BS

facebook

Facebook is a pain.

If it wasn’t Facebook, it would be something else, but right now it’s Facebook.

There’s the whole misinformation thing. “Fake news.”

There’s the constant updating, constant checking.

Facebook.

I wrote about Facebook awhile back:

As the multiplicity of hegemonic theories makes clear, society reinforces its own oppression, advertising its destructive values and false needs to itself. The power and capability for society to do this is intensified and accelerated through social networks. Billboards and commercials impose themselves upon the eye and push values onto us, but Facebook’s users voluntarily turn to it, constantly revisit it, addicted to the messages of their peers.
. . .
No paid-for print, television, or internet campaign can match the power for selling a lifestyle like the constantly advertised lifestyles of real individuals. Surely this is not top-down, unless you consider it the long-term result of seeds sewn in the 20th century. The failed democratic enlightenment of immediate network communication generates a desire and world projection wildly distant from any sub-simulation reality or truth.

While the 1990s models of avatars, online personas, and impersonations followed a more fantastic, escapist orientation, the subjects created on Facebook are meant to be ourselves. As we do our best to generate ourselves digitally, our status-updated online performances merge with our real-world lived subjects in a strange, subject-blurring exchange. Facebook takes the celebrated internet possibility of crafting avatars and other-dimension personas as step further and superimposes the persona back onto the real-world person.

That's not to say that there are no subject-affirming aspects to Facebook, the internet, or any of the examined media. Clearly this is not the case, but what I here mention are unfortunate and dominant tendencies that can be used in the strategizing of militant media, or at least the evaluation of existing media for its effectiveness in counter militancy.

So that wasn’t as interesting as I had hoped, closer to what I had guessed, and in one aspect it’s off the mark. “Surely this is not top-down.” Those of us who work with Facebook in 2017 know the weight of pay-to-play. That’s not to say that as an individual I need to pay for interactions with my "friends," but much of what drives Facebook is paid content. We follow pages. Those pages want their content seen and shared. The more they pay, the more it’s seen, the more (if it interest their followers) it’s shared. This is not particularly interesting beyond its correction of the above analysis.

More interesting is the way that Paul Virilio’s writings on the speed of misinformation and public opinion and sentiment played out in this recent election. But that’s been explored ad nauseam, which Google tells me since is “referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.” Wow, that sounds like everything! P.S. looks like Google strips that from Oxford.

More nauseating than the fake news thing is the forum of public expression. The forum of nonsense. YouTube comments or 4chan come to mind, but they don’t have the benefit of being in front of everyone’e eyes 24/7. They don’t have the mainstream legitimacy. I can hold a job without chewing that. Facebook on the other hand…

OK, so let's force a binary. Is the world a better or worse place because of Facebook? We've (I've) said that if it wasn't Facebook it would be something else, but it is Facebook.
There's certainly positive. Communication, community, expression, information sharing, mobilization, exposure to others.
Then there's the echo chamber.
Then there's the auto-advertising.
The status-seeking.
The obsession.
I don't know. It magnifies and amplifies particular aspects of our cultures and selves, some in ways that we might deem positive, others negative.
I guess I'd critique this moment by questioning the value of trying to judge Facebook or think about what or how it is rather than how it manifests and operates in reality (as a phenomenon). But there's no time for that.

malaise

facebook

iPhone

race

sex

identity

privilege

decency

status

global exploitation

the environment

electoral politics

meetings

expectations

work

watson

facebook live show

Here's an idea for a 10-part Facebook Live series, every Tuesday and Thursday for the first five weeks of 2017:

what to do about donald trump

convene a panel of radical thinkers + moderator

show 1: 8 responses to the guy
(state-based resistance, secession, electoral thing (too late by then), build dem. party for 4 years, etc.)

shows 2-9: discuss the possibilities around each idea

show 10: decide on one, revise the plan, determine next steps

new political party

Is the democratic party the vehicle for progress, is extra-parliamentary action, or is a third party?
How about a new third party?
TPHW - Thought Progress Humanity World [party]
What are its tenets? What does it stand for? How will it gain popularity?
But then why isn't it just the socialist party?

stop him

I wonder if there's any way to stop this from happening.
The lack of imagination on the part of centrist democrats led to the failure of the Sanders campaign.
Although this goal would take even greater imagination and initiative, is it not possible?

ok

I think I can get it all in order today.

white white

white white blah blah blah white this blah blah white

so

If I have to be here, it's good to be busy.

the universal

There can be universal truth even if we have no access to it.
This doesn't place essence over existence. It can exist without being perceived.
But is our intuitive sense of a it a form of perception and interface anyway?
Or is this just delusion?
The presence of universal truth(s?) does not preclude necessary relativism on most issues within language and ethics.

idea

So aside from my regular reading I'm in this reading group... maybe per reading I'll take a few highlighted elements and comment.
This is sure to be uninteresting.

lo-fi again

I happened to take a look at my most recent posts and noticed the item below about "lo-fi" techno and was confused.
I was confused because just a couple of days ago I had made similar complaints (to myself) and here thought, "How could that have been before the trip?"
Then I realized that it was a different release.
So anyway a couple of days ago I was listening to a well-regarded producer's new album and really struggled to finish it due to ear fatigue.
Should I name names? I'm really not into audio that's pointlessly blown out, and it can't be saved with interesting backstory and imagery.
There are a few producers I'm repeatedly duped into checking out or reluctantly trying again by reviews and retailers. I think I've finally thrown a few into the DNR zone.

rough

It's been a really rough week.
It's Thursday morning now.
Next week will be better.

-

I don't want to deal with people.

short note on the exceptional

There's the exceptional that's demonstrated, performed, and proven, and then there's exceptionalism that's assumed and abused.

Former: getting more done, having strong ideas, rising to occasions, assuming burdens, not taking a path simply because it's easy or popular, etc.
Latter: expecting to not have to do things, assuming illegitimate authority, not following rules only because they are a burden to you, taking an opposite path simply because the other is popular

and then there's a value judgement

detox

bleh

upcoming topics:
exceptionalism

new year

This vacation is going to be like a new year transition thing.

whatever

I want today to be over.
Have to give a somewhat annoying presentation.

FDT

On Tuesday I had semi-crippling depression related to Donald Trump.

How are people so stupid? His wife had just given her plagiarized speech, and apologists were saying things like it's not plagiarism because it's just a few lines, or that it was just similar themes and not the same words. I wanted to strangle the guy in this interview. A friend and I have talked about how what people say doesn't matter. We've always meant it to be about the precision of what people say, that the actual words do not matter. Not that we personally believe they do not or should not matter but that we see in places like advertising wording that makes things simply false being totally acceptable, this kind of thing.

A few weeks ago I mildly debated and mostly listened to a couple who had been strong Bernie Sanders supporters and were now arguing that Donald Trump was no worse than Hilary Clinton (they intend to vote for Jill Stein and at the time unrealistically thought Sanders might also go to a third party). They cited Hilary's record on war, foreign trade, and other issues that are terrible but at the same time typical of establishment politics, American imperialism, business as usual.

Donald Trump's faults go beyond the conservative, unimaginative, structurally-chained muck of party politics. What shocks me is the way his lies, prejudices, and ignorance are simply not veiled. They're not behind ideology and structures. His glittering generalities and abuses of the vague language of advertising are advertising what exactly? He represents truly the worst in us, and it's shocking that he has so many supporters. How are people capable of swallowing what he spews? What can be done to stop him?

I think Ken Burns actually had some worthwhile commentary recently. The early portion about technology sounds a bit like Paul Virilio.

maybe

ok I'm going to try

zip

I just attempted and failed to leave a comment on a user-participation thing I'm trying to promote. Seems like the only thing I'm willing to say in public is "I enjoyed this album."

standing room only

was at the surgeon / cortini / swanson / etc. show...

Can I please get a chair?

reading

I wish I had more time to read.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - BS