[liquidise]

I have an opposite reaction for what I assume are reasons we agree on.

Social media has been a transparent race to the bottom for many years. The sooner it is shittified beyond repair the better. AI flooding content to them should help speedrun its descent, or maybe I’ve giving the average user (above child age) too much credit.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

Has accelerationism worked before?

[dmos62]

WW2 produced some diplomatically-brilliant world leaders. I think you could say that any situation that's headed in an unsustainable direction is being affected by accelerationism. In fact, the old observation "a fool will become a master if he perseveres in his folly" is much about the same thing.

[BobaFloutist]

I think accelerationism specifically refers to doing it on purpose. I doubt many of the decision-makers in WW2 were driven by a desire to elevate and support corrupt institutions as much as possible in the hopes that the corruption inherent in the system would lead to a collapse and people would have no choice but to cooperate towards a brighter and more progressive tomorrow.

And anyone that wants to use WW2 as a model for their theory of change is also (I hope) glossing over the abominable death toll. "Once sufficient 10s of millions of people die, everyone will be so horrified and traumatized by the widespread death and destruction that they'll be have no choice but to collaborate to enact the better world I'm picturing," beyond relying on an n of 1 and ignoring the decades of cold war that ensued, is also...hard to argue is worth it.

[jim33442]

I think so. These sites can be hardened by relying on people following who they know, but the slop ruins discoverability. That's also partially the reason people moved to TikTok from older, more dumped-on platforms.

[627467]

...so TikTok is less dumped on?

[BobaFloutist]

I assume it was when it was newer, as they all were.

[jim33442]

It might still be. It's not so much about the quality of the content as you or I would judge it, it's the authenticity.

[BobaFloutist]

It's the authenticity, but even more than that it's the saturation of inauthenticity. Even if there's oodles of authentic content, if there's enough inauthentic content to drown it out, you enter a vicious cycle where plummeting interactions and new authentic content both deed each other.

I have a hypothesis that network effects kick in for social interaction before they do for monetisation, which is why the advertisers/influencers/propagandists/scammers(/trolls, though this is different) are in a constant state of hunting down and infesting whatever platform good-faith users have most recently fled them too. Part of it is likely that smaller communities are more robust and have an easier time identifying and repelling smaller-scale incursions, but I suspect a big part is that smaller communities simply aren't worth the investment of larger incursions, especially since they'll more easily be ruined before any real payout.

Anyway, I agree with you that "quality" (as in effort and craft) is lower on the list of factors than authenticity, which makes complete sense. There was a time when a well-crafted ad was worthy of note, but ads have been so sneaky and pervasive that I think many people are desperate to have a spontaneous interaction or experience that's not trying to sell them anything.