There are some of us (late generation-X / early millennial) who saw this coming and still maintain a variety of separate identities across many domains.
I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example.
Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet fame / personal branding.
If you keep them distinct unification is a weapon to be used against you. You're writing your own blackmail someone just has to call you on it.
With prose fingerprinting, sophisticated tracking, now your identities are only separate by rapidly eroding social convention. Intentionally merging them allows you to have control over the process, and helps you maintain discipline about what you reveal where. If you don't do it it will be done to you.
The goal is not "how can I do blackmail-worthy activities without being blackmailed?" the goal is "how can I participate in a narrow way without, for example, having those reading my content biased by my LinkedIn profile or my corporate affiliation?"
We don't walk around wearing little badges that identify every organization we affiliate with, every group, etc. Why would anyone want their online participation burdened by all that extra (usually irrelevant) information?
In my case, I don't write content I would worry about some determined prose fingerprinter finding, and if I did I would sanitize the prose first :)
Prose fingerprinting is indeed worrisome, but it's a solvable problem once you are aware it exists. For example, if you contribute here anonymously, but don't contribute elsewhere, there is no corpus that can produce an accurate match.
Many people communicate differently in different contexts. It's common to try and match the style of the community in which you participate.
I am not convinced that having your identities merged for you is inevitable.
Orson Scott Card saw this coming last century and wrote of a character who maintained 2 online personas who became the thought leaders of opposing groups.
Some of the late gen-x/millennials who saw this coming may have been inspired to read Endor's Game after seeing the movie
Even earlier than that. "Pseudonymity" (not using your real name online) were adopted very early on Internet. Facebook is the big exception.
This first claim seems weak to me, and the arguments made in TFA are generally weak IMO. It feels that this theory tries to "eat more than it can chew"; they try to explain a lot of things with a single hypothesis, which in the end yields unconvincing explanations.
For instance, let me answer the 4 opening questions:
Why is the news media so interested in telling you how much the world sucks all the time?
Because fear sells; but that aside, one can also say that we are a species who loves solving problems, and pointing them is generally the first step to a solution.
Why are so many of us obsessed with distraction and managing our attention?
Because something is aggressively trying to steal attention - that is, actually, time - from us. It's self-defence at this point.
Why is it so hard to stop comparing ourselves to others?
Because of the atavistic instinct of reproduction, in which mating partners are selected mainly based on social status. It takes training to go against this instinct, and it is even more difficult when your time is being stolen.
And why does everything in art and design seem the same these days?
That's something a boomer could say... Mainstream designs can, maybe, look similar because when you target a large market you design for the average taste. Non-mainstream designs are just more expensive, harder to find, and less visible.
Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of your participation is fragmented, and every story you tell is objective to that platform's context. Even if you tell a story that links across platforms, you are still isolated to that specific cross-platform context.
I think this misses the point. As the article points out, people could and would act differently in different contexts: Home, the Church, the Bar. They weren't lacking opportunity to "exist completely".
The whole point of the omni-context is that you are putting yourself in a space where you have to act in a way that is appropriate to all of those places.
I would say things in the Bar that I would not want the reverend, my grandmother or my children to hear - but in the uni-context I have to mediate my speech to what is appropriate to all of those audiences or risk judgement for it.
The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.
Trying to maintain separate context, different identities across platforms is an attempt to fight against that and to limit the risk that something I say on one plaform is not going to destroy my social credit in every other platform where I participate.
Yes, but the context itself is still omnipotent to everyone who participates with it. It's not a bar if it's everywhere. Wearing a mask to the everybar is a way to compensate for the fact you can't leave. You must fragment your self to compensate for the global scope of the bar, just like using a struct to reinvent lexical scope in a globally scoped program. The problem isn't really solved, it's just semantically moved.
What we are really missing is the ability for expression to be subjective by default. When we participate in socially global contexts, everything we read and write must be coherent to the generalized expectations of the entire group of people who are participating in that context. Instead of your words being taken out of context, they are constantly assumed into the context, implying your own interpretation is objectively wrong. The meaning of every expression is decided and relevant, even when it shouldn't be.
> The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.
It's a panopticon, where we self-censor because we fear unknown future reprisals. Did we really sign up for it? Or has Our (collective our) ability to reason and push back against it been curtailed by financial incentives to build it?
I think this is one reason online anonymity is so important for some of us. It is the thing that let's us tamp down the great unification, at least a little.
Does it really matter that a review was written by "Ronald B Smith" vs "BrewersFan4000"?
I'd argue that it only matters when the goal is to convert "real name" accounts into something that is effectively merged with an Experian soft credit score, Google supercookie-powered profile, etc.
I'm not a neurotypical xenial, but I wasn't any good at compartmentalizing, or when I tried maintaining different identities it didn't feel honest, like I was pretending. I didn't like the thought of anyone ever seeing sides of me that were inconsistent with each other.
They cite "context collapse" and say this "uni-context" is deeper, but I still don't see how this "uni-context" is all that different than "context collapse", extensively studied since the 2000s. And which Goffman in the 1960s was writing about in the context of big mixed social gatherings like weddings, that bring together people who know you in quite different contexts.
I think the difference is asking what happens if all contexts collapse. In the 2000s or 1960s context collapse was something that would happen occasionally when opted into. These days everybody is hyper connected and living in a collapsed context every day. That's the uni-context and the implications of it feel very different than that of a wedding or old-school forum. A wedding wouldn't push people to permanently change who they are or how they perceive themselves for more favor in the collapsed context. They would only do it momentarily.
Also, the wedding or forum had very limited scope. As mentioned in the interview, the uni-context is about context collapse on a global scale.
"How do informational norms change when we’re all living in the same universal room?"
I different interesting question: why would we want to inhabit this universal room in the first place? The post mentions the idea of being "bigger than yourself" but to me the context collapse achieves the opposite - a sort of carboard caricature of oneself.
From what I’ve observed, people are increasingly checking out of social media (or turning their profiles private), because it’s just unappealing unless you’re actively promoting something.
This is social media unless you change your nick often, but even then people run stylometric analysis all over this site. Nobody is truly anonymous on the internet.
The numbers just don't support this, though? Social media remains at an all time high in engagement numbers. And climbing.
What is also growing is the number of people signaling that they are out of it.
This is extra pernicious because the people that are staying in control of these environments are maintaining a large amount of leverage over everyone.
The phenomenon I'm describing is people switching to consumption-only mode, or only posting privately. I think you're right that engagement is going up, as people treat social media more like TV and less like microblogging. I define that as "checking out."
It's just a huge change from the early days of social media (Instagram 1.0, Flickr, Twitter, o.g. Facebook), where nearly everybody who was active on the platform was also posting.
Note that that survey asks what social media U.S. adults ever use. Time on site, trending over years, would be more interesting to see, but I'm having trouble finding any recent research.
I have seen indications that Twitter is actively shedding both readers and time-on-site, and that Facebook/Meta numbers are strongly buoyed by purchases (WhatsApp, Instagram). Others I'm not so familiar with.
I've been watching both the corporate media, and social media, rot completely over the past 30 years.
A large part of that was that early adopters tended to be more educated, played nicely, and were not involved in attention-seeking, sychophancy, and often, escapism.
Another factor is the bright colors, moving videos and other eye candy, and psychological hacks like the emojis for "liking" and gaining "followers" which produce addictive feedback loops.
Of course, this interview touches on valid points, but is not the whole picture. "Bad news travels fast" and gets more clicks. That helps explain the rot of the news media.
Maybe I am oversimplifying too, however. Factors like sophisticated persuasion campaigns by various organizations, for example, cannot be discarded. Likewise with the advertisers.
Agree strongly with your first factor. Early adopters often (though not always) self-select for higher-level interaction. This has been true of media dating back to cuneiform.
A third factor addressing 21st century media rot is the absolute dependence on advertising, and the demonitisation of earlier ad-supported formats (print newspapers, print magazines, radio, television, and increasingly non-social-media online platforms) as ads transferred first to "new media" (itself an old story, though dating somewhat more recently to the origins of mass-advertising in the mid-19th century), and ultimately to "adtech", with highly-personalised, highly-targeted advertising.
That latter both led advertisers to abandon non-targetable media (including generic online banner ads), and the increasing pandering of online media (especially Search and Social) to advertiser interests. This both killed ads-as-financial-foundation of other online media, and increasingly turned Search and Social into ad-delivery rather than information-delivery / community-connection platforms.
It's the odd standouts which have independent funding which are still relatively immune to this. HN is one of those, some sites such as Metafilter and the Metaverse are others online. Public media would be another notable exception, though of course it is being increasingly targeted as well, largely for political reasons, notably in the US (NPR, PBS, and the late CPB), and UK (BBC). It's healthier elsewhere, notably in my experience, Germany.
Sure, Germany has excellent journalism. I visit dw.com often. derspiegel has very in-depth quality journalism too. And many others surely exist, I just don't know about them.
100% agree about the personalization of news topics and stories. When I look at my spouse's newsfeed in the evening (she uses yahoo) I remark to her "that's clickbait" and get a relatively violent reaction. "Relatively" because normally she is very pleasant. But tailoring the media to past viewing history is potentially very dangerous. In the wrong hands, the news feed could be tweaked just a little bit, day by day, week by week, to enable or worsen certain biases. And surely, we see some of this daily already. Why else would billionaires purchase large US media companies?
The best guidance I've seen to have a well balanced view of world news, is to use several independent sources globally. Do not rely upon "newsfeeds" (doesn't it suggest that we are cattle in a way?), don't spend too much time in any one place, use a variety of search engines to confirm or disprove questionable conclusions, and try to read print books by reputable authors on topics that really fascinate us.
Nassim Talib offered some good advice in his books on the so-called "news" - if you really want to see the value in the news, try to go to the library for a print newspaper, and look at the news from a week ago. Is it really as important to you as the "news" today? Very often, it will seem completely meaningless, ancient history. If that is the case, we are getting something from the information other than the information itself. It's something that has to be tried to learn the lesson.
Advertising? I see very little, using linux with brave browser and various plug ins. When I use google chrome, the results are horrifying. I've used google for 30 years now, but have been de-googling for over a year now. It's been a healthy experience. I don't know what is happening with them. Maybe they abandoned the "don't be evil" prematurely?
One time I accidentally flicked onto German TV - I am not sure which channel - and they were talking about Berlin getting overrun by antisemitic mobs. I looked out my hotel window. No antisemitic mob.
I really don't think they're more reliable than UK or US media.
Well that kind of "news" is persistent and often completely false. Meanwhile churches and mosques and people get destroyed by the "best friend and ally" of the US. It's a coordinated disinformation campaign by the agency whose motto is "by deception we wage war"
Nothing to see here, move along move along.
I reconcile it by realizing that advertisers wield enormous power. Also, it's not called "good information" it's called "news" - nothing is promised in terms of guaranteed good factual content. And I remember that Palestinians are semites. So are Arabs. Immigrants from Eastern European flocking to the mideast are not semites at all.
The fact that most Palestinians are Semitic people and most modern Israelis are not Semitic is amusing, but we all know that when people say antisemitic they don't mean anti-Palestinian.
Because Reasons I found myself with ready access to cable television about a year ago and spent a few days sampling news from CNN, Bloomberg, and a few other sources. Mind that my understanding is that these are more substantive linear-programmed news sources. I found them all but unwatchable. Most of the airtime was spent either in speculation on what might occur, or (occasionally, for variety), largely uniformed commentary on something which just had, though and substantive specifics were virtually always lacking.
Another long-time preferred information source of mine has been On the Media, from WNYC, New York City. That's a one-hour weekly programme (with a shorter, usually 20--30 minute mid-week podcast episode), generally broken into 3--4 stories. These are typically interviews, pre-recorded and edited. The result is a considered take, usually on substantive stories of the previous week. The show's conceit is that it follows media rather than news, though the distinction is of course pretty blurry. Listening to that and checking headlines from a few sources through the week usually keeps me fairly informed on broad developments without wasting time and attention on irrelevancies.
I'll also subscribe to the individual-segments version of some national-level news programmes. A few times a month I might scan through those and listen to an in-depth segment (usually 3--9 minutes or so) on an item. Most segments, I find, are obviously either speculative or uninformed as with the 24/7 products by Bloomberg and CNN, despite being a once-a-day hourly show.
I've mentioned before on HN that NPR (US public radio network) has lost much quality in its drive to fully-live production starting after 9/11. Prior to that, most of the flagship news programme content (Morning Edition and All Things Considered (evening), as well as weekend programming) consisted of pre-recorded and edited segments, with a live news headlines cover at the top and bottom of the hour, and perhaps a live or at least recent-ish introduction from the programme hosts. With the switch to live production, all of the throat-clearing and jagged-edges of taking on live contributions, chasing guests off the end of their allotted time slots, and inability to edit for length, clarity, and relevance are apparent. I find the result generally both uninteresting and unlistenable.
A daily show which has retained pre-recorded, edited, production basis is The World, from WBUR/Boston. It has a fraction of the budget and staffing of NPR's flagships but produces a far more coherent product. The fact that it's also much less US-centric (despite being a US production) is also welcome respite from the insanity that comprises current US politics (and increasingly, other news-affine aspects).
As for personalisation: I was mostly referring to advertising. But you're quite right: for algorithmic- / AI-curated streams platforms, the specific content items presented to a reader/viewer are also selected by the platform, and generally not with the aim of informing that reader but in addicting them to that content. There's some interesting commentary from early days of the Internet on the hidden value of mass curation (as with large-scale print or broadcast media), or negative side-effects of "personalised" media. John Seeley Brown's The Social Life of Information (2000) addresses the first, Andrew J. Shapiro's The Control Revolution (1999) the second. More recently it's been noted that personalised targeting (of both advertising and "content") means that it's often difficult to assess what kinds of things others in your immediate community are being exposed to, both informally and for those researching media impacts.
NB: I'd meant to write Fediverse, not Metaverse. I'm referring to Mastodon and associated federated social networks, not the recent Facebook flop (well, one of several).
There's been spam, and some attempts at other forms of monetisation such as sex-work sites. The larger issue for advertising is that the protocol and hosting model are such that advertising isn't integral, or supported, is seen as counter to the person-centric focus of the platform, and hence is pretty readily shut down.
Contrast commercial social media which were envisioned from the start as ad-delivery mechanisms, with social interaction as a side effect.
That isn't to say that the Fediverse isn't susceptible to some forms of advertising, only that that tendency runs counter to the dynamics of the platform, rather than strongly aligning with them as is the case on Google Web Search, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, Twitter, etc., etc., etc.
Evidence is strong that people as a whole reject advertising. They may seek specific information or recommendations, but tend not to like getting spammed with irrelevant (and intrusive, invasive, and worse) messages. To that extent, so long as the Fediverse remains focused on its participants and not advertisers interests, it should remain fairly robustly resistant.
See similarly The Well and Metafilter, both of which though small had or have user cohorts which are fairly attractive to advertisers and marketers generally (affluent, educated, influential). But not being ad-dependent or ad-focused themselves, they've remained largely free of gratuitously promotional content.
By contrast, Google+, also quite small by modern standards[1], did find itself rather overrun by marketers and brands, at least for a time. Not ad-based, but Google pushed the marketing angle and branded content did become somewhat pervasive for a while.
This doesn't seem very compatible with societies that have a Germanic majority as population. _Maybe_ the USA can be the pluriformity that adopts this, but I don't see this as an attractive idea for my society (Netherlands) at large. "Act normal, and you're already acting crazy enough", and all that.
I want to be able to discuss taboo ideas in private, without getting globally cancelled for something I that might be discussed out of my mind. No thanks to the uni-context.
context-bound > uni-context, for at least the Germanic-speaking world.
I'm having immense problems digesting this interview to understand the concept of the uni-context.
It does sound very interesting and right up my alley.
I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore (probably a user error) so if anyone has a link to a document, soundfile or video of Agnes Callard explaining the concept without the interuptions from a interviewer that is more interested in contributing than to let her explain the concept I would very much appreciate it.
> I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore
A bit off topic, but you're not the only one. I've grown up with the internet and yet I'm now completely unable to find things on demand.
I sometimes resort to claude, not because I want to, but because it's so difficult to search the real internet now. Asking claude, then asking claude for sources, can uncover hidden gems. ( It can also reveal claude talking out of its arse. )
I believe this is often because things fall off the internet. Back in the early days, things were added more frequently than they were removed, because there wasn't much to remove. Now, it's reached equilibrium - things are also frequently removed.
I wish philosophers—everyone, really—would provide a definition of their neologisms. I'd prefer a succinct, Aristotlian one but I'll settle for anything approximating it.
This is probably the best source, but it's completely unavailable online:
That article proposes that, soon, it will be possible to connect any online identity to its owner's other identities by analyzing stylistic details in their writing. So even niche online communities will have these problems.
I’m in month 5 of not having access to any social network, and although the first weeks I felt tempted to reinstall X and Reddit, I’m at a point where I don’t think I’m ever coming back. There are still great spaces like HN where you can consume content and participate in debates. I do miss some of the fun stuff, but it wasn’t worth being exposed to all the other crap for a few laughs a day.
It's a shame the title doesn't just include the word: "uni-context". It's a really useful and interesting perspective.
The other relevant word is "objectivity". There so many systems in our society whose context we surround ourselves with, it starts to feel like every subject is objective. The reality is that every subject is subjective.
I think one of the big drivers for this dynamic is that our social systems are facilitated with software, and we always make software as a uni-context. An application is a fixed context.
If we can figure out how to introduce subjectivity into software, that would be extremely useful for both computing and society.
This is an interesting perspective on the concept of "atomization of the individual", which the interview interestingly does not refer to. Both atomization and the "uni-context" arise from the destruction of an individual's local contexts, like family and community, leaving them an individual in a global, maximally-large pool of individuals, the so-called uni-context.
Atomization has clear motivations: increasing the individual consumer base (no, you shouldn't share your car or lawnmower with your block, you need your own), suppressing democracy, and generally making a population more predictable and easy to manage.
It also helps companies to exploit people easily. Example if you have are a fit person, then you should have an apple watch and now perhaps and oura ring as well.
Large companies and organisations are able to tap into our core emotions and needs of the human body and able to shape our day to day in a way we feel that we have the freedom to choose but in reality we are acting within hidden boundaries.
Atomization of the individual seems much more driven by a cultural valorization of liberalism and personal freedom than market dynamics per se. If the individual is free to act on their own, without obligation to their family or higher social structures, such as by marrying whoever they choose or by refusing to share their personal wealth with other members, or by following a different religion, then these higher level structures will eventually wither away. Community can only exist as a real force if the individual has obligations to it and can be bound to it. This has tradeoffs for sure, but I would much rather live in a world with more personal freedom than one where I am bound to a social contract I had no hand in creating and limited ability to change.
Like most of these things, one can bemoan it and say “oh it’s terrible that this is how it is” but I think it’s pretty easy to self-test this to see it’s adaptive for a reason.
Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla as CTO because of a small donation in favour of Prop 8. Fine?
I think most people here would say yes. In fact people did say that.
I think many people would say they don’t want to have a plumber who opposes (say) trans rights. Or read an author who is anti-gay. Pick some view heretical to your world-view and see if you can stand to encounter people who hold it.
If you require all purity you probably prefer the uni-context.
It also works both ways. Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired, but the same uni-context makes the plumber more likely to be anti-gay and more strongly anti-gay in the first place. Being exposed to anti-gay propaganda all the time will do that. Otherwise you just have people who are like, their church told them it was bad to be gay, but they don't really care about it.
> Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired
Why would I care if I don't notice? I'm paying them to fix my literal plumbing, not to proverbially suck my dick. If they do the job I pay them for, and they're not giving me shit for who I am, why would I want to get them fired?
This uni-context feels like a very silly idea in practice.
If Hitler would fix your plumbing would you give him money, or would you look for another plumber because giving money to Hitler is bad? Now scale that principle down.
But isn’t it actually better for the world if Hitler was to spend all his time fixing plumbing rather than shun people like him from society entirely and give him all the free time and reasons to take action on his vile opinions? After all, a common theory is that if he simply got accepted into art school, the entire world would be different.
Yes, but it's worse for the world if Hitler saves up his plumbing income to fund the Beer Hall Putsch which makes him famous and leads to the Holocaust.
But people can never be "pure" enough and what is acceptable in the uni-context will change over time. If you documented your life within it you will find you will be branded a heretic sooner or later.
I think much of this might apply to Callard: her high public visibility in social media, the attention grabbing colorful attire, her as I recall public advocacy and openness about her own polyamorous lifestyle. I don’t think that’s typical. Certainly it’s not for me. I’d rather be Zelig. But I think most people code shift, and present different personas in private life compared to work. Probably much less so for the average substack author, so it surprises me little the idea might resonate with Derek Thompson, the blog’s author.
This actually fits quite nicely with the idea that the graph network of humanity has meaningful emergent properties/challenges/phenomena at various densities or subnetwork connectedness thresholds.
It's the same fundamental network problem: the infrastructure that allows unprecedented levels of commerce and ideas and travel will also allow disinformation, plagues, and homogeneity. The double-edged sword of graph density.
That's a cool idea. I'm no longer the right age for such things, but I'm glad people are trying to create unsurveilled spaces.
It feels doomed, though. Smart glasses wearers are being shamed today, but the tech will only get more inconspicuous. And HD cameras are so small and cheap that phone cameras are only one of many potential sources of surveillance.
With ubiquitous tiny cameras, quality networks (even in remote areas thanks to Starlink), cheap storage, and increased analysis capabilities thanks to AI, it feels like planet panopticon is here.
I think many social sites have tried to solve it, but in a world where anything is easily saved or screenshotted, it's still effectively a "universal room". Not to mention that properly implementing a form of role-based access control is a big ask for a lot users.
Not tying your IRL identity to online communications only solves one side of the problem. You can't use your anon accounts to communicate as yourself to family, friends, and colleagues and maintain your anonymity.
Not having accounts tied to IRL identity also allows AI bots to operate as equals to human users, which dilutes the quality of conversation in those spaces.
We've built an incredibly effective communications apparatus. It's a shame its only users are money-obsessed primates and the robots we've built in our image.
In Europe the operator of a website that is not purely personal is required to write their full name and address on the website. This is also bad in the opposite direction.
There is Dave Eggers's book (and film adaptation) The Circle, which I understood as largely commentary on Google rather than other tech firms, though it's also described as an amalgam of several others. That might be steering your fickle memory ;-)
> What the techno-determinism angle misses is: Why did these technologies catch on in the first place? Why was radio popular? Why did we come up with new things—television, smartphones—and why did they catch on, too?
Yup. Get outside. Screens are increasingly addictive by design. I am going outside now. Enjoy your days. Use the internet and your phone as tools, not separate realities.
I would recommend her article on travel in the New Yorker, The Case Against Travel. I absolutely hated it and disagree with it so much, and I think she's up to similar stuff here. But you will get a sense of her from the article, and it's worth a read either way.
If someone were to ask me, which I notice they're not, I'd say uni-context is just another word for "globalization". Specifically, the globalization caused by technological change, including the internet, but also standard container shipping.
Social networks are globalized. Being captain of your high school football team used to be special, but now it's nothing, when people are comparing themselves against Nobel-prize winning teenagers.
Almost all professional jobs are globalized. Software companies sell globally; financial companies sell globally; drug companies sell globally. That means the most talented professional can charge whatever they want because they can generate profits from a massive market.
But non-college-educated workers are left out. They can only get local jobs, which (a) don't pay as well, and (b) get competition from immigrants. This is exactly how Trump got in the White House and how so many right-wing parties rose across Europe. It's why Brexit happened.
Globalization is even the cause of enshittification. When your market is local, the opinion of your customers is important, and a good reputation allows you to expand to new regions. But when your market is global, you can only grow by extracting more value from existing customers.
There are some of us (late generation-X / early millennial) who saw this coming and still maintain a variety of separate identities across many domains.
I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example.
Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet fame / personal branding.
If you keep them distinct unification is a weapon to be used against you. You're writing your own blackmail someone just has to call you on it.
With prose fingerprinting, sophisticated tracking, now your identities are only separate by rapidly eroding social convention. Intentionally merging them allows you to have control over the process, and helps you maintain discipline about what you reveal where. If you don't do it it will be done to you.
How is merging identities the solution?
The goal is not "how can I do blackmail-worthy activities without being blackmailed?" the goal is "how can I participate in a narrow way without, for example, having those reading my content biased by my LinkedIn profile or my corporate affiliation?"
We don't walk around wearing little badges that identify every organization we affiliate with, every group, etc. Why would anyone want their online participation burdened by all that extra (usually irrelevant) information?
In my case, I don't write content I would worry about some determined prose fingerprinter finding, and if I did I would sanitize the prose first :)
Prose fingerprinting is indeed worrisome, but it's a solvable problem once you are aware it exists. For example, if you contribute here anonymously, but don't contribute elsewhere, there is no corpus that can produce an accurate match.
Many people communicate differently in different contexts. It's common to try and match the style of the community in which you participate.
I am not convinced that having your identities merged for you is inevitable.
Its inevitable because of capital incentives.
Someone makes money identifying you and selling that data to advertisers.
If your pseudonym is famous/infamous someone makes money / cultivates attention if they identify you.
There is a basic instinct to uncover the unknown.
Unless the above systems are disabled then the drive to unify identity will be ceaseless.
Parasitic advertisement is not a basic instinct.
Orson Scott Card saw this coming last century and wrote of a character who maintained 2 online personas who became the thought leaders of opposing groups.
Some of the late gen-x/millennials who saw this coming may have been inspired to read Endor's Game after seeing the movie
His name was Ender - deliberately, as in Finisher, Destroyer, Finaliser - not Endor
Even earlier than that. "Pseudonymity" (not using your real name online) were adopted very early on Internet. Facebook is the big exception.
This first claim seems weak to me, and the arguments made in TFA are generally weak IMO. It feels that this theory tries to "eat more than it can chew"; they try to explain a lot of things with a single hypothesis, which in the end yields unconvincing explanations.
For instance, let me answer the 4 opening questions:
Why is the news media so interested in telling you how much the world sucks all the time?
Because fear sells; but that aside, one can also say that we are a species who loves solving problems, and pointing them is generally the first step to a solution.
Why are so many of us obsessed with distraction and managing our attention?
Because something is aggressively trying to steal attention - that is, actually, time - from us. It's self-defence at this point.
Why is it so hard to stop comparing ourselves to others?
Because of the atavistic instinct of reproduction, in which mating partners are selected mainly based on social status. It takes training to go against this instinct, and it is even more difficult when your time is being stolen.
And why does everything in art and design seem the same these days?
That's something a boomer could say... Mainstream designs can, maybe, look similar because when you target a large market you design for the average taste. Non-mainstream designs are just more expensive, harder to find, and less visible.
Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of your participation is fragmented, and every story you tell is objective to that platform's context. Even if you tell a story that links across platforms, you are still isolated to that specific cross-platform context.
I think this misses the point. As the article points out, people could and would act differently in different contexts: Home, the Church, the Bar. They weren't lacking opportunity to "exist completely".
The whole point of the omni-context is that you are putting yourself in a space where you have to act in a way that is appropriate to all of those places.
I would say things in the Bar that I would not want the reverend, my grandmother or my children to hear - but in the uni-context I have to mediate my speech to what is appropriate to all of those audiences or risk judgement for it.
The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.
Trying to maintain separate context, different identities across platforms is an attempt to fight against that and to limit the risk that something I say on one plaform is not going to destroy my social credit in every other platform where I participate.
Yes, but the context itself is still omnipotent to everyone who participates with it. It's not a bar if it's everywhere. Wearing a mask to the everybar is a way to compensate for the fact you can't leave. You must fragment your self to compensate for the global scope of the bar, just like using a struct to reinvent lexical scope in a globally scoped program. The problem isn't really solved, it's just semantically moved.
What we are really missing is the ability for expression to be subjective by default. When we participate in socially global contexts, everything we read and write must be coherent to the generalized expectations of the entire group of people who are participating in that context. Instead of your words being taken out of context, they are constantly assumed into the context, implying your own interpretation is objectively wrong. The meaning of every expression is decided and relevant, even when it shouldn't be.
> The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.
It's a panopticon, where we self-censor because we fear unknown future reprisals. Did we really sign up for it? Or has Our (collective our) ability to reason and push back against it been curtailed by financial incentives to build it?
> your self has been fragmented
Unless you are more after acknowledgement than sharing/helping others (and be on the receiving end sometimes), this is non-problem.
Maybe not to your self, but it has a significant effect on the actual interactions you have.
it's a huge mental/emotional burden actually. It's really not good for your soul.
I think this is one reason online anonymity is so important for some of us. It is the thing that let's us tamp down the great unification, at least a little.
> … internet fame / personal branding.
Also known as “social proof”/“social credibility”, and it’s a common mistake to assume it has no value whatsoever.
Does it really matter that a review was written by "Ronald B Smith" vs "BrewersFan4000"?
I'd argue that it only matters when the goal is to convert "real name" accounts into something that is effectively merged with an Experian soft credit score, Google supercookie-powered profile, etc.
The article explains the distinction between identity and character. You are talking about character.
I think that distinction is fuzzier. My ssh key is one identity. My Social Security number is another.
I'm not a neurotypical xenial, but I wasn't any good at compartmentalizing, or when I tried maintaining different identities it didn't feel honest, like I was pretending. I didn't like the thought of anyone ever seeing sides of me that were inconsistent with each other.
They cite "context collapse" and say this "uni-context" is deeper, but I still don't see how this "uni-context" is all that different than "context collapse", extensively studied since the 2000s. And which Goffman in the 1960s was writing about in the context of big mixed social gatherings like weddings, that bring together people who know you in quite different contexts.
I think the difference is asking what happens if all contexts collapse. In the 2000s or 1960s context collapse was something that would happen occasionally when opted into. These days everybody is hyper connected and living in a collapsed context every day. That's the uni-context and the implications of it feel very different than that of a wedding or old-school forum. A wedding wouldn't push people to permanently change who they are or how they perceive themselves for more favor in the collapsed context. They would only do it momentarily.
Also, the wedding or forum had very limited scope. As mentioned in the interview, the uni-context is about context collapse on a global scale.
Yeah, the context collapsed into a uni-context
This is answered in the interview:
"Context collapse is a claim about informational contexts, and my claim is a claim about normative context."
"How do informational norms change when we’re all living in the same universal room?"
I different interesting question: why would we want to inhabit this universal room in the first place? The post mentions the idea of being "bigger than yourself" but to me the context collapse achieves the opposite - a sort of carboard caricature of oneself.
From what I’ve observed, people are increasingly checking out of social media (or turning their profiles private), because it’s just unappealing unless you’re actively promoting something.
This is the reason I am not on any socials. It is purely promotional
This is social media unless you change your nick often, but even then people run stylometric analysis all over this site. Nobody is truly anonymous on the internet.
This is why I just use my name… it also helps me dial in my tone when I know I’m putting my name behind a comment.
The "dialing in your tone" you're talking about is precisely context collapse.
Yes
The numbers just don't support this, though? Social media remains at an all time high in engagement numbers. And climbing.
What is also growing is the number of people signaling that they are out of it.
This is extra pernicious because the people that are staying in control of these environments are maintaining a large amount of leverage over everyone.
The phenomenon I'm describing is people switching to consumption-only mode, or only posting privately. I think you're right that engagement is going up, as people treat social media more like TV and less like microblogging. I define that as "checking out."
It's just a huge change from the early days of social media (Instagram 1.0, Flickr, Twitter, o.g. Facebook), where nearly everybody who was active on the platform was also posting.
The numbers ... support at the very least a flattening of growth. See "Americans’ Social Media Use 2025" <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-so...>.
Note that that survey asks what social media U.S. adults ever use. Time on site, trending over years, would be more interesting to see, but I'm having trouble finding any recent research.
I have seen indications that Twitter is actively shedding both readers and time-on-site, and that Facebook/Meta numbers are strongly buoyed by purchases (WhatsApp, Instagram). Others I'm not so familiar with.
The makeup of the numbers is shifting radically.
20 years ago, ~all Facebook users were organic real life social networks chatting with each other online.
It's not gone yet, but for many years, that "organic social network" usage segment has been declining.
The commercially motivated "social media influencer marketing" segment has been growing faster than the "organic" segment has been declining.
I've been watching both the corporate media, and social media, rot completely over the past 30 years.
A large part of that was that early adopters tended to be more educated, played nicely, and were not involved in attention-seeking, sychophancy, and often, escapism.
Another factor is the bright colors, moving videos and other eye candy, and psychological hacks like the emojis for "liking" and gaining "followers" which produce addictive feedback loops.
Of course, this interview touches on valid points, but is not the whole picture. "Bad news travels fast" and gets more clicks. That helps explain the rot of the news media.
Maybe I am oversimplifying too, however. Factors like sophisticated persuasion campaigns by various organizations, for example, cannot be discarded. Likewise with the advertisers.
Agree strongly with your first factor. Early adopters often (though not always) self-select for higher-level interaction. This has been true of media dating back to cuneiform.
A third factor addressing 21st century media rot is the absolute dependence on advertising, and the demonitisation of earlier ad-supported formats (print newspapers, print magazines, radio, television, and increasingly non-social-media online platforms) as ads transferred first to "new media" (itself an old story, though dating somewhat more recently to the origins of mass-advertising in the mid-19th century), and ultimately to "adtech", with highly-personalised, highly-targeted advertising.
That latter both led advertisers to abandon non-targetable media (including generic online banner ads), and the increasing pandering of online media (especially Search and Social) to advertiser interests. This both killed ads-as-financial-foundation of other online media, and increasingly turned Search and Social into ad-delivery rather than information-delivery / community-connection platforms.
It's the odd standouts which have independent funding which are still relatively immune to this. HN is one of those, some sites such as Metafilter and the Metaverse are others online. Public media would be another notable exception, though of course it is being increasingly targeted as well, largely for political reasons, notably in the US (NPR, PBS, and the late CPB), and UK (BBC). It's healthier elsewhere, notably in my experience, Germany.
Gah! Fediverse, not Metaverse.
Sure, Germany has excellent journalism. I visit dw.com often. derspiegel has very in-depth quality journalism too. And many others surely exist, I just don't know about them.
100% agree about the personalization of news topics and stories. When I look at my spouse's newsfeed in the evening (she uses yahoo) I remark to her "that's clickbait" and get a relatively violent reaction. "Relatively" because normally she is very pleasant. But tailoring the media to past viewing history is potentially very dangerous. In the wrong hands, the news feed could be tweaked just a little bit, day by day, week by week, to enable or worsen certain biases. And surely, we see some of this daily already. Why else would billionaires purchase large US media companies?
The best guidance I've seen to have a well balanced view of world news, is to use several independent sources globally. Do not rely upon "newsfeeds" (doesn't it suggest that we are cattle in a way?), don't spend too much time in any one place, use a variety of search engines to confirm or disprove questionable conclusions, and try to read print books by reputable authors on topics that really fascinate us.
Nassim Talib offered some good advice in his books on the so-called "news" - if you really want to see the value in the news, try to go to the library for a print newspaper, and look at the news from a week ago. Is it really as important to you as the "news" today? Very often, it will seem completely meaningless, ancient history. If that is the case, we are getting something from the information other than the information itself. It's something that has to be tried to learn the lesson.
Advertising? I see very little, using linux with brave browser and various plug ins. When I use google chrome, the results are horrifying. I've used google for 30 years now, but have been de-googling for over a year now. It's been a healthy experience. I don't know what is happening with them. Maybe they abandoned the "don't be evil" prematurely?
One time I accidentally flicked onto German TV - I am not sure which channel - and they were talking about Berlin getting overrun by antisemitic mobs. I looked out my hotel window. No antisemitic mob.
I really don't think they're more reliable than UK or US media.
Well that kind of "news" is persistent and often completely false. Meanwhile churches and mosques and people get destroyed by the "best friend and ally" of the US. It's a coordinated disinformation campaign by the agency whose motto is "by deception we wage war"
Nothing to see here, move along move along.
I reconcile it by realizing that advertisers wield enormous power. Also, it's not called "good information" it's called "news" - nothing is promised in terms of guaranteed good factual content. And I remember that Palestinians are semites. So are Arabs. Immigrants from Eastern European flocking to the mideast are not semites at all.
The fact that most Palestinians are Semitic people and most modern Israelis are not Semitic is amusing, but we all know that when people say antisemitic they don't mean anti-Palestinian.
...look at the news from a week ago...
Indeed.
Because Reasons I found myself with ready access to cable television about a year ago and spent a few days sampling news from CNN, Bloomberg, and a few other sources. Mind that my understanding is that these are more substantive linear-programmed news sources. I found them all but unwatchable. Most of the airtime was spent either in speculation on what might occur, or (occasionally, for variety), largely uniformed commentary on something which just had, though and substantive specifics were virtually always lacking.
Another long-time preferred information source of mine has been On the Media, from WNYC, New York City. That's a one-hour weekly programme (with a shorter, usually 20--30 minute mid-week podcast episode), generally broken into 3--4 stories. These are typically interviews, pre-recorded and edited. The result is a considered take, usually on substantive stories of the previous week. The show's conceit is that it follows media rather than news, though the distinction is of course pretty blurry. Listening to that and checking headlines from a few sources through the week usually keeps me fairly informed on broad developments without wasting time and attention on irrelevancies.
I'll also subscribe to the individual-segments version of some national-level news programmes. A few times a month I might scan through those and listen to an in-depth segment (usually 3--9 minutes or so) on an item. Most segments, I find, are obviously either speculative or uninformed as with the 24/7 products by Bloomberg and CNN, despite being a once-a-day hourly show.
I've mentioned before on HN that NPR (US public radio network) has lost much quality in its drive to fully-live production starting after 9/11. Prior to that, most of the flagship news programme content (Morning Edition and All Things Considered (evening), as well as weekend programming) consisted of pre-recorded and edited segments, with a live news headlines cover at the top and bottom of the hour, and perhaps a live or at least recent-ish introduction from the programme hosts. With the switch to live production, all of the throat-clearing and jagged-edges of taking on live contributions, chasing guests off the end of their allotted time slots, and inability to edit for length, clarity, and relevance are apparent. I find the result generally both uninteresting and unlistenable.
A daily show which has retained pre-recorded, edited, production basis is The World, from WBUR/Boston. It has a fraction of the budget and staffing of NPR's flagships but produces a far more coherent product. The fact that it's also much less US-centric (despite being a US production) is also welcome respite from the insanity that comprises current US politics (and increasingly, other news-affine aspects).
As for personalisation: I was mostly referring to advertising. But you're quite right: for algorithmic- / AI-curated streams platforms, the specific content items presented to a reader/viewer are also selected by the platform, and generally not with the aim of informing that reader but in addicting them to that content. There's some interesting commentary from early days of the Internet on the hidden value of mass curation (as with large-scale print or broadcast media), or negative side-effects of "personalised" media. John Seeley Brown's The Social Life of Information (2000) addresses the first, Andrew J. Shapiro's The Control Revolution (1999) the second. More recently it's been noted that personalised targeting (of both advertising and "content") means that it's often difficult to assess what kinds of things others in your immediate community are being exposed to, both informally and for those researching media impacts.
Metaverse is immune to ad capture because it never got popular enough to have ad interest?
NB: I'd meant to write Fediverse, not Metaverse. I'm referring to Mastodon and associated federated social networks, not the recent Facebook flop (well, one of several).
There's been spam, and some attempts at other forms of monetisation such as sex-work sites. The larger issue for advertising is that the protocol and hosting model are such that advertising isn't integral, or supported, is seen as counter to the person-centric focus of the platform, and hence is pretty readily shut down.
Contrast commercial social media which were envisioned from the start as ad-delivery mechanisms, with social interaction as a side effect.
That isn't to say that the Fediverse isn't susceptible to some forms of advertising, only that that tendency runs counter to the dynamics of the platform, rather than strongly aligning with them as is the case on Google Web Search, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, Twitter, etc., etc., etc.
Evidence is strong that people as a whole reject advertising. They may seek specific information or recommendations, but tend not to like getting spammed with irrelevant (and intrusive, invasive, and worse) messages. To that extent, so long as the Fediverse remains focused on its participants and not advertisers interests, it should remain fairly robustly resistant.
See similarly The Well and Metafilter, both of which though small had or have user cohorts which are fairly attractive to advertisers and marketers generally (affluent, educated, influential). But not being ad-dependent or ad-focused themselves, they've remained largely free of gratuitously promotional content.
By contrast, Google+, also quite small by modern standards[1], did find itself rather overrun by marketers and brands, at least for a time. Not ad-based, but Google pushed the marketing angle and branded content did become somewhat pervasive for a while.
________________________________
Notes:
1. I found a methodology to accurately measure active participation in the platform, I have quite a good sense of how large it was, roughly 5--10 million or so accounts posting monthly as of 2015. See: <https://web.archive.org/web/20150130125653/https://ello.co/d...> <https://kevinanderson.nl/how-many-people-are-publicly-using-...> <https://www.businessinsider.com/google-active-users-2015-1>. The methodology was replicated and validated independently a few months later on roughly 10x the sample size: <https://web.archive.org/web/20150419171939/https://www.stone...>.
This doesn't seem very compatible with societies that have a Germanic majority as population. _Maybe_ the USA can be the pluriformity that adopts this, but I don't see this as an attractive idea for my society (Netherlands) at large. "Act normal, and you're already acting crazy enough", and all that.
I want to be able to discuss taboo ideas in private, without getting globally cancelled for something I that might be discussed out of my mind. No thanks to the uni-context.
context-bound > uni-context, for at least the Germanic-speaking world.
What about "Germanic" society are you saying is incompatible with this? (English is a Germanic language, by the way.)
I'm having immense problems digesting this interview to understand the concept of the uni-context.
It does sound very interesting and right up my alley.
I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore (probably a user error) so if anyone has a link to a document, soundfile or video of Agnes Callard explaining the concept without the interuptions from a interviewer that is more interested in contributing than to let her explain the concept I would very much appreciate it.
> I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore
A bit off topic, but you're not the only one. I've grown up with the internet and yet I'm now completely unable to find things on demand.
I sometimes resort to claude, not because I want to, but because it's so difficult to search the real internet now. Asking claude, then asking claude for sources, can uncover hidden gems. ( It can also reveal claude talking out of its arse. )
I believe this is often because things fall off the internet. Back in the early days, things were added more frequently than they were removed, because there wasn't much to remove. Now, it's reached equilibrium - things are also frequently removed.
That's true of some things, but sometimes there are things that exist, but google no longer reliably surfaces in a way that it once did.
Search anything and you are bombarded with unoriginal sites, optimised for SEO, filled with generated rubbish and adverts.
There used to be an arms-race between google and SEO spam that Google could keep up with, if not ahead.
But it feels like at some point in the past decade, google just gave up and let them win.
I feel more like Google combatted SEO spam by using a domain whitelist, which your website will never be on
I wish philosophers—everyone, really—would provide a definition of their neologisms. I'd prefer a succinct, Aristotlian one but I'll settle for anything approximating it.
This is probably the best source, but it's completely unavailable online:
https://www.reed.edu/events/?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26even...
What a great link, thanks.
Hopefully there will be some artifacts from this that will be available to the greater public.
Interesting to read this right after reading about the pseudpocalypse (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48908886)
That article proposes that, soon, it will be possible to connect any online identity to its owner's other identities by analyzing stylistic details in their writing. So even niche online communities will have these problems.
I’m in month 5 of not having access to any social network, and although the first weeks I felt tempted to reinstall X and Reddit, I’m at a point where I don’t think I’m ever coming back. There are still great spaces like HN where you can consume content and participate in debates. I do miss some of the fun stuff, but it wasn’t worth being exposed to all the other crap for a few laughs a day.
Is HN not a social network?
HN is social media. Social networks connect you with your friends.
It's a shame the title doesn't just include the word: "uni-context". It's a really useful and interesting perspective.
The other relevant word is "objectivity". There so many systems in our society whose context we surround ourselves with, it starts to feel like every subject is objective. The reality is that every subject is subjective.
I think one of the big drivers for this dynamic is that our social systems are facilitated with software, and we always make software as a uni-context. An application is a fixed context.
If we can figure out how to introduce subjectivity into software, that would be extremely useful for both computing and society.
This is an interesting perspective on the concept of "atomization of the individual", which the interview interestingly does not refer to. Both atomization and the "uni-context" arise from the destruction of an individual's local contexts, like family and community, leaving them an individual in a global, maximally-large pool of individuals, the so-called uni-context.
Atomization has clear motivations: increasing the individual consumer base (no, you shouldn't share your car or lawnmower with your block, you need your own), suppressing democracy, and generally making a population more predictable and easy to manage.
It also helps companies to exploit people easily. Example if you have are a fit person, then you should have an apple watch and now perhaps and oura ring as well.
Large companies and organisations are able to tap into our core emotions and needs of the human body and able to shape our day to day in a way we feel that we have the freedom to choose but in reality we are acting within hidden boundaries.
You made me wonder what would happen if I put a sign out front advertising people can borrow my lawnmower for free.
Worst I'd have to lose is a lawnmower.
I don't have a lawnmower or a lawn. But if I did... interesting experiment.
Atomization of the individual seems much more driven by a cultural valorization of liberalism and personal freedom than market dynamics per se. If the individual is free to act on their own, without obligation to their family or higher social structures, such as by marrying whoever they choose or by refusing to share their personal wealth with other members, or by following a different religion, then these higher level structures will eventually wither away. Community can only exist as a real force if the individual has obligations to it and can be bound to it. This has tradeoffs for sure, but I would much rather live in a world with more personal freedom than one where I am bound to a social contract I had no hand in creating and limited ability to change.
Like most of these things, one can bemoan it and say “oh it’s terrible that this is how it is” but I think it’s pretty easy to self-test this to see it’s adaptive for a reason.
Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla as CTO because of a small donation in favour of Prop 8. Fine?
I think most people here would say yes. In fact people did say that.
I think many people would say they don’t want to have a plumber who opposes (say) trans rights. Or read an author who is anti-gay. Pick some view heretical to your world-view and see if you can stand to encounter people who hold it.
If you require all purity you probably prefer the uni-context.
It also works both ways. Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired, but the same uni-context makes the plumber more likely to be anti-gay and more strongly anti-gay in the first place. Being exposed to anti-gay propaganda all the time will do that. Otherwise you just have people who are like, their church told them it was bad to be gay, but they don't really care about it.
> Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired
Why would I care if I don't notice? I'm paying them to fix my literal plumbing, not to proverbially suck my dick. If they do the job I pay them for, and they're not giving me shit for who I am, why would I want to get them fired?
This uni-context feels like a very silly idea in practice.
If Hitler would fix your plumbing would you give him money, or would you look for another plumber because giving money to Hitler is bad? Now scale that principle down.
But isn’t it actually better for the world if Hitler was to spend all his time fixing plumbing rather than shun people like him from society entirely and give him all the free time and reasons to take action on his vile opinions? After all, a common theory is that if he simply got accepted into art school, the entire world would be different.
Yes, but it's worse for the world if Hitler saves up his plumbing income to fund the Beer Hall Putsch which makes him famous and leads to the Holocaust.
That’s a good point. We can truly create social change much more effectively through the uni-context and much of it is for good.
But people can never be "pure" enough and what is acceptable in the uni-context will change over time. If you documented your life within it you will find you will be branded a heretic sooner or later.
I think much of this might apply to Callard: her high public visibility in social media, the attention grabbing colorful attire, her as I recall public advocacy and openness about her own polyamorous lifestyle. I don’t think that’s typical. Certainly it’s not for me. I’d rather be Zelig. But I think most people code shift, and present different personas in private life compared to work. Probably much less so for the average substack author, so it surprises me little the idea might resonate with Derek Thompson, the blog’s author.
This actually fits quite nicely with the idea that the graph network of humanity has meaningful emergent properties/challenges/phenomena at various densities or subnetwork connectedness thresholds.
It's the same fundamental network problem: the infrastructure that allows unprecedented levels of commerce and ideas and travel will also allow disinformation, plagues, and homogeneity. The double-edged sword of graph density.
The theory felt a bit oversold in the introduction, imho.
Nightclubs that put stickers on your phone camera are attempting (largely succeeding) to keep the uni-context out.
That's a cool idea. I'm no longer the right age for such things, but I'm glad people are trying to create unsurveilled spaces.
It feels doomed, though. Smart glasses wearers are being shamed today, but the tech will only get more inconspicuous. And HD cameras are so small and cheap that phone cameras are only one of many potential sources of surveillance.
With ubiquitous tiny cameras, quality networks (even in remote areas thanks to Starlink), cheap storage, and increased analysis capabilities thanks to AI, it feels like planet panopticon is here.
> If you post something to social media, it will be simultaneously visible to your boss, your parents, your ex, and total strangers
Isn't that what G Wave/ G+ trying to solve?
I think a better option would be: don't tie your IRL identity for online communications.
I think many social sites have tried to solve it, but in a world where anything is easily saved or screenshotted, it's still effectively a "universal room". Not to mention that properly implementing a form of role-based access control is a big ask for a lot users.
Not tying your IRL identity to online communications only solves one side of the problem. You can't use your anon accounts to communicate as yourself to family, friends, and colleagues and maintain your anonymity.
Not having accounts tied to IRL identity also allows AI bots to operate as equals to human users, which dilutes the quality of conversation in those spaces.
We've built an incredibly effective communications apparatus. It's a shame its only users are money-obsessed primates and the robots we've built in our image.
In Europe the operator of a website that is not purely personal is required to write their full name and address on the website. This is also bad in the opposite direction.
In Germany only.
Don’t forget the agents of corporate persons have their “voice” too.
Google had a platform called circles once that had a really neat solution to this.
If course it being Google, it got cancelled before it had a chance to catch on.
The platform was called "Google+". The feature was called "Circles".
Really? Huh.... Memory is a fickle thing, isn't it?
There is Dave Eggers's book (and film adaptation) The Circle, which I understood as largely commentary on Google rather than other tech firms, though it's also described as an amalgam of several others. That might be steering your fickle memory ;-)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel)#Film...>
As far as I can tell neither Callard nor anyone else talk about this concept anywhere outside this interview. Odd.
> What the techno-determinism angle misses is: Why did these technologies catch on in the first place? Why was radio popular? Why did we come up with new things—television, smartphones—and why did they catch on, too?
This read as AI, which is odd.
basically, u gotta unplug and go offline and live by moving about in the world and interacting with everything with your own senses.
Yup. Get outside. Screens are increasingly addictive by design. I am going outside now. Enjoy your days. Use the internet and your phone as tools, not separate realities.
I would recommend her article on travel in the New Yorker, The Case Against Travel. I absolutely hated it and disagree with it so much, and I think she's up to similar stuff here. But you will get a sense of her from the article, and it's worth a read either way.
"differential" should be "deferential"
Took me a few reads, too.
meh it seems more like there's more of a multi-context more than ever rather than a uni-context
If someone were to ask me, which I notice they're not, I'd say uni-context is just another word for "globalization". Specifically, the globalization caused by technological change, including the internet, but also standard container shipping.
Social networks are globalized. Being captain of your high school football team used to be special, but now it's nothing, when people are comparing themselves against Nobel-prize winning teenagers.
Almost all professional jobs are globalized. Software companies sell globally; financial companies sell globally; drug companies sell globally. That means the most talented professional can charge whatever they want because they can generate profits from a massive market.
But non-college-educated workers are left out. They can only get local jobs, which (a) don't pay as well, and (b) get competition from immigrants. This is exactly how Trump got in the White House and how so many right-wing parties rose across Europe. It's why Brexit happened.
Globalization is even the cause of enshittification. When your market is local, the opinion of your customers is important, and a good reputation allows you to expand to new regions. But when your market is global, you can only grow by extracting more value from existing customers.
So it's not a one-word theory, it's a theory with a one-word name... shocking. What a clickbait title!
We've replaced the title above with a representative phrase from the article.
If Agnes Callard tried to read Heidegger, her head would explode.
She absolutely would have read Heidegger
[flagged]
She literally mentions Heidegger in the interview.