🎥 Support me on PATREON for scripts, discord, & name in credits , etc: www.patreon.com/thenandnow 🎤 PODCAST : pod.link/1499254204 ✉️ Sign up to the NEWSLETTER at: lewwaller.com/newsletter ▶️ TWITTER : twitter.com/lewlewwaller 📷 INSTAGRAM : instagram.com/thethenandnow

@OjoRojo40

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the video! But I think the tittle is a little bit misleading or wrong? This was meanly about Inet drama and techno optimism (which is tangentially linked in the video to democracy??) The conclusion though I think is crap... Ethical algorithms..... Or yet again the argument for "proper attitude" to fix structural problems. Problems that you even recognize during the video! Thanks again for the work :) Take care!

I‘m pretty convinced at this point that corporations may be good at creating a space we want to be in but not a good place to be in. The incentive structure of the big platforms that rely on keeping engagement up for the sake of advertising revenue is amazing at starting discourse but so very bad at seeing it through.

@JamesDecker7

2 жыл бұрын

Weird. You mean the hand of the market doesn’t fix it all?!

@btarczy5067

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesDecker7 I think I haven’t seen The Invisible Hand once but one can never be sure.

@choosecarefully408

2 жыл бұрын

... & that's the oxymoronic nature of this whole discussion. You *want **_"someone"_* to fix the problems of democracy for you. It's astounding how people don't see how utterly contradictory this entire discussion is. Corporations *are in power precisely because* you all don't want to take part in any decision-making or have any adult responsibility. "Mommy, can you give me my democracy now?"

@JamesDecker7

2 жыл бұрын

@@choosecarefully408 Thanks, but you know nothing of my life such as volunteering to help people running for my local school board, talking with all of my neighbors about the importance of voting NO MATTER WHO THEY WANT but to just be engaged, and donating and volunteering with my local mutual aid society. No, things are the way they are in large part because power tends to concentrate, and we haven’t QUITE gotten to the point of getting out the guillotines YET…..because most the current system is very well built to keep the middle and lower classes squabbling amongst themselves and refusing to do anything against the 1% “because I might be one of them some day”.

@choosecarefully408

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesDecker7 I know nothing about all that? Gee, I didn't say anything about all that. Makes you wonder why you felt the need to mention it. Oh, right, because no one ever wants to address what I *did* say, which is that everyone wants everything handed to them. Sorry, but begging criminals to imprison themselves is _NOT_ the same as making the effort to imprison them, & promising a guillotine if they don't comply with what you protest about is an empty threat as you have no intention of working to get into a position where you can carry it out. *That* is my entire _point!_ I was replying to the initial comment about 'suspecting' that what the corporations 'are doing' isn't perhaps good for us. Well when did we give corporations the capacity to make _ANY_ decisions about where to go? Isn't it weird how that has become an Unquestioned Background Assumption? The same morons who "passed" Citizens United *get paid BY corporations* to tell them to pass it. Gee, no conflict of interest there. Tell me: wtf do you _need _*_ANY government FOR_* if not to protect you from threats to your well being? *When exactly did* "except ones presented by corporations" become the norm? Politicians are Private Citizens with no more legal power to vote in measure We The People do not want than Kim Jong-un has in Mexico. Yet every comment I'm reading everywhere is all people wondering where the *corporations* are leading us. *They're* the _ENEMY!!_ They spends zillions annually allaregreen.us/ to prevent waste-cleaning industries that would cost them far less to get the right to exist! They harm the economy as well as the planet *you **_LIVE_** on!* I don't _need_ to know what you've protested by what means to know that the people on that list aren't going to comply to anything you protest about that removes their ability to gain that $. Politicians are _NOT_ exempt from the law. Taking private $ while in public office is completely illegal & always will be. The fact that we have the ability to halt _ALL_ measures people protest about more effectively than protesting ever can, but that you all refuse to do that must make them laugh inside constantly. You fear standing up to mere authority _figures_ as if you're seven-year-olds standing up to your *fathers.* Mitch McConnell ain't my Daddy & I'd turn my Dad _in_ if I found him making $ from kicking Heroic First Responders to the curb the way Mitch got away with *for **_YEARS._* You have a legal, non-violent means to halt anything they take private $ for. I can't get a single other person in All Western Society to even _contemplate_ risking One Constipated-Looking Glare of Discontent from Nancy Pelosi.

I love the idea but the issue with having an "important" reaction that anyone can add is that when you're in an emotional state, the trigger of that state is the most important to you at the time. Great video by the way. I hope more people see this.

This is a fantastic vid. I'm not great a philosophy and yet I feel this is appropriately simplified without dumbing down or misleading the watcher.

@OjoRojo40

2 жыл бұрын

Didn't you find the content of the vi disconnected with the tittle of it? I also liked the video except for the crappy conclusion but was interesting non the less.

A continuous stream of dumb soundbites, claims, opinions and questions throws truth into an everlasting existential crisis. Welcome to social media.

@lameduck3105

2 жыл бұрын

What for people in the West seems like a compilation of fake news, bs stories and articles is for some of the developing world their first foray into getting actual news. Yeah it is shitty for those of us that are used to unbiased and factual news but for a large portion of the world's population, this is their first encountering news and opinions from around the world that isn't state-sponsored propaganda.

The techno utopians didn’t forget. Rather, as you thesis points out, they held other values- like freedom, autonomy and privacy as more important.

@musicdev

Жыл бұрын

Funny how the supposed believers in these things are the biggest perpetrators of the opposite. I’d hardly call the gig economy ‘freedom’. Autonomy? We’re all addicts to our phones drip-feeding us dopamine. It’s reached the point where many can’t resist during or even during driving. And privacy???? Come on. The techno utopians NEVER cared about that

@nlsantiesteban

Жыл бұрын

@@musicdev um, I wrote this comment a year ago and no longer remember this video essay. So yes?

Jesus, I am writing my master's thesis on this exact topic. It's insane how parallel thinking happens. Very well done!

@MrInsdor

2 жыл бұрын

much success to you!

@TimBitten

Жыл бұрын

I wish I could read it!!

Thank you for posting this. It was very clarifying as usual. I personally favor a more two pronged approach where we have a separate social media for our social network that is designed like the original social networks in that it doesn't have any algorithmic interference (just a chronological feed of people your linked with) and there are no reaction buttons (forcing people to put their thoughts into words encourages deeper more thoughtful engagement). The second could allow reaction buttons (and I agree that having more options for this would allow more nuance), but allows the individual to sort the type of content they see based on the reaction(s) they choose. I think that we're in dangerous territory when we have a platform trying to drive content any defined direction, even if it's towards noble goals (social justice, empathy, importance, etc) for a variety of reasons including people learning to manipulate/game the system and simple unintended consequences.

I think at least part of the problem lies with physical distance. Online, we tend to say things we wouldn’t otherwise say to strangers (or even friends of friends) face to face. The Irish citizens’ council is a prime example of the power of occupying the same physical space as your fellow citizens. They work out solutions to social problems with much more compassion than elected representatives do or could because they’re normal people who can see and hear and touch who might disagree with them, not some avatar or following or feed. Algorithms can help push us back together, but I also think something like citizen sortition in public discourse and government should play a role too.

My question would be why even think the internet should fix democracy? Democracy isn't just about free speech and information, both of which we've already had before, but having the right social structures in place and a population who is for democracy. The internet on its self doesn't do anything to prevent the same problems occurring within itself that caused problems for democracy before it existed

@Eddison33

2 жыл бұрын

Moreover, the internet even amplifies some preexisting problems with democracy. Echo chambers and confirmation bias are prevalent more than ever. Internet is just a tool, and it's up to us to use it responsibly.

@bucherregaldomi9084

2 жыл бұрын

shiet good point

Thank you. I'm French and I know several channels which advocate for developping ethiquette on algorithm and usage of the Internet (especially to be careful about kneejerk anger and sharing). I didn't know any channel which tackled those topics in the English world, which ultimately is the most important because it is the most spoken language in the world. Unfortantly this kind of discourse has very little reach despite the ever pressing need to sanitize social media.

@koffing2073

Жыл бұрын

Je peut savoir les noms de ces chaines ?

Wow you are super duper smart!! I ❤️ it!! You should definitely have sponsors soon! Glad I found you and now I’m going to binge watch your content💐🌎❤️❄️🥳

Again, I am surprised how much the quality has gone up since the last video. Keep on doing whatever you want do, I will always watch, because you make every topic interesting.

0:53. Fun fact. The first email ever sent by a president was in 1999. If this video was from 1993 then... no, Bill Clinton would not have replied to your email.

Nice work man! This is a thoughtful and well developed argument. You think you could make your individual points a little clearer though? Maybe add some chapters (not sure what they’re called but the time marks for sections)? Just a thought to make it easier to digest if we’re not able to watch the whole thing at once, and to clearly follow how point 1,2,3, etc lead to your conclusion. Not to compare you to another creator but the way Natalie at contrapoints sections her video is along the lines of what I’m thinking. Just a thought! Keep up the great content

Excellent discussion, keep up the great work

How long has this youtube channel been in existence? How come I've never come across it before? Every topic here is fascinating, great stuff.

@robwashers

4 ай бұрын

haha, perhaps you thought the internet was trying to find you content of interesting and thought provoking information. It wants your complete devotion and time. Click, click, like, click cat video anyone 🤣

Love the way you encourage thought.

This have opened my brain to so many new ideas I am now looking at the world with a different lens. Amazing.

"The opposite of democracy isn't ictatorship, it's endless discussion" Wolfgang M. Schmitt Jr.

@jakepybus2039

2 жыл бұрын

Do you know where he said this? :)

@mikoi7472

2 жыл бұрын

That's a horrible way to view democracy when the US system and others are specifically setup to force these discussions to take place to be able to get anything changed.

@BangaWangaTschanga

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikoi7472 i think what he means is that democracies most important feature is the decision-making

@mikoi7472

2 жыл бұрын

@@BangaWangaTschanga no because if that were the case then dictatorships would be preferred. You want consensus and to build that you need to build bridges and convince others of your viewpoint. Decision making done without that is pointless and shows that you fundamentally don't understand why democracy was and is important.

@whorror_punx

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikoi7472 I think "endless" is the most important term here. It certainly is an awfully big issue democracy has, at least. Especially when pressing matters are at hand, and the democratic process can take so painfully long. Especially when a good portion of voters actively vote against most progress poised to be made. And ESPECIALLY when the alternative party really only pays lip service to said progress, but is either too spineless or too far controlled by their rich benefactors to actually implement any meaningful change. Id also call our two party system, composed of said parties, being the only real choice we have, very democratic in the first place. Id love to see a major party actually share the same beliefs, ethics, and ideas as myself and the left. Despite what republicans may seem to think, dems certainly arent a left wing party. Let alone "extreme far left Communists/Socialists/Marxists/whatever delusional shit"

Sensing a shift in style. However, I am on board with it. Looking forward to more from you. Good luck!

The premise is incorrect. Democracy is working exactly as intended, providing the illusion of consent of the governed.

@janosmarothy5409

2 жыл бұрын

wow that's edgy bro. wake up sheeple!

Great video as always. It builds to a point that seems simple - which means it should be actionable. If we just put some long-term intentionality into the way our online social spaces are structured, rather than let everything be ruled by what generates the most advertising revenue, we could live in a better world. Of course, getting the stakeholders to do that, or getting an organic movement towards it despite profit-motivated exploitation of our intrinsic psychological tendencies is the real challenge. I feel like I missed a tic at 14:22 - what bearing does classical Marxism have on the example of language games of two people talking about an election? What might they have said that would be a good example of the language games being illustrated?

@SaschaHusenbeth

2 жыл бұрын

about your question on 14:22 - it's just an example for a language game in which the context and the interlocutors make for a relatively predictable discussion. Or so one might think. But even though adherence to Classical Marxism provides for a relatively specific context, the discussion can still go in many different ways due to the particular set of values that the interlocutors prioritize and the flow of what happens in the moment. For instance, interlocutor A might use a particular rhetoric figure because s/he has picked it up in a radio show they listened to on the way to the discussion. This rhetoric figure could then be misinterpreted or picked upon by interlocutor B, because it has been used in service of a value that he finds less important compared to another. Thus, each step in the back-and-forth happens as a result of the weighing of values, options and priorities of the interlocutors, and therefore the discussion still has a huge variability in how it can go. The larger point being made here is that the context in which a particular language game, discussion or back-and-forth occurs does not directly determine the outcome of the language game. This is because there are personal values, interests and priorities in the mix which cannot be accounted for purely by context and which guide the way a given interlocutor understands and uses the data and options available, and because the context is not stable: at each step of the language game, the context changes, which then provides the situation in which another step is taken, and so on. The language game is entirely contingent. Therefore, the Internet cannot fix anything - human beings can. The internet provides a multitude of new contexts, but it is still used by human beings, who are engaged in particular social relations, have certain interests (economic, political, ...) and whose consumption habits and audiences differ. Take Joe Rogan and Ethan Klein. The twitter "feud" is less a back-and-forth between those two, than an impulse for engagament of their respective audiences. Ethan Klein panders to his audience and gains attention, which is in his economic interest, by ridiculing one of the most influential figures on the KZread medium. As long as the internet feeds these sorts of language games, in which actors benefit from social engagement outside of a public sphere defined by the conditions Habermas proposes (or a similar, updated set of conditions), so the argument goes, we cannot expect the Internet to create more democratic societies.

Da Bait used to be about challenging ideas and the acceptance of fallibility, now it's about cultivating endless discussion & discourse while being sold and consumed by Capital Investment.

Liked the content. Did you mention the cat's behind? not pages on Wikipedia but the ins and outs of. I don't think ''we'' all know anything. We'll never change the debate, we'll always talk about their stuff in the end and will do more of that in the future. I don't think the internet is healthy in any respect but I use it and it is convenient. I've never looked at debates on FB and Twitter but despair.

I'm very happy to see that you have asked this beyond central question. If we look across the vast and empty expanse of the Internet, we can see it rarely and really, never is. Though it is taken up by academia and many books on the subject can be found, I can tell you that most of them are anywhere from unhelpful to garbage. So, as someone who has pursued the subject for over two decades I thank you. I think you have raised some good points here and others that aren't so relevant but I will summarize for you one overarching reason why the Internet has not fixed democracy. The question itself is rife with problems because the words Internet and democracy are not defined and contextual definitions are colossally important. It is also a subject that dwarfs any conversation of philosophy, history, conspiracy, boy-girl relations, and all the rest; it is the biggest of the big! However, I won't go there and sum it up for you in the proverbial word. The reason why the "Internet" has not fixed "democracy" is because even though you have raised "the big question", tomorrow you will go on to your next video. Microphone drop.

@musicdev

Жыл бұрын

The reason the internet hasn’t fixed democracy is because you can’t fix something that never existed in the first place.

@brandonguzman2757

Жыл бұрын

@@musicdev - that is the knee-jerk response of the willfully ignorant. You consider only the outcomes and declare everything hopeless, or as never even existing. Consider the input that creates the outcomes and you might expand your horizons and thought process some. but don't feel badly, no one does that and that's why the Internet hasn't fixed "democracy". Basically what I said in the original comment.

@mrbanana6464

10 ай бұрын

You have literally not said anything with this comment. It’s all fluff, poorly written at that. How about you make it clear what you’re talking about.

Corporations will co opt anything it cannot outright destroy

Love your work. I'm frankly impressed by the altitude of your awareness and velocity of reason to map out the widest context. With some Neo-McLuhanesque perspective, I'm going to offer a few ricochets: Each new medium swallows the previous medium or mediums, and initially practically replicates or imitates the previous conventions. It first attempts to overfulfill the role the previous medium filled before evolving unique new capacities and potentials of its own. (parenthetically: these long descriptions of examples are not meant for the content creator but for the general discussion in Comments. I imagine our host to be fully conversant with what I'm referencing. If you know this stuff skip down.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Early movies were stationary cameras by necessity and shot as if from a seat in the theatre. There was almost immediate realization of using special effects since photography had already fully developed dark room tricks to create such things as fairy hoaxes. But movie film specific capacities took some time to develop in the minds of the 'content creators' of the time. The capacity for cross-cut editing, juxtaposing viewpoints, alternating facial reactions, sudden scene contrasts, eventually became the language of the virtuosos who invented highly developed techniques long before the moving camera shot was commonly used. (perhaps except DW Griffiths) Later, the Marx Brothers in their first movies were causing disruptions by always clowning out of camera range, even as late as 1929 cameras were not generally equipped to pan. New innovations were required to mount the cameras on wheels and so forth. As film swallowed photography, theatre, newspapers, and radio, later television swallowed all of the above. Again early television had many limitations and began by imitating the previous medium - radio - some programs were transported fully intact, others recast or reformatted. Radio had already invented all the sit-com formulas and crime dramas and advertising conventions that network television maintained continuously up until the creation of Cable TV. It really was radio with pictures. The key difference cable offered was alternative distribution models that allowed the beginning of the rampant segmentation of the audience. Niche marketing as a late capitalist mutation has now run the course down to individual targeting. Yet just prior to the television distribution revolution (not just cable but vcrs and personal cam-corders etc) existed a three network universe committed to a Jack Benny/Bob Hope/support the troops heritage. Suddenly alongside and within this public sphere appeared widely distributed moving-images-with-sound of assassinations, raw war footage, protests, and (!) race rights marches and police brutality. These images erupted into and overwhelmed the old hat conventionalism and found their way into the public sphere before the MIC could realize that TV wasn't just Soupy Sales anymore. In the decades after cable, (Gulf War One, then worse in Two) they'd managed to subvert the medium once again by 'embedding' the sources of coverage. When personal computers first became common(ish) almost immediately sprang up Bulletin Boards and chat networks linked by modem through the legacy medium TELEPHONE lines. I recall a friend printing out for me hundreds of current chess tournaments from a downloaded text file. Many friends also followed in real time through these subscription through modem services, but though the transmission of a move by move game is immediate, is hasn't the same impact of volumes of fresh, up-to-date material to a young chess student. Now of course digital boards transmit hundreds of real-time tournaments with multiple web-cams on top boards. So to bring it forward to this new internet thing. It starts off swallowing every preceding medium, books, newspapers, mail, telephone, television, movies, money (yes a medium!), and then as the technical control of distribution becomes democratized by economic availability, it finds its feet, discovers its own characteristic potentials. As tech capacity and specifications improve the interconnection penetrates and disrupts all medium interactive social processes. Bookstores, taxis, CD's all get crushed by circumventing the control of the distribution. Now society is technically capable of producing and marketing products giving us the power to put an enormous library of banned literature or prated music on a thumb drive, which is another reality than the samizdat publishing in the late Soviet Union? It comes down to the adaptive skills for manipulating the medium by individuals and syndicalists-type groupings bringing their energies into resonance. Recent innovations in the Meme-o-sphere include large networks taking on the stating of limits, the labeling of disputed material with fact checking links. Likes and shares devolved from forwarding attachments, and maintaining your own 'home page' with a detailed and curated 'links' page. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now rather than flesh out more examples, let's raise the altitude and get a grasp of the whole unfolding process: The initial creation of a new capacity for communication, a 'medium' of interaction hot or cold (McLuhan regarded the electric light bulb as a medium) stems from some technical innovation resulting from practical application of new science, or just better comprehension and thinking about known techniques. But that results in just a device that the specially privileged could use, like a James Bond gizmo or the legendary Univac. Without the distribution it fails to become a medium as such. It comes into being when innovation PLUS its distribution system is launched and controlled by invested interests - individual, commercial, government or other affiliation. So often initially the DISTRIBUTION gets way out ahead of the mechanisms of CONTROL. Those are the sweet spots to look to in history, the wild west, new frontier, breaking new ground optimism. Soon follows the reactionary brutal blunt instrument of control. Since binary mind sets are predominant, the first efforts are binary - this-that, good-bad, yes-no constraints are slapped out with varying degrees of sweating over the standards used. These later continue to break down as the use of the new medium becomes sophisticated and technically capable of virtuoso manipulation. With ballooning capacities, the modification process is taken back under control in two directions. --A: the technical, financial, distributive control, monitoring, analysis, marketing side of the polarity, and --B: the content creators growing sophistication in transcending the limits of the medium with virtuoso skills from being raised in the medium, (cf 2020 Tulsa Rally tiktok clap back ) and a SWINDLE SAVVY with a respectful 'heads-up' from the aging pre-generation of media pioneers . Perhaps it will manifest as some distant mutant descendant of the original typographic winky -- [ ; ^ ) XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~XX X ~~~~"""""""""~~~~~~""""""""""~~~ X % ~~~- V -~~~~- @ -~~~% %%~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~~~%% % ~~~~~~~~~\ | /~~~~~~~~% ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~\~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~ ~~~~~~EEEEEEEE~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ====== ~~~~ ====== ============================= (crude, but illustrative ) Now how could such a message be monitored by an algorithm? Or noticed without human interpretive perspective. It can be made to only be seen from a certain window width, which could be any prearranged amount. Also font spacing needs to match. Techniques transcending the original intended function of a medium, multiply with the increasing complexity of the milieu. For instance someone could publish a weekly bulletin and paste it into every comment section of a target group, thereby utilizing (or abusing) a feature for a coordinated campaign effort. The idea descends from telemarketing. Our home phones were not intended to become an advertising medium yet many started with party lines. Of course troll farms utilize this transcending as transgression constantly with false identity spamming. So its time the general content creator independent activists get their hands into some of those techniques. More directly pertaining to your content. Scaling is a step away from the binary, yet it may be merely a constraint to a single continuum, which is binary polarity of degree. Save us from the 5 point market research satisfaction scale. Then how about typing in whatever two KEYWORDS you want, (or both a 'pick from' or 'add to' list) - and build a data base from that. Word clouds exist. It begins to stretch out a menu of optional involvements towards full text comments, and beyond to real-time live full video reactions. If the algorithm becomes too whack, it might need to be subverted to promote one's own content. A curated "selected links" posting, daily, weekly, does not have to wait for the notifications to be distributed. This of course is limited by the media simplex effect of drowning a message with rubbish. It won't really matter soon, because the swelling levels of AWARENESS in the medium will make most recommended content super-sus, and folks might just be deliberately dodging the algorithms both instinctually and with ever cleverer self-awareness. The struggle will not be between opposing sides, but between centralized distributive control, and individual SWINDLE SAVVY with purposeful content choice and participation habits.

@seanstars6637

2 жыл бұрын

Way too high effort for a comment section. Compile your notes in a word file and stitch them together when the time is right. Don’t waste time talking to people on the internet.

@gianlucavieira5021

2 жыл бұрын

Bruh

@aturchomicz821

2 жыл бұрын

Based comment all around wtf?

@canhedotricks6078

2 жыл бұрын

@@seanstars6637 Nah this is a great example of a coordinated campaign effort to educate others through the medium of the internet and I appreciate it.

@canhedotricks6078

2 жыл бұрын

I adore your illustration by the way

thank you It made me find some new perspective.about the cat I thought maybe its about the creaturistic look of it as a human figure substitution for some reason and also getting connected through a cat's eye as a humanoid again it seems a bit cyberpunk formalistic thing to me.

3:30 20 years? Damn, it's almost 30 years

It has always been the balance of power and influence that has dictated the system of government, not the systems or the technology of communication.

The internet is primarily an advertising platform, with enough shiny things to look at to keep you coming back to the ads.

Good content

"People tend to become experts in highly specialised Fields, learning more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing." This is our internet age, the original quote is hard to attribute but perhaps stems from William Warde Fowler 1911 the “Review of Theology & Philosophy”

Good video.... But I can't help but the meta-thesis of it is that the Internet has rotted all of our minds if we're having to think in the terms of Rogan, Pool, and the like.

@ethanstump

2 жыл бұрын

the "neoliberal" internet. there are clear pockets where people do their own thing, then there are corp's pusing their narrative, and the "influencer's" paid by the second to act like the first. AKA grifters, grinders, clout chasers, and the associated hanger's on that have been part of the court drama since capitalism began, and even before. nothing new, just different face.

A very nuanced and interesting video - typical for this channel, but unusual for discussions like this. "The Drama", as you call it, was pretty well captured by Don't Look Up recently. These social media platforms and MSM has us all bickering about the drapery as an iceberg tears through the hull.

To my knowledge, the reason the internet hasn’t fixed democracy is basically only due to intellectual property laws. Copyright monopolizes all code & websites (in addition to all text, video, audio, photos, & images). And patents (strangely) have been permitted to monopolize certain aspects of software functioning. Patents also monopolize important aspects of internet physical infrastructure.

@user-wl2xl5hm7k

2 жыл бұрын

The 2008 economics book ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’ and the 2001 essay ‘Against Intellectual Property’ are both as important as Marx’s ‘Capital’! Each has nearly flawless argumentation. All leftists need to read both (free online). If you can’t read them now, then write down both titles so you can tell others so they can read them.

@shawnruby7011

2 жыл бұрын

It has to do w the concept of "free speech". We tiptoe around this while trying to put on too many band aids. Free speech is undefinable as it's too general and unfalsifiable. Some speech is better than others and we should promote ppl by that or be doomed to dumber conspiracy theories based on political issues.

@user-wl2xl5hm7k

2 жыл бұрын

@@shawnruby7011 I’m not sure what your argument is. How does that relate to intellectual property (& why it should be abolished)?

@shawnruby7011

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-wl2xl5hm7k no, the topic of the video is why has the internet not fixed democracy. You are saying it's because of private property laws which would not solve the drama that happens. KZread can mitigate by getting rid of the downvote numbers or real-time subscriber counts but private property laws would not solve the james charles etc stuff

@user-wl2xl5hm7k

2 жыл бұрын

@@shawnruby7011 Intellectual property laws are not private property laws. They’re monopoly laws that monopolize everyone else’s use of matter. Without them, there wouldn’t be this drama and these free speech issues. I encourage you to research this issue. Try to understand how copyright and patent laws affect digital technologies, the internet, and physical infrastructure for both.

Cats....before I actually started using the Internet for more than sending/receiving the occasional email and FB on a narcotized whim in 2009/KZread just for music I had always wondered about the cat thing online I heard about, figuring it to be long gone when I was given a small cellphone 2&1/2 years ago and lost my insular world. I was surprised that cats hadn't been a phase; indeed, I found myself posting pics of my cat Phizer constantly. I was told by Phizer the response Lew Waller inquired after just now around 20:00 minutes through- and it's that cats know what needs to be done, but simply can't figure out why they'd bother. I imagine anyone who has a cat who has made you their human could've guessed. But hey, Must Love Cats! Joe Rogan, he should get a cat. I love logic, reason, dialectics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, music-but I ADORE my cat. As for the bits of mocking a cat by making it anthropomorphically "cute" online, like the clip he shows us of the cat being "interviewed" on one of those Morning Shows? Terrible, mocking cats

As vapor wave already showed us, the internet is a mall with many diffrent sellers that promises you new exciting products, and as soon as you realize that they need to keep you inside so you are viable you can see their oath to quality declines and populism goes up.

So basically, Metal Gear Solid 2 continues to be correct.

Corporations have changed our behaviour. Their goal is to promote engagement, and engagement is achieved by anger, outrage and hatred. Corporate algorithms select content that triggers those emotions. This makes people addicted and keeps them engaged. Moreover, promoted content allows people with money to manipulate social media by purchasing followers and showing content to users. It's a fundamentally broken system. I continue to use KZread, which is still enjoyable. But I barely use Facebook and Twitter. Especially Twitter has become a hateful, tribal social media platform. I have moved to WT Social, which was founded by one of the founders of Wikipedia. And I use Reddit. It is flawed and I don't fully trust it, but one can find good subreddits.

@SlapstickGenius23

Жыл бұрын

Most people do not think about Reddit and 4chan for obvious reasons.

@aristeon5908

Жыл бұрын

@@SlapstickGenius23 I have no experience with 4chan but I find it ironic that people who are using the worst social media, namely Twitter and Facebook, hate on Reddit. It's flawed, and I prefer WT Social, but Reddit gives users a voice through subreddits. On Twitter and Facebook, bad actors can buy followers and promote their content, the algorithm rewards those with a large number of followers and those who can create engagement through outrage, hate, anger etc.

Nobody used to talk about politics socially in 90’s n early 2000’s now it’s a popular talking point with most people.

22:00 another interesting way of describing this heavily involved psychology. typically the thing that causes info to stick with us and become “memories” is surprise, and this surprise/unexpected outcome strengthens the synaptic connections between neurons, causing them to fire faster and essentially keep that information more freely available in our mind. the same emotion that caused the memory to form is also the one likely to trigger it being recalled in our mind, which is why anger, among other strong emotions like joy, sadness, etc, are so effective at creating memories. the internet just makes it so that these emotions can be begotten much more easily due to there being basically anything and everything readily available online for viewing, reading, etc

I, for one, enjoy our postmodern digital hellscape

Shoutout to the intricately crafted comments on this video.

I really enjoy the content created here . You have brought many interesting ideas to light 💡. This channel is an oasis in the chaos that is our media landscape . However, I preferred your old style of illustrations and video clips to drive the points home rather than this new “preachy” style where we just look at you talk. Everyone does that and it’s not effective. Pictures are worth a thousand words after all and I think 🤔 if your videos contain more graphs, quotes, and animations it would increase its overall “efficacy “. Wouldn’t it make more sense for you to show us illustrations of your points while they are being made. I also think the way which you used to tie your points together with various pictures and videos was YOUR STRENGTH and it you did that very creatively and effectively in my eyes. More graphs and illustrations please . All in all good work

A few days ago, I came upon something, a short video or whatever and noticed the amount of "unlike/like" responses, which formed the unnuanced emotional background to the affair: I felt that much of a pejorative nature had been expressed. I couldn't understand why, though. So, I simply had to ask- "Who is Joe Rogan?" in the comments. And promptly forgot about it, until now, when just as I said "Enough, get some sleep" I noticed that name again in this video! I feel much like after I watched Then & Now's take on a decidedly un-beastly individual who does stuff on KZread involving philanthro-capitalism and DIY green/environmentalist feel good-do some good band-aid solution spin-offs. Mr. B was unknown to me, too. I ask myself, am I doing something wrong or something right online when I seem to be one of the only people using KZread who has never heard of these popular KZread video makers until videos like this one? Missing out, or just Algorithmic luck? Addendum: I never did get an answer to the query "Who is Joe Rogan?" No way was I Googling it. I wonder; is there such thing as a career rhetorical outlier? Thank you for your time

I have a passion for the word "efficacy".

Great video once more, thanks

3:47 *T R I G G E R E D*

Taking off shoes at a friends house trivial? Man, I don't know where you've been.

2:13 Vowsh

@youtubeisawebsite7484

Жыл бұрын

vowsh

Algorithms drive us toward advertising and it's naïve to think we can algorithm our way out of this mess. It's like thinking we just need more enlightened elected officials when the government system is a corruption machine--just look at the Squad. "The fix" will not be tweeted.

20:00

Vonch Virsh Vorch Veesh Vowsh Ian Kochinski Yanik Olinik vorchestor sous

Loved this

I had no idea there was a podcast for this channel. Very cool!

The ancient Egyptians were fond of cats so it's not exactly a first. A discussion that isn't 'rational' can still be sincere and move towards the truth. I am in no way saying the internet is that, I'm just saying rationality is good for many disciplines, but not all disciplines rely on rationality, but they can still move toward the truth.

"Why wasn't everyone carrying around photos of their cats in their wallets to show people?" Oh they were, they definitely were.

MAKE AN INTERNET WORKERS FORUM. WORKERS UNITE. WORKAHOLICISM IS A DISEASE.

The collective is one. Do nothing. If that train was fated to hit that single person; would you pull that level to hit five instead of one? No!

Good video, but I feel like the title is a little misleading, perhaps: "A Wittgensteinian analysis of the internet" or something like that would better suite. Might wanna work on the conclusion a little more, it was a little thin in an otherwise decent video.

Just a few weeks ago Habermas wrote an essay on exactly this topic, revising some of his earlier conceptions on democratic argumentation and its institutional setting. I don‘t know if it is translated into English yet...

@williamshoki2174

2 жыл бұрын

Buddy, do you mind sharing a link to the article if you can?

Such a great video mate!

Value is dictated in line with the finalisation of social media, the algorithm delivers in favour to the owner and the illusion of free power is widely advertised of the "owner" 🤡

Thanks for the video! But I think the tittle is a little bit misleading or wrong? This was meanly about Inet drama and techno optimism (which is tangentially linked in the video to democracy??) The conclusion though I think is crap... Ethical algorithms..... Or yet again the argument for "proper attitude" to fix structural problems. Problems that you even recognize during the video! Thanks again for the work :) Take care!

H3H3 on Then & Now. That man is ubiquitous..

🙌🙌

Very good.

The "go to war" vs. "take care of your mother" one seems pretty clear-cut to me. Any man can go to war, but only someone who cares about her the way her child would could take care of his mother as well as he likely would. One man will not be missed, and how many have mothers in need of that care? The answer is clearly the latter IMHO. I say this, of course, assuming the values and beliefs that someone in that situation is likely to have as my own would bias me against going to war to begin with.

That list at 5:15 is like being punched in the gut once per second for 6 seconds

*democracy intensifies*

What a great video. For the link between boobs and cats if nothing else

6:35 mixing metaphors like a fish out of the frying pan when in Rome.

the problem is the people who are deciding what topics twitter, Instagram or facebook should focus on a given day. More often then not its people like elon musk, joe rogan and mr beast which is mainly right leaning but includes both left and right politicians who couldn't actually give a fuck about what they preach about and just use it as a distraction from the real issues that actually affect the health of our society

@aturchomicz821

2 жыл бұрын

ok?

Assuming that algorithms can get us out of this mess when it's been shown how easily they can be used to manipulate public thought and discussion is naive. It only takes one bad actor to corrupt the system and there is a lot of incentives for them to do so.

@cuatesanz5611

Жыл бұрын

I am highly concerned and supicious about Algorithm.

Cool to see all these comments of people who haven't finished the video, coming up with their own answers to the question in the title.

@Bojoschannel

2 жыл бұрын

Gotta have an opinion for the sake of it, otherwise people may think you're stupid or something

@shawnruby7011

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bojoschannel this guy has to have a comment for the sake of it otherwise ppl may think he's stupid.

@stnbch3025

2 жыл бұрын

I don't get why democracy and internet are thrown together like that in a statement that says "can fix". Sounds like wishful thinking.

@Bojoschannel

2 жыл бұрын

@@shawnruby7011 man you really are all out ain't you? Watch the video first please, no one cares about your opinions

@shawnruby7011

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bojoschannel you shouldn't be allowed to talk at all.

Did you really just use Vidal vs Buckley instead of Baldwin vs Buckley. How daaaare you?! Jk it’s cool

BE PATIENT! It's on the way...

Great vid apple commercial man!

this whole video could be easily replaced but one single frame of 2 seconds displaying the word "capitalism"

Big corps already have a slice of the action , a slice where they have total dominion . Its happened to my friends, reliant on youtube or ebay theyve gone respectively from 6k a month to less than 1k (utube) and trading to no business assets frozen indefintely (ebay). Welcome to technofeudalism

This opening jam!

@NewtNuke

2 жыл бұрын

"The drama." 😂

I think you are misjudged Tim Pool.

what a gem

@shawnruby7011

2 жыл бұрын

The only gem is the leftists coming in here and talking about intellectual propetty laws or their pet project to try to suggest that can solve these issues. They just obfuscate the issues and add flames to it.

I have watched 17 minutes of this video so far and it feels like I am watching an old vsauce video. After hearing you go down these different rabbit holes, the answer to the name of this video is entertainment, advertisements, and income. Same optimism happened with television. Heck, in some way it had more of a chance as I remember that I would watch pbs late at night go over topics in depth for a ged. Again, too much like an old vsauce video or college art or film student project.

@canhedotricks6078

2 жыл бұрын

I was falling asleep watching this (not an indication of it being boring just a very soothing voice and tone and atmosphere and also being very tired) and I also fall asleep to Vsauce so yeah I can second this.

You can look up any fact instantly, anyone can become informed about anything instantly .... I think Covid closed that case a long time ago, proving to us that just because people can, it does not mean they will.

@brendanoshea2936

2 жыл бұрын

Institutions are not trusted and for good reason. You believe everything the cdc, nih, and who says about covid? You have the algorithm for knowing what sources can be trusted on complex and hyper technical areas of interest?

@brendanoshea2936

2 жыл бұрын

I don't deny that people like to reinforce biases and images that already exist in their minds. But the real fault here is institutional corruption. That failure creates a massive vacuum for the internet to then multiply and give credence to highly improbable claims and cranks.

@rossleeson8626

2 жыл бұрын

People also don’t understand how incremental science works and never will.

I don't think I'd start with Habermas in exploring those early internet voices. The birthday of the internet is '83. Hedley Bull's Anarchical Society (post English School, only from a theoretical stance) came out late 70s. I think there was a sense of declinism that was still pervasive in occidental thinking, but also the confounding belief that discussion alone, and culture, would be enough to make the internet prescriptive. No-one predicted, either, the directive sense of the algorithm in dictating the pathway of various interests, the caucus-leading and agenda-generative platforming that makes the internet divisive. Also, phenomenologically, there are no "real world" impacts on cultural signifiers/discussions, as reflective in structures, schemas, archetypes and the like: the internet isn't a dialogical life-world where truths are eventually arrived at and codified. Crucially here, I don't think conversations on the internet as purely efficacy-led, but are self-reflexive towards the group within which you are a representative. Truth, here, isn't important as much as fidelity. It's also, as you say, performative: provocative to evoke response, and to optimize reaction. Because of all this, though, I think your voluntarism towards taking an active stance towards algorithms falls down: it's precisely because the user of media isn't drawn solely to winning the discussion, but the longer game, that simply a piean to better conversations won't work. There is room for optimism, but it's more the turning away of social media - many of us work on the media, and therefore desist from making provocative noises; this may be the reason that arena of tin-pot gladiators - Twitter - may be a little less ebullient going forward.

@quintessenceSL

2 жыл бұрын

To me it is just a continuation of advertising (medium is the message, century of the self, etc.). Many of these same arguments can be found in early discussions about television (from the utopianism to the disdain of the forerunners of reality tv) We've just found new things and new ways to advertise. Beyond that, you can't make a statement of conflicting values while prescribing what types of discussions should take place. It's just replacing one type of algorithm for another. If there is a problem, it is the early days of the internet the algorithm flowed more or less organically. Now it does not.

is that Michael Imperioli at 0:35 ?

2:14 gevaouch ^^

The internet is a medium. Like TV, Each uploader is racing to the bottom, first in terms of recurrent audience, than in terms monetization and finally for relevancy. Glad you established Internet "optimists" are fools and/or grifters

finally a drama video

very excellent video

Vaush rad

What the tech utopians (and now also Crypto bros) got wrong, was that the old school internet was scaleable. They thought that all their decentralised forums would simply grow and grow, when in fact, the old school internet was really inaccessible for "normies", and light users. My grandma was never going to figure out how to navigate old tech forums, it took a giant centralised platform like facebook, which have been built around usability for her to engage. A decentralised internet is one where every more people have to give back, i think a majority of internet users prefer a Hobbesian bargain of handing over control to big tech companies and getting more usability in return. Its going to be the same with the blockchainsphere and internet 3.0. Usability will always trump internet freedom, and even if you found a way to unite both usability and freedom, you would have to convince people to participate, its the same old problem as any anarchisty government, not everyone wants to go to meetings all the time.

@lsobrien

2 жыл бұрын

Very good point. I hope crypto-bros will read this.

@johnarbuckle2619

2 жыл бұрын

+

@EF-wy3di

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah it's the same issues I've encountered when some socialist purpose outlawing private businesses. They drastically underestimate how many people just want to go to work and get a check and not have to worry about stuff like voting on business strategies. People online tend to have very idealized conceptions of what people would do under their ideal system and not take what people actually care about into consideration. There seems to be this idea that our power structures determine our behavior rather than thinking that our behavior determined our power structures. For every revolutionary progressive there are 100 average Joe's that just want to pay their bills and watch some TV with their families.

@lsobrien

2 жыл бұрын

@@EF-wy3di I don't think people hold up "paying their bills" as some ideal. I, and everyone I know, treats it as a dreaded necessity - we would much rather have no bills. Perhaps you're a bit detached from the "average Joe"?

@EF-wy3di

2 жыл бұрын

@@lsobrien Or you didn't understand what I said. Never said it was some ideal the average Joe holds. They want to be able to sustain their lifestyle and enjoy their free time with their loved ones. That's what the majority of people actually care about.

"Democracy mistakes anarchy for freedom" -plato

@rkdeshdeepak4131

2 жыл бұрын

Anarchy is freedom. Democracy is tyranny

@waltershumer4211

2 жыл бұрын

@Crot Red yes but ask yourself which way political winds have been blowing after the 50s?

@waltershumer4211

2 жыл бұрын

@Crot Red 😉

@janosmarothy5409

2 жыл бұрын

First, that's not a Plato quote. Second, ideal government was effectively an authoritarian oligarchy resting on an economic foundation of slavery, so let's not get too carried away with what he thought about democracy.

@janosmarothy5409

2 жыл бұрын

@Crot Red Yes, we're a democratic republic. The language of democracy and democratic aspirations have been with us since the years leading up to the revolution. "wE'rE a rEpUbLiC nOt a dEmOcRaCy" is a boomer-ass talking point with zero historical backing.

you're right, you can find everything on the internet, even your video idea you thought was original 😔 good shit tho I'm hooked

6:30 dear god i thought all of that was a joke and people never actually used those terms i ironically and now my day is ruined

@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791

2 жыл бұрын

That's what I thought, lol. Apparently this guy is a famous podcaster as well. I despair.

@janosmarothy5409

2 жыл бұрын

No, it's all too serious. Setting aside that we're people, not fucking wolves, it doesn't even accurately describe wolfpack hierarchies and the author who coined the usage has long since abandoned that model in light of new research. Also even within that outdated framework, biologists only talk about alphas and betas, which only underscores how pseudoscientific and imbecilic the made-up categories like gammas and sigmas are

Good video, although you seemed the bury the lede with the misleading title.

Democracy is a propaganda term. It’s not real. A system where people directly control themselves and their community through a majority rule is just called anarchy. That already has a name. A system where representatives make decisions and say that they’re doing it on behalf of people who may not even agree with those decisions is a representative republic. That’s not a democracy. It has a different name because it’s a different thing. “Democracy” is just a word used to dissuade crumbling societies from anarchy. It was NEVER used to describe American government prior to the 1950’s.