the social internet (and rapid, inescapable commercialization thereof) makes it so that you are what you consume, not what you do, not where you go, not who you spend your time with. before if you bought the clothes or the gear without doing it or without being in community, you were a poser. if you monetized or commercialized that interest and put those incentives over expression and connection, you were a sellout. but that doesnāt exist anymore ā democratization and anti-gatekeeping as both ideas and ends of an algorithm to maximize surface area for consumption have made it so that there isnāt a distinct authority on what you can attach to your identity or how you express yourself
but if the extent of our agency in a democratized landscape is to only to consume more instead of producing or connecting, or to produce only to commodify ourselves for money or internet points, then maybe itās a different kind of ābeing influenced by social trends rather than authentic interestā than going to a skate park, or an open mic, or a restaurant, or whatever because we heard about it somewhere and wanted to check it out, and de-centering the internet from what we see on it and how we engage with it is a way to make that healthier or more generative for ourselves, and can create beauty without immediately thinking about how to fit into a box along lines drawn by advertisers
Comments (1)
Make an account to reply.
Nice take! To an extent I agree on how social media allows for those influenced to function as a medium to reflect its content.
Social media pushes an algorithm that forces the individual to conform to the ideas, aesthetics and values. It also brings forth a community through said resonance of what one finds most drawn to.
There are different ways to look at authenticity.
I love the way you made me see your point of view in a well articulated stance.
Related Recs
š
I don't know how well this actually answers your initial question, I think it's more of a counterpoint to some of the stuff people have already said, but here it goes.
In the past (prior to social media or search engines) specific styles, specialized knowledge, and niche awareness actually took effort. You had to go out into the world and find a scene, be accepted, participate in it, contribute to it, and learn from others with specific knowledge within the specific sub- or counter-cultural scene. It took time, effort, and experience to craft an identity. Nowadays people cycle through various identities and trends like commodities because it takes no effort (they're sold to them by social media algorithms, influencers, brand accounts, etc.). It comes to you in your phone without you ever even having to leave the house or put in the time to discover it or participate in it (you just follow specific people or subscribe). You can be a passive observer or consumer, not an active contributor. As a result, you're not invested or tied down and committed to that core identity. You can cosplay depending on your mood or who you want to momentarily convey yourself as, because it's easy. Essentially, being a poser has become normalized. An identity is now something to be momentarily consumed and affected, rather than grown, built, and developed over time.
Granted, it's always been different in regards to "mass" culture and popular trends (both in the past and now). Those are impossible to miss and were always monopolized by specific trend setting institutions, but always by the time it gets to that point, the actual initial counter- or sub-culture that inspired it has already been coopted and has started to disintegrate under the weight and attention of mass consumption.
Feb 18, 2024
š
we are rapidly losing the existence of genuine Subcultures that emerge from a cultural or historical inflection point. hence, trendiness - trends and aesthetics norms are a huge selling point for brands of all shades and stripes, its standing in for what subculture was doing the heavy lifting for. add in the ability to purchase online right thru algorithm machines a la TikTok and Instagramā¦ voila! a captive audience to sell trendiness to
Feb 19, 2024
š
i think before tiktok or instagram there was a more homogeneous idea about what was cool bc magazines had a monopoly on the industry. now that the internet has democratized what gets to be cool there are different types of cool, which is the rise of different competing styles. but these styles arenāt really just about like ādo you like low rise jeansā so much as they are āwhat do the low rise jeans say about youā which has caused a lot of aesthetics to be simultaneously tied to a specific identity, in turn marketing and influencing has become increasingly niche. i think that certain influencers becoming enmeshed in their aesthetics hasnāt helped either where if, for example, tara yummy recommended an eyeliner the goth girls would eat it up, but the clean girls might not care, bc that eyeliner would be contrary to not just their aesthetic, but identity. but if tara yummy was emily mariko the opposite effect would happen to both camps, if that makes sense.
TLDR; niche aesthetics and microindivduality is killing mass marketing
Feb 18, 2024
Top Recs from @alaiyo
Mar 23, 2024
a treatise on the attention economy - checked it out on libby and got through it over the course of a work day, a lot of really interesting social and cultural explorations about how time itself is the final frontier of hypercapitalism and what decommodification of our attention and time should look like
the book starts with a story about the oldest redwood tree in oakland and how the only reason itās still standing is bc itās unmillable, and how being uncommercializable is essential to our survival. it ends with an exploration of alt social media platforms (mostly p2p ones) and what keeping the good parts of the social internet and rejecting the bad ones should look like
all in all a super valuable read; my only nitpick with the book is that odell isnāt just charting the attention economy but also attempting to āsolveā it and relate it back to broader concepts about labor and social organizing, but her background is in the arts which leads to some really wonderful references to drive the points home while also missing some critical racial + socioeconomic analyses that one would expect (or at least really appreciate) from the book she promises to deliver in the introduction. but this does also make the book easier to read which is good because everyone should definitely engage with what she has to say
will definitely be revisiting
Mar 25, 2024