If Agnes Callard tried to read Heidegger, her head would explode.
She absolutely would have read Heidegger
[flagged]
Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
61–70 of 108 posts
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#62"How do informational norms change when we’re all living in the same universal room?" I different interesting question: why would we want to inhabit this universal room in the first place? The post mentions the idea of being "bigger than yourself" but to me the context collapse achieves the opposite - a sort of carboard caricature of oneself.
From what I’ve observed, people are increasingly checking out of social media (or turning their profiles private), because it’s just unappealing unless you’re actively promoting something.
The numbers just don't support this, though? Social media remains at an all time high in engagement numbers. And climbing.
What is also growing is the number of people signaling that they are out of it.
This is extra pernicious because the people that are staying in control of these environments are maintaining a large amount of leverage over everyone.
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of…
I think this misses the point. As the article points out, people could and would act differently in different contexts: Home, the Church, the Bar. They weren't lacking opportunity to "exist completely". The whole point of the omni-context is that you are putting yourself in a space where you have to act in a way that is appropriate to all of those places. I would say things in the Bar that I would not want the revere…
Yes, but the context itself is still omnipotent to everyone who participates with it. It's not a bar if it's everywhere. Wearing a mask to the everybar is a way to compensate for the fact you can't leave. You must fragment your self to compensate for the global scope of the bar, just like using a struct to reinvent lexical scope in a globally scoped program. The problem isn't really solved, it's just semantically moved.
What we are really missing is the ability for expression to be subjective by default. When we participate in socially global contexts, everything we read and write must be coherent to the generalized expectations of the entire group of people who are participating in that context. Instead of your words being taken out of context, they are constantly assumed into the context, implying your own interpretation is objectively wrong. The meaning of every expression is decided and relevant, even when it shouldn't be.
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#64There are some of us (late generation-X / early millennial) who saw this coming and still maintain a variety of separate identities across many domains. I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example. Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet…
Even earlier than that. "Pseudonymity" (not using your real name online) were adopted very early on Internet. Facebook is the big exception.
This first claim seems weak to me, and the arguments made in TFA are generally weak IMO. It feels that this theory tries to "eat more than it can chew"; they try to explain a lot of things with a single hypothesis, which in the end yields unconvincing explanations.
For instance, let me answer the 4 opening questions:
Why is the news media so interested in telling you how much the world sucks all the time?
Because fear sells; but that aside, one can also say that we are a species who loves solving problems, and pointing them is generally the first step to a solution.
Why are so many of us obsessed with distraction and managing our attention?
Because something is aggressively trying to steal attention - that is, actually, time - from us. It's self-defence at this point.
Why is it so hard to stop comparing ourselves to others?
Because of the atavistic instinct of reproduction, in which mating partners are selected mainly based on social status. It takes training to go against this instinct, and it is even more difficult when your time is being stolen.
And why does everything in art and design seem the same these days?
That's something a boomer could say... Mainstream designs can, maybe, look similar because when you target a large market you design for the average taste. Non-mainstream designs are just more expensive, harder to find, and less visible.
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore A bit off topic, but you're not the only one. I've grown up with the internet and yet I'm now completely unable to find things on demand. I sometimes resort to claude, not because I want to, but because it's so difficult to search the real internet now. Asking claude, then asking claude for sources, can uncover hidden gems. ( It can also reveal claude talk…
I believe this is often because things fall off the internet. Back in the early days, things were added more frequently than they were removed, because there wasn't much to remove. Now, it's reached equilibrium - things are also frequently removed.
That's true of some things, but sometimes there are things that exist, but google no longer reliably surfaces in a way that it once did.
Search anything and you are bombarded with unoriginal sites, optimised for SEO, filled with generated rubbish and adverts.
There used to be an arms-race between google and SEO spam that Google could keep up with, if not ahead.
But it feels like at some point in the past decade, google just gave up and let them win.
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#66There are some of us (late generation-X / early millennial) who saw this coming and still maintain a variety of separate identities across many domains. I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example. Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet…
Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of…
> your self has been fragmented
Unless you are more after acknowledgement than sharing/helping others (and be on the receiving end sometimes), this is non-problem.
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also works both ways. Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired, but the same uni-context makes the plumber more likely to be anti-gay and more strongly anti-gay in the first place. Being exposed to anti-gay propaganda all the time will do that. Otherwise you just have people who are like, their church told them it was bad to be gay, but they don't really care about it.
> Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired Why would I care if I don't notice? I'm paying them to fix my literal plumbing, not to proverbially suck my dick. If they do the job I pay them for, and they're not giving me shit for who I am, why would I want to get them fired? This uni-context feels like a very silly idea in practice.
If Hitler would fix your plumbing would you give him money, or would you look for another plumber because giving money to Hitler is bad? Now scale that principle down.
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of…
> your self has been fragmented Unless you are more after acknowledgement than sharing/helping others (and be on the receiving end sometimes), this is non-problem .
Maybe not to your self, but it has a significant effect on the actual interactions you have.
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I’ve observed, people are increasingly checking out of social media (or turning their profiles private), because it’s just unappealing unless you’re actively promoting something.
The numbers just don't support this, though? Social media remains at an all time high in engagement numbers. And climbing. What is also growing is the number of people signaling that they are out of it. This is extra pernicious because the people that are staying in control of these environments are maintaining a large amount of leverage over everyone.
The makeup of the numbers is shifting radically.
20 years ago, ~all Facebook users were organic real life social networks chatting with each other online.
It's not gone yet, but for many years, that "organic social network" usage segment has been declining.
The commercially motivated "social media influencer marketing" segment has been growing faster than the "organic" segment has been declining.
Re: Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I’ve observed, people are increasingly checking out of social media (or turning their profiles private), because it’s just unappealing unless you’re actively promoting something.
The numbers just don't support this, though? Social media remains at an all time high in engagement numbers. And climbing. What is also growing is the number of people signaling that they are out of it. This is extra pernicious because the people that are staying in control of these environments are maintaining a large amount of leverage over everyone.
The phenomenon I'm describing is people switching to consumption-only mode, or only posting privately. I think you're right that engagement is going up, as people treat social media more like TV and less like microblogging. I define that as "checking out."
It's just a huge change from the early days of social media (Instagram 1.0, Flickr, Twitter, o.g. Facebook), where nearly everybody who was active on the platform was also posting.