3 ms·
Ok, the way you read the article is an idea I can agree with. I still think the author's intent is more aggressive than you think, though. He repeatedly refers
by piaste 5y ago
Ok, the way you read the article is an idea I can agree with.
I still think the author's intent is more aggressive than you think, though. He repeatedly refers to Twitter bullshit as an example of low-density content he thinks one should consume, among other things. He also refers positively to extreme behaviours such as shitposting and FOMO. The creepy "become part of the GSCITC!" encouragement doesn't seem like it would fit passively browsing Instagram, it sounds like he expects active interactions.
- velcrovan 5y agoI believe he is writing to people like himself who are already shitposters and habitual trawlers at the low-density end of things. He is telling these people there is no point in forcing themselves downward off their natural level of online activity, and that in fact there are downsides to doing so. FOMO is functional in the sense that it is signaling to you that there are costs to self-isolation, and in fact you can conceive how FOMO evolves as a beneficial instinct in a social species. The question of whether less-online people should force themselves to be much more online than they typically are is not something I think the article even contemplates; at least, I hadn’t considered it before now. I’ll probably ask the author on Twitter about it. But either way, that difference is probably key in explaining our differing responses to the article.