3 ms·

> On the contrary, I find it that very few average people are interested in anything but gossip. I'd actually agree with that statement, but with a gigantic ca

by ffsm8 2y ago

> On the contrary, I find it that very few average people are interested in anything but gossip. I'd actually agree with that statement, but with a gigantic caveat: everyone loves "gossip", but only if it's about people in their own life. And Twitter only provides this gossip for celebrities. Let's do a thought experiment: let's say Taylor Swift decided to announce that she's pregnant on Twitter (random example). Now image you ask the first 100 people you encounter on the street. Journalists would be interested for sure, and yet... The people on the street won't care whatsoever.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
I still disagree with your caveat, which I mentioned in the previous reply: people are after social objects, so the gossip very much doesn't have to be about people in their own life - it just has to be about people they're paying attention to, or caring to gossip about. Taylor Swift? I don't know, but probably yes for large segments of the US population. For near-universal worldwide gossip success, try mentioning Trump. For those above 30, Obama and Bush will also work. We may be past peak celebrity gossip, but politics always works. Which is why it's banned to talk about in polite company. (And yes, I'm counting talking about political issues as gossip too, because even if it's about multiple people or no one in particular, the level of understanding and quality of exchanged "knowledge" is the same as when conversing about random actors' extramarital affairs.) Otherwise, a big part in two people getting to know each other and bonding is in learning what topics they're both interested in gossiping about. What journalists are interested in as people doesn't really matter. Journalism is long past that, and 100% devoted to ad impressions now. Which means journalists (are told/allowed to) wite about things the paper expects will interest people. If they're writing a lot about celebrities, they're likely right that this will interest a lot of people. Meanwhile, social media - like Twitter - is algorithmically self-organizing for engagement, which means it's a prime tool to discover what most people care about (in a hooked up drug addict sense) in real-time.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  > Taylor Swift? I don't know, but probably yes for large segments of the US population. For near-universal worldwide gossip success, try mentioning Trump. Less then 0.01% of the global population cares about what trump says on Twitter. Significantly more care about Tylor Swift. I personally don't care what either of them post there. Nor has anyone I've worked with to date. You're living in a tech bubble
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > Less then 0.01% of the global population cares about what trump says on Twitter. No, that's what they say, because it's fashionable to say they're Not Like Trump, and Do Not Like Trump. But being able to state and insist on that necessitates caring about what shenanigans Trump is (accused of) pulling any given moment, which is why if you try and ask, you'll get strongly emotional reactions out of approximately everyone. If they genuinely didn't care, they'd roll their eyes or be confused about who the fuck Trump is anyway. Now, I picked Trump because it's one current politician that approximately everyone on the planet has an opinion about, by virtue of him being the president of the United States, and the United States having nukes and aircraft carriers parked in everyone else's rectums. But beyond Trump and Obama and maybe GWBush, you'll get this reaction when mentioning locally relevant politicians and political structures (like, everyone in the EU has an opinion on "the EU"). > You're living in a tech bubble Am I? "Don't care what [politician, celebrities] post [on Twitter]" is a distinctly tech-bubble attitude. Normies outside of the bubble are busy throwing shit about their current misinterpretation of a social media article misinterpretation of a misquote of a local politician, and/or commenting under reaction videos to some pathological YouTube vlogger reacting to the newest pathology on TikTok.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      > Now, I picked Trump because it's one current politician that approximately everyone on the planet has an opinion about In a global audience, very few people care at the moment. That won't change until he comes back into office and starts to use these nukes. I encourage you to actually interact with native people on the street the next time you go on a trip abroad. It is very rare to find someone interested in US politics that doesn't live in the USA. American pop culture, which is what I consider Tylor Swift to be a part of, continues to have strong influence globally. Though that's also on a diminishing trend - mainly because their productions have been getting way worse over the last decade (at least wrt movies and TV shows) /Edit: we've also gotten quite offtopic with this discussion, because being interested in trump is something very different to caring about what he writes on Twitter

by ffsm8 2y ago

TeMPOraL 2y ago

I still disagree with your caveat, which I mentioned in the previous reply: people are after social objects, so the gossip very much doesn't have to be about people in their own life - it just has to be about people they're paying attention to, or caring to gossip about. Taylor Swift? I don't know, but probably yes for large segments of the US population. For near-universal worldwide gossip success, try mentioning Trump. For those above 30, Obama and Bush will also work. We may be past peak celebrity gossip, but politics always works. Which is why it's banned to talk about in polite company. (And yes, I'm counting talking about political issues as gossip too, because even if it's about multiple people or no one in particular, the level of understanding and quality of exchanged "knowledge" is the same as when conversing about random actors' extramarital affairs.) Otherwise, a big part in two people getting to know each other and bonding is in learning what topics they're both interested in gossiping about. What journalists are interested in as people doesn't really matter. Journalism is long past that, and 100% devoted to ad impressions now. Which means journalists (are told/allowed to) wite about things the paper expects will interest people. If they're writing a lot about celebrities, they're likely right that this will interest a lot of people. Meanwhile, social media - like Twitter - is algorithmically self-organizing for engagement, which means it's a prime tool to discover what most people care about (in a hooked up drug addict sense) in real-time.

ffsm8 2y ago
> Taylor Swift? I don't know, but probably yes for large segments of the US population. For near-universal worldwide gossip success, try mentioning Trump. Less then 0.01% of the global population cares about what trump says on Twitter. Significantly more care about Tylor Swift. I personally don't care what either of them post there. Nor has anyone I've worked with to date. You're living in a tech bubble
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Less then 0.01% of the global population cares about what trump says on Twitter. No, that's what they say, because it's fashionable to say they're Not Like Trump, and Do Not Like Trump. But being able to state and insist on that necessitates caring about what shenanigans Trump is (accused of) pulling any given moment, which is why if you try and ask, you'll get strongly emotional reactions out of approximately everyone. If they genuinely didn't care, they'd roll their eyes or be confused about who the fuck Trump is anyway. Now, I picked Trump because it's one current politician that approximately everyone on the planet has an opinion about, by virtue of him being the president of the United States, and the United States having nukes and aircraft carriers parked in everyone else's rectums. But beyond Trump and Obama and maybe GWBush, you'll get this reaction when mentioning locally relevant politicians and political structures (like, everyone in the EU has an opinion on "the EU"). > You're living in a tech bubble Am I? "Don't care what [politician, celebrities] post [on Twitter]" is a distinctly tech-bubble attitude. Normies outside of the bubble are busy throwing shit about their current misinterpretation of a social media article misinterpretation of a misquote of a local politician, and/or commenting under reaction videos to some pathological YouTube vlogger reacting to the newest pathology on TikTok.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    > Now, I picked Trump because it's one current politician that approximately everyone on the planet has an opinion about In a global audience, very few people care at the moment. That won't change until he comes back into office and starts to use these nukes. I encourage you to actually interact with native people on the street the next time you go on a trip abroad. It is very rare to find someone interested in US politics that doesn't live in the USA. American pop culture, which is what I consider Tylor Swift to be a part of, continues to have strong influence globally. Though that's also on a diminishing trend - mainly because their productions have been getting way worse over the last decade (at least wrt movies and TV shows) /Edit: we've also gotten quite offtopic with this discussion, because being interested in trump is something very different to caring about what he writes on Twitter