Very good point! He'll be in a reasonably good place when YouTube goes to shit.

First of all, thank you for the fantastic feedback.

We live in a society that commodifies everything, and as human-made content becomes rarer, more people like Veritsaium will be presented with more and increasingly lucrative opportunities to sell bits and pieces of their authenticity for manufactured content (be it by AI or a marketing team), while new people that could be like Veritsaium will be drowned out by the heaps of bullshit clogging up the web.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make in the last section, except I used MrBeast as an example because I felt like it was easier for readers to accept his propensity for cutting corners to make a buck. But yes, I agree, things will get worse. Before it was common knowledge that cigarettes caused cancer, a whole lot of people had to get cancer.

I also think it's important to remember that people don't actually follow Veritasium directly. They follow him indirectly by means of YouTube. If people could actually follow him directly he wouldn't need to worry about competing with AI crap for the attention of YouTube's algorithm. But of course, YouTube would never allow that.

Eh, what you've identified as the thesis is actually just a butt-covering footnote to prevent Reddit-style "ackchually" comments. When I wrote it I was still submitting posts to Reddit. I guess that's on me for assuming the central point was more obvious.

Haha I know that made me chuckle too

I look at that as as proof it wasn't written by GPT.

You're not incorrect, but I think the thing that differentiates this era of social media from the "before times" (I was there too) is that it's significantly easier for non-techies to join. The internet nowadays has significantly more diversity of perspectives than back then. Those differences are exploited and exaggerated by social media companies to generate engagement. It seems to m that the fediverse model allows for diversity and sanity (or at least not algorithmically-encouraged _in_sanity).

Thanks for reading and the comment!

The example you mention is actually in the essay itself. But yes, it would be nice if the technology companies could work on a way to automate the stuff we don't enjoy doing instead of the stuff that brings meaning into our lives.

Absolutely. And to be fair, "a chance at fame and attention" is the sales pitch from the commercial platforms. They don't want users having "meaningful conversation". There's a great essay/rant from Cat Valente called "Stop Talking to Each Other and Start Buying Things".

Thank you! I put a lot of effort into it.

To cross-post on Lemmy/kbin you just... make the new post right?

I personally am a big advocate of "no entertainment on mobile devices" whatsoever, but that said- I've played around with this modified version of Instagram and it's pretty cool. I don't think it changes the sort to chronological, but it does remove suggested content and allows users to turn off stories, reels and more (use at your own risk, I have no idea the safety of this).

Well said, your comment reminded me of this essay I recently read by @carl that has a great opening analogy:

Imagine all the squares, streets, parks, and venues you visit or live by in are owned by just one or a few companies. They not only own all these places but also determine what they are to be used for, and who can use them. They decide who can be there and who cannot. Mostly, it's free rent, for these companies finance everything through advertising.

Because of this, all places are designed so that everyone will consume the advertising. In the town hall, the agenda of the municipal council is adapted according to the length of advertising breaks. In the park, you can hear advertisements over the loudspeakers at regular intervals. At the playground, there's advertising targeted at the very youngest, and at the retirement home, ads for the very oldest.

Yes exactly! It's much more "media" and not much "social" these days.