4 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying about the "Like" button. He's talking about how aggressively we've been conditioned to align our identity with

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying about the "Like" button. He's talking about how aggressively we've been conditioned to align our identity with the things we like (aka, what we feel we must project publicly as our interests).

lsc 11y ago
That's what I thought, too, but only because I've read American Psycho, which had a pretty similar thesis.
- dvanduzer 11y ago
  I haven't read that, but it seems like a reasonably interesting thesis to discuss. If that's Bret Easton Ellis's shtick... I definitely didn't get the impression he was saying that Facebook was to blame for making everyone happy, smiling consumers.
  - lsc 11y ago
    It's a classic, but is also pretty disturbing, so it's not really for everyone. Wikipedia says: "He is a self-proclaimed satirist, whose trademark technique, as a writer, is the expression of extreme acts and opinions in an affectless style." Which doesn't really cover it, I don't think, but is a good start. If you removed the murder from 'American psycho' you would have a book about a guy who was incredibly obsessed with how things he bought and wore effected a person's image. Really, that's kind of what the movie does. (note, still lots of murder by movie standards, so again, not really everyone's cup of tea, but the book goes over each act of violence in the same detail as describing the aftershave he uses.) You could say that the book was about image? "Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God, it even has a watermark..." But the point is, the main character, this status obsessed person, was incredibly unlikable on all levels, even leaving aside the violence; one interpretation is that the things we do for status don't make us more likable; in fact, they make us rather less likable. I see a relationship between that and the article, where he seems to complain, essentially, "Everyone is a critic!" - difference being, of course, is that we're now all critics who are published, whereas it used to be that your platform was only as large as your voice is loud.

lsc 11y ago

That's what I thought, too, but only because I've read American Psycho, which had a pretty similar thesis.

dvanduzer 11y ago
I haven't read that, but it seems like a reasonably interesting thesis to discuss. If that's Bret Easton Ellis's shtick... I definitely didn't get the impression he was saying that Facebook was to blame for making everyone happy, smiling consumers.
- lsc 11y ago
  It's a classic, but is also pretty disturbing, so it's not really for everyone. Wikipedia says: "He is a self-proclaimed satirist, whose trademark technique, as a writer, is the expression of extreme acts and opinions in an affectless style." Which doesn't really cover it, I don't think, but is a good start. If you removed the murder from 'American psycho' you would have a book about a guy who was incredibly obsessed with how things he bought and wore effected a person's image. Really, that's kind of what the movie does. (note, still lots of murder by movie standards, so again, not really everyone's cup of tea, but the book goes over each act of violence in the same detail as describing the aftershave he uses.) You could say that the book was about image? "Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God, it even has a watermark..." But the point is, the main character, this status obsessed person, was incredibly unlikable on all levels, even leaving aside the violence; one interpretation is that the things we do for status don't make us more likable; in fact, they make us rather less likable. I see a relationship between that and the article, where he seems to complain, essentially, "Everyone is a critic!" - difference being, of course, is that we're now all critics who are published, whereas it used to be that your platform was only as large as your voice is loud.