Social Media Is Pointless Slag

The irony here is we're being "consumed" by the process of "consuming" social media.

If we want to understand why a system generates unfavorable output, a good starting place is to identify

1) the incentives embedded by the system's design and

2) what this type of system generates by its very nature. One way to understand this is Marshall McLuhan's famous dictum, the medium is the message: the medium itself defines the message, not the content.

Per MarshallMcLuhan.com, Each medium, independent of the content it mediates, has its own intrinsic effects which are its unique message. 'The medium is the message' because it is the 'medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action.'

The classic example is the medium of print media versus the medium of broadcast television. These are not interchangeable, as each medium lends itself to different avenues of communication, knowledge and emotional impact. Each is attractive / addictive in different ways, and the incentives to "consume" content in each medium differ, as do the incentives to create content in each medium.

The basic idea here is it's more productive to investigate the incentives and behaviors generated by the communication medium itself and ignore the messages / content.

What becomes immediately apparent is social media is slag--the worthless mass left over when we melt a mountain of ore to obtain a handful of useful metal--both by the nature of its incentives and by its structure.

The incentives of social media are uniquely perverse: social media platforms invite users to create content with two built-in incentives:

1. increase your social status and sense of self-worth by posting content showing yourself in the best possible light

2. attempt to earn money by posting a mountain of content to extract a handful of payments from the corporate platform.

The consumer economy systemically induces insecurity as the means of promoting the purchase of goods and services we don't need but which confer social status: "you have to have this new product/service or you're low status."

Given the mass insecurity this system generates, people are starved for opportunities to increase their social standing and sense of self-worth by increasing their visibility: look at me!

Social media fulfills this desire to a T. Constantly post photos of oneself in exotic locales, dining out, looking fabulous, etc., none of which has any appeal to the truly secure individual.

This competition to gain attention generates envy and insecurity, which then feed a desire to fabricate / highlight even more looking fab content, which then generates more data and profits for the platforms.

That we don't actually become higher status or more secure by entering this competition undermines the entire exercise / "investment" of time and energy. The platform's Happy Story is that social media "connects people," but the medium only lends itself to superficial simulations of connection, not actual connections.

For that, we have email: individual to individual, not broadcasting on social media.

The financial incentives are equally attractive: sit at home (or at work) and post content for "free" (because "free" means we're the unpaid source of the platforms' profits) which can generate substantial income if our content goes viral and attracts millions of views.

By its very nature--users post as much content as they want, 24/7--social media thrives on quantity, not quality. So the way to make money on social media platforms is to post a mountain of content as the means to extract a handful of cash.

This is an ideal setup for social media platform corporations: users create content that is addictive by design--the endless scroll, keep going or you'll miss out on a terrific post!--which can then be scraped for data that can be sold to other companies while also being used to target advertising tailored to each addicted user / poster.

The platforms rake in tens of billions of dollars and dole out a tiny percentage to content creators. It's actually an amazingly one-sided extraction machine: the platforms recruit users to slave away posting mountains of content that's profitable to the platforms in the vain hope of becoming an influencer raking in big bucks from attracting tens of millions of views. The actual distribution of the money follows a power-law curve: only the few at the top make any real money, the 99.8% earn pennies or nothing.

This meager monetary inccentive also generates an unquenchable desire to post attention-grabbing content. Whether it's accurate or not is not the incentive; the incentive is to be outrageous enough to activate users' limbic attention to emotion-generating images and text.

There is no other possible output of this structure other than addiction to a pointless mountain of slag. Mighty bulldozers scoop up the raw content and extract the value via data collection and advertising, and a few nuggets are tossed to the content creators who generate the most addictive / attractive content. Everyone else is generating content in the futile pursuit of higher visibility / status / security.

Hey, Hypocrite, don't you post on social media. Yes, I do, because that's where the audience is now. If you expect me to stand on a street corner reading my content aloud (and likely being arrested as a 5150 or public nuisance), sorry, I'm in the business of creating content, and so I have to go where the audience is, which is now social media.

I don't have to "like" social media or spend any time on it to recognize that it is a global mass medium of open access. I don't post enough to ever attract much of an audience, nor is my content of the sort that attracts vast audiences. But no writer can ignore changes in the mediums of communication if they want their content to be read, oops, I mean "consumed."

The irony here is we're being "consumed" by the process of "consuming" social media. The medium of social media lends itself to Ultra-Processed Content, the cognitive-emotional equivalents of addictive-by-design Ultra-Processed snacks.

How much "nutritional value" did we extract from sorting through the mountain of pointless slag? The answer is not enough to make the time-attention-consuming process worth our time or energy, given the degradation of our mental-cognitive health that being addicted to social media incurs by its very nature.

Social media can be productively understood as a medium labeled "to serve humans," as it consumes us to feed a profit machine that can only generate mountains of pointless slag due to its incentives and structure.

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Mario G. ($10), for your most generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, XX ($7/month), for your monstrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Anti-Hip ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Cheryl A. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

We're Living in a Tragicomic Parody

It's hard to take a joke when our entire economy and financial system is the joke.

We're blessed/cursed to be living in a very peculiar era in which parodies are taken with the utmost seriousness, an absurdist state of affairs captured by the classic line from the 1959 film North by Northwest: "So horribly sad. How is it I feel like laughing?"

The parodies are now so extreme they are self-parodies that cannot be parodied. How do we parody a world gone mad with parodies? Every attempt to parody "the news" today is trumped by reality.

We're inhabiting a travesty of a mockery of a sham of smug overlords and obsequious politically correct grifters, left and right, claiming the high moral ground while they pillage with a money-grubbing avarice so blatant that it's impervious to parody.

Their hypocrisy is so comically obvious that we can no longer tell if it's comic by design or the grifters are so shallow and superficial that they're blind to the irony of their self-parody.

At any moment, we might be instructed to wear our underwear on the outside of our clothing, and the Supreme Court would rubber-stamp this parody of serious policy with its usual cowardice, a cowardice that is now so blatant that it's also beyond parody: the Supreme Court is a parody of a functioning system of justice.

All this will be reported with great seriousness, as if it isn't a punchline in a joke nobody gets.

The irony of all the euphoric claims about AI is powerful enough to melt thick steel containment doors. The AI euphoria is itself an irony, wrapped around an even deeper irony: there is no way to tell the difference between an AI parody of "intelligence" and what AI presents as "legitimate intelligence."

A parody of AI hallucinations is impossible, because the reality of AI hallucinations already exceeds any parody. A parody of runaway AI mischief is also impossible, because the reality of AI mischief already exceeds any parody.



Then there's the parodies that are so systemic, they're the punchline nobody gets: the economy is a parody of a functional economy--here is total debt:



And the the stock market casino run by The Gamesters of Triskelion is a parody of a functional financial system:



Star Trek fans know the The Gamesters of Triskelion episode is a parody in which a society of supposedly great intelligence has decayed into a debased casino in which gambling and gaming the betting action is the sole focus of these supposedly intelligent Masters of the Universe.

Isn't it obvious that the US financial system / stock market is now such an absurd parody of a functional financial system that it can no longer be parodied, as it's a full-blown self-parody?

Ultra-Processed Life--everything is "innovative," "new," a novelty everyone must have, profitable glop presented as amusement and distraction not nourishment--is a self-parody not just of a functioning socio-economic system but of an authentic value system.

It's hard to take a joke when our entire economy and financial system is the joke. The comedian delivers the punchline and the audience is silent: they won't get the joke until it's too late to laugh, except through tears, for we're living in a tragicomic parody.

New podcast: Charles Hugh Smith on the End Game of Repressed Interest Rates: Stagflationary Inflation followed by "Cold Turkey" (29:25 min)

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Bruce D. ($200), for your outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Cynthia M. ($7/month), for your monstrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, James W. ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Don F. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

The Irresistible Temptations of Centralized Power

The only "reform" that changes our lives in a fundamentally positive way is radical decentralization via distributing centralized power.

Presidents like to deal with the CEOs of corporate monopolies for self-evident reasons: Rather than engage in the tedious, contentious herding-of-cats in nimble, dynamic, competitive sectors, the Prez makes a deal with the monopoly CEO and the deal is imposed on everyone down the political, corporate, workplace hierarchy.

Centralized power makes a coup--a forced swap of leadership--meet the new boss, same as the old boss--easy. Financial coups are easier, too, with one central bank and one cartel of "too big to fail, too big to care" banks.

Centralized power offers many other Irresistible Temptations. Reformers love centralized power because if they can grab control of it, they can force-feed their glorious reforms (or profit-maximizing schemes) down everyone's throats whether they agree or not: it is against the law to complain about corporate/state monopolies controlling our lives, everyone must install a Flock camera in their bedroom, no one can criticize the Supreme Leader in private, everyone must wear approved Silly Hats in public, etc.

Oops, those reforms sound like an authoritarian, totalitarian state gone mad. Yes, precisely. All centralized power arrangements end up manifesting authoritarian, totalitarian extremes of madness, because that's the only possible outcome of centralizing power: petty dictators are soon running the asylum, and loving every minute of it. The patients, not so much.

We see this everywhere now, as monopolies are manifestations of centralized power. This is why I call the status quo Privatized Totalitarianism as privately owned and operated monopolies / cartels have the same headlock on us as state monopolies, and the two work together, as this serves the interests of both: you make the Silly Hats, and we mandate their use, and penalize anyone attempting to modify your software, app, device or Silly Hat to evade your monopoly chokehold. We both get rich exploiting the powerless peasantry, so what's not to like?

Politics now boils down to a Silly Hats slugfest over who gets control of the Privatized Totalitarianism casino. The only meaningful reform is to decentralize power by demolishing every monopoly and cartel and banning the aggregation of power. But what about "efficiency"? Yes, Privatized Totalitarianism is very "efficient"-- efficient at extraction, exploitation, surveillance, repression, propaganda, PR and social control mechanisms.

If the public can "vote with their feet" by moving to a different physical location but they're still living in the same cartel-monopoly economy wherever they move, their "liberty" is illusory. It's like changing cabins in the gulag: maybe this hut has fewer leaks and fewer fleas, but it's still in the gulag.

Just as what we're losing by using AI is invisible because we've lost the capacity to even see what's been lost, we've lost the capacity to see the systemic decay of the quality of our lives in the invisible gulag of Privatized Totalitarianism. So even as we thrill to some new novelty or tiny discount, we've lost the capacity to see what's been lost in the slow destruction of decentralized, competitive dynamism in favor of the profit-maximizing, sclerotic gulag we're all trapped in without even being aware that we're trapped, for the key to maintaining the kingdom is to foster the illusions of choice, liberty and competition while distracting us with ceaseless hype about new technologies, novelties and meaningless discounts as "competition" and "choice."

It's like looking at a row of different brand products and then reading the fine print to discover that they're all owned by the same corporation. That's Privatized Totalitarianism, well cloaked behind carefully maintained illusions of choice, liberty and competition.

And if you protest, it might get worse: "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."



The only "reform" that changes our lives in a fundamentally positive way is radical decentralization via distributing centralized power. Everything else is just changing huts in the gulag and being delighted with the steady stream of absurd parodies of novelty: "New gruel, new taste, now with micro-plastics!"

New podcast: Charles Hugh Smith on the End Game of Repressed Interest Rates: Stagflationary Inflation followed by "Cold Turkey" (29:25 min)

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Frank M. ($200), for your outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.		Thank you, Alex R. ($70), for your monstrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Darryl ($70), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Cav V. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

The Blindfolded Can't Make Informed Decisions--and We're All Blindfolded

If there was a black market for systemic risk, we'd make a completely different set of decisions. Instead, we're each on our own, trying to peek beneath our blindfold to see a sliver of the real world.

Here in the 9th inning, the name of the game is artifice in service of the Big Con. Everywhere we turn, we're inundated with "information" designed to funnel us into passively compliant complicity, a constant flood of interventions, social engineering, gamed statistics and fake substitutions for what was once authentic: fake facsimiles, synthetic mimicries and an endless array of flimsy facades designed to hide the realities that might awaken us from our uneasy somnambulance.

All this artifice is the machinery of the Big Con, in which the credulous marks are led to believe they're "winning" while they're being fleeced. So you're "winning" gambling in a rigged casino, but that's how the Big Con works: you keep winning in the stock market casino, so you get complacent and complicit: hey, don't shut down the rigged casino, I'm winning!

Once you believe the carefully conjured falsehoods are real, the trap is sprung: you're all in now, but instead of winning, you lose--everything. Oops, sorry about that, well, you knew it was a game of chance. Better luck next time. But there is no next time, because you're wiped out--by design.

But that's not even the worst of all the fakery and artifice. If we set aside all the ideological, economic and cultural differences around the world, one truth remains the same everywhere:

If you want to know the true price of things, including risk, there's only one place you'll find it: the black market, the underground cash market that's beyond the control of authorities fixing prices, manipulating credit and intervening to mask risk.

The reason we want to know the true price of things, including risk, is that it's impossible to make informed decisions based on artificially set prices and risks. In a system that's nothing but a carefully controlled stage set, we're all blindfolded, unable to see the real cost of capital and the real extent of risk.

So the Federal Reserve says the cost of capital is low and this reflects near-zero risk. This staging places a blindfold on everyone in the system. Unable to see the real cost of capital, the real extent of risk, the hidden costs of suppressing feedback by rigging the entire financial system--it's all hidden to serve the Big Con--for your own good, of course, because that's the core con in the Big Con.

The blindfolded can't possibly make informed, sound decisions, and we're all blindfolded by artificial "information" designed to make a system bursting with risk look low-risk and a system that's rigged to benefit the few at the expense of the many look like it makes "winners" of everyone gambling in the casino. You can't lose, because Mommy and Daddy Fed will always step in to bail everyone out.

The real winners aren't playing the tables, they're rigging it all, amused by the ease of running the Big Con. In a system as centralized as the one we inhabit--what I call Privatized Totalitarianism--there is no black market where we can take off our blindfold and see the true level of risk and the true cost of unmanipulated capital and credit.

And since these realities are purposefully hidden from us, we're doomed to making disastrously bad decisions based on artificially contrived "information." Blindfolded, we're perilously close to the precipice, but the messages we hear are all soothing confirmations that everything is low risk and we're all "winning."

Blindfolded, it's inevitable that one day we step off the precipice we can't see. That's the current era in a nutshell.

Or put another way: we're wandering around blindfolded, making decisions based on Big Con fabrications, one of which is we can "borrow our way to permanent prosperity:"



We don't actually "own" our "winnings," we're only temporarily "renting" them-- We're Actually Only "Renting" What We Think We "Own":



If there was a black market for systemic risk, we'd make a completely different set of decisions. Instead, we're each on our own, trying to peek beneath our blindfold to see a sliver of the real world.

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, John C. ($100), for your outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Catherine K. ($100), for your outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Frank E. ($70), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Don W. ($50), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

We're Actually Only "Renting" What We Think We "Own"

In many cases, we're actually only "renting" the functional / monetary value of what we "own," and that makes the value of "ownership" far less certain than we might imagine.

What we "own" seems straightforward, but it's actually slippery. Yes, we own what we have a deed or copyright for, but we only "rent" the valuation the market assigns to what we own.

Consider the gambling chip in our pocket issued by a casino. Its market value within the casino is, say, $100. If the casino suddenly declares bankruptcy, we still "own" the physical round of plastic, but we no longer "own" any monetary value, as the chip is now worthless beyond its collectable value, which is likely nil. It turns out we only "rented" the market valuation, which is dependent on conditions outside our control.

This confusion about what we actually "own" becomes visible when asset bubbles pop. As an asset bubble inflates, we naturally feel we "own" wondrously expanding wealth. But actually all we own is the stock shares or the house or the futures contract. Since the market valuation is set by conditions outside our control, we're only "renting" the market valuation via our ownership.

Once the bubble pops, our great wealth has vanished, even though we still "own" the asset.

Buying assets with borrowed money generates additional slipperiness. As long as our liability / debt remains lower than the market value, our ownership has monetary value. But should the bubble pop and the market value drop to the point that our debt / liabilities exceed the market value of the asset, then it's revealed that we only "rented" the monetary value, because the conditions that set that value are outside our control.



Here is a chart of total debt, public and private. We may have a claim on a pension or an entitlement, but if the debt absorbs all the income, then our claim wasn't ownership. And if our liabilities exceed the market value of the asset we own, we own nothing of monetary value.



We all know that the digital device we "own" is a brick unless we "rent" the software, which we "own" until the controlling corporation declares it obsolete. Once again, the functional and monetary value of what we "own" is outside our direct control because those values are controlled by others.

Compare this to a tool like a hammer, whose functionality is not controlled by anyone but the owner.

Which brings us to AI, another slippery manifestation of "ownership." Most AI tools are rented from a corporation via a monthly fee, and programs that are downloaded and "owned" are still controlled by the issuing company in terms of their functionality.

But we own the content we create with AI, correct? Yes, but since AI tools and agents are commodities now, anyone else can create the same or equivalent content, so the monetary value of AI-generated content is near-zero due to its low scarcity value.

And if we consider "ownership" of cognition, then the only cognition we truly own is what we know and can create once all the AI tools and agents are offline. In other words, what we truly own and control is our own knowledge and experience. Everything we "rent" or borrow isn't ours to "own" if we understand functional value as only what we control lock, stock and barrel, with zero dependence on conditions beyond our control.

Which makes us wonder if we're renting AI or AI is renting us.



In many cases, we're actually only "renting" the functional / monetary value of what we "own," and that makes the value of "ownership" far more contingent and far less predictable and considerably less certain than we might imagine.

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Don ($70), for your superbly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, NDM ($70), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, John S. ($70), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Sally B. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...