5 ms·

This post treats the constant stream of "new public intellectuals" as some kind of organic, natural phenomenon. It's not, these people reach the top of your You

This post treats the constant stream of "new public intellectuals" as some kind of organic, natural phenomenon. It's not, these people reach the top of your YouTube feed because someone wants them there. There's nothing organic about Eric Weinstein or Lex Fridman. People on this site are quick to call something "enshittification" when there are some obvious cash-grabs by megacorps, but are reluctant to admit that the algorithm feeding you content is manipulating you in a similar way. > And take note when one doesn’t fall, study them the hardest. I did, and they subsequently got banned from every social network, and even their website isn't linkable from Facebook or X or YouTube.

hnreport 3y ago
There's nothing organic about Eric Weinstein or Lex Fridman. Do we know how this was done before? Let’s say you are a hit broadcast network, and you have these new hit shows called Friends and Family Matters. What’s your plan as a broadcast company now? Should the TV company organically wait to see what kind of TV shows audiences want to see? Or should they create 10 shows that copy Friends and Family Matters, each targeting a different demo (you know, like black people, or women). So, if you want to build a loose network of content creators, with your fulcrum being like a Rogan for the general demographic, with a contrived character like a Friedman being the “nerd”. So the loop here is you cast a wide net with Rogan, then niche them down to your Jocko’s, Friedman’s, etc. Rogan doesn’t disclose when he does Ad drops anymore either. So he’s a really bad actor at this point. Like yeah Joe, you just talked about McDonalds for 10 minutes for free again on an episode with 10 million listeners huh? Oh, talking about the latest movie in theaters again? As if that’s not a 5 minute ‘hey McDonald’s, we can leave this 7 minutes in about how your Coca Cola tastes better than regular Coca Cola, or we can just edit it out. I’m sorry? Did we say edit out? What we meant was, how about like 30 million for 6 month campaign? No? Okay, see ya. No, we never recorded anything about McDonald’s soda tasting better.
petesergeant 3y ago
> these people reach the top of your YouTube feed because someone wants them there Who wanted Lex Fridman there, and how did they achieve getting him there? (I've only a passing knowledge of who that is, and haven't heard of Eric Weinstein at all)
- WJW 3y ago
  Probaly Lex Fridman himself, and then he paid a lot of marketing specialists to get that done.
DontchaKnowit 3y ago
What makes you think Eric and Lex are not organic? Certainly both are well connected, but do you really think someone at youtube tapped them to be famous? Idk where the line between organic and inorganic is, but I highly doubt youtube sat down in a meeti g with Lex and said "youve been chosen, were gonna blow your channel up"
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
  Why not? Sans the actual sitting down with the person, that seems entirely unnecessary. We know the reverse is definitely true, people actually do get deplatformed, so why is it unreasonable to think at least some winners have been picked?
  - petesergeant 3y ago
    > Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- itsnotabtmoney 3y ago
  We know that Youtube can put their fingers on the scales of their algorithm, and that they do. It's probably a single variable like `multiplier` in their hotness formula that is a default of 1.00. Lex Fridman gets insane reach beyond the quality or popularity of his content. But it's not about a single person. It's that these midwit pseudointellectuals (Peterson, Weinstein) can constantly get churned through the top of the algorithm. People like the guy who wrote this initial post, in turn, think that there are no political discussions going on deeper than dumbed down, often misused regurgitated political philosophy from much smarter thinkers of the past.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It really seems like Lex Fridman was boosted as a "safe Joe Rogan", a stoner/intellectual/macho podcaster guy, but one who won't lead his audiences into conspiracy theory territory. Or maybe it just seems that way to me because Lex obviously idolizes Joe Rogan and either smokes too much weed before his interviews or acts as if he does. I really can't wrap my mind around how he managed to get so many high profile guests so fast, except to guess that his father's connections had a lot to do with it. Every part of his meteoric rise seems inorganic to me.
pjc50 3y ago
> I did, and they subsequently got banned from every social network, and even their website isn't linkable from Facebook or X or YouTube. Those constitute "fallen".
intalentive 3y ago
>they subsequently got banned Which wrongthinker are you referring to?

hnreport 3y ago

There's nothing organic about Eric Weinstein or Lex Fridman. Do we know how this was done before? Let’s say you are a hit broadcast network, and you have these new hit shows called Friends and Family Matters. What’s your plan as a broadcast company now? Should the TV company organically wait to see what kind of TV shows audiences want to see? Or should they create 10 shows that copy Friends and Family Matters, each targeting a different demo (you know, like black people, or women). So, if you want to build a loose network of content creators, with your fulcrum being like a Rogan for the general demographic, with a contrived character like a Friedman being the “nerd”. So the loop here is you cast a wide net with Rogan, then niche them down to your Jocko’s, Friedman’s, etc. Rogan doesn’t disclose when he does Ad drops anymore either. So he’s a really bad actor at this point. Like yeah Joe, you just talked about McDonalds for 10 minutes for free again on an episode with 10 million listeners huh? Oh, talking about the latest movie in theaters again? As if that’s not a 5 minute ‘hey McDonald’s, we can leave this 7 minutes in about how your Coca Cola tastes better than regular Coca Cola, or we can just edit it out. I’m sorry? Did we say edit out? What we meant was, how about like 30 million for 6 month campaign? No? Okay, see ya. No, we never recorded anything about McDonald’s soda tasting better.

petesergeant 3y ago

> these people reach the top of your YouTube feed because someone wants them there Who wanted Lex Fridman there, and how did they achieve getting him there? (I've only a passing knowledge of who that is, and haven't heard of Eric Weinstein at all)

WJW 3y ago
Probaly Lex Fridman himself, and then he paid a lot of marketing specialists to get that done.

DontchaKnowit 3y ago

What makes you think Eric and Lex are not organic? Certainly both are well connected, but do you really think someone at youtube tapped them to be famous? Idk where the line between organic and inorganic is, but I highly doubt youtube sat down in a meeti g with Lex and said "youve been chosen, were gonna blow your channel up"

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
Why not? Sans the actual sitting down with the person, that seems entirely unnecessary. We know the reverse is definitely true, people actually do get deplatformed, so why is it unreasonable to think at least some winners have been picked?
- petesergeant 3y ago
  > Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
itsnotabtmoney 3y ago
We know that Youtube can put their fingers on the scales of their algorithm, and that they do. It's probably a single variable like `multiplier` in their hotness formula that is a default of 1.00. Lex Fridman gets insane reach beyond the quality or popularity of his content. But it's not about a single person. It's that these midwit pseudointellectuals (Peterson, Weinstein) can constantly get churned through the top of the algorithm. People like the guy who wrote this initial post, in turn, think that there are no political discussions going on deeper than dumbed down, often misused regurgitated political philosophy from much smarter thinkers of the past.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  It really seems like Lex Fridman was boosted as a "safe Joe Rogan", a stoner/intellectual/macho podcaster guy, but one who won't lead his audiences into conspiracy theory territory. Or maybe it just seems that way to me because Lex obviously idolizes Joe Rogan and either smokes too much weed before his interviews or acts as if he does. I really can't wrap my mind around how he managed to get so many high profile guests so fast, except to guess that his father's connections had a lot to do with it. Every part of his meteoric rise seems inorganic to me.

pjc50 3y ago

> I did, and they subsequently got banned from every social network, and even their website isn't linkable from Facebook or X or YouTube. Those constitute "fallen".

intalentive 3y ago

>they subsequently got banned Which wrongthinker are you referring to?