Agnes Callard’s theory of the uni-context
derekthompson.org
derekthompson.org
I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example.
Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet fame / personal branding.
The whole point of the omni-context is that you are putting yourself in a space where you have to act in a way that is appropriate to all of those places.
I would say things in the Bar that I would not want the reverend, my grandmother or my children to hear - but in the uni-context I have to mediate my speech to what is appropriate to all of those audiences or risk judgement for it.
The uni-context discourages expression. It's like a dystopia where everything you say and do is recorded and can be recalled for judgement at any time. And yet people sign up for it.
Trying to maintain separate context, different identities across platforms is an attempt to fight against that and to limit the risk that something I say on one plaform is not going to destroy my social credit in every other platform where I participate.
It's a panopticon, where we self-censor because we fear unknown future reprisals. Did we really sign up for it? Or has Our (collective our) ability to reason and push back against it been curtailed by financial incentives to build it?
What we are really missing is the ability for expression to be subjective by default. When we participate in socially global contexts, everything we read and write must be coherent to the generalized expectations of the entire group of people who are participating in that context. Instead of your words being taken out of context, they are constantly assumed into the context, implying your own interpretation is objectively wrong. The meaning of every expression is decided and relevant, even when it shouldn't be.
Unless you are more after acknowledgement than sharing/helping others (and be on the receiving end sometimes), this is non-problem.
With prose fingerprinting, sophisticated tracking, now your identities are only separate by rapidly eroding social convention. Intentionally merging them allows you to have control over the process, and helps you maintain discipline about what you reveal where. If you don't do it it will be done to you.
Many people communicate differently in different contexts. It's common to try and match the style of the community in which you participate.
I am not convinced that having your identities merged for you is inevitable.
Someone makes money identifying you and selling that data to advertisers.
If your pseudonym is famous/infamous someone makes money / cultivates attention if they identify you.
There is a basic instinct to uncover the unknown.
Unless the above systems are disabled then the drive to unify identity will be ceaseless.
The goal is not "how can I do blackmail-worthy activities without being blackmailed?" the goal is "how can I participate in a narrow way without, for example, having those reading my content biased by my LinkedIn profile or my corporate affiliation?"
We don't walk around wearing little badges that identify every organization we affiliate with, every group, etc. Why would anyone want their online participation burdened by all that extra (usually irrelevant) information?
In my case, I don't write content I would worry about some determined prose fingerprinter finding, and if I did I would sanitize the prose first :)
This first claim seems weak to me, and the arguments made in TFA are generally weak IMO. It feels that this theory tries to "eat more than it can chew"; they try to explain a lot of things with a single hypothesis, which in the end yields unconvincing explanations.
For instance, let me answer the 4 opening questions:
Why is the news media so interested in telling you how much the world sucks all the time?
Because fear sells; but that aside, one can also say that we are a species who loves solving problems, and pointing them is generally the first step to a solution.
Why are so many of us obsessed with distraction and managing our attention?
Because something is aggressively trying to steal attention - that is, actually, time - from us. It's self-defence at this point.
Why is it so hard to stop comparing ourselves to others?
Because of the atavistic instinct of reproduction, in which mating partners are selected mainly based on social status. It takes training to go against this instinct, and it is even more difficult when your time is being stolen.
And why does everything in art and design seem the same these days?
That's something a boomer could say... Mainstream designs can, maybe, look similar because when you target a large market you design for the average taste. Non-mainstream designs are just more expensive, harder to find, and less visible.
Some of the late gen-x/millennials who saw this coming may have been inspired to read Endor's Game after seeing the movie
Also known as “social proof”/“social credibility”, and it’s a common mistake to assume it has no value whatsoever.
I'd argue that it only matters when the goal is to convert "real name" accounts into something that is effectively merged with an Experian soft credit score, Google supercookie-powered profile, etc.
Also, the wedding or forum had very limited scope. As mentioned in the interview, the uni-context is about context collapse on a global scale.
"Context collapse is a claim about informational contexts, and my claim is a claim about normative context."
I different interesting question: why would we want to inhabit this universal room in the first place? The post mentions the idea of being "bigger than yourself" but to me the context collapse achieves the opposite - a sort of carboard caricature of oneself.
What is also growing is the number of people signaling that they are out of it.
This is extra pernicious because the people that are staying in control of these environments are maintaining a large amount of leverage over everyone.
20 years ago, ~all Facebook users were organic real life social networks chatting with each other online.
It's not gone yet, but for many years, that "organic social network" usage segment has been declining.
The commercially motivated "social media influencer marketing" segment has been growing faster than the "organic" segment has been declining.
It's just a huge change from the early days of social media (Instagram 1.0, Flickr, Twitter, o.g. Facebook), where nearly everybody who was active on the platform was also posting.
Note that that survey asks what social media U.S. adults ever use. Time on site, trending over years, would be more interesting to see, but I'm having trouble finding any recent research.
I have seen indications that Twitter is actively shedding both readers and time-on-site, and that Facebook/Meta numbers are strongly buoyed by purchases (WhatsApp, Instagram). Others I'm not so familiar with.
A large part of that was that early adopters tended to be more educated, played nicely, and were not involved in attention-seeking, sychophancy, and often, escapism.
Another factor is the bright colors, moving videos and other eye candy, and psychological hacks like the emojis for "liking" and gaining "followers" which produce addictive feedback loops.
Of course, this interview touches on valid points, but is not the whole picture. "Bad news travels fast" and gets more clicks. That helps explain the rot of the news media.
Maybe I am oversimplifying too, however. Factors like sophisticated persuasion campaigns by various organizations, for example, cannot be discarded. Likewise with the advertisers.
A third factor addressing 21st century media rot is the absolute dependence on advertising, and the demonitisation of earlier ad-supported formats (print newspapers, print magazines, radio, television, and increasingly non-social-media online platforms) as ads transferred first to "new media" (itself an old story, though dating somewhat more recently to the origins of mass-advertising in the mid-19th century), and ultimately to "adtech", with highly-personalised, highly-targeted advertising.
That latter both led advertisers to abandon non-targetable media (including generic online banner ads), and the increasing pandering of online media (especially Search and Social) to advertiser interests. This both killed ads-as-financial-foundation of other online media, and increasingly turned Search and Social into ad-delivery rather than information-delivery / community-connection platforms.
It's the odd standouts which have independent funding which are still relatively immune to this. HN is one of those, some sites such as Metafilter and the Metaverse are others online. Public media would be another notable exception, though of course it is being increasingly targeted as well, largely for political reasons, notably in the US (NPR, PBS, and the late CPB), and UK (BBC). It's healthier elsewhere, notably in my experience, Germany.
100% agree about the personalization of news topics and stories. When I look at my spouse's newsfeed in the evening (she uses yahoo) I remark to her "that's clickbait" and get a relatively violent reaction. "Relatively" because normally she is very pleasant. But tailoring the media to past viewing history is potentially very dangerous. In the wrong hands, the news feed could be tweaked just a little bit, day by day, week by week, to enable or worsen certain biases. And surely, we see some of this daily already. Why else would billionaires purchase large US media companies?
The best guidance I've seen to have a well balanced view of world news, is to use several independent sources globally. Do not rely upon "newsfeeds" (doesn't it suggest that we are cattle in a way?), don't spend too much time in any one place, use a variety of search engines to confirm or disprove questionable conclusions, and try to read print books by reputable authors on topics that really fascinate us.
Nassim Talib offered some good advice in his books on the so-called "news" - if you really want to see the value in the news, try to go to the library for a print newspaper, and look at the news from a week ago. Is it really as important to you as the "news" today? Very often, it will seem completely meaningless, ancient history. If that is the case, we are getting something from the information other than the information itself. It's something that has to be tried to learn the lesson.
Advertising? I see very little, using linux with brave browser and various plug ins. When I use google chrome, the results are horrifying. I've used google for 30 years now, but have been de-googling for over a year now. It's been a healthy experience. I don't know what is happening with them. Maybe they abandoned the "don't be evil" prematurely?
I really don't think they're more reliable than UK or US media.
Nothing to see here, move along move along.
I reconcile it by realizing that advertisers wield enormous power. Also, it's not called "good information" it's called "news" - nothing is promised in terms of guaranteed good factual content. And I remember that Palestinians are semites. So are Arabs. Immigrants from Eastern European flocking to the mideast are not semites at all.
Indeed.
Because Reasons I found myself with ready access to cable television about a year ago and spent a few days sampling news from CNN, Bloomberg, and a few other sources. Mind that my understanding is that these are more substantive linear-programmed news sources. I found them all but unwatchable. Most of the airtime was spent either in speculation on what might occur, or (occasionally, for variety), largely uniformed commentary on something which just had, though and substantive specifics were virtually always lacking.
Another long-time preferred information source of mine has been On the Media, from WNYC, New York City. That's a one-hour weekly programme (with a shorter, usually 20--30 minute mid-week podcast episode), generally broken into 3--4 stories. These are typically interviews, pre-recorded and edited. The result is a considered take, usually on substantive stories of the previous week. The show's conceit is that it follows media rather than news, though the distinction is of course pretty blurry. Listening to that and checking headlines from a few sources through the week usually keeps me fairly informed on broad developments without wasting time and attention on irrelevancies.
I'll also subscribe to the individual-segments version of some national-level news programmes. A few times a month I might scan through those and listen to an in-depth segment (usually 3--9 minutes or so) on an item. Most segments, I find, are obviously either speculative or uninformed as with the 24/7 products by Bloomberg and CNN, despite being a once-a-day hourly show.
I've mentioned before on HN that NPR (US public radio network) has lost much quality in its drive to fully-live production starting after 9/11. Prior to that, most of the flagship news programme content (Morning Edition and All Things Considered (evening), as well as weekend programming) consisted of pre-recorded and edited segments, with a live news headlines cover at the top and bottom of the hour, and perhaps a live or at least recent-ish introduction from the programme hosts. With the switch to live production, all of the throat-clearing and jagged-edges of taking on live contributions, chasing guests off the end of their allotted time slots, and inability to edit for length, clarity, and relevance are apparent. I find the result generally both uninteresting and unlistenable.
A daily show which has retained pre-recorded, edited, production basis is The World, from WBUR/Boston. It has a fraction of the budget and staffing of NPR's flagships but produces a far more coherent product. The fact that it's also much less US-centric (despite being a US production) is also welcome respite from the insanity that comprises current US politics (and increasingly, other news-affine aspects).
As for personalisation: I was mostly referring to advertising. But you're quite right: for algorithmic- / AI-curated streams platforms, the specific content items presented to a reader/viewer are also selected by the platform, and generally not with the aim of informing that reader but in addicting them to that content. There's some interesting commentary from early days of the Internet on the hidden value of mass curation (as with large-scale print or broadcast media), or negative side-effects of "personalised" media. John Seeley Brown's The Social Life of Information (2000) addresses the first, Andrew J. Shapiro's The Control Revolution (1999) the second. More recently it's been noted that personalised targeting (of both advertising and "content") means that it's often difficult to assess what kinds of things others in your immediate community are being exposed to, both informally and for those researching media impacts.
There's been spam, and some attempts at other forms of monetisation such as sex-work sites. The larger issue for advertising is that the protocol and hosting model are such that advertising isn't integral, or supported, is seen as counter to the person-centric focus of the platform, and hence is pretty readily shut down.
Contrast commercial social media which were envisioned from the start as ad-delivery mechanisms, with social interaction as a side effect.
That isn't to say that the Fediverse isn't susceptible to some forms of advertising, only that that tendency runs counter to the dynamics of the platform, rather than strongly aligning with them as is the case on Google Web Search, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, Twitter, etc., etc., etc.
Evidence is strong that people as a whole reject advertising. They may seek specific information or recommendations, but tend not to like getting spammed with irrelevant (and intrusive, invasive, and worse) messages. To that extent, so long as the Fediverse remains focused on its participants and not advertisers interests, it should remain fairly robustly resistant.
See similarly The Well and Metafilter, both of which though small had or have user cohorts which are fairly attractive to advertisers and marketers generally (affluent, educated, influential). But not being ad-dependent or ad-focused themselves, they've remained largely free of gratuitously promotional content.
By contrast, Google+, also quite small by modern standards[1], did find itself rather overrun by marketers and brands, at least for a time. Not ad-based, but Google pushed the marketing angle and branded content did become somewhat pervasive for a while.
________________________________
Notes:
1. I found a methodology to accurately measure active participation in the platform, I have quite a good sense of how large it was, roughly 5--10 million or so accounts posting monthly as of 2015. See: <https://web.archive.org/web/20150130125653/https://ello.co/d...> <https://kevinanderson.nl/how-many-people-are-publicly-using-...> <https://www.businessinsider.com/google-active-users-2015-1>. The methodology was replicated and validated independently a few months later on roughly 10x the sample size: <https://web.archive.org/web/20150419171939/https://www.stone...>.
I want to be able to discuss taboo ideas in private, without getting globally cancelled for something I that might be discussed out of my mind. No thanks to the uni-context.
context-bound > uni-context, for at least the Germanic-speaking world.
It does sound very interesting and right up my alley.
I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore (probably a user error) so if anyone has a link to a document, soundfile or video of Agnes Callard explaining the concept without the interuptions from a interviewer that is more interested in contributing than to let her explain the concept I would very much appreciate it.
A bit off topic, but you're not the only one. I've grown up with the internet and yet I'm now completely unable to find things on demand.
I sometimes resort to claude, not because I want to, but because it's so difficult to search the real internet now. Asking claude, then asking claude for sources, can uncover hidden gems. ( It can also reveal claude talking out of its arse. )
Search anything and you are bombarded with unoriginal sites, optimised for SEO, filled with generated rubbish and adverts.
There used to be an arms-race between google and SEO spam that Google could keep up with, if not ahead.
But it feels like at some point in the past decade, google just gave up and let them win.
This is probably the best source, but it's completely unavailable online:
https://www.reed.edu/events/?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26even...
Hopefully there will be some artifacts from this that will be available to the greater public.
That article proposes that, soon, it will be possible to connect any online identity to its owner's other identities by analyzing stylistic details in their writing. So even niche online communities will have these problems.
The other relevant word is "objectivity". There so many systems in our society whose context we surround ourselves with, it starts to feel like every subject is objective. The reality is that every subject is subjective.
I think one of the big drivers for this dynamic is that our social systems are facilitated with software, and we always make software as a uni-context. An application is a fixed context.
If we can figure out how to introduce subjectivity into software, that would be extremely useful for both computing and society.
Atomization has clear motivations: increasing the individual consumer base (no, you shouldn't share your car or lawnmower with your block, you need your own), suppressing democracy, and generally making a population more predictable and easy to manage.
Large companies and organisations are able to tap into our core emotions and needs of the human body and able to shape our day to day in a way we feel that we have the freedom to choose but in reality we are acting within hidden boundaries.
Worst I'd have to lose is a lawnmower.
I don't have a lawnmower or a lawn. But if I did... interesting experiment.
Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla as CTO because of a small donation in favour of Prop 8. Fine?
I think most people here would say yes. In fact people did say that.
I think many people would say they don’t want to have a plumber who opposes (say) trans rights. Or read an author who is anti-gay. Pick some view heretical to your world-view and see if you can stand to encounter people who hold it.
If you require all purity you probably prefer the uni-context.
Why would I care if I don't notice? I'm paying them to fix my literal plumbing, not to proverbially suck my dick. If they do the job I pay them for, and they're not giving me shit for who I am, why would I want to get them fired?
This uni-context feels like a very silly idea in practice.
It's the same fundamental network problem: the infrastructure that allows unprecedented levels of commerce and ideas and travel will also allow disinformation, plagues, and homogeneity. The double-edged sword of graph density.
It feels doomed, though. Smart glasses wearers are being shamed today, but the tech will only get more inconspicuous. And HD cameras are so small and cheap that phone cameras are only one of many potential sources of surveillance.
With ubiquitous tiny cameras, quality networks (even in remote areas thanks to Starlink), cheap storage, and increased analysis capabilities thanks to AI, it feels like planet panopticon is here.
Isn't that what G Wave/ G+ trying to solve?
I think a better option would be: don't tie your IRL identity for online communications.
Not tying your IRL identity to online communications only solves one side of the problem. You can't use your anon accounts to communicate as yourself to family, friends, and colleagues and maintain your anonymity.
Not having accounts tied to IRL identity also allows AI bots to operate as equals to human users, which dilutes the quality of conversation in those spaces.
We've built an incredibly effective communications apparatus. It's a shame its only users are money-obsessed primates and the robots we've built in our image.
If course it being Google, it got cancelled before it had a chance to catch on.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel)#Film...>
This read as AI, which is odd.
Social networks are globalized. Being captain of your high school football team used to be special, but now it's nothing, when people are comparing themselves against Nobel-prize winning teenagers.
Almost all professional jobs are globalized. Software companies sell globally; financial companies sell globally; drug companies sell globally. That means the most talented professional can charge whatever they want because they can generate profits from a massive market.
But non-college-educated workers are left out. They can only get local jobs, which (a) don't pay as well, and (b) get competition from immigrants. This is exactly how Trump got in the White House and how so many right-wing parties rose across Europe. It's why Brexit happened.
Globalization is even the cause of enshittification. When your market is local, the opinion of your customers is important, and a good reputation allows you to expand to new regions. But when your market is global, you can only grow by extracting more value from existing customers.