3,441 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2021
    1. TikTok is the modern MTV because (1) it increases consumption of music tracks that go viral on its platform as sounds and (2) any number of songs will forever summon the accompanying meme and visual choreography from my memory.

      The thing I find most interesting about this for TikTok is how it can bring back an old song with new visuals. The scene kid revival, Fleetwood Mac's Dreams, etc. Music of youth endlessly young.

    2. Until later in life, children think you should know exactly what they're feeling, and it takes a bit of coaxing to tease out their inner emotional state.

      I don't know exactly where this is going for him, but it's interesting to me that in order to identify what was going on in my own emotional life I consumed media (books, really) by/for adults, with greater depth than I had. Is there some degradation in how we are able to find media matching our inner states provided by people just like us, without any greater understanding? Connection without insight.

    3. What Ricky Desktop talks about above is a different process in which he scores to visuals that only exist in his imagination, generic dance tropes like "pretend to play the flute".

      How does it impact culture when mechanisms of collaboration are so indirect? Do the connections have to thus be very generic?

    4. TikTok's "OODA loop" is collective and distributed, and it spins thousands of times faster than that of big media.

      Uncomfortably connected to its sidelining of copyright: it spins uncompensated.

    5. TikTok's needs to improve its search ranking algorithm. Trying to find popular TikTok's I remembered seeing back in the day was much harder than it should have been using TikTok's native search. A couple that I wanted to use I just couldn't locate, and even Google and YouTube didn't turn them up (a thing you realize after trying to do it more than once is how hard it is to create a comprehensible search query for certain TikTok's).

      This you can be sure it has no reason to do. Remember, it's a company store -- why would they want you to take control over your discovery?

    6. Another feature I wish TikTok would add is the ability to sort by descending popularity on any grid of videos, like on sound or profile pages. Please.

      Why should it? It could rank them by how likely it thinks you are to like them. Objective popularity is not relevant in the little bubble world it creates for us.

      I don't think I mean that disparagingly. I like my TikTok bubble world. It has lots of houseplants and otters and lesbians. I don't like the TikTok dance videos, so I don't engage with them, so it doesn't matter how massively popular they are -- they don't have to exist for me.

    7. Of course, we're all just in our FYP feeds, which just scrolls up endlessly, so it isn't an actual space. But we trust the visible view counts as evidence FYP is doing its job getting many of us with the same tastes in front of the same videos, and so this evidence of common knowledge creates a liminal third place that exists [waves hands at the air in front of me] out there. I’ve tended to think of social networks as being built by people assembling a graph of people bottoms up, but perhaps I’ve been too narrow-minded. TikTok might not qualify by that definition, but it feels social, with FYP as village matchmaker.

      Terrifying, terrifying, terrifying! Why? Because the app points you to just let the algorithm make your choices -- there's no nudging-nudging-nudging to follow creators you like when it can detect you like them and serve them up to you anyway. Which then means the parasocial relationship you would have on a platform like YouTube now exists, but is entirely mediated by the discovery algorithm. If it's a village matchmaker, it's a matchmaker who has to come along on every date you ever have together. If it's a third place, it's a third place to which TikTok owns the title.

    8. That's why opening the comments and finding that one of the first few comments perfectly encapsulates your reaction, then seeing it already has tens or hundreds of thousands of likes, is so comforting. This confirmation of a shared response creates, asynchronously, a passing score on a form of the Voight-Kampff test. It's a checksum on your humanity.

      Again, really interesting because I have always hated this feeling when I've experienced it on Reddit or what-have-you.

    9. Reading the comments on TikTok serves a communal function. It's like hearing the laughter of the crowd at a comedy show.

      It's interesting to me how much he emphasizes this because I hate reading the comments. Swiping through TikTok emulates the quick dopamine bursts of Twitter content without making me feel like I'm in a Comments Section as do Twitter, Facebook, etc., providing the same "just the videos, ma'am" experience as seeing a film in a theatre. When a comment is picked out for a video response that I end up seeing, four times out of five it feels like it was a staged / fake comment to begin with, so it doesn't bother me.

    10. One measure of a platform's power is the number of things people make with it that you had never been made before. Every week, I find videos on TikTok that I can't imagine having been made on any other app.

      This is a really excellent insight, and inextricable from the power of the platform is the power of the cultural context that incentivizes this creation.

    11. TikTok comments are a form of distributed annotation.

      But terribly unsemantic, unlike the video combinations. This is probably for careful reasons mortals outside Bytedance have no ability to understand.

    12. a mix of a centrally planned economy and a free market

      Only if we are entirely disregarding the actual economics of what TikTok is, though, right? The economy isn't one of video game gold, but attention -- and the attention economy of the app is something in which the market's manager has an extreme interest.

    13. The Discover page acts as the Fed in the central economy of memes on TikTok, while the FYP algorithm is the interest rate on meme distribution.

      This doesn't feel like the right comparison to me. The Fed is an entity operating for the public interest and engaged in a careful balancing act. The TikTok discovery algorithms are the gatekeeper for most consumption on the app and have no counterbalancing interest beyond maximizing consumption.

      Also, if I'm wrong about its interests, no one has any way to know because it's entirely private.

      I think I'm saying something like: TikTok is a company town with a company store where all economic activity takes place.

    14. This is why TikTok's network effects of creativity matter. To clone TikTok, you can't just copy any single feature. It's all of that, and not just the features, but how users deploy them and how the resultant videos interact with each other on the FYP feed.

      I wonder if this is true. Don't users experience the internet on a meta level with topics popping up on Tumblr screenshots on their IG feed, tweets screenshotted for Facebook groups... Is the micro-zeitgeist of a moment limited to an app's walled garden? How do group chats fit into the answer to that question?

    15. a form of assisted evolution

      I know some people would argue they're essentially the same, but I'm more comfortable thinking of TikTok in terms of a market than in terms of evolution. For one, it makes it clearer which parts are agents and which aren't. For another, saying "assisted" glosses over some of the most interesting ways in which the design decisions of the app have their influence.

    16. at least on TikTok there is a chance, with time stamps and some of the literal links the app creates between videos, to trace the origin of memes more easily.

      This shouldn't be in a sidebar because I think it's one of the more interesting aspects of the whole piece. By making its remix functionality first-class within the app, no semantic relationships need to be lost. This is huge. Soundcloud can let me hear remixes and works built from samples, but doesn't let me navigate through those relationships. Photo editing apps can let you overlay one thing on top of another, but good fuckin' luck getting back to the original ingredients. Mixel, mentioned, has that semantic aspect within it -- but probably a better example would be browsing memes ("no you mean image macros") from a particular format within a meme making tool. Maybe the reason why Mixel and sampled music don't have the equivalent is that artists seeking out ingredients don't benefit from these semantic paths in the way that someone trying to follow a conversation through a path of responses does.

    17. Given we know innovation compounds as more ideas from more people collide, it's stunning how many tech firms, even ones that ostensibly tout the value of openness, have launched services that do a better job of letting their users exchange ideas than any internal tool does for their own employees’ ideas.

      There is a particular internal thing with which the author may be familiar that I desperately want to talk about but can't. Gah!

    18. Most of the best ideas in tech first appeared in science fiction books in the 1960s, and many of those are still waiting for their time to come

      This makes me queasy to read for reasons I think ought to be more or less obvious. Is it true that those are the best ideas?

    19. Gossip litigates and fleshes out the boundaries of acceptable behavior within groups. Whereas gossip used to be contained, social networks now give it global distribution.

      A historian should weigh in here. Scandals of the past fascinate me because of how they were important as opportunities to publicly litigate moral boundaries, the boundaries people more privately encountered (violated?) in their own lives.

    20. Yes, there's no reason you need to react to everything. But it's human nature. This is the social contract of the social media era. If you dare to shout your opinion or publish your work to the masses, the masses can choose to shout back.

      I don't think you can call this human nature when app creators spend so, so, so much thought / effort / time / money on training people to engage in this way.

    21. This is another of the nested feedback loops within the global feedback loop that is the FYP talent show. Once one example of this went viral, then the entire community adopted this as one of the norms of the community.

      (more or less obviously) thereby increasing one's inclination to engage in the comments if you believe you might be deigned with Interaction. Senpai, notice, etc. etc.

    22. Knowing that TikTok has a Stitch feature, you can also post a question in a video and expect that some number of people will use Stitch an answer to your question and distribute that as a new video.

      One interesting thing about the opacity of the attention algorithms is that you are always posting for no one and for everyone. On Tumblr it might have a tone of self-importance to survey a small group of followers in some vague way. On TikTok your vagueness can be justified: you might be talking to millions, after all.

    23. By network effects of creativity, I mean that every additional user on TikTok makes every other user more creative. This exists in a weak form on every social network and on the internet at large. The connected age means we are exposed to so much from so many more people than at any point in human history. That can't help but compound creativity.

      I am idly curious if it would be possible to measure how much the availability of content to consume detracts from one's inclination to create. "I wanted to write the kind of story I didn't get to read" -- a motivation to prompt new creation even if that "kind" had existed inaccessibly.

    24. This piece is long, but if you get bored in any one section, you can just scroll on the next one; they're separated by horizontal rules for easy visual scanning. You can also read them out of order. There are lots of cross-references, though, so if you skip some of the segments, others may not make complete sense. However, it’s ultimately not a big deal.

      One interesting thing about this is that experimentation with form is limited by reader habits. If years of university made me uncomfortable skimming I'm not going to engage in the intended way. I am remembering something apocryphal about Erik Satie's furniture music, the audience attending politely and having to be encouraged to treat it as the background sound it was intended to be. Apps and interfaces are scary when they cue us with dark patterns, but it's also possible to use that power to coax your audience into new forms.

  2. Feb 2021
    1. The notion that scientific theories vie with one another in open competition overlooks the fact that research ambitions and funding choices are shaped by both big-p and small-p politics. There is a reason why more scientific progress has been made in drugs for the treatment of diseases of wealth than of poverty.

      It is also interesting that when you try to explain why science matters (the positive motivation as above) you wouldn't make the case with purely disinterested facts floating apart from the world. It's only when your back's against the wall, epistemologically speaking, that these abstractions are deployed.

    2. science was a special example of the general liberal virtues that can be cultivated only in the absence of tyranny.

      I'll admit that this strain of historical interpretation has been pretty prominent in what I've read.

    3. if a scientist explains nuclear technology to a bellicose despot, but leaves the ethical choice of deployment to the despot, we wouldn’t say that the scientist had acted responsibly.

      I feel like there definitely are people who would defend this

    4. A darker way of rendering the Popper vs Strangelove story is to say that falsification offers moral non-accountability to its adherents. A scientist can never be accused of supporting the wrong cause if their work is not about confirmation. Popper himself declared that science is an essentially theoretical business. Yet it was a naïve scientist working during the Cold War who didn’t realise the significance of their funding source and the implications of their research.

      An essentially theoretical business! I wonder how this relates to the mushy public understanding of the division between science and engineering.

    5. Strangelove struck at the heart of Popperian ideals, an unreconstructed Nazi operating at the military-industrial nerve-centre of the ‘free world’. As such, he reflected the real-life stories of Nazi war criminals imported by Operation Paperclip to the US to assist in the Cold War effort – a whitewashing project uncovered as early as 1951 by The Boston Globe. Against such a backdrop, the epistemic modesty of Popperian science was appealing indeed. Real scientists, in the Popperian mode, abjured all politics, all truths. They didn’t attempt to know the atom, still less to win wars. They merely attempted to disprove things.

      The schism in the scientific self-image is, I suspect, that no one really derives their positive motivation from falsification. Drive originates from something grander.

    1. A fan favorite is when she soups up the classic vanilla custard filling with a torched crème brûlée ($4) on top of the doughnut, a smoky, sugary sheen to go with a creamy filling with flecks of vanilla beans.

      To be ordered exactly two days ahead! Compared to Blue Star, but I'm more hopeful

    2. Their less-sexy lineup is a better catch: apple-cinnamon pound cake with a dollop of brandy cream, the puck-sized apricot Stilton financier and the pâté à choux with Earl Grey cream for starters.

      SUSU in the international district...

    1. I think it’s true for so many commercial spaces that beautiful women add value, by virtue of adding beauty into the logic of styling things and selling things. In the idea of ‘parasexuality’, a concept that Bailey came up with when he was looking at barmaidens in nineteenth-century England, he was thinking about how, even within strict norms of sexual morality, the presence of beautiful women in a commercial setting would raise all kinds of titillating prospects that might violate those codes of what was sexually appropriate. That is how ‘parasexuality’ works – it is not fully deployed sex like ‘sex work’, but there is something about their sexual availability that gets put to work in these commercial settings. You can see it in what in sociology today we would call aesthetic labour: the uses of women, and men, but especially women’s bodies, in everything – hotels, Hooters, you name it.

      Horrifying and, of course, familiar.

    2. Veblen was inspired by these anthropologies of what was called the ‘potlatch’: nineteenth-century Pacific Northwest tribal societies in which there would be elaborate feasts, and nobles of tribes would compete with each other to see who could hold a bigger feast, who could waste more food, who could burn more blankets or other kinds of rare goods. And by going through that potlatch ritual a noble could assert his rank. It had lasting consequences: in humiliating a rival, claiming one’s title and gaining respect in the community.

      Was the potlatch about waste, or about influence?

    3. what they say is how they want to be perceived (and perhaps how they want to perceive themselves), but what they do – in the moment – can be very different. So if I’d just done observations, I could have just said that these were clueless rich jerks. And if I’d just done interviews, I would have concluded they were actually very thoughtful, very reflective people who want to be good people.

      How different would my interviewed and observed selves be?

    1. a liberating, nonjudgmental permissiveness

      Can we write on this topic without comparison to the crowdsourced Am I The Asshole equivalent? Aren't a lot of letter writers looking for their own absolution or condemnation, or that of the letter's subject?

    2. We’ll settle for electability, for hand sanitizer, for something less than violence in the streets.

      I am both curious to know what an advice column advocating violence in the streets would look like and also unsurprised at the short shrift given to the domestic here. How do we recognize the spiritual in people's boring lives? The questions of ethics that wrack us with guilt and their public porings-over -- I somehow resent that the author makes them seem so small.

    3. He often reminded readers that they were more than individuals; they were, in fact, pieces of a society.

      But if a millennial does this with language of -isms, how dare!

    4. Lavery, who was raised evangelical, is morally firm and comically decisive, chiding and scolding like a fresh-faced Judge Judy. A husband who refuses to use enough soap on the dishes is committing “an insult to your dignity and your personhood,” and a crazed DVD reviewer is “behaving like the majordomo of a small European country on the precipice of World War I.”

      Daniel Lavery is one of the great ironists of our time and I will not stand this. That someone might try to be funny in their "scolding" -- unacceptable to the New Yorker!

    5. Sugar suggested, in the mold of Montaigne—or perhaps psychotherapy—that the solution to your problems lay within you, provided you confront them with honest introspection and brutal clarity, if not the force of revelation. The goal wasn’t proper napkin etiquette or resolving a dispute with your mother-in-law. It was saving your soul.

      This whole piece feels dishonest in that it cannot compare these to sermons except to vaguely disparage Daniel Lavery or fail to identify the strongest aspect in King's advice writing. Our new religions are perilously unexamined.