Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

I guess I don't get creeped out about this because this is what happens already in life - but it's implicit and unacknowledged instead of explicit and acknowledged.

This same calculus happens at all levels: trying to be part of certain groups (Stanford graduate, YCombinator graduate etc...) , join certain clubs (Founders who have raised a Series A, Forbes 30 under 30), impress certain people (Investors, Board Members) etc... to get where you want. Just change the players depending on what you want out of life.

So if making it explicit makes you feel bad, then you probably feel bad about how things work already.

View on HN

Ehh, sure, it is a more explicit manifestation of common existing dynamics. But it is also much more exaggerated and empty than the examples you are giving.

There isn't much substance/ understanding/signal/meaning in buying a ride on the coattails of a superficial instagram "influencer".

Certainty exaggerated, however using the nosedive episode as the example, each of the "ratings" are given by people based on social interactions.

Their emptiness in the case of the show is based on the emptiness of the people themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if such a system did wind up being fairly "empty" as you say (see: twitter, IG etc...), but that's a reflection on the users, not the structure of the system.

Well that's if you assume this can't be gamed to prop up the non superficial. Bill Gates or Obama constantly used influencers on social media to get interesting messages out to the masses.

What I don't like is that the most hyper, overenthusiastic, over the top characters send a signal to kids that it's the only route up the ladder. It is not.

Is it more empty? I think it's easy to say something is empty when you're not the sort of person it's optimized to appeal to.

I just finished "Bad Blood", the book on Theranos. Given that it was a fraud, it was entirely empty. But it was designed to look substantial to Stanford deans and Valley VCs. Later the target shifted to other sorts of movers and shakers, including corporate titans and political bigwigs. They all got suckered, and some of them still don't know it.

I think Instagram influencers look shallow to me because their audience is people who value different things than I do. But I don't take that as a sign that I'm somehow better. Just that I have different weaknesses.

E.g., I spent years developing NeXT software because I drank the Jobs kool-aid. I didn't do that for hard-headed business reasons; I did it because the NeXT hardware and software was incredibly cool to young me. At the time, I would have smugly defended my choice as more rational than getting starry-eyed over a celebrity. In retrospect, I was wrong. I just fell for for something tuned for my weaknesses, just like we all do.

> E.g., I spent years developing NeXT software because I drank the Jobs kool-aid. I didn't do that for hard-headed business reasons; I did it because the NeXT hardware and software was incredibly cool to young me. At the time, I would have smugly defended my choice as more rational than getting starry-eyed over a celebrity. In retrospect, I was wrong. I just fell for for something tuned for my weaknesses, just like we all do.

This is actually a great example that I think supports my point. Sure, maybe you got caught up in some hype. But at least you were improving your software development skills, which is something useful.

What usefulness is accomplished or what meaning is found by getting starry eyed over Instagram fame? Maybe you could make an argument related to minor photography or artistic skills that they use to enhance their account. But it's not very substantial -- most Instagram influencers don't become highly skilled photographers in the process.

I understand people have different values. But they still have to defend them and the meaning the values supposedly carry.

What value does all this social media stuff produce? It’s affecting how companies promote products and services. If you don’t have a social media strategy as a multinational, you’re possibly going to miss out on a rather important demographic for consumer goods (not really important necessarily for FIRES businesses... yet). All these skills are going to be in large supply in the future when previously marketing was somewhat more Byzantine than a vaguely organic, democratic process.

The utility of a skill is mostly based around societal value of said skill, not really much else. People get paid millions all around the planet putting balls in various receptacles, but such is the human need for entertainment and feeling good (even if temporary) is a business that is never going to go away. Warren Buffett has said he’s lucky enough he was born when being able to memorize and process lots of financial numbers could be extremely advantageous - maybe that may not be so valuable in 600 years while art is much more precious?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't support your example. I would have been making software regardless. Instead I earned less and learned less applicable skills than I would have had I not been suckered by the Jobs reality distortion field. It was a significant harm to me, and it wasn't the last time I fell for the "cool" of a technology.

It's true that my particular weakness was related to an economically productive activity. But although I personally value production more than consumption, production isn't inherently superior; one without the other is just waste.

Steve Jobs is Steve Jobs because he was very good at manipulating both producers and consumers. The (modest) technical improvements of the iPhone over existing smartphones wouldn't have happened without the millions of people who bought the notion that a slicker device in slicker packaging with slicker ads was deeply better.

Instagram influencers are no more shallow than an Apple ad. And I'd say less, in that they have built up personal businesses by entertaining others and finding a way to monetize it. It's not my kind of thing, but it's not essentially different than the travel magazine business. In both cases people go places and get paid to performatively do fun things in a way that's funded by self-promoting merchants.

Exactly. At least Instagram has a visible number (your follower count) that is a decent proxy for what "level" you've reached. With "good old boys" networks it's totally opaque.

Why is that better?

Cause now if NASA needs some extra funding they just need to convince Kim Kardashian (or whoever replaces her day after tomorrow on the top of the pyramid) of its importance. It's going to happen. Just watch.

The alarming thing is that after seeing the Kanye & Kardashian empire get more political, I can very much picture a future where we have Kanye is president in 2020 or 2024.

To put it in millennial marketing pseudo-jargon: how many likes = 1 vote?

You mean like when Kanye said he would in 2015?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9x92nwGf_M

Now that he has seen Trump get elected, I am sure he knows it is possible.

Transparency being a good thing and it being more honest and "meritocratic" (in a defined scope of merit as who can get the most eyeballs as opposed to useful to society or genuine talent). With good old boys network it is who you know not what you know. It is more dynamic as well than oligarchic networks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com