3 ms·

Speaking of craving attention- here's my TEDx talk on the same issue: Protecting our creativity from the side-effects of technology https://m.youtube.com/watc

Speaking of craving attention- here's my TEDx talk on the same issue: Protecting our creativity from the side-effects of technology https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6LNjVmcVF68 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6LNjVmcVF68

kerkeslager 7y ago
Please pay attention to my TEDx talk about how craving attention is bad! ;) I jest. Given I'm creating free content for a website so I can earn worthless attention points, I'm no better.
- moneytide1 7y ago
  "Earning" attention points is a frame of mind, as the reciever of votes may look upon themselves as a sort of beneficiary. Being invalidated by the metric of how many people/machines (digitally) voted against one's content does not invalidate the idea itself. Write instead for your curious audience of historians digging through archives over the next few decades. But more importantly, for those of us that know to wade through digital (or analog) noise in order to find valuable information worth repeating. I prioritize reviewing the most downvoted content, because the average downvote is an overreaction (emotional response). Ignoring the first few "top voted" responses (or search results, beginning sentences of a news article) is a shortcut to the more useful content. "Points" are not good or bad. They are an indicator of traffic (automated or genuine). They are not worthless.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    They're worthless to me. I've not gained anything by having them.
    - moneytide1 7y ago
      I suppose I shouldn't have said "they are not worthless" after listing reasons why the point system could be compromised (emotional voting or the vote dilution of agenda-driven automated bots). I think it is because you said the word "earn" which I thought may have reflected the outlook of most digital forum participants (earn implies value). In a physical space we may evaluate reception of our ideas through nodding, verbal affirmation, or during our turn of the conversation. I would think it would be more difficult for a malicious actor to manipulate public opinion with these classical communication methods. Perhaps now it is more difficult for quality content to be injected into society (or for society to think for itself) when most folks may naturally feel more comfortable consuming content with the largest (potentially artificial) view, vote, stream, or click count. Maybe there are entire divisions of allocated cognitive labor designed exclusively to determine authenticity of traffic, which is unfortunate but necessary (and will likely not be thorough). Maybe there are not.

kerkeslager 7y ago

Please pay attention to my TEDx talk about how craving attention is bad! ;) I jest. Given I'm creating free content for a website so I can earn worthless attention points, I'm no better.

moneytide1 7y ago
"Earning" attention points is a frame of mind, as the reciever of votes may look upon themselves as a sort of beneficiary. Being invalidated by the metric of how many people/machines (digitally) voted against one's content does not invalidate the idea itself. Write instead for your curious audience of historians digging through archives over the next few decades. But more importantly, for those of us that know to wade through digital (or analog) noise in order to find valuable information worth repeating. I prioritize reviewing the most downvoted content, because the average downvote is an overreaction (emotional response). Ignoring the first few "top voted" responses (or search results, beginning sentences of a news article) is a shortcut to the more useful content. "Points" are not good or bad. They are an indicator of traffic (automated or genuine). They are not worthless.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  They're worthless to me. I've not gained anything by having them.
  - moneytide1 7y ago
    I suppose I shouldn't have said "they are not worthless" after listing reasons why the point system could be compromised (emotional voting or the vote dilution of agenda-driven automated bots). I think it is because you said the word "earn" which I thought may have reflected the outlook of most digital forum participants (earn implies value). In a physical space we may evaluate reception of our ideas through nodding, verbal affirmation, or during our turn of the conversation. I would think it would be more difficult for a malicious actor to manipulate public opinion with these classical communication methods. Perhaps now it is more difficult for quality content to be injected into society (or for society to think for itself) when most folks may naturally feel more comfortable consuming content with the largest (potentially artificial) view, vote, stream, or click count. Maybe there are entire divisions of allocated cognitive labor designed exclusively to determine authenticity of traffic, which is unfortunate but necessary (and will likely not be thorough). Maybe there are not.