I find this an interesting set of thoughts, especially in light of Freddie de Boer's post today on Twitter, and the performativeness of that world. It seems that in certain parts of the online world this has been going on to one degree or another for a while now and that the TikTok AI is only just catching up.
In the word of Pogo 'Possum, "we have met the enemy, it is us."
The truly strange thing about Twitter performativeness is that it's done for the benefit of social media platforms, publications and advertisers (i.e. owners and shareholders). The folks who expend their time and their mental health in search of clout get such a small share of the pie. One wonders what they are missing inside. But I think we will only have to wonder for so long, because sooner or later the algorithms will have effectively replaced clout as the deciding factor in who gets amplified and who gets relegated.
So I agree that it is us, but I do wonder for how long.
On point 4 and Marxism: as someone who is an avowed Marxist as well as being a performer (of music) myself, I find this to be quite a correct way to interpret this phenomenon of TikTok-ification.
It’s true that this phenomenon can exist with or without Marxism and capitalism. I just find Marxism to be an apt way (arguably, the most apt way) to interpret and theorize answers to the socioeconomic dimensions of how capitalism integrates with said phenomenon.
I also don’t find your analysis of performance and labor to be incongruous with a Marxist-oriented philosophy of the realities of labor dynamics and performance activities that require energy to deal with, or other various human interests and desires, that exist outside the context (or lens) of socioeconomic politics.
At the end of the day, I think the point should be to not only understand how consumption incentives can weave their way into our lives, but to also understand our base social inclinations as humans as well.
Thanks for sharing through Freddie's email....I enjoyed reading this and found it insightful!
Thanks for your comment. It is appreciated.
I find this an interesting set of thoughts, especially in light of Freddie de Boer's post today on Twitter, and the performativeness of that world. It seems that in certain parts of the online world this has been going on to one degree or another for a while now and that the TikTok AI is only just catching up.
In the word of Pogo 'Possum, "we have met the enemy, it is us."
Thanks!
The truly strange thing about Twitter performativeness is that it's done for the benefit of social media platforms, publications and advertisers (i.e. owners and shareholders). The folks who expend their time and their mental health in search of clout get such a small share of the pie. One wonders what they are missing inside. But I think we will only have to wonder for so long, because sooner or later the algorithms will have effectively replaced clout as the deciding factor in who gets amplified and who gets relegated.
So I agree that it is us, but I do wonder for how long.
On point 4 and Marxism: as someone who is an avowed Marxist as well as being a performer (of music) myself, I find this to be quite a correct way to interpret this phenomenon of TikTok-ification.
It’s true that this phenomenon can exist with or without Marxism and capitalism. I just find Marxism to be an apt way (arguably, the most apt way) to interpret and theorize answers to the socioeconomic dimensions of how capitalism integrates with said phenomenon.
I also don’t find your analysis of performance and labor to be incongruous with a Marxist-oriented philosophy of the realities of labor dynamics and performance activities that require energy to deal with, or other various human interests and desires, that exist outside the context (or lens) of socioeconomic politics.
At the end of the day, I think the point should be to not only understand how consumption incentives can weave their way into our lives, but to also understand our base social inclinations as humans as well.