[cyberferret]

My wife and I were just talking about this today, coincidentally.

She follows a few people around the world who are artists or collectors on IG. She pointed out to me that when she started following some of them more than a year ago, they had a few hundred followers, and were posting general stuff, but which all felt heartfelt and 'in the moment'. I think 'genuine' was the word my wife used. Kids doing silly things. Artwork in various stages of completion, etc.

But now, she has noticed a couple of them have rocketed to over hundreds of thousands of followers, and their posts have changed to become quite soulless and fake. Obviously they have been engaged by a marketing or promotional company that sanitises and sets up their posts for them.

All of a sudden, an artist who was formerly struggling to raise a family and make meaningful work is announcing (and posting photos) that they are in [insert brand name here] health spa having a weekend pampering. Continuous shots of not the art or kids, but of bath products, massage companies, drink companies etc. all heavily hashtagged. Following up a few days later are pictures of the kids, but this time around a brand new laptop with the manufacturers name and laptop model hashtagged to the hilt.

As @sAbakumoff pointed out here - this is "Black Mirror" Season 3 Episode 1 come to life. I have nothing against someone doing promotional work to earn money to live, but I do have a problem with people portraying a totally fake and unrealistic life as a reality.

We are just seeing magazines starting to push back against "Generation Photoshop" and go back to 'real' shots of people again (Pirelli 2017 calendar a case in point), but are we now going to replace Photoshop with 'posed reality'? I know a lot of us do that to a certain extent on social media anyway, but not for discounts or monetary compensation, usually.

[personlurking]

For anyone not familiar with French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, I recommend reading up on his ideas around 'posed reality', as it were.

____

"Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no original to begin with, or that no longer have an original.

Baudrillard believed that society has become so saturated with these simulacra and our lives so saturated with the constructs of society that all meaning was being rendered meaningless by being infinitely mutable."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard

[icebraining]

"All that once was directly lived has become mere representation."

"Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

[chillwaves]

Can watch a rework here (I liked it).

https://vimeo.com/60328678

[AndrewKemendo]

Thanks for that. Very much a rabbit hole for Situationism which I had only ever barely interacted with when I was more active in Anarchist philosophy.

[personlurking]

Interesting. The next book on my shelf to read is "Civilization of the Spectacle" by Mario Vargas Llosa.

http://www.worldliteraturetoday.org/2013/january/la-civiliza...

[icebraining]

The similarity is probably not a coincidence; Debord's book is the most significant text of the Situationist movement, which was quite influential in the New Left, particularly in the 60s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International

[HeroOfAges]

I remember being exposed to that novel for the first time as a young man while watching The Matrix. Neo was hiding a data disk in a hollowed out copy of the book on his bookshelf. The ideas were far beyond what I could relate to or understand as a 22 year old. I doubt I still have the old paperback I ordered from Amazon, but I intend to track down a copy and have another go at it.

[SuperPaintMan]

Recent cultural developments are showing a shift away from this infinitely malleable meaning and unique definition (towards a shared consensus definitions that can be used for communication.

See Metamodernism and present day echo chambers.

[pierrefar]

FWIW, the FTC is getting really interested in influencer marketing. Also from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-05/ftc-to-cr...

Or ask your favorite search engine about FTC influencer marketing.

[shellehs]

I guess(and hope) more and more people are going to accept the fact, most beautiful photos on social media are fake and crafted reality. The people appeared in a photo just like a cartoon character similarly. What you see is not reality but dream you want to live with. Just like you are watching a movie, sometime you can get out from the movie, but you know it is a movie deep in your heart

[cyberferret]

But when I pay for a movie ticket or rent in on NetFlix/Apple TV/whatever, I am expecting it to be fiction, and I am mentally prepared to lose myself in the experience. Same with books, theme parks, plays etc.

However, when I follow people on social media, I am expecting something that is a little more 1 to 1, and a lot more real. I am interested in programming, guitars, aviation etc. and follow people with the same passions.

If I have to do extra detective whenever someone posted a picture of some guitar gear, in order to find out whether they posted it because they were really inspired by it, or whether they were paid by a manufacturer to do it, then it really renders the interaction meaningless, and I would rather do without it.

I'll never pay to go see a live music performance if I know the players are just miming to backing tracks. I go to experience the actual process, pain and joy of someone working hard to create music. The odd mistake and off key note all ADD to the performance for me, not detract. It reminds me that we are all not perfect, but we still try to reach out to each other to connect.

If we are all just living in a plastic world now, where we have to question every interaction to ascertain whether it is real or not, then I am not sure I want to participate in that world anymore.

[equalarrow]

Well, honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could expect any of this to be genuine or real.. Sure, there are a lot of normal folks posting normal, routine things on social networks, but Instagram was not purchased for $1b to be a mirror of real life (or is it??). Twitter is a public company, with shareholders and revenue they have to make. While we have all become acclimated to 'free' products and expect them, typically if it's free, you are the product.

I stopped using social media because we probably do have to question every interaction - unless you physically know the person.

I have spent time over the past few years in marketing and nothing in that world is genuine. I bet most people on all the social networks with a significant following are trying to sell something at some point. This isn't meant to be cynical, just realistic. And with (what I've read) 20%+ fake accounts on facebook - what do you think most of those are for? They're not to propel society and humanity forward.

I'm ok not being an easy 'influencer' via likes or follows. I prefer to influence and engage with colleagues and friends is the slow, real world. At the end of the day, I don't have any guilt that I've potentially ripped anyone off and when my head hits the pillow, I don't feel compelled to be checking my phone.

There are ways to not be a luddite and have meaningful relationships through technology helping. But technology being the only driver, in my mind, is just not real.

And I actually build technology every day, so I don't say any of this lightly. My biggest challenge in the coming years is to help my kids find balance when they reach that point of wanting a phone. I am not looking forward to that because the odds are stacked against 'the old guy'..

[thesagan]

This is where Fred McFeely Rogers found his calling; when he saw how kids were being affected by commercial television he found is career. Recently I'm having an extremely strong urge to ask the same questions he did and do something about it. I wonder if this is a silly thought, though. I hope not.

Perhaps a kindred soul on HN knows of someone/group working on reaching children in a very authentic way like Mr. Rogers and crew did.

[lonewolf_ninja]

Your points resonate with me. In today's social media filled world where technology is probably the only major way for you to keep in touch with friends and family living hundreds of miles away - finding that balance is essential.

Going forward 'technology-life' balance would be the biggest challenge faced by millennials and the future generations.

[ryandrake]

You join a platform whose purpose is promotion and advertisement and are surprised when you see promotion and advertisement? Just assume everything on LinkedInstaFaceTwit is an ad and a lot more will make sense.

[astrobe_]

> If we are all just living in a plastic world now [...] then I am not sure I want to participate in that world anymore.

People are often worried about being too self-centred, but they really should be worried about being too "others-centred".

[icebraining]

This is just celebrities cutting out the middlemen (gossip magazines), not a new phenomenon.

[johnchristopher]

But that's not really the point of that episode. It dealt more with alienation and stigma associated with artificial social constructs that have real serious life-threatening consequences than undercover advertising.

Everyone seem to spot those ad-sponsored social network objects/constructs though so I don't know if things are that bad.

[AndrewKemendo]

I have nothing against someone doing promotional work to earn money to live, but I do have a problem with people portraying a totally fake and unrealistic life as a reality.

They are simply responding to what people want to see. If people wanted to see real life then that's what people would give them.

People want inspiration and to feel like they are associating (by liking and commenting) with people they aspire to be like. That's nothing new, that's basic human behavior.

[cyberferret]

Is this 'celebrity culture' gone wild though? People regard other people more highly if they are 'celebrities', therefore even if the average Joe or Jane Schmoe is perceived as a 'celebrity' then they are automatically worthy of more recognition that your peers?

Does the movie, TV, music and magazine industry have something to answer for when a person is famous for just being famous, whereas people who do meaningful, life changing/saving work are just glossed over?

[AndrewKemendo]

Implicit in your question though is the proposition that there is an objective hierarchy of what is "meaningful."

One could argue that what Lady Gaga and Truman Capote did for the LGBT movement was/is meaningful perhaps contextually moreso than what you or I might consider the more meaningful work of eg. Margaret Hamilton.

I agree that there is such a hierarchy but it's not uniformly agreed upon.

[stevekemp]

Same for me. I do rock-climbing (bouldering) and weight-lifting. I used to follow a bunch of "fit men" and "fit women" which were both fun to look at and a little inspirational.

These days the vast majority of the "fitness model"-type accounts exist solely to sell their diet/workout plans, along with supplements. Sometimes this is subtle, but mostly it is not.

[NumberCruncher]

>> I do have a problem with people portraying a totally fake and unrealistic life as a reality.

Knowing the real nature of life and your fellow human beings may have some undesired side effects. It may need a greatness of mind for not stopping to love them. Be careful what you wish for.

Sometimes it is better letting people to show a fake and unrealistic picture and acting the fool letting they think you belive what you see.

[_pmf_]

Unfortunately, society has made its choice that art itself is completely worthless unless artists engage in person cults. It'd be really nice if concepts like Pinterest could change this (in small ways, I'm sure they did).