platform-as-place/src/script-primaryVO.txt

*inhale*
I don't hate people on TikTok. I hate TikTok. We should all make that sort of distinction - we should treat technology platforms as tools people use, rather than peoples' homes.
When you let a platform become a place, and then *your* place, it becomes your prison. I know, that sounds very /r/I'm14andThisIsDeepAlbeitHyperbolic. Let me make my case. Or as the tiktok kids have probably stopped saying by now, lemme cook.


I don't know if people still have a feeling of a Home Forum. 
I won't bore you with mine, but I'll say that even now "NWS" feels right and "NSFW" feels weird. "So what?" you may say. "Cultures emerge, something something diversity etc". 
Microcosms of culture are all well and good. But an account on a website is not membership in a community, it's identity within a market segment.


I could pick out plenty of low-quality garbage on tiktok, say "this is what's on tiktok and that's why tiktok is bad", just as easily as I could cherrypick high quality stuff and say "this is what's on tiktok and that's why tiktok is great". 
I know saying anything negative about tiktok gets me branded as old, so let me pull out a reference that's even older than me. Sturgeon's Law: 90% of *everything* is crap. 
I'd argue the acronym "NWS" counts as slang. We might know some tiktok-slang - how about the euphemism "unalive"? It's a subcategory of slang called algospeak. Saying the word "murder" worries platform owners that you'll offend the delicate sensibilities of shareholders, so tiktok censors the concepts they don't want you to discuss.
At the risk of starting an internet argument, censorship is bad, and stopping you from saying something is censorship.  we are witnessing censorship, and pitiful attempts to circumvent it, right now. 
Hypothetical: suppose I said, if anyone says the word "the" in my house, I'll hit them. One imagines you would leave *the* house pretty quick.
Now suppose you live in my house. Now it's quite clear that I'm abusing you.
TikTok algospeak is appeasing that sort of behavior. 

if you have something to say about some unfavorable topic - perhaps a certain demonstration in a certain square in the year i was born - yet you feel attached to tiktok like it was your home.. you dance around the topic to fly under the radar of the censors. In doing so, you're self-censoring. imagine if tiktok had some way to ask you if you're interested in the current trending thing, like twitter's trending topics. Now imagine that there *was* an approaching protest for an extradition bill, but for some reason that couldn't be said outright, so the meme was to instead say something boring, like... tax return extension. Spreading awareness is not going to happen. But people do this because what they care about is their fame on tiktok. A place is made for you, and all it asks is that you let them have your speech.


in the tech sector, the way to make money is to blatantly do something evil and call it innovation. have you heard the most irritating phrasal template, "as a service"? minimal version for any grass-touching griddle critters:
when you make some software thing for people there is inevitably a technology stack, like this one.
you would buy these things, and then have them. 
what a concept.
what if you gave money to the vendor, repeatedly forever, and then they didn't give you the networking, storage, servers, or virtualization? that's Infrastructure As A Service. 
What if you were on this Infinite Payment model, and *also* the vendor didn't let you touch the operating system, any middleware, or the runtime? that's a Platform As A Service. 
What if your subscription was a bit more expensive, and they owned your data and applications, too? That's Software As A Service.
generally the allure is that it's lower *startup* cost, that you get to outsource complexity and effort to them. Sure you can't take your stuff elsewhere, but as long as they never raise the price, the math works out.


Notice, once a platform owner has its hooks in you, you own less and less. 
in the past, there have been game mods that spawned genres of videogames.
you'd better believe that if you try that again, the game's publisher will be taking ownership of that idea from you, thank you very much.


Twitter users have been complaining about how it's dead, for real this time, for the majority of its existence. A constant cycle of the platform finding new ways to suck, people threatening to leave, and then not leaving. 
If you're a twitter executive, the message is clear: people will accept whatever you do to them, as long as you're slow enough.
Youtube has the same pattern. Its history is a litany of shifting creators' adsense money over to copyright squatters, while encouraging worse and worse content. Twitch, the company built on South Korean Starcraft streamers which pulled out of Korea because it's too expensive, might as well send everyone a handwritten note to say "leave our platform!"
No one will. 
It's the classic problem. On Youtube, people view Rumble as a place filled with undesirable exiles.
Twitchists and X-People make up reasons for themselves to view the users of their platforms' rivals as their own enemies. 
When you think of yourself not as a creator of static video content, but rather as a youtuber, youtube rests on that loyalty. That's way easier than doing anything to implement moderation features like what twitch has. All they have to do is let you tell yourself there's barbarians at the gates.
If you have the inexplicable addiction to twitter that the world seems to have, you won't dream of being able to post 1024 characters at a time like we've been doing on mastodon this whole time. Or you might say something dumb like, 
without realizing that a communication network doesn't *have* to be centralized under one man's stock portfolio,
so you don't have to worry if he starts leaning hard into fascism.


what if, rather than platform barons trying to take everything they can from you, they spent that effort trying to take from each other? (we could "federate" them together... but I'll spare you a second episode of fediverse evangelism.)


You know what was federated well before the fediverse was built? Email. Servers talk to each other, your email address is you@server. 
amazing. 
There's a reason that happened. Socially well-adjusted normal people were forced to use email. To help them understand, they were told it's like writing a letter. So manager types of the world overall decided that the custom in email-land is to add pointless bullshit before and after *every single message*. 


Johnathan Doe, M.d., Esq.
Chief Assistant to the Executive Administrative Assistant of Regional Internal Officers

Hello, H. Burger. I hope this missive finds you well. 


TechSolutions technology solutions. bumfuck, iowa.
visit us at clownpenis.fart.
call us at 555-777-7777 extension 1497a1.
connect with us on linkedin, twitter, facebook, pinterest, snapchat, onlyfans, tinder, grindr (during june), wechat, whatsapp, send us an email,

disclaimer: the content of this message is protected by magic legal incantation 21497 subsection 12408. by having an email address that receives this email, you agree to waive your right to a trial by your peers, now and in perpetuity.
begone and a pox upon thy house, Hyperlitigator!


Hello again, H. Burger. Thank you for sending me an electronic mail.
it has come to my attention that you aren't using official company letterhead. This is unprofessional and reflects poorly on our corporate image. Please rectify this immediately.

That's based on a true story. A common one, surely. Unfortunately, people think of that as a story typical of "email", and treat email accordingly. But the technology is irrelevant. that's a story typical of "communication with soulless business husks". 

Nevertheless, rest in peace, e-mail. Greatness squandered. 
You and I could send 1-word emails. we could email memes. But its association with a workplace chains it to miserable connotations.


speaking of technologies associated with cufflink-wearing motherfuckers: bluetooth headsets. If you're constantly talking on a phone, it's more efficient. However, they were indelibly marked with the reputation of making you "look like a douche". And that's a very honest statement; it makes you look like you're one of those people spending 8 megs per message trying to get your email to cosplay as custom stationery. 
And to be fair, getting people to tolerate wearable technology is an uphill battle. How many generations was it before we decided to stop making fun of people for wearing glasses? Even then, not because it was an enabling technology, only because someone who wears glasses doesn't do so by choice.



I've described myself as an Information-Era relic. The advent of the Internet promised sharing information. Arguably it did. But what nerds don't realize is that normal people don't spend their time giving or receiving information. Case in point, StackOverflow. 

Stack Overflow is (or perhaps, was) the last bastion of "practice" on the internet. Forever, idiots would say "just google it" to any question. Having never thought or had questions themselves, they assume google knows everything and will tell you. What they forget is that what google does is search - so most of the time *what* you're searching *for* **doesn't exist**. 99% of the time someone says "just google it", the results are old forum or reddit posts where someone says "just google it".
StackOverflow was building the reference. 
You know, the point of the internet? the information that we're all now connected to? The google *results*?

But *every. single. time.* someone brings up stack overflow, people come out of the woodwork to tell on themselves.

It has a reputation for gatekeeping, because it's meritocratic. People complain about needing points to act, but the fact that they don't understand why you need points on stackoverflow does not inspire confidence that they understand whatever else they intend to contribute to the record. People who refuse to assimilate but insist the world should bend to them cannot understand this.
It has a reputation for being toxic... with people who expect their authority to be axiomatic. 

To these, it's not about writing the record. It's about building their self-image, relegating any external effects to at most an afterthought.

StackOverflow is building something. Something to be referenced. That concept is lost on people whose only metric is number of eyeballs watching ads - observe this dogshit take.
A smarter person would understand, less new questions means the project is *achieving* its goal. However...
Again, the AI-faithful have no concept of concepts. StackOverflow is *correct*, because it *understands concepts*. But for this so-called engineer, that's inconceivable. It chatGPT writes more words on the subject, "looks good enough to me".
notice 2 more points: one, he does not understand the concept of sharing information. He only measures the practice of asking and answering. stackoverflow questions get marked as duplicate, frequently. Because the question has already been asked, and answered. 2, he imagines moderators as a cabal of gatekeepers stifling him, when it's the community at large that rejects him.
I don't know why he says "sadly". he doesn't want reference to learn from, he wants a sycophant to save him from learning. 
The way he thinks of stack overflow is like if he went to wikipedia, but only talk pages, where he asked about the information in the regular article.


Wenger (via Rugnetta) presents a fascinating (albeit generous) idea. The way people work is to have a practice, then form a social tribe tangentially related to that practice...

But what happens when there is no practice?

StackOverflow is about the development of software. But for imbeciles, development isn't real; it's a space where developers hang out.
Bluetooth headsets aren't viewed as a better solution to voice communication, they're a fashion accessory that signifies lifestyle.
e-mail isn't thought of as "a way to send text between machines", it's treated as "an official communication channel where your boss yells at you".
the fediverse allows you to free yourself and your social circle from the platform they happen to use - so it's incomprehensible to people who seek to build fame on a platform.

Now, those who own the technology you use find themselves with leverage over you, for free.

TikTok has the reputation of being "the place where memes happen". That was derived from its previous reputation as being "a place where everyone can go viral." But.
the comparative ease of going viral was because of manual intervention by bytedance. They *crafted* exactly the community they wanted. 
And it was easy - they manually add "heat" to videos. 
So of course people took to tiktok. rather than youtube promoting some decrepit talk-show skeletons disguising their financial investment in the abysmal status quo as frosty-cold political takes, TikTok entices you by putting good-looking women up front... all you have to do is mute whatever terrible music they're dancing to. 
Its technology is actively trash. it's built on unapologetically, actively manipulating what you see. And its owned by a company with a history of doing so.

whenever someone self-censors with algospeak, they have given away their voice to their corporate overlord. If you indulge that sort of person, you give your attention to their corporate overlord, who in turn decides what they will allow you to see.
I know, arguing "Censorship is Bad, Actually" is an uphill battle, for some reason. so let me leave you with some quick examples.


I know lots of people just add "reddit" to every google search they run to hopefully get actual people talking to each other - but I think people forget, 
reddit has a proud history of fun and/or useful bots. 
The value of getting conversation from reddit is that when someone says something stupid, someone else can tell them they're stupid. 
Is atomic wallet open source? some braindead marketron says:
and then a person can have a comment right under them saying "that's not what words mean." Because while reddit loves brands shifting from "follow us on facebook" to "join our subreddit", redditors might have some unprofitable things to say.


Contrast this with Youtube trying to algorithmically "add context". I *can* think of a case where this is tantalizingly close to being useful: 
people are constantly asking kyle hill about his hair, and he generally has 2 useful points - 1 is "go to the place where hair experts are" and a second one is "use argan oil". so what's argan oil?
here's someone who calls herself *Dr* Dray. Youtube adds context - Yes, Dr Dray is a doctor, licensed in the US... but that's it. 
How much nutritional quakery is perpetrated by doctor phil, who *is* a doctor... of psychology. Not to mention chiropractors! if that little information bar showed me *what* Dr Dray is a doctor *of*, that would be very useful. 
Check it out, there's a nice link to the texas medical board saying yes, she is a doctor, really.
went to her website, she practices in texas, googled the texas medical board, punched in her name, easy. 
For a platform like youtube, that rigor is hard. And why bother? viewers aren't supposed to click the link, you're just supposed to see that youtube put it there, so you can feel reassured that you can trust that youtube is both telling people the truth, and tolerating unfavorable speech.

Their system isn't great at this. here's Erik doing whole video mocking Haarp conspiracies. the "context" google adds is for climate change. close, but they *have* a card for haarp. leading to an amusing screenshot of a haarp video mocking another haarp video *that has the haarp card*.. given a different card.
Keep the cards in mind. YouTube *also* prevents videos from being posted. There's a great metal remix of kenneth copeland blowing a divine wind - i reposted that, and my account will carry a strike with it forever for "medical misinformation". despite no information, wrong or otherwise, medical or otherwise, being in the video.

And *that* is why youtubers "voldemorted" the pandemic - it would be suppressed. Meanwhile, 
The context cards are a way for youtube to demonstrate condemnation of a message, give themselves credit for not censoring, and let viewers believe it's easy to circumvent any censorship efforts, while censoring. 
Youtubers, of course, obey the rules - it's not their message, it's the platform. The platform owners are people who would easily understand the situation, but they don't plan on that level of intervention, they leave it to an algorithm.


To post any review on amazon, it has to be approved... by amazon. whenever you post a review on the google play store, it reserves the last word for the app's owner (which is usually a form letter and a link to their FAQ). 
Remember when Bethesda advertised a canvas bag and delivered a nylon bag? 1st move, they sent an email that effectively said "caveat emptor, bitch.". 2nd move, they blamed material supply.

how many times have we seen a company get called out by an influencer for some reason or another, then they immediately move to fix it... as a 1-off, for that influencer. Mere mortals like you and I?
we get an algorithm. built into the platform, serving only economic incentives.


In 1939, the Grapes of Wrath talked about the bank. our monster is the algorithm. Like a capricious dark god, its wrath is unpredictable and its favor is unreliable. Its only directive: 
sacrifice for the shareholders.