You have heard of "dead internet theory" but you probably haven't looked at the theory as originally posted.
-
YES.
Playing along with the theory is part of the theory *takes bong hit* it's so deeeep maaaan
You want a real conspiracy? Here is mine: Why do theories as sophomoric as "dead internet theory" and "NPC theory" or "simulation theory" or "Roko's basilisk" get *any* oxygen at all in media?
These are half-baked shower-thoughts at best.
But they are also concepts that teach helplessness and self-isolation.
If you were the kind of person who feared the internet as a tool for grass roots organizing "dead internet theory" would make all would be activists dead in the water.
-
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic
-
You want a real conspiracy? Here is mine: Why do theories as sophomoric as "dead internet theory" and "NPC theory" or "simulation theory" or "Roko's basilisk" get *any* oxygen at all in media?
These are half-baked shower-thoughts at best.
But they are also concepts that teach helplessness and self-isolation.
If you were the kind of person who feared the internet as a tool for grass roots organizing "dead internet theory" would make all would be activists dead in the water.
All these would-be supermen convinced they need to serve an imaginary future all controlling fathe-- I mean inevitable super intelligent AI.
smh
-
You want a real conspiracy? Here is mine: Why do theories as sophomoric as "dead internet theory" and "NPC theory" or "simulation theory" or "Roko's basilisk" get *any* oxygen at all in media?
These are half-baked shower-thoughts at best.
But they are also concepts that teach helplessness and self-isolation.
If you were the kind of person who feared the internet as a tool for grass roots organizing "dead internet theory" would make all would be activists dead in the water.
@futurebird @celesteh it's the same strategy as doing 80,000 terrible things all in 100ish days. It's noise to signal ratio, yes all 80k are "bad on a scale of 1-terrible" but some are far more terrible than the others and the idea is we miss things like "ooh let's think about one vote per household" because we're busy rolling our eyes at changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico. It's death by 1000 cuts and it's absolutely designed to make us feel helpless and to retreat, alone.
-
@futurebird @celesteh it's the same strategy as doing 80,000 terrible things all in 100ish days. It's noise to signal ratio, yes all 80k are "bad on a scale of 1-terrible" but some are far more terrible than the others and the idea is we miss things like "ooh let's think about one vote per household" because we're busy rolling our eyes at changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico. It's death by 1000 cuts and it's absolutely designed to make us feel helpless and to retreat, alone.
@futurebird @celesteh but i will add: I will not allow this to "work" on me. And i think there might be some underestimation of quite how many of us feel that same way. We won't tolerate loss of rights, of freedoms, of dreams. Not for ourselves, nor for our kids. Yes there are days it feels insurmountable. But when you realize that's how they want you to feel... I for one go from sad to mad. And there are millions of us.
-
You want a real conspiracy? Here is mine: Why do theories as sophomoric as "dead internet theory" and "NPC theory" or "simulation theory" or "Roko's basilisk" get *any* oxygen at all in media?
These are half-baked shower-thoughts at best.
But they are also concepts that teach helplessness and self-isolation.
If you were the kind of person who feared the internet as a tool for grass roots organizing "dead internet theory" would make all would be activists dead in the water.
Oh I love this, thank you for putting this into words - it's something I've struggled to articulate about why I don't love these particular sorta "stoner philosophy" favs.
-
But when you read up on the people who are into this idea they think that they are *really* being Trueman Show'd by bots and that nearly everyone online is a part of a psyop to get them to take COVID shots, live in a pod and eat bugs.
This stuff isn't coming from a good place or a healthy place and I somehow didn't know that. I thought it was just a general "golly there are too many ads and bots and that sucks."
(and I do think it sucks, that's why I'm here ) 4/4
Anyway, it's bad.
@futurebird there have always been people who didn’t treat internet interactions or the people behind them as “real” and this seems like a formalization of that perspective. Like “it’s okay to be an asshole to everyone online because they’re all just bots anyway.”
-
Some of the points raised are:
* Content is Recycled
* News is Recycled
* People online vanish without reason
* The internet makes people "sexually perverted"
* People are in bubblesNow all of these has a ... touch of truth, except for possibly #4 which seems more like a personal problem. But, these are also nothing new ...
And thinking that people you interacted with for years online are bots is deeply unstable thinking. Bots can do reactions, but bots can't do relationships. 3/
@futurebird I will break in to say: having a news article from 2 or 5 or 20 years ago get a new round of posts linking to it is actually a good thing; in most cases, the relevant events are still having consequences that are relevant today, and most of the time people benefit from being reminded of them. This is especially important for political news and science news, two areas in which nearly all reporters report nearly everything as if history and context were totally irrelevant.
-
But when you read up on the people who are into this idea they think that they are *really* being Trueman Show'd by bots and that nearly everyone online is a part of a psyop to get them to take COVID shots, live in a pod and eat bugs.
This stuff isn't coming from a good place or a healthy place and I somehow didn't know that. I thought it was just a general "golly there are too many ads and bots and that sucks."
(and I do think it sucks, that's why I'm here ) 4/4
Anyway, it's bad.
@futurebird I thought it was just a philosophical exercise akin to Descartes's method of doubt or Plato's cave
-
You want a real conspiracy? Here is mine: Why do theories as sophomoric as "dead internet theory" and "NPC theory" or "simulation theory" or "Roko's basilisk" get *any* oxygen at all in media?
These are half-baked shower-thoughts at best.
But they are also concepts that teach helplessness and self-isolation.
If you were the kind of person who feared the internet as a tool for grass roots organizing "dead internet theory" would make all would be activists dead in the water.
@futurebird @celesteh I have one related too the Basilisk: why do all conspiracy theories involve Bill Gates and none involved certified insane villain and hand-up-VPs ass Peter Thiel
-
@futurebird @celesteh I have one related too the Basilisk: why do all conspiracy theories involve Bill Gates and none involved certified insane villain and hand-up-VPs ass Peter Thiel
-
@futurebird I thought it was just a philosophical exercise akin to Descartes's method of doubt or Plato's cave
It can be that. But, there is another stoner nihilism version and that's what came first.
-
You have heard of "dead internet theory" but you probably haven't looked at the theory as originally posted.
It's often summed up as "the internet is just a bunch of bots talking to each other" ... and it's tempting to nod along: it's fun to say that "things were better in my day" and YES many sites have too many bots.
However I wish to present the take that the now four-year-old "The Dead Internet Theory" is ... Bad Actually. 1/
@futurebird Saying “the Internet is dead” is problematic for all the reasons you cite … but maybe “how MUCH of the Internet is dead?” is a more interesting question. What percentage of content is never seen by humans (AI slop, SEObait, random automated data etc)? What percentage of traffic is pointless bot activity, spam, click-fraud attempts etc? How much storage is devoted to duplicate data, unwatched videos & pics from everyone’s phones etc?
It may not be dead, but there’s a lot of decay.
-
You want a real conspiracy? Here is mine: Why do theories as sophomoric as "dead internet theory" and "NPC theory" or "simulation theory" or "Roko's basilisk" get *any* oxygen at all in media?
These are half-baked shower-thoughts at best.
But they are also concepts that teach helplessness and self-isolation.
If you were the kind of person who feared the internet as a tool for grass roots organizing "dead internet theory" would make all would be activists dead in the water.
@futurebird I am personally a huge fan of Roko's Basilisk as it is an accurate way to tell if the person you're talking to is an incurious muppet with a fantasy of complying in advance.
-
All these would-be supermen convinced they need to serve an imaginary future all controlling fathe-- I mean inevitable super intelligent AI.
smh
@futurebird
Social capital is a term originating in sociology and recognized by economics since the late 1990s. Facebook was born in 2004. Since it is a form of capital that resides in, or better yet, **among** individuals, its appropriation by large companies presented certain problems for conventional methods, which social media have come to solve.
... -
@futurebird
Social capital is a term originating in sociology and recognized by economics since the late 1990s. Facebook was born in 2004. Since it is a form of capital that resides in, or better yet, **among** individuals, its appropriation by large companies presented certain problems for conventional methods, which social media have come to solve.
...@futurebird
...
It is a form of capital that is, if anything, even more intertwined with governance and access to decision-making power than monetary capital, making its mastery and control vital. All these conspiracy theories seek to nullify the part of it that escapes the power of corporations and their leaders.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital -
@futurebird I am personally a huge fan of Roko's Basilisk as it is an accurate way to tell if the person you're talking to is an incurious muppet with a fantasy of complying in advance.
@trenchworms I mean 100% yes but otoh every time I'm reminded of Roko's Basilisk I'm filled with utter rage at how stupid you'd have to be to come up with such internally inconsistent, cherry-picked ad absurdum nonsense. Leave alone that "otherwise benevolent" is doing a lot of work here but ffs what if an AI punishes everyone who *did* contribute to its development? What if dolphins take over and punish everyone who ate sushi? Like, come on, Roko, just live your life mate.
-
@trenchworms I mean 100% yes but otoh every time I'm reminded of Roko's Basilisk I'm filled with utter rage at how stupid you'd have to be to come up with such internally inconsistent, cherry-picked ad absurdum nonsense. Leave alone that "otherwise benevolent" is doing a lot of work here but ffs what if an AI punishes everyone who *did* contribute to its development? What if dolphins take over and punish everyone who ate sushi? Like, come on, Roko, just live your life mate.
@zeborah @trenchworms @futurebird I had to look that one up. Wow it's stupid.
It falls apart at every level. Like the basic premise seems to be that it would reverse punish people who didn't help it in the past because this would incentivize helping it, but that only applies after it exists, so it can't actually incentivize anything in the past before it exists. It's a total non-sequitur. It can't affect the past from the present. It can only affect the future from the present... In fact, the incentive this produces is the opposite of the claim. It makes you want to work to prevent it.
Either people are trying too hard to get meta with this and confusing themselves or they're just plain not that smart to begin with and think it makes them sound smarter than they are.
-
@zeborah @trenchworms @futurebird I had to look that one up. Wow it's stupid.
It falls apart at every level. Like the basic premise seems to be that it would reverse punish people who didn't help it in the past because this would incentivize helping it, but that only applies after it exists, so it can't actually incentivize anything in the past before it exists. It's a total non-sequitur. It can't affect the past from the present. It can only affect the future from the present... In fact, the incentive this produces is the opposite of the claim. It makes you want to work to prevent it.
Either people are trying too hard to get meta with this and confusing themselves or they're just plain not that smart to begin with and think it makes them sound smarter than they are.
@nazokiyoubinbou @zeborah @trenchworms
Roko's Basilisk is just Pascal's Wager in a "Spirit Halloween" "Cyber Punk" (Neo from the Matrix) costume.
Basically Pascal's Wager but like this:
-
@nazokiyoubinbou @zeborah @trenchworms
Roko's Basilisk is just Pascal's Wager in a "Spirit Halloween" "Cyber Punk" (Neo from the Matrix) costume.
Basically Pascal's Wager but like this:
@futurebird @nazokiyoubinbou @zeborah @trenchworms I would also draw a parallel to the "what will you tell your grandchildren when they ask what you did about X?" line that occasionally pops up. It's a mechanism for manipulating people by tricking them into imagining a hypothetical future being whose opinion they would (for widely varying reasons) care about, and then framing that hypothetical being as taking whatever position the manipulator is trying to manipulate you into taking.
There's a reason I never, ever, ever use that line, even when a lot of people who otherwise agree with me do.
-
@futurebird @nazokiyoubinbou @zeborah @trenchworms I would also draw a parallel to the "what will you tell your grandchildren when they ask what you did about X?" line that occasionally pops up. It's a mechanism for manipulating people by tricking them into imagining a hypothetical future being whose opinion they would (for widely varying reasons) care about, and then framing that hypothetical being as taking whatever position the manipulator is trying to manipulate you into taking.
There's a reason I never, ever, ever use that line, even when a lot of people who otherwise agree with me do.
@kechpaja @nazokiyoubinbou @zeborah @trenchworms
But at least having grand-children are an empirically verified phenomenon that that really exist. Whereas an AI that hates you isn't.
So worrying about what grad-children might think is more grounded in reality.
