet ruled solely by profit.

 

See also: Stolen Focus

Categories
History Reflection

Perspectives on time, change and longevity

Of Time And The Web by Jeremy Keith

What if there were a newspaper that wasn’t published daily or weekly, but once every 100 years? What would the headline on the front page be?

See also: Article pairing: stop reading the news

If something changes gradually, we don’t notice it. We literally exhibit something called change blindness.

But we are hard-wired to notice sudden changes. We pay attention to moments of change.

New to me: change blindness

See also:

The shifting baseline of normal

Half your friends change over seven years

+

See also: Enduring Tradition as Satisfaction

+

See also: Drought reveals lawn patterns hundreds of years old

Categories
Learning Self Care

News reading process

Liked Improving our relationship to news by Alex (alexsirac.com)

I made the choice of never actually reading news (or watching videos), but actually going through my RSS feed and « starring » everything that stands out to me based on the title and first 2-3 lines of text.

Every 3 or 4 days, I go into my starred items and unstar everything that just doesn’t interest me as much as I thought it would 3 days ago.

I like Alex’s approach to the news: choose sources, reduce quantity, and be intentional about what to actually read.

This process for selecting what to read overlaps a bit with what I’ve been trying to do, but is better than mine 😉 I open everything I want to read from my feed reader in a new tab, then go through each for an initial “do I actually care/ does this actually matter or is it just preying on my emotions” cull, and anything I’m on the fence about gets saved to Pocket. I also save anything super long or with a cruddy reading layout on page. Periodically, I’ll open up Pocket and star the articles I think I should actually bother reading — but then I never read them. If it’s not open in a tab, I’m not gonna read it — but if I have too many tabs open I get stressed 😥 So mostly Pocket is a comfort blanket to assure me I can find that article again if I really want to 😂 But I like the reading delay built in to Alex’s process.

Categories
Learning

Curating for yourself, curating with others

Replied to The Memex Method – Cory Doctorow – Medium by Cory Doctorow (Medium)

Clay Shirky has described the process of reading blogs as the inverse of reading traditional sources of news and opinion. In the traditional world, an editor selects (from among pitches from writers for things that might interest a readership), and then publishes (the selected pieces).

But for blog readers, the process is inverted: bloggers publish (everything that seems significant to them) and then readers select (which of those publications are worthy of their interests)

I much prefer following people to publications, and curating for myself what’s interesting out of what those people have curated for themselves. There’s a good bit of noise, but there’s also a lot of serendipity — neat things I would never have encountered on my own, that I wouldn’t have thought to investigate.

While news publications focus on appearing neutral, people (bloggers and newsletterers) have opinions and share context often missing from news articles. I *want* others’ opinions, especially from people who are better informed than I am. I’m interested in news and information as it relates to people, not as discrete incidents. I care more about the trends and the roots of an event, which are all too often left out of the news. Individuals are publishing from a rich, deep, broad perspective in a way publications cannot have, the same way corporations and brands are not people (no matter how they exploit their social media managers).

See also:

Article pairing: stop reading the news

Overlapping Communities, “Curated” Discovery between Real People

Finding Personal Websites

Algorithmic recommendations create “curiosity ruts”

Co-browsing

 

(More from the same Doctorow piece.)

Categories
Activism Learning Society The Internet

Destroying a public good

Replied to Twitter is dying by Natasha LomasNatasha Lomas (techcrunch.com)

However if the point is simply pure destruction — building a chaos machine by removing a source of valuable information from our connected world, where groups of all stripes could communicate and organize, and replacing that with a place of parody that rewards insincerity, time-wasting and the worst forms of communication in order to degrade the better half — then he’s done a remarkable job in very short order. Truly it’s an amazing act of demolition. But, well, $44 billion can buy you a lot of wrecking balls.

That our system allows wealth to be turned into a weapon to nuke things of broad societal value is one hard lesson we should take away from the wreckage of downed turquoise feathers.

Society isn’t equipped to prevent the willful destruction of things that give power to the masses by the elites who wish to uphold the status quo.

Musk buying Twitter (with Saudi financing 😒) to drive out the libs and boost the incels is like LJ when it was taken over by the Russians to drive out the gays. The site may continue to exist, but any value it once had to society has been destroyed. Twitter will surely use the vestiges of its former power to do harm too.

Authoritarians and the wealthy will always use every tool at their disposal to suppress free speech by the masses, because it benefits us far more than it does them.

Categories
Science Society

Twitter influences the outcomes of disasters

Bookmarked

Using Twitter for crisis communications in a natural disaster: Hurricane Harvey — Vera-Burgos & Padgett, 2020

See also: What happens to activism after Twitter?

Categories
Activism

What happens to activism after Twitter?

Bookmarked

For all its failings, one space where Twitter has excelled is empowering activism: calling out injustice, community organizing, and on-the-ground reporting from dozens of protests at once. Conservatives bitch about their fascist tweets getting deleted and “misinformation” because they can’t tell you about “the ivermectin cure,” but what actually seems to be censored and misrepresented in mainstream press is disruptions to power: protesters are painted as looters, police spray children with tear gas at nonviolent protests, journalists get black-bagged and shot despite their press badges. I watched all this happening from afar in BLM protests around the country – these three particular instances were in Bellevue, Seattle and Portland. And the “terrifying” Capital Hill Autonomous Zone or whatever they called themselves planted a community garden in a public park — oh the atrocity! 😱 I could read and see accounts from multiple people at various protests, photos and videos from multiple angles, and read accounts from journalists at protests, and real community members could dispel fear mongering and scapegoating.

If Twitter collapses, where do we go for that kind of information?

If we didn’t have Twitter, would any of us have heard about George Floyd or Breonna Taylor?

Activism has adapted to make use of online platforms and advocate to a larger audience. I haven’t been going to protests in person, so I don’t know how essential that link is.

If Twitter collapses, what happens to the women of Iran right now?

Can federated / distributed spaces allow the kind of real-time information spread that has made Twitter invaluable for activism?

Mastodon only searches hashtags within your (an?) instance from my understanding. You need to already know who to follow or be in an instance where people are sharing that kind of information.

(☝️ I do not know this to be true first-hand but wouldn’t be surprised given the model)

And the IndieWeb already struggles with discoverability.

I don’t think TikTok can serve the same function — too easy in their algorithmic model to keep anything from spreading, and video is so much slower to produce and consume than text that you can’t follow as many separate accounts to get an understanding of what’s happening.

Facebook gave us genocide in Myanmar. They’re not going to be a help here. Instagram doesn’t seem built in a way that’s easy to follow trending topics. Their ephemeral posts (stories) aren’t easy to find or follow. I haven’t used it lately so I don’t know how Reels work.

Categories
Society

Following politics on social media

Replied to Most people on Twitter don’t live in political echo chambers — but mostly because they don’t care enough to bother building one (Nieman Lab)

“The elite discussion on the platform is important, but it is not necessarily observed directly by the masses.”

Of those 2,600-plus “elites,” the vast majority are journalists, pundits, or news organizations…

If you’re not following at least one of those accounts, your Twitter use is likely bereft of news, not just political news.

🤔 They clearly don’t follow a lot of artists, writers, activists or academics if they think you see no news or politics without expressly following news accounts. I saw just one person I follow on the list but would not characterize my feed as apolitical 😂 Authors have been extremely vocal about reproductive rights and politically motivated book bans. Queer and disabled people call out problems constantly.

In our case, 59.6% of a random sample of users (856,853 of 1,437,774) were insufficiently politically interested to follow the accounts of the president, key senators, or major news media organizations.

I’m not sure you can draw the conclusion someone isn’t interested in politics because they don’t follow national level politicians or large news organizations on social media. For example, I’m more interested in local, county, and state level happenings than national policies totally beyond my influence, so I follow local policy advocates to learn about housing issues and bike infrastructure in my community. I can’t imagine I’m the only one who’s turned my attention and energy away from the national level, to my community.

Another facet is feeling unrepresented by politics at a national level. The national Democratic party is filled with old, out of touch, ineffective and spineless naifs who will fiddle us into fascism while conservatives chortle. I have little patience for moderate Democrats who are afraid to piss off racists, sexists, fascists, and homophobes. I’d wager many other progressives are likewise fed up.

I also think it’s not unreasonable that people might choose to use social media for entertainment and get their news and politics elsewhere.

Moreover, while they call this finding bleak, I’m not sure it’s such a bad thing to be disconnected from the ugliness of political spin. Frankly I consider politicians to be a terrible source for political information. The two major parties have become so antagonistic, it seems that every single thing the other side does must be condemned, even if it’s helping supply infant formula during a shortage 🤦‍♀️ (That certainly dragged the idiot politicians and pundits who have never talked to a mother in their life out of the woodwork 👀 I don’t have kids and I know that not all babies latch! Among the many other reasons “just breastfeed” isn’t a valid response.) The news often becomes an elitist form of entertainment that doesn’t necessarily inform action, but spurs hopelessness or anxiety.

Somehow it’s this minority of people that do follow politicians and news organizations who are driving the vast majority of the nasty political discourse on Twitter? If so, they’re doing enough damage to our political division as it is. We hardly need to feed more people with The Discourse of the day.