3 ms·

I also listened to him ten years ago. Every week or two I'd pick a new channel to watch to death while working, so I've probably consumed 40+ hours of content.

I also listened to him ten years ago. Every week or two I'd pick a new channel to watch to death while working, so I've probably consumed 40+ hours of content. I heard bits and pieces over the years since that gave me the same reaction - what the hell happened. Although in retrospect the seeds were probably there even back then. One thing that came out later was him emotionally explaining to the camera that the problem with the world is that women choose assholes to date. Another was his violent fantasy about what he'd do to his mother. That these kinds of outbursts didn't lose him his audience pretty much tells you all you need to know. It's a shame, as there were a few pieces that stuck with me from when I watched it that I think made me a better person. It was the first time I'd personally been exposed to ideas (mainly because I was young) like never hit children, it's OK to cut contact with an abusive family, that circumcision on babies is wrong and that you should structure your life to spend a great deal of time with your children if you want to be a parent. They've all pretty much stuck with me until today. Plus a bunch of interesting in theory libertarian stuff, although I'm so far away from many of his positions it's almost comical (I'm the kind of person that wants high income and capital gains taxes and 100% inheritance taxes to fund a basic income), I find it a good diff on current society. It's a shame, because if he had progressed towards cuddly-bear Molyneux instead of I-want-to-run-a-cult Molyneux, I think he could have been a positive force instead of the target of what is a pretty well justified ban today.

munificent 6y ago
> if he had progressed towards cuddly-bear Molyneux instead of I-want-to-run-a-cult Molyneux This is an interesting thing I don't hear talked about much. People often criticize social media because it recommends increasingly extreme content to consumers because doing so drives up engagement. But what I hear less often is how the reward systems of social media radicalize producers. If you make your living off YouTube and see that you nuanced, reasoned video essay got 50 views, while you're angry rant got 50,000... you'll start feeling the pressure to make more of the latter. And your natural desire to rationalize your own cognitive dissonance will lead you to believe the things you find yourself spewing. This is why it's so important to get incentive structures right. Because incentives do what they do whether you want them to or not.
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  Yes, that's interesting. And it would yield the same boiling frog effect as recommendation systems getting more extreme, because the existing audience of the creator is slowly getting dragged along. I'm assuming it took years for Molyneux to progress from being a quirky libertarian channel to open hate. There was no single video posted that was like "I've decided I hate women", which would at least give the audience a wake up call so they can decide if they really want to be on this train.
  - munificent 6y ago
    Yes, it's such a weird feedback loop. The leader creates the cult at the same time that the cult creates the leader. At a more innocuous level, you can see a similar progression in a lot of YouTubers if you dig back through their older videos. Many people start out pretty normal and low-key in their videos. But over time, they become more emotive, expressive, and over the top, until eventually you get to "HEY YOUTUBERS IT'S YA BOY HERE SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON YEAH LET'S GET IT STARTED..." I don't think any of them chose to do that, it's just that the feedback loop is hard to fight.

munificent 6y ago

> if he had progressed towards cuddly-bear Molyneux instead of I-want-to-run-a-cult Molyneux This is an interesting thing I don't hear talked about much. People often criticize social media because it recommends increasingly extreme content to consumers because doing so drives up engagement. But what I hear less often is how the reward systems of social media radicalize producers. If you make your living off YouTube and see that you nuanced, reasoned video essay got 50 views, while you're angry rant got 50,000... you'll start feeling the pressure to make more of the latter. And your natural desire to rationalize your own cognitive dissonance will lead you to believe the things you find yourself spewing. This is why it's so important to get incentive structures right. Because incentives do what they do whether you want them to or not.

reitzensteinm 6y ago
Yes, that's interesting. And it would yield the same boiling frog effect as recommendation systems getting more extreme, because the existing audience of the creator is slowly getting dragged along. I'm assuming it took years for Molyneux to progress from being a quirky libertarian channel to open hate. There was no single video posted that was like "I've decided I hate women", which would at least give the audience a wake up call so they can decide if they really want to be on this train.
- munificent 6y ago
  Yes, it's such a weird feedback loop. The leader creates the cult at the same time that the cult creates the leader. At a more innocuous level, you can see a similar progression in a lot of YouTubers if you dig back through their older videos. Many people start out pretty normal and low-key in their videos. But over time, they become more emotive, expressive, and over the top, until eventually you get to "HEY YOUTUBERS IT'S YA BOY HERE SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON YEAH LET'S GET IT STARTED..." I don't think any of them chose to do that, it's just that the feedback loop is hard to fight.