I agree with your take that the early internet was already like that. It was pre-monetization!!!!!! (And thus pre-algorithm and pre-SEO!) But the internet was going to monetize at some point, and unfortunately they monetized our attention. I’m just wondering if there are better ways to monetize.
Thanks for sharing the Note, Simon! That image is haunting isn’t it. Gives me shivers.
Loved this story btw, your conception of the triverse is a fascinating idea for a fiction anthology. I’ve been reading Italo Calvino’s Cosmicomics recently, so it’s on my mind, but that too has a fascinatingly compelling premise for a collection of short stories. Feels like it opens up a whole new realm of possibility for genre-bending figtion
I amend my comment from last week - "Miller's got friends in high places," - to "Miller's got 'fair-weather' friends in high places."
Before I twigged to the panic attack, I honestly thought one of those higher in the conspiracy had managed to poison Miller and he was about to die. Hey, it's possible when the police have some really corrupt upper-echelon people... (*cough* Jeffery Epstien "suicide" *cough*)
I've not read the articles linked in the Author's Note yet, but shall. Still, as a quick observation on the halcyon "good ol' days" of late 1990's/early 2000's internet, I think you've got some rose it the anti-glare coating of your glasses. I worked for multiple (now failed) dot-coms from about 1998-2005 off and on, and monetizing the customer and "software-as-service" was ALWAYS the goal. It's just that earliest large-scale attempts came from east Asian companies and were rejected by western consumers. Once companies ran by, y'know, "white people" jumped into the game, suddenly the same thing rejected by western consumers as "disruptive and controlling" became "innovative and forward thinking." I'm thinking of Sony's PSP-Go which discarded the media drive and worked on a paradigm of download-only for games, and streaming media. Both were rejected at the time because, gosh darn it, "physical media is superior."
Well, physical media IS superior, but good luck finding anyone under 30-35 or so who believes that.
Anyways, Sony launched the first device which relied on a corporate-controlled download-only paradigm. But it took Apple to make people accept it.
The smartphone didn't make the internet worse - it moved the internet from something you had to go to a specific machine (laptop or desktop) in a location which either had hardware cables or a specific wireless router which connected to the hardware cables, and turned the internet into something that fit in your pocket.
The ubiquity made the process which companies had already been working towards for a decade feasible. But the "downfall" was already in place.
To be cynical and blunt large corporations (and to a greater or lesser degree government) have relied on psychological manipulation, largely aimed at those with less education or reasoning ability, for decades.
Simon, you worked in marketing, and the job of the marketer isn't actually to explain why >x< is a good product, it's to convince people >x< is a good product, even if it's shit.
To put it another way, "marketing is propaganda."
On another platform I'm in a debate on whether or not propaganda is justified when the end goal is altruistic. I'm in the minority with the assertion propaganda is inherently dishonest. I'm also objectively correct because the literal DEFINITION of propaganda notes use of deception, dis-and-mis-information.
Marketing is propaganda. I can see toothpaste ads from 4 companies which will all day "8 of 10 dentists surveyed say our toothpaste is the best." Gosh, 8 out of 10 dentists can't agree ALL the DIFFERENT toothpastes are the best unless 1) each company keeps sending out polls until they get one with the answers they want, 2) there's no real difference between any toothpastes, or 3) both A and B. 3 is, of course, the correct answer.
Well the current issues with the internet - from social media to streaming media to the simple act of looking things up - are marketing - PROPAGANDA - writ large and corrupt.
In short, the primary problem with social media is simple. Most people are full of shit, and smartphones make it very easy for them to throw shit around to large audiences.
Corporate propaganda isn't new. The Spanish-American War largely came about because William Randolph Hearst ran inflammatory stories to stir up sentiment in the US against Spain... To sell more papers.
So - Twitter, Facebook and Truth Social?
There are many other internet concerns, but this is already a large rant which is mostly NOT about the story chapter we're here for this week.
I agree with your take that the early internet was already like that. It was pre-monetization!!!!!! (And thus pre-algorithm and pre-SEO!) But the internet was going to monetize at some point, and unfortunately they monetized our attention. I’m just wondering if there are better ways to monetize.
Thank you. 😊 I enjoyed the story, it was a good subject.
Thanks for sharing the Note, Simon! That image is haunting isn’t it. Gives me shivers.
Loved this story btw, your conception of the triverse is a fascinating idea for a fiction anthology. I’ve been reading Italo Calvino’s Cosmicomics recently, so it’s on my mind, but that too has a fascinatingly compelling premise for a collection of short stories. Feels like it opens up a whole new realm of possibility for genre-bending figtion
I amend my comment from last week - "Miller's got friends in high places," - to "Miller's got 'fair-weather' friends in high places."
Before I twigged to the panic attack, I honestly thought one of those higher in the conspiracy had managed to poison Miller and he was about to die. Hey, it's possible when the police have some really corrupt upper-echelon people... (*cough* Jeffery Epstien "suicide" *cough*)
I've not read the articles linked in the Author's Note yet, but shall. Still, as a quick observation on the halcyon "good ol' days" of late 1990's/early 2000's internet, I think you've got some rose it the anti-glare coating of your glasses. I worked for multiple (now failed) dot-coms from about 1998-2005 off and on, and monetizing the customer and "software-as-service" was ALWAYS the goal. It's just that earliest large-scale attempts came from east Asian companies and were rejected by western consumers. Once companies ran by, y'know, "white people" jumped into the game, suddenly the same thing rejected by western consumers as "disruptive and controlling" became "innovative and forward thinking." I'm thinking of Sony's PSP-Go which discarded the media drive and worked on a paradigm of download-only for games, and streaming media. Both were rejected at the time because, gosh darn it, "physical media is superior."
Well, physical media IS superior, but good luck finding anyone under 30-35 or so who believes that.
Anyways, Sony launched the first device which relied on a corporate-controlled download-only paradigm. But it took Apple to make people accept it.
The smartphone didn't make the internet worse - it moved the internet from something you had to go to a specific machine (laptop or desktop) in a location which either had hardware cables or a specific wireless router which connected to the hardware cables, and turned the internet into something that fit in your pocket.
The ubiquity made the process which companies had already been working towards for a decade feasible. But the "downfall" was already in place.
To be cynical and blunt large corporations (and to a greater or lesser degree government) have relied on psychological manipulation, largely aimed at those with less education or reasoning ability, for decades.
Simon, you worked in marketing, and the job of the marketer isn't actually to explain why >x< is a good product, it's to convince people >x< is a good product, even if it's shit.
To put it another way, "marketing is propaganda."
On another platform I'm in a debate on whether or not propaganda is justified when the end goal is altruistic. I'm in the minority with the assertion propaganda is inherently dishonest. I'm also objectively correct because the literal DEFINITION of propaganda notes use of deception, dis-and-mis-information.
Marketing is propaganda. I can see toothpaste ads from 4 companies which will all day "8 of 10 dentists surveyed say our toothpaste is the best." Gosh, 8 out of 10 dentists can't agree ALL the DIFFERENT toothpastes are the best unless 1) each company keeps sending out polls until they get one with the answers they want, 2) there's no real difference between any toothpastes, or 3) both A and B. 3 is, of course, the correct answer.
Well the current issues with the internet - from social media to streaming media to the simple act of looking things up - are marketing - PROPAGANDA - writ large and corrupt.
In short, the primary problem with social media is simple. Most people are full of shit, and smartphones make it very easy for them to throw shit around to large audiences.
Corporate propaganda isn't new. The Spanish-American War largely came about because William Randolph Hearst ran inflammatory stories to stir up sentiment in the US against Spain... To sell more papers.
So - Twitter, Facebook and Truth Social?
There are many other internet concerns, but this is already a large rant which is mostly NOT about the story chapter we're here for this week.