9 ms·

Still reading the article, but this is an interesting blurb if nothing else: "To be truly countercultural today, in a time of tech hegemony, one has to, above

Still reading the article, but this is an interesting blurb if nothing else: "To be truly countercultural today, in a time of tech hegemony, one has to, above all, betray the platform, which may come in the form of betraying or divesting from your public online self." I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space as being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought.

lukebuehler 6y ago
I think there is something similar at work with decentralized platforms: they might never be as slick as their centralized counterparts, but it’s a kind of ascetic choice that opens new doors.
- edrxty 6y ago
  I find this is a good way to learn. Comfortable mega-platforms don't really foster anything productive (generalizing, obviously) but when you start to play with the bleeding edge decentralized options it allows you see "what could be". Trying to rid my life of google has opened all sorts of doors. If you're a tinkerer there are a plethora of options available for you to customize your experience and discover new capabilities.
- AshleighBasil 6y ago
  Do people perceive popular platform UI's as 'slick'? To me they always seemed like a mess that is insane to navigate because the company's massive org chart digests into a massive turd that gets smeared over the landing page. Facebook is the worst, but they all seem to have this problem.
  - mordechai9000 6y ago
    I think there is something slick about them, if you just go with what they put in front of you. Don't try to navigate beyond a very high level, just take what it brings and hope for that momentary reward that comes from the likes and the comments.
  - achairapart 6y ago
    One big problem with decentralized platforms is that, while technologically and conceptually fascinating, they offer a complex and not average-user-friendly UX. Users are so inured by the down-to-earth, nanny-ready, repetitive and instant-gratification driven UIs of mainstream platforms that many of them have a hard time just understanding where to start with the decentralized ones.
    - AshleighBasil 6y ago
      What part of PeerTube's UX is complex compared to Youtube? You just click the videos and search in the search box. To leave comments you type them and click submit. Uploading a video is also WAY easier than Youtube, because Youtube assumes you've used their interface a ton, so they don't have to try to make it as friendly. Dominant players tend to think that way - I'm the big guy so YOU should have to learn to think like ME
      - achairapart 6y ago
        But to just open an account, average Joe (and his grandma) has to grasp the concept of an "instance", which is confusing because it's so different to his habit of just digit the letter y on his browser or tap the Youtube icon on his smartphone. Also, he doesn't need to use the search box at all most of the time, because his feed is powered by algos that are programmed on the same lines of those found in slot machines. So he just keep scrolling, like a gambler keeps pulling the slot bar at a casino. So, like I said, the fediverse is a fascinating concept, but, at least at this time, is for people who explicitly want a different kind of experience, because its UX can't compete with mainstream social media. And perhaps, this may be also a good thing.
1propionyl 6y ago
The analogy to Cixin Liu's "dark forest" concept also seems apt and enlightening. (Basically: it's a game theoretic response to the Fermi Paradox that suggests that any sensible galactic civilization would avoid making contact with any other civilization and attempt to stay hidden.) More and more over the past few years, I've seen my own social circles migrate away from public forums like Facebook and Twitter and into private WhatsApp group chats, Discord groups, and so on. In some cases these are groups of people I know in real life, and in some cases everyone is anonymous or pseudonymous. And there is definitely an unspoken rule of "don't unilaterally invite anyone, don't advertise that this group exists, stay hidden, we like what we have going on here." It's in some ways a reversion to the style of older private Usenet/BBS/IRC channels, but in other respects it's a lateral move. For one, it's still mostly happening on centralized platforms. What I think is interesting is how our media ecology (in the sense of media as means we communicate and express ourselves, not "mass media") is an interplay between these big public spaces and a proliferation of smaller private spaces. It's not _just_ a dark forest, there's also a bright canopy into which people emerge, forage, and carry back down into the forest.
- jaspax 6y ago
  The Dark Forest analogy strikes me as apt as well. All of the best (most interesting, most active, most insightful) groups that I belong to are off of the public internet these days. Some of them are just small Discord servers, some are even more heavily encrypted groups on Signal, Mattermost, or Mastadon. But what they have in common is that not everyone is welcome, and we don't even advertise our presence.
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  The thing that I hate about what social media has done is that it is resistant to persistance of knowledge. I grew up in the heyday of forums (late 90s to mid-late 00s). It seems like a lot of these groups have moved to facebook (or discord, or whatsapp), and now a lot of that knowledge for specialty stuff is unsearchable and behind a wall. One of my hobbies is boatbuilding, and there is a LOT of good material that is still available on forums since they just happily sit there seemingly forever, and are easy to archive. But a lot of the new stuff is now done on FB, and it means that knowledge gets pushed to the bottom of the feed, and it is impossible to archive. My feeling is that the switch to algorithmic feed-based discussion is a serious regression for a lot of interest groups. An excellent illustration of this is Stack Overflow. They take after the forum model of preserving knowledge to the degree that they shut down discussions that have happened before. Stack Overflow's database of solutions brings literally billions in value to the world, and it simply would not work without persistance of information.
Der_Einzige 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming
bluefirebrand 6y ago
> I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space as being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought I think the interesting part is that it's kind of counter-culture but it itself is not really a culture at all. There are no groups (as far as I know) for people who eschew social media. They don't meet up at the pub and talk about it, they don't have any kind of organization, even a loose one. People just kind of decide to wash their hands of Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and such, then go about their lives. I don't think they generally feel a part of some larger culture (or counter-culture) Maybe I'm wrong about that. To me though it almost seems like a stand-alone complex.
- planet-and-halo 6y ago
  As one of these people, totally agree. I don't really have people I sympathize with over this stuff (except a few friends with whom its a minor topic of conversation) or anything I'd consider a culture. Mostly I just deleted my accounts and moved on. On the other hand, despite the lack of other people to commiserate with, it does feel a little countercultural insofar as I'm doing something different from most people, and it sticks out on occasion.
  - iYNGcKqrdNPPmcA 6y ago
    I've similarly ghosted social networks and other "platforms" some years back. A culture is usually formed around shared experience. In the case of social media escapists there are two sets of shared experiences: The escapists themselves are simply living their lives as usual. This sort of baseline human experience is a rare thing these days, but it doesn't get much exposure because escapists aren't likely to go out of their way to broadcast their experiences - that would be antithetical to the idea of disconnecting from social media. Other people are wondering where the escapists have gone. Did they die? Move to Mars? Get convicted of a major crime and sentenced to a long stint in state prison? This too takes places quietly: it's not as if anyone's mounting a nationwide search to locate the escapists. These experiences to me form a kind of bifurcated culture.
    - 6y ago
ghgdynb1 6y ago
How about exit from the platforms while continuing to build on the Internet? balajis.com vs twitter.com/balajis
- lmarcos 6y ago
  I've been thinking exactly that. The problem is that the average internet user would have to: - buy a domain name (and pay for it every year) - rent hosting (cheapest provider is probably DO at 5$/month) - setup your machine so that it's secure enough it doesn't end up hacked - setup whatever is needed to publish content in your machine (could be as simple as HTML, but then the average internet user doesn't know HTML. It could be wordpress... But then you have to install it by yourself) It's a lot of hassle for the average internet user. The worst case scenario: you end up paying ~70$/year for something you have no idea how to setup property. Beast case scenario: some startup takes over the hassle for you for "only" 50$/year... But that's not that different from Facebook (except that you would "own" a domain name and a host you have no idea how to "own").
  - Jakobeha 6y ago
    I don't think it's that hard or expensive to build and host a static site. You could even use github.io if you're desperate. Hard for the average person? Probably, because most people aren't good with technology. But there are a lot of tools and support out there, for anyone motivated enough to learn.
pochamago 6y ago
"To be truly countercultural in a time of literate hegemony, you must become illiterate"
- TacticalCoder 6y ago
  What's posted on social networks makes you feel like we live in a time of literate hegemony?
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The fact the contents are text and many prefer texting to voice calls for one? It may not be high art or even proper grammar but it is still literate. Plus it demonstrates how vacuous defining something by what it is not really is - you can put anything in that hole. To give a deliberately stupid as possible version - have you ever eaten toxic ocean snails? No? Then you are part of the not eating ocean cone snails hedgemony oppressing us all by their force of the not eating ocean snail ways.
aeturnum 6y ago
In an age of corporate sponsored wildly increasing visibility & reach, it's a counter-cultural act to forgo visibilty & reach for other goals.
franklampard 6y ago
Really? Isn’t it already trendy to bash big tech and diss tech platforms?
- akurzon 6y ago
  I think so, but for most people it doesn't stop them from using the platforms. And then the criticism doesn't amount to much.
crocodiletears 6y ago
I wouldn't call it counter-culture. Sounds more like taking a prominent cultural metanarrative about the evils of social media (which has been authored and perpetuated by many papers of record over the last several years), and embracing its implicit call to action. It's play-acting rebellion in a pre-aproved manner
8bitchemistry 6y ago
> I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space as being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought. The only winning move is not to play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw
lambda_obrien 6y ago
Well, if everyone is an attention seeker online trying to pitch their own line of BS and side hustling, then not using social media, or being genuine there, is counter to culture.
SyzygistSix 6y ago
I don't think the article gets to the heart of the matter of why online platforms are not countercultural. The main reason, in my understanding, is that they still are selling the vision of the individual as rebel, and individual expression as our unique combination of consumer choices; Instagram is the perfect example and the logical conclusion of Individual Choice being our highest expression. Nothing about that dynamic is countercultural any more. There are still online interactions though. Communities trading tracks and collaborating musically online. Torrenting. Open source software projects.

lukebuehler 6y ago

I think there is something similar at work with decentralized platforms: they might never be as slick as their centralized counterparts, but it’s a kind of ascetic choice that opens new doors.

edrxty 6y ago
I find this is a good way to learn. Comfortable mega-platforms don't really foster anything productive (generalizing, obviously) but when you start to play with the bleeding edge decentralized options it allows you see "what could be". Trying to rid my life of google has opened all sorts of doors. If you're a tinkerer there are a plethora of options available for you to customize your experience and discover new capabilities.
AshleighBasil 6y ago
Do people perceive popular platform UI's as 'slick'? To me they always seemed like a mess that is insane to navigate because the company's massive org chart digests into a massive turd that gets smeared over the landing page. Facebook is the worst, but they all seem to have this problem.
- mordechai9000 6y ago
  I think there is something slick about them, if you just go with what they put in front of you. Don't try to navigate beyond a very high level, just take what it brings and hope for that momentary reward that comes from the likes and the comments.
- achairapart 6y ago
  One big problem with decentralized platforms is that, while technologically and conceptually fascinating, they offer a complex and not average-user-friendly UX. Users are so inured by the down-to-earth, nanny-ready, repetitive and instant-gratification driven UIs of mainstream platforms that many of them have a hard time just understanding where to start with the decentralized ones.
  - AshleighBasil 6y ago
    What part of PeerTube's UX is complex compared to Youtube? You just click the videos and search in the search box. To leave comments you type them and click submit. Uploading a video is also WAY easier than Youtube, because Youtube assumes you've used their interface a ton, so they don't have to try to make it as friendly. Dominant players tend to think that way - I'm the big guy so YOU should have to learn to think like ME
    - achairapart 6y ago
      But to just open an account, average Joe (and his grandma) has to grasp the concept of an "instance", which is confusing because it's so different to his habit of just digit the letter y on his browser or tap the Youtube icon on his smartphone. Also, he doesn't need to use the search box at all most of the time, because his feed is powered by algos that are programmed on the same lines of those found in slot machines. So he just keep scrolling, like a gambler keeps pulling the slot bar at a casino. So, like I said, the fediverse is a fascinating concept, but, at least at this time, is for people who explicitly want a different kind of experience, because its UX can't compete with mainstream social media. And perhaps, this may be also a good thing.

1propionyl 6y ago

The analogy to Cixin Liu's "dark forest" concept also seems apt and enlightening. (Basically: it's a game theoretic response to the Fermi Paradox that suggests that any sensible galactic civilization would avoid making contact with any other civilization and attempt to stay hidden.) More and more over the past few years, I've seen my own social circles migrate away from public forums like Facebook and Twitter and into private WhatsApp group chats, Discord groups, and so on. In some cases these are groups of people I know in real life, and in some cases everyone is anonymous or pseudonymous. And there is definitely an unspoken rule of "don't unilaterally invite anyone, don't advertise that this group exists, stay hidden, we like what we have going on here." It's in some ways a reversion to the style of older private Usenet/BBS/IRC channels, but in other respects it's a lateral move. For one, it's still mostly happening on centralized platforms. What I think is interesting is how our media ecology (in the sense of media as means we communicate and express ourselves, not "mass media") is an interplay between these big public spaces and a proliferation of smaller private spaces. It's not _just_ a dark forest, there's also a bright canopy into which people emerge, forage, and carry back down into the forest.

jaspax 6y ago
The Dark Forest analogy strikes me as apt as well. All of the best (most interesting, most active, most insightful) groups that I belong to are off of the public internet these days. Some of them are just small Discord servers, some are even more heavily encrypted groups on Signal, Mattermost, or Mastadon. But what they have in common is that not everyone is welcome, and we don't even advertise our presence.
dghlsakjg 6y ago
The thing that I hate about what social media has done is that it is resistant to persistance of knowledge. I grew up in the heyday of forums (late 90s to mid-late 00s). It seems like a lot of these groups have moved to facebook (or discord, or whatsapp), and now a lot of that knowledge for specialty stuff is unsearchable and behind a wall. One of my hobbies is boatbuilding, and there is a LOT of good material that is still available on forums since they just happily sit there seemingly forever, and are easy to archive. But a lot of the new stuff is now done on FB, and it means that knowledge gets pushed to the bottom of the feed, and it is impossible to archive. My feeling is that the switch to algorithmic feed-based discussion is a serious regression for a lot of interest groups. An excellent illustration of this is Stack Overflow. They take after the forum model of preserving knowledge to the degree that they shut down discussions that have happened before. Stack Overflow's database of solutions brings literally billions in value to the world, and it simply would not work without persistance of information.

Der_Einzige 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming

bluefirebrand 6y ago

> I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space as being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought I think the interesting part is that it's kind of counter-culture but it itself is not really a culture at all. There are no groups (as far as I know) for people who eschew social media. They don't meet up at the pub and talk about it, they don't have any kind of organization, even a loose one. People just kind of decide to wash their hands of Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and such, then go about their lives. I don't think they generally feel a part of some larger culture (or counter-culture) Maybe I'm wrong about that. To me though it almost seems like a stand-alone complex.

planet-and-halo 6y ago
As one of these people, totally agree. I don't really have people I sympathize with over this stuff (except a few friends with whom its a minor topic of conversation) or anything I'd consider a culture. Mostly I just deleted my accounts and moved on. On the other hand, despite the lack of other people to commiserate with, it does feel a little countercultural insofar as I'm doing something different from most people, and it sticks out on occasion.
- iYNGcKqrdNPPmcA 6y ago
  I've similarly ghosted social networks and other "platforms" some years back. A culture is usually formed around shared experience. In the case of social media escapists there are two sets of shared experiences: The escapists themselves are simply living their lives as usual. This sort of baseline human experience is a rare thing these days, but it doesn't get much exposure because escapists aren't likely to go out of their way to broadcast their experiences - that would be antithetical to the idea of disconnecting from social media. Other people are wondering where the escapists have gone. Did they die? Move to Mars? Get convicted of a major crime and sentenced to a long stint in state prison? This too takes places quietly: it's not as if anyone's mounting a nationwide search to locate the escapists. These experiences to me form a kind of bifurcated culture.
  - 6y ago

ghgdynb1 6y ago

How about exit from the platforms while continuing to build on the Internet? balajis.com vs twitter.com/balajis

lmarcos 6y ago
I've been thinking exactly that. The problem is that the average internet user would have to: - buy a domain name (and pay for it every year) - rent hosting (cheapest provider is probably DO at 5$/month) - setup your machine so that it's secure enough it doesn't end up hacked - setup whatever is needed to publish content in your machine (could be as simple as HTML, but then the average internet user doesn't know HTML. It could be wordpress... But then you have to install it by yourself) It's a lot of hassle for the average internet user. The worst case scenario: you end up paying ~70$/year for something you have no idea how to setup property. Beast case scenario: some startup takes over the hassle for you for "only" 50$/year... But that's not that different from Facebook (except that you would "own" a domain name and a host you have no idea how to "own").
- Jakobeha 6y ago
  I don't think it's that hard or expensive to build and host a static site. You could even use github.io if you're desperate. Hard for the average person? Probably, because most people aren't good with technology. But there are a lot of tools and support out there, for anyone motivated enough to learn.

pochamago 6y ago

"To be truly countercultural in a time of literate hegemony, you must become illiterate"

TacticalCoder 6y ago
What's posted on social networks makes you feel like we live in a time of literate hegemony?
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The fact the contents are text and many prefer texting to voice calls for one? It may not be high art or even proper grammar but it is still literate. Plus it demonstrates how vacuous defining something by what it is not really is - you can put anything in that hole. To give a deliberately stupid as possible version - have you ever eaten toxic ocean snails? No? Then you are part of the not eating ocean cone snails hedgemony oppressing us all by their force of the not eating ocean snail ways.

aeturnum 6y ago

In an age of corporate sponsored wildly increasing visibility & reach, it's a counter-cultural act to forgo visibilty & reach for other goals.

franklampard 6y ago

Really? Isn’t it already trendy to bash big tech and diss tech platforms?

akurzon 6y ago
I think so, but for most people it doesn't stop them from using the platforms. And then the criticism doesn't amount to much.

crocodiletears 6y ago

I wouldn't call it counter-culture. Sounds more like taking a prominent cultural metanarrative about the evils of social media (which has been authored and perpetuated by many papers of record over the last several years), and embracing its implicit call to action. It's play-acting rebellion in a pre-aproved manner

8bitchemistry 6y ago

> I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space as being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought. The only winning move is not to play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw

lambda_obrien 6y ago

Well, if everyone is an attention seeker online trying to pitch their own line of BS and side hustling, then not using social media, or being genuine there, is counter to culture.

SyzygistSix 6y ago

I don't think the article gets to the heart of the matter of why online platforms are not countercultural. The main reason, in my understanding, is that they still are selling the vision of the individual as rebel, and individual expression as our unique combination of consumer choices; Instagram is the perfect example and the logical conclusion of Individual Choice being our highest expression. Nothing about that dynamic is countercultural any more. There are still online interactions though. Communities trading tracks and collaborating musically online. Torrenting. Open source software projects.