Oh damn good to know. I do a lot of work with one of the UCs. We were happy to stop work during the grad student strike a few years ago and we’ll be happy to do it again. Thanks for posting!

Props to her, and this is intended as a friendly comment between people on the same side, but I think this can be dangerous.

Chomsky famously noted that brevity is inherently conservative, and that’s actually a pretty profound observation. Any time that you are brief to an audience that doesn’t have much context, your message is going to pick up conservative baggage. Just imagine debating someone on how American imperialism is bad in front of a crowd that has never questioned USA as the bastion of freedom and democracy in the world. Your opponent just has to say “freedom” and “support the troops” and “9/11” as pre-canned concepts with a lot of power and imagery, whereas you’re going to have to spend a ton of words unpacking all that. Any time that you say freedom, you’re going to have to explain what you mean, or the audience will interpret it as the canned American concept of Freedom™. This is something that the 19th and earliest 20th century anarchists and communists understood intuitively and talked about quite a lot, even if they didn’t articulate it quite as succinctly (lol) as Chomsky did. It’s everywhere in their revolutionary theories.

So, while I do think that it’s important to create effective and engaging short-form agitation and propaganda materials, they should be part of a larger messaging apparatus that leads you to some sort of more profound relationship with politics. Getting the entirety of your politics from short form video will necessarily lead to a shallow and mostly aesthetic understanding of politics, easily exploitable by reactionaries. It’s how you end up with the Red Scare podcast, or MAGA communism, or any of these other aesthetically pseudo-leftist but actually deeply conservative discombobulated ideologies.

edit: also meant to say that it was not a great interview lol.

Haha I was actually paraphrasing myself from last year, but I’ve seen that because lots of readers sent me that article when it came out a few months later, for obvious reasons!

I completely and totally agree with the article that the attention economy in its current manifestation is in crisis, but I’m much less sanguine about the outcomes. The problem with the theory presented here, to me, is that it’s missing a theory of power. The attention economy isn’t an accident, but the result of the inherently political nature of society. Humans, being social animals, gain power by convincing other people of things. From David Graeber (who I’m always quoting lol):

Politics, after all, is the art of persuasion; the political is that dimension of social life in which things really do become true if enough people believe them. The problem is that in order to play the game effectively, one can never acknowledge this: it may be true that, if I could convince everyone in the world that I was the King of France, I would in fact become the King of France; but it would never work if I were to admit that this was the only basis of my claim.

In other words, just because algorithmic social media becomes uninteresting doesn’t mean the death of the attention economy as such, because the attention economy is something innate to humanity, in some form. Today its algorithmic feeds, but 500 years ago it was royal ownership of printing presses.

I think we already see the beginnings of the next round. As an example, the YouTuber Veritsasium has been doing educational videos about science for over a decade, and he’s by and large good and reliable. Recently, he did a video about self-driving cars, sponsored by Waymo, which was full of (what I’ll charitably call) problematic claims that were clearly written by Waymo, as fellow YouTuber Tom Nicholas pointed out. Veritasium is a human that makes good videos. People follow him directly, bypassing algorithmic shenanigans, but Waymo was able to leverage their resources to get into that trusted, no-algorithm space. We live in a society that commodifies everything, and as human-made content becomes rarer, more people like Veritsaium will be presented with more and increasingly lucrative opportunities to sell bits and pieces of their authenticity for manufactured content (be it by AI or a marketing team), while new people that could be like Veritsaium will be drowned out by the heaps of bullshit clogging up the web.

This has an analogy in our physical world. As more and more of our physical world looks the same, as a result of the homogenizing forces of capital (office parks, suburbia, generic blocky bulidings, etc.), the fewer and fewer remaining parts that are special, like say Venice, become too valuable for their own survival. They become “touristy,” which is itself a sort of ironically homogenized commodified authenticity.

edit: oops I got Tom’s name wrong lol fixed

Am alternative approach that may interest you: https://theluddite.org/#!post/reddit-extension

I will always upvote Astra Taylor, and everyone with debt should join the Debt Collective!

I have worked at two different start ups where the boss explicitly didn’t want to hire anyone with kids and had to be informed that there are laws about that, so yes, definitely anti-parent. One of them also kept saying that they only wanted employees like our autistic coworker when we asked him why he had spent weeks rejecting every interviewee that we had liked. Don’t even get me started on people that the CEO wouldn’t have a beer with, and how often they just so happen to be women or foreigners! Just gross shit all around.

It’s very clear when you work closely with founders that they see their businesses as a moral good in the world, and as a result, they have a lot of entitlement about their relationship with labor. They view laws about it as inconveniences on their moral imperative to grow the startup.

This has been ramping up for years. The first time that I was asked to do “homework” for an interview was probably in 2014 or so. Since then, it’s gone from “make a quick prototype” to assignments that clearly take several full work days. The last time I job hunted, I’d politely accept the assignment and ask them if $120/hr is an acceptable rate, and if so, I can send over the contract and we can get started ASAP! If not, I refer them to my thousands upon thousands of lines of open source code.

My experience with these interactions is not that they’re looking for the most qualified applicants, but that they’re filtering for compliant workers who will unquestioningly accept the conditions offered in exchange for the generally lucrative salaries. It’s the kind of employees that they need to keep their internal corporate identity of being the good guys as tech goes from being universally beloved to generally reviled by society in general.

Whenever one of these stories come up, there’s always a lot of discussion about whether these suits are reasonable or fair or whether it’s really legally the companies’ fault and so on. If that’s your inclination, I propose that you consider it from the other side: Big companies use every tool in their arsenal to get what they want, regardless of whether it’s right or fair or good. If we want to take them on, we have to do the same. We call it a justice system, but in reality it’s just a fight over who gets to wield the state’s monopoly of violence to coerce other people into doing what they want, and any notions of justice or fairness are window dressing. That’s how power actually works. It doesn’t care about good faith vs bad faith arguments, and we can’t limit ourselves to only using our institutions within their veneer of rule of law when taking on powerful, exclusively self-interested, and completely antisocial institutions with no such scruples.

I seriously don’t understand how everyone is so confused about this. It’s actually not cool at all to continuously drop bombs on densely inhabited areas while also denying them water, food, medicine, fuel and so on. Any further analysis or complexity has to build on top of that fucking obvious reality, not ignore it.

Remember when the NYT collaborated with the Bush administration to invade Iraq? I remember. It’s a reactionary, war-mongering rag, owned by the same family since the 19th century. Their editorial board ran the story “Israel is Fighting to Defend a Society That Values Human Life” just a couple of days into a series of cut-and-dry, textbook war crimes. War crime apologia is the absolute lowest form of writing.

I wish I could find it again, but when this new Sulzberger inherited the paper a while back, I saw a youtube compilation of a bunch of very famous and prestigious NYT reporters discussing how seriously the Sulzbergers took their role as guardians of the news in our democracy or whatever. It was the most tedious, noblesse oblige, aristocratic boot-licking bullshit.

Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent came out in 1988 – fully 35 years ago! – and it should’ve put an end to the paper’s reputation. It’s not specifically about the NYT, but it does use the NYT very often as an example, and the case studies are comprehensive and damning. If we cared about media literacy, we’d make it required reading in high school.

Ah that does slightly complicate things. Still frustrating that none of these outlets even looked into his relationship with the DSA (or lack thereof) before uncritically repeating his statements, but that does excuse it slightly.

To repeat for emphasis: DSA expelled Shri Thanedar last month. This month, Thanedar announced he was leaving DSA over its putative views on Israel and Palestine — an announcement that’s been picked up by the Hill, MSNBC, Fox News, Politico, Forbes, and beyond, with outlets regurgitating his disparaging statements about the organization that expelled him.

This is supremely frustrating. I knew it was going to be frustrating before I clicked, but it was even more frustrating than I had anticipated.

Hey I wrote that! I’ll never get used to running into my own work in my feed. I’m so glad you liked it!

That was a particularly gratifying but also very frustrating one to write. Fuck the bootlickers putting out that crap.

Maybe. It had been almost 15 years since I last heard of him until the EA stuff started going mainstream, but he was a very well respected physicist, especially for how young he was back then. After having taken several very small classes with him, it would surprise me if he was a clout chaser. People are complicated though, so who knows.

I had Max Tegmark as a professor when I was an undergrad. I loved him. He is a great physicist and educator, so it pains me greatly to say that he has gone off the deep end with his effective altruism stuff. His work through the Future of Life Institute should not be taken seriously. For anyone interested, I responded to Tegmark’s concerns about AI and Effective Altruism in general on The Luddite when they first got a lot of media attention earlier this year.

I argue that EA is an unserious and self-serving philosophy, and the concern about AI is best understood as a bad faith and self-aggrandizing justification for capitalist control of technology. You can see that here. Other commenters are noting his opposition to open sourcing “dangerous technologies.” This is the inevitable conclusion of a philosophy that, as discussed in the linked post, reifies existing power structures to decide how to do the most good within them. EA necessarily excludes radical change by focusing on measurable outcomes. It’s a fundamentally conservative and patronizing philosophy, so it’s no surprise when its conclusions end up agreeing with the people in charge.

Yup that’s about right. I think the obsession with engagement comes from a cultural desire to appear objective. It’s performative more than it is rational.

You might be interested in one of my oldest posts: https://theluddite.org/#!post/why-attention-economy

It’s about what you’re saying. I come to an adjacent but slightly different conclusion than your comment.

Yeah, the broken Internet is just so much dumber than people think. Welcome aboard!

Haha thank you. I’ve generally found that Google decides most of the ad clicks that come from my site are “invalid,” so it’ll pay me and then take it back 🙃. 90% or so of my ad revenue has been reversed within a day or two. We’re talking like 12 USD so it’s not like I’m losing a fortune, but still!