Conformist non-conformity
I endeavor not to be a conformist nonconformist.
I endeavor not to be a conformist nonconformist.
Every day, there's a new story about how social media inspired someone to commit mass murder, engage in political violence, withhold healthcare from their children, or steal a car. That's in addition to the division and envy these platforms create between friends and family every day.
It's important to remember that these aren't neutral platforms. They decide what we see. The shape our reality. Even worse, as Jaron Lanier explains, they manipulate us. They intentionally make us angry.
It begs the question: when will we finally start calling it antisocial media?
It's 2023. We have incredible technology like DALL·E 2 and ChatGPT, but iPhoto and Google Photos still can't collaborate on a shared photo album. Texting is even worse. Then there's collaborative playlists, collaborative note-taking, videoconferencing, the transmission of large files, and so much more. Any of these things can be achieved if all participants are using the same software, but different applications with similar capabilities refuse to work with one other. If I use Spotify and you use Apple Music… too bad.
This is understandable, but so unnecessary. I can't even imagine how much time and energy we lose to this segmentation. Interoperability matters.
“Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.”
—Unknown (often incorrectly attributed to Oscar Wilde)
I’ve been an ideologue at times. I’m sure I still am in certain ways, in ways I don’t even notice. Perhaps we all are. Still, I find ideology exhausting and uninteresting. I rarely enjoy talking to people about meaningful issues when I can predict their beliefs. For this reason and others, I’m frequently saddened that our current environment has made so many of my peers so closed-minded. Of course, it wouldn’t be right for me to end this post without blaming social media, and true to form, I do believe the filter bubbles of social media play no small part in this phenomenon.
When we talk to others one-on-one, especially about difficult topics, we have a responsibility to ensure that our message is heard. However, if it becomes clear that the message won't be heard, because the listener isn't genuinely curious and open-minded, we owe it to the listener and to ourselves to move on. This fact seems obvious, yet we seem to continually forget it.
I think of science as a verb, a process for discovering what's true, rather than a body of knowledge. Some people might say it's a process for discovering what's not true; that might be more accurate. In either case, when I run into people who distrust science, I wonder if they see it the same way.
I dislike when companies treat their customers like free, full-time product reviewers. I don't mind using email filters, but average users shouldn't be burdened to set them up, especially when the list of forbidden phrases becomes as long as mine has:
This is just one of many email filters I maintain. I have another for things like privacy policy updates which is almost as long. Then there's promotional email: coupons, limited time offers, and so on. We used to call this kind of thing spam. What happened?
The internet used to be fun.
I just encountered a funny Easter egg in the Wask shop of strange objects, darted off a quick email to the owner expressing my delight, and immediately received a response thanking me for noticing. There were no likes, no Retweets, and no comments from onlookers. My reputation didn't improve and I didn't gain any followers. Instead, two strangers connected over a common sense of humor and shared a quick laugh.
Isn't this what the internet was supposed to be about?