"That has some kick!"
Is it a kick in the ass or a kick in the nuts?
Because the outcome between the two idiomatic expressions is quite different.
Words are funny things though, as they are given so much weighting, yet are largely dependent on so many other factors that lay outside the literal meaning of the words themselves. The same word said to one person is taken as support, to another as an insult. Another word that evokes thoughts of love, another feels pain - so why put so much weighting on words if they are such poor forms of communication - if looking at it from the perspective of consistency of outcome?
Perhaps most people don't care, but the problem we have created in the world today by putting so much emphasis on the words someone says, is that without being cross-referenced with intention, it is impossible to ascertain the vein in which it was spoken. As a result, all words become "open to interpretation" and because the internet has become a place of "point scoring" against the "enemy", the worst intentions are always assumed. Not only this, there is very little chance for the speaker to give immediate feedback on how people have taken it, before it is memified and becomes the held public narrative.
This is perfect for trolling, especially those who do not need to be consistent themselves, as they are pseudonymous and faceless, meaning they are able to go from topic to topic, cherry-picking what they comment on and the views they take, even if they are in direct conflict with what they have said earlier. Because they aren't building a consistent persona, they don't need worry about all of their inconsistencies - as there is no accountability. All they are after are the "likes" on some cheap shot on purposefully misconstrued words.
The centralized social spaces and forums of course love this behavior because it generates clicks, pretty much the only metric they care about, second only to their profit line. Because of this, they incentivize this kind of behavior using their algorithms to create as much polarization and drama as possible, by encouraging and leveraging troll-like and combative to build social tools to further generate clicks.
And while people think "we are the product" that is only half the story as we are also the mechanisms that makes the sale by participating in this process. Essentially, we are a closed system of wealth generation with the only thing getting leaked out from the system is, our wealth into the pockets of the platforms that enable us to fight each other for entertainment and, their profit.
Back "in the day" whenever the peasants got restless and started to complain about conditions, thy would hold some event, a gladiator or jousting tournament of some kind, to take people's minds off of the poor conditions of reality. What they have learned though is that instead of holding an expensive event, by recognizing that a person's strongest attachment is to themselves, they have set up constant battles between individuals themselves, organizing them into an endless array of teams to enter into the ring against opponents. When one team or the topic dies, they are able to use a shard of that to build and ramp up a narrative and polarization argument, to leverage again.
This is all done in the name of profit of course, but it is more than that, because what it is actually doing is a highly effective mass control mechanism that evokes the worst versions of ourselves, leading to worse outcomes and therefore - more discontentment. Rather than directing our discontentment at the controllers themselves however, we are incentivized by stars, hearts and thumbs to attack each other, further fragmenting and polarizing for more granular control and profit.
In my opinion, intention matters but while we might apply this occasionally when evaluating what someone says, I wonder if we ask ourselves, what is our own intention when it comes to using these platforms that disenfranchise us under the guise of empowerment. I hear the argument of using them because that is where everyone is but at the same time, if everyone was in a concentration camp, would people want to be there too?
I think that when it comes to our own lives, perhaps thinking what we intend the outcomes to be, might change the way we interact with others and of course, how we do so. Do you think that participating or consuming (passive participation) the constant socially-engineered narrative to evoke the worst in us is leading you to a better outcome? Are the words you are using meant to empower or demolish the potential for someone to be their best?
What is you intention with social media?
I believe that in general, the Hive ecosystem has incentives aligned to bring out a better result for people who have the intention to add value to themselves by adding value to their world. It is far from perfect of course, but considering this is a decentralized environment with volunteer participants who have very little guarantee, its alignment is far healthier than the billion dollar, trillion dollar generating platforms who's only intention is to increase the profit of the platform itself, no matter the cost to society.
However, we are moving into a new phase of human progress where we are no longer reliant on centralized control structures to organize ourselves at a global scale and for the first time, we can integrate an economy that facilitates us and rewards our intentions. I believe that the further we explore this path, the better *good intentions and subsequent good outcomes will be rewarded, but it will not be judged by any authority, it will depend on us.
One thing that people should remember is, all of these "social movements" are instigated and supported by interest groups and facilitated and incentivized by platforms that profit from them, using algorithms that maximize clicks and revenue. They are designed to create conflict, not improve society at all. Just because you feel empowered, it doesn't mean it is leading you to where you intend to go.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
