9 ms·

It's so good to see this movement gaining momentum.

Animats 3y ago
Not really. It's too diffuse. The closest thing we have to a counterculture is the MAGA movement, and their leader is a billionaire. No mob is marching up to 3000 Sand Hill Road yelling "String them up!"
- iamdamian 3y ago
  Don't most movements start as diffuse changes in sentiment?
  - cjbgkagh 3y ago
    I think many appear that way but only due to successful astroturfing.
    - iamdamian 3y ago
      According to The Affluent Society [0], a seminal book that established the idea of "conventional wisdom", most movements start with diffuse sentiment changes and then crystallize into a "changing of the guard" only after time has allowed a group to recognize that the general attitude has shifted. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
      - cjbgkagh 3y ago
        The only reason I care what economist think is so that I can best avoid the havok they wreak.
- confoundcofound 3y ago
  The MAGA movement has a strong anti-VC-and-BigTech bent. I wouldn’t be surprised if they do take action.
  - vkou 3y ago
    They also have a strong fascist and cult of personality and authoritarian bent, expecting them to be your saviours is a juice that isn't worth the squeeze.
    - confoundcofound 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - moomoo11 3y ago
      lol. Everyone in politics wants to be someone’s savior.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    The MAGA movement has been coopted, and all the seemingly grassroots activity is being astroturfed by influencers who are being paid by big money. Cooption is not unique to that movement. Others (some on the left) have been coopted as well.
    - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
      The MAGA movement isn't coopted, it's a wholly artificial creation. Some of it is driven by grift (gold coins, prepper supplies, assault weapons...) Some by political opportunism. Some by nihilistic accelerationism. Absolutely none of it is a genuinely organic spontaneous bottom-up movement. That turns out to be one of the worst things about the Internet. It just doesn't amplify culture. Bad actors with significant resources can use it to steer culture. Any billionaire can seed a political movement now, and significantly influence elections. That's a ridiculous amount of power and it has absolutely no democratic oversight. To an extent that's always been true of media ownership. But where early 20th c. print was very much print-and-hope, with the Internet you can get almost instant real-time feedback of how an influence campaign is doing. And if it's not working you can adjust it to order. At some point soon this whole process will fully automated, with AI running bot farms, creating content, supervising and steering forums, and collecting and personalising prospect details, all without human participation.
- worik 3y ago
  >....The closest thing we have to a counterculture is the MAGA movement That is tragic, if true. It is not true, here, thousands of miles, and across an ocean, away (-45.75, 170.57) Counter-cultures pumping here
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Yes, though I wish we had a better town square to organize around
southernplaces7 3y ago
Technology isn't entirely bad, many aspects of our modern digitized word are indeed good and the vast majority of the world at least tacitly agrees with their existence (Doug Rushkoff certainly doesn't stop himself from fully using the "digital revolution" to promote himself. But, one can believe that and also viciously reject swathes of the dehumanizing people-are-data-KPIs-and-eyeballs-to-be-monetized surveillance world of algorithmic controls, non-human interfaces and other grotesque idiocies perpetuated by modern tech megacorps and their mini techcorp lead followers. Not to even speak of governments taking on the same attitudes. This second aspect of the digital revolution is certainly grotesque and very dangerous.

Not really. It's too diffuse. The closest thing we have to a counterculture is the MAGA movement, and their leader is a billionaire. No mob is marching up to 3000 Sand Hill Road yelling "String them up!"

iamdamian 3y ago
Don't most movements start as diffuse changes in sentiment?
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  I think many appear that way but only due to successful astroturfing.
  - iamdamian 3y ago
    According to The Affluent Society [0], a seminal book that established the idea of "conventional wisdom", most movements start with diffuse sentiment changes and then crystallize into a "changing of the guard" only after time has allowed a group to recognize that the general attitude has shifted. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
    - cjbgkagh 3y ago
      The only reason I care what economist think is so that I can best avoid the havok they wreak.
confoundcofound 3y ago
The MAGA movement has a strong anti-VC-and-BigTech bent. I wouldn’t be surprised if they do take action.
- vkou 3y ago
  They also have a strong fascist and cult of personality and authoritarian bent, expecting them to be your saviours is a juice that isn't worth the squeeze.
  - confoundcofound 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - moomoo11 3y ago
    lol. Everyone in politics wants to be someone’s savior.
- r00fus 3y ago
  The MAGA movement has been coopted, and all the seemingly grassroots activity is being astroturfed by influencers who are being paid by big money. Cooption is not unique to that movement. Others (some on the left) have been coopted as well.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    The MAGA movement isn't coopted, it's a wholly artificial creation. Some of it is driven by grift (gold coins, prepper supplies, assault weapons...) Some by political opportunism. Some by nihilistic accelerationism. Absolutely none of it is a genuinely organic spontaneous bottom-up movement. That turns out to be one of the worst things about the Internet. It just doesn't amplify culture. Bad actors with significant resources can use it to steer culture. Any billionaire can seed a political movement now, and significantly influence elections. That's a ridiculous amount of power and it has absolutely no democratic oversight. To an extent that's always been true of media ownership. But where early 20th c. print was very much print-and-hope, with the Internet you can get almost instant real-time feedback of how an influence campaign is doing. And if it's not working you can adjust it to order. At some point soon this whole process will fully automated, with AI running bot farms, creating content, supervising and steering forums, and collecting and personalising prospect details, all without human participation.
worik 3y ago
>....The closest thing we have to a counterculture is the MAGA movement That is tragic, if true. It is not true, here, thousands of miles, and across an ocean, away (-45.75, 170.57) Counter-cultures pumping here

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

Yes, though I wish we had a better town square to organize around

southernplaces7 3y ago

Technology isn't entirely bad, many aspects of our modern digitized word are indeed good and the vast majority of the world at least tacitly agrees with their existence (Doug Rushkoff certainly doesn't stop himself from fully using the "digital revolution" to promote himself. But, one can believe that and also viciously reject swathes of the dehumanizing people-are-data-KPIs-and-eyeballs-to-be-monetized surveillance world of algorithmic controls, non-human interfaces and other grotesque idiocies perpetuated by modern tech megacorps and their mini techcorp lead followers. Not to even speak of governments taking on the same attitudes. This second aspect of the digital revolution is certainly grotesque and very dangerous.