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
It does feel like a potentially endless source of fun stories. It's worked well for the more anthology-style approach, while also supporting an on-running larger narrative.
Will check out Cosmicomics! Thanks for the tip. And thanks for reading!
I meant to write fiction at the end there, but I kinda like ‘figtion’. Maybe that can be a new genre, little stories about a humble fig, coming to the city brighteyed and naive 😂
Fig Tion also sounds like a mischievous imp thief. Or perhaps a very short starship pilot. Or an opera singer on a distant planet. Or the leader of a rebellious group of sentient fruits.
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.
This is why my marketing career has gradually shifted towards the non-profit and charity sectors. It's the only way to be in marketing and not feel sullied. :P
Media literacy is one of the main things I've tried to teach my son: understanding how to parse official and non-official sources of information, treat things with a pinch of salt, compare multiple sources before coming to a conclusion, and doing all that without falling prey to conspiracy-laden anti-MSM tropes. It's tough.
Reminder my degree level qualifications are theater (emphasis on literature) , film (emphasis on editing), visual arts, and a minor in psychology, so, I, too, am trained in the dark arts of using text, imagery, and speech to manipulate emotions - in short, propaganda.
I was coming in to amend the above comment. One place where I WILL blame social media/internet for drop in discourse and rise of everyone screaming at each other is specifically Twitter - well before Elon Musk ruined it.
140 - later 280 - characters isn't enough room to Aya anything with nuance and meaning, but it's enough to fire off snark. The continuing erosion of the ability for people to actually pay attention to something for more than a minute...
Google dropping "Don't be Evil" as their motto was also a big hint. Don't get me started on Apple, which has way too much valuation as a company and influence over other tech companies compared to their actual market share.
Yeah, in retrospect Twitter was always destined to trend towards conflict, I think, even without the algorithm and corporate ad peddling. As you note, a tiny character count is just enough to make a witty comment or joke, but not enough time to provide context or nuance. And because a lot of people aren't actually especially witty, that ends up becoming bile and snark.
I remember in the early days when Twitter was actually a VERY funny place to be. But that's because everyone there was putting in a lot of effort. Whereas wit without the effort often ends up being cruelty.
It's been interesting to see Substack's Notes develop. So far, in my experience, it's been delightful. Designed for short form but without an actual character limit. A algorithm-light design that focuses on your actual, stated interests (ie people you read), rather than derived assumptions or cynical behaviour analysis.
I'm sure it'll go off the rails at some point, but it's been an interesting point of comparison, given its surface similarity to Twitter.
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.
Thank you!
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
It does feel like a potentially endless source of fun stories. It's worked well for the more anthology-style approach, while also supporting an on-running larger narrative.
Will check out Cosmicomics! Thanks for the tip. And thanks for reading!
I meant to write fiction at the end there, but I kinda like ‘figtion’. Maybe that can be a new genre, little stories about a humble fig, coming to the city brighteyed and naive 😂
Fig Tion also sounds like a mischievous imp thief. Or perhaps a very short starship pilot. Or an opera singer on a distant planet. Or the leader of a rebellious group of sentient fruits.
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.
This is why my marketing career has gradually shifted towards the non-profit and charity sectors. It's the only way to be in marketing and not feel sullied. :P
Media literacy is one of the main things I've tried to teach my son: understanding how to parse official and non-official sources of information, treat things with a pinch of salt, compare multiple sources before coming to a conclusion, and doing all that without falling prey to conspiracy-laden anti-MSM tropes. It's tough.
Fair point about the non-profits.
Reminder my degree level qualifications are theater (emphasis on literature) , film (emphasis on editing), visual arts, and a minor in psychology, so, I, too, am trained in the dark arts of using text, imagery, and speech to manipulate emotions - in short, propaganda.
I was coming in to amend the above comment. One place where I WILL blame social media/internet for drop in discourse and rise of everyone screaming at each other is specifically Twitter - well before Elon Musk ruined it.
140 - later 280 - characters isn't enough room to Aya anything with nuance and meaning, but it's enough to fire off snark. The continuing erosion of the ability for people to actually pay attention to something for more than a minute...
Google dropping "Don't be Evil" as their motto was also a big hint. Don't get me started on Apple, which has way too much valuation as a company and influence over other tech companies compared to their actual market share.
Yeah, in retrospect Twitter was always destined to trend towards conflict, I think, even without the algorithm and corporate ad peddling. As you note, a tiny character count is just enough to make a witty comment or joke, but not enough time to provide context or nuance. And because a lot of people aren't actually especially witty, that ends up becoming bile and snark.
I remember in the early days when Twitter was actually a VERY funny place to be. But that's because everyone there was putting in a lot of effort. Whereas wit without the effort often ends up being cruelty.
It's been interesting to see Substack's Notes develop. So far, in my experience, it's been delightful. Designed for short form but without an actual character limit. A algorithm-light design that focuses on your actual, stated interests (ie people you read), rather than derived assumptions or cynical behaviour analysis.
I'm sure it'll go off the rails at some point, but it's been an interesting point of comparison, given its surface similarity to Twitter.