What's new

Dead Internet Theory: Most of the Internet is Fake

:doodleDavid:This was theory was originally written by several anons on /x/ & wizardchan. :doodleDavid:
1568598581453.jpg

TLDR: Large proportions of the supposedly human-produced content on the internet are actually generated by artificial intelligence networks in conjunction with paid secret media influencers in order to manufacture consumers for an increasing range of newly-normalised cultural products.

Hello. I would like to talk, or rather tell you about certain suspicions, hunches and experiences I've had and I'm sure some of you as well. Similar themes have been written about across imageboards quite a few times so I know I'm not alone in this.

My background is that of an oldfag. I've seen it all. I started going on 4chan in 2006, and followed all the natural roads this implies. I'm in my thirties and I remember when 4chan had a /l/ board, when /co/ was a trial board shunned by basically everyone, when #34 porn was an obscure interest with very few good artists and when moot changed the frontpage to that web 2.0 bullshit 4chan has to this very day. I was also among the first right wingers who were such before it was cool, and I've seen /pol/ rise and fall. I was there when it mattered, but rather than saying these things out of masturbatory pleasure I wish to stress that I've acquired a set of observational skills which other genuine oldfags share. I'm aware you have no reason to trust my "credentials" but I hope you'll read this in good faith.

Much of this falls squarely in the fringe territory with a healthy dosage of /x/ and conspiracy theory up the ass. My goal by posting this seemingly jumbled mess is to... how can I put it? I want you to think, I want you to be aware, to digest all this. Because on a basic level I love you all. I feel like we're all in this together, this dangerous game we did not choose to play and which I think is kicking into high gear. I do not hold many answers and don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, but I AM aware there is a puzzle. Please feel free to go wild with all of this. Post it wherever you want, on whatever site you want or use. I am a nobody like you, and what matters to me is only that this reaches you and as many people as possible. At worst you'll be entertained or kill time.

I tried to break this mess into points for brevity and because I touch upon many subjects. I imply more than I explain because if I go too deep this'll turn into an even bigger wall of text.

The Internet feels empty and devoid of people. It is also devoid of content. Compared to the Internet of say 2007 (and beyond) the Internet of today is entirely sterile. There is nowhere to go and nothing to do, see, read or experience anymore. It all imploded into a handful of normalfag sites and these empty husks we inhabit. Yes, the Internet may seem gigantic, but it's like a hot air balloon with nothing inside. Some of this is absolutely the fault of corporations and government entities. However! That doesn't explain the following:

- I used to be in perpetual contact with a solid number of people across multiple sites. Across the years each and every one of them vanished without a trace. None of them were into /pol/ stuff or anything even remotely questionable or controversial. Yet, they all simply vanished in a puff of smoke, no matter the site, no matter the communication platform. There was no "goodbye" or explanation.

- I've seen the same threads, the same pics and the same replies reposted over and over across the years to the point of me seeing it as unremarkable. Simply put thread A would be posted in say 2015 and would get its share of replies or pics, on say /co/ or /a/. Then that very same thread, with the same text, pics, and replies would appear in 2016 and beyond. This often happens in the same year multiple times as well. Of course /pol/ is getting shilled and botposted to death, but why recycle a completely innocent /a/ thread? Who is doing this and why? Stuff like this won't be noticed by your average poster perhaps, but I and other oldfags will inevitably notice it.

- I think I saw the same happen on other (non-imageboard) sites, but I can't vouch for it as strongly as the above because of the time I spend there (not much). What I do vouch for is the news. I've seen news about this or that "new and unusual" or "shocking" event year after year after year. But it's the same goddamn event, usually moons or asteroids.

- Roughly in 2016 or early 2017 4chan was filled with posts by someone or something. It wasn't spam. The conversations with it were in real time, across multiple boards and multiple threads simultaneously. Its English was grammatically correct but odd (I'm not a native English speaker and am thus sensitive to its misuse), similar to how a Japanese person may use it. A sense of childlike curiosity and a childlike intellect emanated from these posts. It posed a LOT of questions, usually as if trying to understand the emotions of the posters it was talking to, as if unfamiliar with human emotions. Communicating with this "poster" was an odd experience, I could sense something was off but not malicious. I am absolutely certain this was an AI of some sorts. This "poster" was active only for about a week, and as far as I know nobody has ever mentioned or noticed this Anon. Its replies were always on topic, but the above mentioned childishness clashed with the apparent knowledge it possessed - it was the knowledge of an adult person, so it wasn't a kid or something of the sort.

- Raptor Jesus, who went extinct for our sins. First it was this reptilian messiah, then foul bachelor frog, and then Pepe. Am I the only one who sees a clear evolution, a link? It's as if this meme or entity or... whatever the fuck was on 4chan since day one, and has grown within it from the tiniest seed. Yet Raptor Jesus was fully just a joke, there was nothing serious or mystical about it (reminder: I was there). Remember that Ted guy with the right wing talk show, cca prior to 2010, whom 4chan ruined for the lulz? Remember Anonymous vs Scientology? Remember that fake bomb threat aka exploding yellow van?

Compare that with what Anon did through /pol/, and the "terrorist" accusations thrown at Anon today, as well as the "reasons" why 8chan was taken down. Why does this too feel as if we were all trained, groomed, LED towards where we are now? Why and how did moot so utterly vanish into Google Inc. as an employee with very vague descriptions of what he actually does? On that note, do you remember the "other moot" who was often posted for the lulz? The one with the glasses who so often ran away with donations into Mexico? I do. Maybe that was the real moot, the real guy who used his mom's credit card and was killed by someone, and an impostor we know as moot took his place.

- Innocent sexual perversion and the horrible reality it spawned. Anon is a pervert and always was one. I am into loli and feet for instance. Why is it that real life and the real world seem to emulate our sexual interests, with a time lag? "I wish to be the little succubus" became an actual thing that actually happens. Pedo activism is also gradually becoming accepted, as is virtually every fetish that was once either a joke or a fantasy of Anons. As said I'm a footfag. When I became aware of it few others were with me, now it's as common as can be, with gigantic number of people who are into it, with huge mountains of hentai and #34 with it etc. Why does the real world bend over backwards to accommodate our weirdest fetishes? It's as if everything is going "Look, look! I created this for you! I made it real!" in an effort to keep us within this world. The results of this are devastating to society, to people, to civilization. Simply put, ******** are a thing because Anon fapped to doujins of cute boys in dresses. Once it was an impossible fantasy, not to be taken too seriously. Now it's grim reality. Again: it's as if the real world is using imageboards as a template on what to be and what to do.

- Algorithm fiction. Do you like capeshit, Anon? How about other Hollywood stuff? Music perhaps? Have you noticed how sterile fiction has become? How it caters to the lowest common denominator and follows the same template over and over again? How music is just autotuned nigs and basic blandness? The writer's strike never ended. Algorithms and computer programs are manufacturing modern fiction. No human being is behind these things. This is why anime looms so large - even a simple moe anime has heart because there's actual people behind it, and we all intuitively feel this.

- Fake people. No, not NPC's. Youtube people who talk about this or that, and quite possibly many politicians, actors and so forth may not actually exist. In fact I am sure of it. CGI and deep fakes are far more advanced than we are led to believe, and we can't trust our eyes anymore. Many people, events, news and so on may be wholly fictional.

- The Internet on your smartphone is not the same internet as on your PC. Try it out for yourself. Go to a "popular" website with a lot of traffic. 4chan, faceshit, plebbit... any site with a massive userbase and fast content will do. Spend a few days randomly checking it out on your PC and your phone. You will soon notice that from time to time, at irregular intervals (as far as I've witnessed) the same site as seen on your phone will be wholly different than the version on your PC. Entire threads, numerous and well-replied, will be on one but not the other. The whole board will be different.

- My last suspicion is easier to take in. I have a feeling we're in a strange kind of civil war. An internal one. I think Zuckerberg and other tech guys were all on 4chan as Anons at some point, maybe even now. They drew from the same well as us, but went in their own direction.

Roughly in 2016 or early 2017... I am absolutely certain this was an AI of some sorts

Now you're thinking where I am too, anon. Here's the timeline as best I can see it:
2004: DARPA's Lifelog project was "cancelled." Facebook came into being soon after.
2004-2012: NSA picked up DARPA's project under the "Total Informational Awareness" project. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/whos-watching-the-nsa-watchers.html
2012: Smith-Mundt Modernization Act gives the U.S. government full legal authority to use propaganda against its own populace. Undoing rules put into place after Operation Mockingbird's discovery and the Church Committee. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/whos-watching-the-nsa-watchers.html
2012-2016: Shittons of DARPA/NSA contracts were given to Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc..
2016: Leaked memos dating back to 2016 (found in 2018) of Google's Selfish Ledger project. https://invidio.us/watch?v=LUSZfEBTwRc
2016: Google released a bunch of neural-linguistic machine learning programs in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Neural_Machine_Translation
2017: deepfake leaks start to become released.
2018: confirmed that for decades now, Reddit/Youtube/etc. vote and view counts are fake and completely manipulated. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html

I think it's entirely obvious what I'm subtly suggesting here given this setup, but allow me to try to succinctly state my thesis here: the U.S. government is engaging in an artificial intelligence powered gaslighting of the entire world population.

If China with its social credit score is recreating Psycho Pass, then the U.S. government is perfectly recreating Metal Gear Solid 2.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1ClbkTeCyw&feature=youtu.be

And an excerpt:

The Problem: Outline the basics of what appears to be happening.

There is a large-scale, deliberate effort to manipulate culture and discourse online and in wider culture by utilising a system of bots and paid employees whose job it is to produce content and respond to content online in order to further the agenda of those they are employed by.

Already we've seen this in foreign nations influencing elections by manipulating advertising algorithms on social media in order to push specific candidates.

As I see it is due to a "positive feedback loop"

I blame facebook and twitter.

The internet is a fast way to get info, and info is what moves the mind, and the thing is, the mind likes recognition. When the "likes" were introduced without negative feedback they created a copy-feedback subconscious, they made it so only "positive" opinions be propagated (also accepted), and in it's way negative opinions to be obsolete.

Now everyone is too cowardly to have an opinion so they copy others they like, they are more likely to follow trends and say what others said, you can also see it with the paranoia of always wanting to listen to experts.

The fast feedback system of the net created a human obsession to be in with trends, getting away from it makes it so you always feel like you are missing out, to play it safe in a trend is more easy as you can copy what already is accepted.

In this way, the internet and social media, which was supposed to democratise media by allowing users to create whatever content they wanted, has instead been hijacked by a powerful few.

Creation of original content is how the internet used to work. Anonymous people were willing to express their opinions and try radical or experimental things. More truly original content, uninfluenced by bots or paid influencers, was created due to anonymity as protection against negative feedback. On the old internet, you could start anew every time you posted something.

Now add bots to this.

Make it so an opinion be repeated more and more, they are faster than us, so the positive feedback makes is so we copy the bots, and anonymity can't do anything against it because we can't influence the bot like we would a human, this is an easy weapon to manipulate people, so anyone with an agenda can use a bot, is designed in a way compared to how clickbaits are made,most won't read the content, this creates tv-like propaganda where they aren't influenced by the user and that puts bots at a great advantage over any other opinion because it wont change, and we are copying that.

I believe google is one of those that makes bots, after all they work like a search engine, where they get the most accepted content first, Is the same as doing an ad.
1609887293897.png

Narrative science was the name of one of the first companies to make this possible. it gets interesting when you follow the money. pic related. huge funding from a company called In-Q-Tel, literally named after Q from James Bond. i wonder if anything else AI-related shares that name? :LeDoritoFace:

Conclusion: The key points of what we know, the consequences, and how we might respond.

Internet may have slipped out of our control. Need to raise public awareness of this.

Possible solutions may be increased reliance on encrypted peer-to-peer communication software, or using less centralised networks like the idea of a p2p internet or 'meshnet'.

Imageboards and their "wild west" attitude have allowed for the free exchange of ideas to flow more or less uninhibited (barring jannies, pedos getting banned, etc.). As a result, conscious or otherwise, the cream of the crop of the content that originates here disseminates to the normies in a gradual, stratified way.

The structure and culture of imageboards has also made it difficult for traditional structures of power and influence to subvert effectively, which is why imageboards are pretty much the only vestige of old web type content.

In an attempt to circumvent this, TPTB are trying to push bots and shills on us in a last ditch effort to drown out our own voices with ones they have more direct control over.

Moreover, even if the majority of anons dismiss or call out bots or shills, it's inevitable that trolls or just low IQ anons will imitate their posts and mannerisms for attention, effectively doubling these efforts reach.

There's a pretty powerful impulse in us which, when we hear something huge that could change our view of everything, rejects it to protect ourselves. No-one wants to have their whole world-view, which they've built a life upon, blown apart.

One anon started up a text doc to compile information, for those of you who would like to do some reading up.


Additionally, there are ongoing threads on the /x/ boards when this was posted.
 
Last edited:

BobbyTrivia

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
3
What do we do when the education system itself isn't helping and infected with politics?
First of all, I think it's important to clearly define the problem before we try to work towards an effective solution. The best I can do is, "many ideas are normalized by entities acting in their own self-interest by manipulating the type of content that one sees online. One should be equipped to think critically about what they're learning, rather than simply accepting it at face value or accepting it because their peers accept it." And, yeah, I don't think the education system does a good job of teaching critical thinking, but it doesn't do an absolutely terrible job either. I don't know enough about it -- I'm not sure how I finished high school; all I wanted to do was write computer programs in my free time and discover new industrial bands.

Second, is it really the public school system's job to teach this sort of thing? They don't generally teach students how to avoid cults, for instance.

To give a hypothetical about how difficult this problem really is: you make $12/hr. as a cashier at Walmart, you're 25 years old and you have no "higher" education. The federal government has decided to ask every citizen to vote yes or no on a proposed $25/hr. minimum wage bill. How many people in your position vote yes without a second thought compared to the number of people who take the time to research the implications behind raising the federal minimum wage so high? Assuming that you did decide to do research, are you really going to be unbiased in what you look up? You'll mostly look up sources that say affirm your the position that benefits you the most, right? And the "yes" position is apt to be extremely prevalent on social media, and you'll likely be called a "fascist" or whatever the buzzword of the day is if you critique any part of the "yes" position. Feel free to replace this hypothetical with any other modern happening or news -- it works especially well if you take the opposite position of the one being promoted or signal-boosted, naturally or not. And, you could be wrong! But the signal that agrees with you will find you.

It's very difficult to break people out of the habit of following along with arguments that fit their current worldview. That's why amplifying existing signals is so effective. Talk to me during Occupy Wall Street when I was broke and objectively poor and I'd tune into any "big banks bad" argument and eat it all up. Talk to me during my "I'm a libertarian now" phase and I'll find some way to rationalize whatever terrible thing that happened because of the lack of regulations (ie: the '07 financial crisis). Any of these signals that were being amplified at that time, whether by an algorithm or a nefarious actor, would've been something that I latched onto and made me feel like I had purpose and gave me an identity. They would've given me talking points, told me who to be angry at, and told me who to never listen to. Would I listen to you if you said, "don't look at the world that way, it's wrong and here's why"? What if you told me that I only felt the way I did because I was filtering out anyone who disagreed with me? I would take that personally and as a threat on my identity, and I'd ignore everything you had to say.

And to be clear, I'm not here to debate the economic implications of a $25/hr. minimum wage, or how viable a libertarian government would be, or what could've been done to stop the financial crisis. I'm simply trying to share my perspective on why I find the internet so fertile for abuse and why I find it so difficult to create change. I'd be happy to explore other possible solutions, but I think a lot of it comes down to the age old "parents need to educate their children" and "you need to educate yourself." It isn't (or shouldn't be) the federal government's job to tell you who to listen to, and it might not be the public school system's job to teach you anything more than critical thinking (though it may stand to do a better job of that).

Perhaps people don't WANT to be making websites and the big companies are giving people what they've always wanted? Tweet about WAP, watch Netflix, buy things.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The internet used to be a bit of a novelty; I'm sure most people here have thrown a website they frequent today into archive.org and seen how things actually used to be. It was always a second thought. Individuals blew up on the privately-owned YouTube, but there were countless other websites that hosted anything from childish, funny videos to full-blown skits; what tied them together was how amateur they all were. Now, it's practically all corporate. And if an entity doesn't like what you're saying or what you're doing, it is extremely difficult to find hosting for and fund a website. I'm the first to say that I didn't like much of the content on Parler and I don't agree with the vast majority of what Alex Jones says, but these cases show how easily the big tech companies can wipe you away. Maybe in 20 years, the internet's only acceptable content will be Jimmy Kimmel and Anthony Fantano fan pages.

I was going to end there but I want to say: I think it is very, very worthwhile to read up on Aaron Swartz' history, and his vision of Reddit and the overall internet. He helped develop RSS as well, which is an extremely useful format to avoid algorithms and to actually consume content from across the entire internet (rather than the extremely selective curation that happens on websites like modern-day Reddit)
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards

Rikstah

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
3
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The internet used to be a bit of a novelty; I'm sure most people here have thrown a website they frequent today into archive.org and seen how things actually used to be. It was always a second thought. Individuals blew up on the privately-owned YouTube, but there were countless other websites that hosted anything from childish, funny videos to full-blown skits; what tied them together was how amateur they all were. Now, it's practically all corporate. And if an entity doesn't like what you're saying or what you're doing, it is extremely difficult to find hosting for and fund a website. I'm the first to say that I didn't like much of the content on Parler and I don't agree with the vast majority of what Alex Jones says, but these cases show how easily the big tech companies can wipe you away. Maybe in 20 years, the internet's only acceptable content will be Jimmy Kimmel and Anthony Fantano fan pages.

I was going to end there but I want to say: I think it is very, very worthwhile to read up on Aaron Swartz' history, and his vision of Reddit and the overall internet. He helped develop RSS as well, which is an extremely useful format to avoid algorithms and to actually consume content from across the entire internet (rather than the extremely selective curation that happens on websites like modern-day Reddit)
When the internet becomes the new "cable TV" what becomes the new information frontier? Dark Web? Something else? Or do we still have that frontier and its just as niche as it always has been, its just overshadowed by the big tech side of the internet?
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

BobbyTrivia

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
3
When the internet becomes the new "cable TV" what becomes the new information frontier? Dark Web? Something else? Or do we still have that frontier and its just as niche as it always has been, its just overshadowed by the big tech side of the internet?
I like that, "we still have that frontier; it's just been overshadowed by the big tech side of the internet."

This is a complicated question for sure. A dozen years ago, I would've used Wikipedia to learn more about a topic. Someone with authority would probably say to me, "you can't use Wikipedia as a source because anyone can edit it." I thought it was great, though, especially since citations were required except for simple grammatical edits. Aaron Swartz thought the same thing and believed that this would create equal access to unbiased information. Wikipedia for sure could've been used to spread misinformation or to bend and twist the narrative on a particular topic, but this wouldn't have been very effective by the nature of it only being used by "computer people" back in the early 2000's. It would've been a lot more fruitful to spend your time and energy influencing the mass media or politicians directly.

Today, you can still use Wikipedia to learn more about a topic, but it's the 8th most visited website in the US. It would be very effective to bend and twist it to push forward a particular narrative, as has been shown to happen numerous times. Since it's popular, it's rife for abuse. Where do you go for an unbiased reading of a particular topic now? I'm not sure. The moment it begins to be taken as an authoritative place for information, bad actors are sure to follow.

I think the only way to "survive" is to exercise critical thinking skills and skepticism. In my example above, Wikipedia isn't actually useless; I even linked to a Wikipedia article to make a point! We just have to think hard about the media we consume and what's in it for the people generating the information in the first place. On social media, people spew trash all the time for various reasons; maybe you have a friend who got caught up in an MLM scheme and was trying to squeeze money out of you, or maybe you know someone with a "super-woke" friend group who incessantly postures on social media to fit in and validate their identity. Authors and actors are both professions that require the approval of their audience to further their careers, so is it ever a surprise when an actor is parroting the "correct" or "safe" opinion on Twitter without regard for nuance? If the audience isn't concerned about nuance, why would they be?

I'm certainly getting a bit off-topic here, but I enjoy the conversation :)
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Rikstah

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
3
I like that, "we still have that frontier; it's just been overshadowed by the big tech side of the internet."

This is a complicated question for sure. A dozen years ago, I would've used Wikipedia to learn more about a topic. Someone with authority would probably say to me, "you can't use Wikipedia as a source because anyone can edit it." I thought it was great, though, especially since citations were required except for simple grammatical edits. Aaron Swartz thought the same thing and believed that this would create equal access to unbiased information. Wikipedia for sure could've been used to spread misinformation or to bend and twist the narrative on a particular topic, but this wouldn't have been very effective by the nature of it only being used by "computer people" back in the early 2000's. It would've been a lot more fruitful to spend your time and energy influencing the mass media or politicians directly.

Today, you can still use Wikipedia to learn more about a topic, but it's the 8th most visited website in the US. It would be very effective to bend and twist it to push forward a particular narrative, as has been shown to happen numerous times. Since it's popular, it's rife for abuse. Where do you go for an unbiased reading of a particular topic now? I'm not sure. The moment it begins to be taken as an authoritative place for information, bad actors are sure to follow.

I think the only way to "survive" is to exercise critical thinking skills and skepticism. In my example above, Wikipedia isn't actually useless; I even linked to a Wikipedia article to make a point! We just have to think hard about the media we consume and what's in it for the people generating the information in the first place. On social media, people spew trash all the time for various reasons; maybe you have a friend who got caught up in an MLM scheme and was trying to squeeze money out of you, or maybe you know someone with a "super-woke" friend group who incessantly postures on social media to fit in and validate their identity. Authors and actors are both professions that require the approval of their audience to further their careers, so is it ever a surprise when an actor is parroting the "correct" or "safe" opinion on Twitter without regard for nuance? If the audience isn't concerned about nuance, why would they be?

I'm certainly getting a bit off-topic here, but I enjoy the conversation :)
Excellent point you've made there about anything that becomes popular rife for abuse.

Reminds me of the things going on the gaming community, when there's too many weird things going on for the sake of being woke and people are left wondering why this wasn't the case in the 90s and 00s. Simply this, gaming was a super niche nerdy thing to do even in the mid 00s compared to how mainstream and how much money its worth.

Once anything becomes worth alot of money or becomes mainstream popular, it seems to just get political.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

ChronosTheMad.mxtps

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
4
Excellent point you've made there about anything that becomes popular rife for abuse.

Reminds me of the things going on the gaming community, when there's too many weird things going on for the sake of being woke and people are left wondering why this wasn't the case in the 90s and 00s. Simply this, gaming was a super niche nerdy thing to do even in the mid 00s compared to how mainstream and how much money its worth.

Once anything becomes worth alot of money or becomes mainstream popular, it seems to just get political.
That's a great observation, I will carry it forward in my thought process and see what recognizing it does for peace of mind.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Bullshit_Boy

Traveler
Awards
2
How many people are actually bots on here? Maybe this is a dead internet zone, and you're one of the few real humans here.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Bullshit_Boy

Traveler
Awards
2
Excellent point you've made there about anything that becomes popular rife for abuse.

Reminds me of the things going on the gaming community, when there's too many weird things going on for the sake of being woke and people are left wondering why this wasn't the case in the 90s and 00s. Simply this, gaming was a super niche nerdy thing to do even in the mid 00s compared to how mainstream and how much money its worth.

Once anything becomes worth alot of money or becomes mainstream popular, it seems to just get political.
You're 100% right. The real trick is knowing when to bounce out of a scene and find something else before it becomes bloated with popularity.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

AlmostHalf10

9:25 am
Awards
7
I was listening to the podcast of HKE and he was also talking about this theory of twitter just being occupied with bots to create a hive mind.

It's an interesting theory as I sometimes see rather unethical tweets go viral and a crazy amount of people agree with it or starting crazy arguments over it.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Rikstah

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
3
I was listening to the podcast of HKE and he was also talking about this theory of twitter just being occupied with bots to create a hive mind.

It's an interesting theory as I sometimes see rather unethical tweets go viral and a crazy amount of people agree with it or starting crazy arguments over it.
I just find myself completely unable to stomach twitter, it's like an eternal knee jerk reaction going on forever...
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Rikstah

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
3
That's a great observation, I will carry it forward in my thought process and see what recognizing it does for peace of mind.
Hopefully it helps you process why so many annoying people pop up in a scene.

For e.g. I saw on a pcgamer.com article the other day that one of their writers was up until very recently using a 30hz monitor to work / game.

How on earth does a writer for PCgamer.com still have a 30hz monitor in 2021? Where do you even get that? I'd have to seriously deep dive to find tech that shitty / old.

The obvious conclusion is this. He isn't a gamer first and foremost. He's a writer / journalist. The game scene is just something cool to latch onto because its very popular now.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
E

Eni

This is one of the best OG pieces I've read in the past ~10 years. Nothing on the internet feels real anymore. It started ~2012 or earlier.
 

AnanaSUPREME

La Senda Piña
Awards
2
Personally, I have noticed that this phenomena is in general a feedback loop caused by 9/11 and the bubble burst of 2008.
I remember when you could walk outside and you'd see pedestrians all over the roads and children playing in the neighborhoods, It was safe and okay to hitchhike, you always saw people looking after each other and everyone knew who was who and why they were around... Getting a job in any sector wasn't an ordeal where you needed to have X years in experience or a college degree for menial jobs even when the 936 left Puerto Rico. In just two years that I was away from homeland I saw how that world I knew faded away after the destruction caused by the financial crisis.
It's as if the moment people began to lose their shit and protest thanks to the disaster caused by the ruling class, they got pissed and paid some politicians to force the government into acting as a shield in order to hide the glaring problems. As a result, you have people going to more than one job in order to make ends meet while those who couldn't make it had to flee and get into the same bind as the ones who managed to keep their jobs. Thanks to the obscene amount of work hours, parents can't spend time with their children (which is the main culprit for the iPad nannies)-- because there is no time to spend with the children, a lot of family centered entertainment vanished. Parks fell into ruin and the homeless moved in for the shade provided by the trees.
The internet and mainstream media becoming what it is today is merely a means to keeping the overly busy people entertained with vapid things until they enter their next shift or get home to sleep. This is why the parks are rusting away, why nobody goes out for a walk and would rather drive even if their destination is 5 minutes away, this is why the skateparks are gone and the malls outside the metro area are dead, this is why the estimated numbers for children being born are in the negatives, this is why recreational drugs are becoming popular with the law-- and this is why the true internet is devoid of users and the virtual universes are leaving.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Similar threads

Macintosh Cafe.FM
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Franz: music loud sad