I got a hand from my neighbour to clear some renovation trash from the yard, as well as some other odds and ends. He has helped me several times like this over the months, as he is both a friend as well well as experienced in this kind of work - oh, and has a towbar. After loading up the trailer, we drove to the dump site where we sorted the random odds and ends into the appropriate containers, so at least some of it can be recycled.
While we drove, we talked about various things, as we usually do and he mentioned how great and weird it would be to write some kind of book that trends globally and earns millions, then just live off the proceeds and be the "guy known for" whatever random idea it was.
This got me thinking about how open I am on Hive, but how much I don't actually like the spotlight. If Hive does do what I am hoping it will do, there is the potential to be a recognized "Hive influencer" within a much larger and far more public community - is that what I want? I have never wanted fame - fortune sure - fame no.
But at the same time, I love writing, I love the time I spend on Hive, so if this was the outcome, I wonder if it would change the way I write, considering there would be far more scrutiny as well as criticism. I live by the rule that, one third of people will like me, one third will dislike me, one third will be neutral. However, this is in the real world where most of the time, I will be with friends who are in the first third or professional and social experiences that would be more likely in the neutral to positive group. Online, this changes.
Because of the way digital social action is incentivized by rewarding with attention, there is far more criticism and drama created as that is what gathers attention, drives clicks and shares and gets monetized. It is mostly monetized by the platforms themselves of course, and the platforms "pay" in digital stars and hearts that are largely untradeable by most for anything of real value, but they satisfy the hunger of the attention seeker.
Because of incentives, trolling behavior is commonplace on line as it is essentially an easy way to gather strong support from the dislike third, in a world where "putting the boot in as a group" is encouraged. There is safety in numbers, after all. The initial "troll" gets a little dose of momentary fame, as they are able to draw attention to themselves by riding on the success of someone else, by attacking them publicly. Because public figures are going to be disliked by the third and that third is going to be vocal, a wave of criticism can very quickly mount, where in the real world it would largely be a non-event, as there won't be the group of support on the street in most cases.
Am I cutout for that world? I have no idea, but there is going to be no public figure left unscathed on the interne, as people love to see famous people "cutdown to size" as long as there will be no personal repercussions . On the internet and especially in the large groups, anonymity is pretty much guaranteed because for the most part, no one cares about the bit players. And when we are in a group of millions and billions, we are all bit players - until the focus turns on an individual and all those bits have a target to shoot at.
It is interesting how quick we are to rage against each other, yet so slow to rage against the mechanisms that actually affect us. I think it is because it is far easier to target and "punish" an individual than the ecosystem itself. It is far easier to "destroy" someone online than actually change the conditions that enslave us.
People rage online about athletes, actors and celebrities, politicians and CEOs, but don't move toward building anything themselves. Most of the internet users are near purely consumers, most of the engagement is centered around famous individuals. While everyone has a platform, the fact is that most people don't care about what anyone "normal" has to say, which leaves most of the content created by the normal people, unconsumed other than by a few family and friends. People want to be where popular people are, as it makes them feel adjacent - like the people who call celebrities by their first name as if they are friends that go down the pub on a Friday night.
The thing is that when it comes to creating consumable content, whether it be writing, video, acting or skills on a sports field, most people just don't have what it takes to perform, let alone what it takes to be in that spotlight having every move analyzed and criticized. I know a couple people and have known a few more who are in these kinds of positions and, it takes its toll on them and can be emotionally and physically wearing, as well as acutely dangerous.
It seems that while the majority of us don't have what it takes to be in that limelight, it hasn't diminished our propensity for obsession for those who are. And because it is the internet, these obsessions are in the polarized love and hate category, with the neutrals not caring enough to get involved. This means that escalation is inevitable and there is no middle ground, just extreme tails of people gathering on a digital battleground for or against some central point of contention.
While we seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what celebrities are up to and we apparently love to see them fall from their pedestals - we fail to recognize that it is us that puts them there in the first place and because of the "rule of thirds", those that we passionately love will have a third who passionately hate them. It is an endless cycle of digital (and often physical) violence, with the person in the middle considered fair game, as after all, they get all the benefits of being famous. We seem to think that if a person is famous or rich, that insulates them against the negatives of the world, including making them impervious to the negative barrage they get at every little slip they make and the silence they will get from the same group who hate them when they do well.
"Success" isn't all upside, as to be very good at something often comes with recognition for that thing by those who firstly admire it and then once there is enough gravity, those who despise it for creating the gravity.No one is universally loved. It doesn't matter how good an individual is at what makes them famous, they are going to live a complex life where they have to do and say things in areas where they aren't skilled. A brilliant actor isn't necessarily a great husband, in the same way that a brilliant father is not necessarily brilliant nuclear physicist.
We have skill domains, yet we judge each other on our weaknesses and online, there is a lot of judgement on weakness as it is an easy target for the masses of likers and haters to aim for, with the negative generating more transactions and therefore profits for the platforms, as people feel the negative twice as strongly and when they feel victimized by actions not intended for them, they react as if they were personally attacked - "How could [insert famous person] do that! If I..."
If I.
Lot of ifs in there. it is easy to put yourself in the position of those playing the game - without skin in the game. Watching from the stands, removed from the action, no chance to take a hit.
The click model is corrupted.
Instead of incentivizing the worst in us, we should be rewarding the best in us.
But, everyone wants attention and without talent, there aren't many ways to get it online - except ride on the coattails of the famous.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]