Eh, what you’ve identified as the thesis is actually just a butt-covering footnote to prevent Reddit-style “ackchually” comments. When I wrote it I was still submitting posts to Reddit. I guess that’s on me for assuming the central point was more obvious.

For sure, they also don’t congregate in Williamsburg much anymore.

Something I think about a lot is how the “hipster” movement in the early 2000s was extremely anti- consumer culture. They were building easy to repair “fixie” bikes instead of driving cars, they were brewing their own beer and buying/mending clothes they bought second hand. They were moving to abandoned factory loft apartments in similarly abandoned urban areas.

Then, the artists living in lofts, making zines and and knitting sweaters got priced out. And now in pop culture the term “hipster” has largely replaced “yuppie” to mean an elitist, snobby, and extremely pro consumer culture sort of person, which is basically the opposite of what the young people in the early 2000s were doing. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but I have to imagine that the big corps saw the movement as a threat, and did an classic rebrand on them, like car companies did with the minivan to sell more SUVs.

The feedback loop is the most disturbing part, IMO. You have an algorithm deciding what gets popular, which means creatives hoping to be financially sustainable have to cater to it to some degree, which reinforces the algorithm and removes a little bit of uniqueness from society.

Creative people have always had to consider"what sells" to some degree if they want to make money from their effort, but we’ve gone beyond artists making “art with some degrees of marketability” into making products called “art” with little of the emotional/intellectual "challenge’ that comes with unique works.

My first reaction was that this excerpt reminds me of a piece I wrote two years ago called “The Airbnb-ification of the arts”, about how artists looking to make a career out of art are forced to cater to an algorithm that favors comfortable predictability over depth or uniqueness. My essay was heavily inspired by Kyle Chayka’s famous 2016 essay “Welcome to Airspace”.

Jokes on me for not reading the byline because it turns out Kyle wrote the book this excerpt is from! lol good for him. Looking forward to reading it.

I’m curious to know if he has a presence on Mastodon or any other Social Web apps, he’s a really great writer I’d like to follow.

Haha I know that made me chuckle too

It’s unfortunatley really, really hard to get noticed whatsoever as an artist without social media these days if you don’t have any industry connections.

Wow, I’ve never heard music with such a stunning lack of soul before! 10/10 I bought every album.

Exactly, well said.

When I switched to Substack it was just a Mailchimp alternative (I don’t think Mailchimp moderates what they send out either). They were a service, not a platform. But since then Substack has added a lot of social elements. And now that I’ve been made aware of their stance, I’m planning my exit ASAP.

Exactly. FTA:

"Trust and safety” departments are kinda like “Human Resources” departments. They exist to help the company avoid expensive lawsuits and expensive PR blunders. These departments, I assume, are comprised of good-hearted people who care deeply about their work and the well being of others. But they are fighting a battle that the companies do not actually want to end.

It’s literally in the article lol

Very well said all around, (and in many fewer words than it took me) I may actually quote you in the future! Hadn’t seen that 2018(!) Esquire article before today either. Kind of sad “Twitter without Nazis” wasn’t a more compelling selling point. Just speaks to the power of network effects, I suppose.

I look at that as as proof it wasn’t written by GPT.

Yeah. People should have a right to speak their mind, but on the Fediverse nobody is forced to listen and therein lies the difference, IMO.

The success metric is a vibrant, happy community, not MAUs or engagement numbers, so they make decisions accordingly.

YES well said. An instance is measured by it’s quality, not it’s profitability.

Any civility rule that is enforced with greater priority than (or in the absence of) a “no bigotry” rule serves only to protect bigots from decent people.

There’s a saying I think about a lot that goes “The problem with rules is that good people don’t need 'em, and bad people will find a way around 'em”.

The best thing about human volunteer mods vs automated tools or paid “trust and safety” teams, IMO, is that volunteer humans can better identify when someone is participating in the spirit of a community, because the mods themselves are usually members of the community too.

Yeah, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the Fediverse doesn’t solve any of the problems that come up when a bunch of people talk about stuff they’re passionate about. The problems Federation solves is the incentivizing and spotlighting of the sorts of toxic behavior we see on corporate social media.

If a Fediverse instance grew so big that it couldn’t moderate itself and had a lot of spam/Nazis, presumably other instances would just defederate, yeah? Unless an instance is ad-supported, what’s the incentive to grow beyond one’s ability to stay under control?

I fear if these federated systems do grow popular enough

If an instance did grow “too big to moderate”, it would surely be defederated from, yeah? I’m struggling to think of a situation where responsible admins from well-moderated instances would willingly subject their users to spammers from an instance (no matter how big) that can’t control itself.