Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

coryzue.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 347 posts

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#311

Post by jodrellblank »

One of The Last Psychiatrist's points is that there's no such thing as 'authentic'. From his blog post "How to destroy a marriage (2009)"[1]:

"I know, it's hard to keep those emotions in check after your boss has been riding you all day. Yet then the UPS guy comes to the door and you are instantly nice, bright, warm. "Hey, thanks, have a good one buddy! Go Raiders!" You'll say it's an act, but the other way of looking at it is that you think it's worth faking politeness to the UPS guy, but not to your family. See? Does your family need to see the real, irritable you?"

"Oh, I hear you, my special, special, generation, the one that counts hypocrisy the greatest of all possible sins: "if I can't be myself at home, what's the point?" Because that isn't the real you, there isn't a you. Who you are is what you do. If you come home and are cranky and curt and bossy at home, then you are a jerk. You don't get to say, "I'm a nice person, but I just happen to be irritable every day." Even if you aren't a jerk, what your family sees is a jerk."

[1] https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/04/how_to_destroy_a_mar...

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#312

Post by random3 »

passion__desire wrote: post #180
random3 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it's bit ironic that people seek maximum diversity within a single platform without taking into account the effort to seek the diversity beyond that platform. There are online communities beyond X and, event within X you can just choose to track select groups you follow and constantly unfollow what you don't like.

I have few ideas. Why can't people create their own filter bubbles? Lists do that in some sense. How about "For You" tab but for a particular List so that recommendations expand and let me get the feel of that particular List's filter bubble. Why can't I choose to browse Twitter as it appears to a particular category of people e.g. say a mathematician or neuroscientist? Twitter is all public, there is no fear of de-a…

I have a similar line of thinking. However I think it applies generally and that any "broker" (e.g. Amazon) that is not explicitely on your side will be in conflict of interest. The implications are actually deep and wide.

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#313

Post by random3 »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #193
random3 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it's bit ironic that people seek maximum diversity within a single platform without taking into account the effort to seek the diversity beyond that platform. There are online communities beyond X and, event within X you can just choose to track select groups you follow and constantly unfollow what you don't like.

People don't seek maximum diversity. People seek the exact diversity of a small sample of the world they tolerate. The people that say they do are just unaware of all the diversity they reject.

You mean you don't follow random topics you don't understand or like? :)

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#314

Post by mikrotikker »

bnralt wrote: post #68

One thing I’ve noticed is that the culture on Twitter now is quite different than it was a decade ago, and the platform has calcified. A decade ago the common adivce for how to connect with people - Tweet often, comment often, follow accounts - connected you with a lot of people, and you would often end up following each other. I started a new account recently (hadn’t used my old one in years), and doing so now got m…

Just goes to show how good the twitter bots were at making you think people cared to keep you engaged with the platform.

Remember all those people who saw follower counts plummet as soon as Musk started doing his due diligence and looking into the bot situation?

What's that thing called? Is it The empty internet phenomenon? Where its all bots and you're the only human.

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#315

Post by mikrotikker »

_fat_santa wrote: post #16

One thing I've realized about social media, especially X/Twitter, is that it's not a singular place, that is you can have 4 feeds on twitter from different users that might as well be different social media platforms. I've noticed if you follow the "Indie Hackers" on X then you will get lots of self promotion (ie. "My startup just hit $X/MRR!!, here's how I did it: substack.com...."). On the other hand there are othe…

Santenello is so great. I don't understand how he can just go up to randoms and start a conversation.

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#316

Post by [deleted] »

bnralt wrote: post #68

One thing I’ve noticed is that the culture on Twitter now is quite different than it was a decade ago, and the platform has calcified. A decade ago the common adivce for how to connect with people - Tweet often, comment often, follow accounts - connected you with a lot of people, and you would often end up following each other. I started a new account recently (hadn’t used my old one in years), and doing so now got m…

[deleted]

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#317

Post by Ensorceled »

gorwell wrote: post #297
Ensorceled wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's common to blame the move from Twitter on Elon's politics. And that's perfectly valid. I moved away for a much simpler reason. The bulk of the people I follow (mostly authors, journalists, and geeks) have moved off or drastically reduced their activity on Twitter and it's almost entirely due to Elon's politics and the changes he's making in support of that world view.

To be fair, that's because he leveled the playing field that was tilted in favor of the elite establishment consensus. They aren't supportive of a platform with free speech. ie, speech one disagrees with. Team Establishment was happy when it censored opposing viewpoints and it's no surprise, although unfortunate, they migrated to regressive platforms where that still occurs.

> To be fair, that's because he leveled the playing field that was tilted in favor of the elite establishment consensus.

Do you really believe this?

Anyway, most of the people I follow left because of the terrible people and bots, sooooo many bots, clogging up their timeline with right wing nonsense.

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#318

Post by falsaberN1 »

function_seven wrote: post #218
falsaberN1 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Definitely. If I say "I literally broke my arm" after I actually broke my arm, that use is completely correct. But you cannot be literally dead and still type a message, unless it's an automated message that you ordered someone/something to send AFTER you died.

If I'm on my regular nightly haunting mission, and I decide to speak to the new owner of the house that I'm haunting, how do I convey to them that I am really, actually, truly dead? I could say, "I'm literally dead", but they would think I'm laughing at their joke they just made! If the answer to this is to avoid the word "literally", and instead replace it with "really, actually, truly" (like I did above), then I mi…

You obtain "literally dead" privileges if you are a ghost, too, of course.

OMG A GOAST SO SPOOKY

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#319

Post by dragonwriter »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #152
narcraft wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say that people use literally to mean figuratively now which is literally the opposite of literally, but I've literally never seen someone use literally to mean figuratively. I have often seen it used to hyperbolize the strength of analogies or generalizations, which means they apply literally somewhat figuratively, but that doesn't mean that they literally mean for literally to mean figuratively.

Literally is literally a point. Figuratively is a point only figuratively, literally it is a continuum. If you're not using literally to literally mean literally, you are literally using it to mean figuratively.

No, if you aren't using it to mean literally, you are using it figuratively, but not necessarily (or ever, IME) to mean figuratively (usually as an intensifier to a statement that is expected to be understood as figurative from context.)

Re: The slow death of authenticity in an attention economy

#320

Post by robertlagrant »

pixl97 wrote: post #307
robertlagrant wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on. Arguing from names is really silly. I'd say almost everything but capitalism values authoritarianism. E.g. socialism in the end by "society" means "the state". Society in capitalism is generally separate to markets, e.g. your local community, or charirites, or churches, or sport, or schools. Not bureaucrats taking your effort and doling it out (or not) as they see fit.

You seem to be conflating "systems values" versus "People in the systems values" Capitalism works best with a non-authoritarian government, but that leaves a lot of different options for implementing how that is handled. Individual capitalists will almost always push for some of authoritarianism as they become more successful because they will seek to minimize competition.

> You seem to be conflating "systems values" versus "People in the systems values"

How so?

> Individual capitalists will almost always push for some of authoritarianism

Lots will push the other way, because that keeps the engine running smoothly. This is sometimes called "people thinking they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires", but really it's "people knowing the best way (on average) to invent a better future".

Post reply on HN