For me, this statement "we need something to vote for. What is that? What’s that platform? Who is that?')... I have not heard it articulated." is frustrating. This is me walking through what I think happens to get someone to this level of frustration:
A progressive person approaches their computer or phone. They see bad news. It hurts them. They are repeatedly injured by more bad news. Algorithms worth billions of dollars are specifically designed to do that.
Perhaps they go to a news source. That news source is not tracking its success not by accuracy or completeness. They are monetized by reach and interaction, so the writers and editors are, consciously and unconsciously, training themselves to repeat shocking things. So, the stressed progressive sees no solutions.
It is not a good situation, and I am happy to blame the billionaires, the social medias, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, terrible monetization models, and other familiar bugaboos.
Meanwhile, there are political thinkers and activists who **are** thinking and saying useful things. I would say Adam Kinzinger, James Talarico, and Sarah McBride are examples. They get no traction, particularly with the emotionally exhausted progressive on their phone or computer who is now in an emotional, addicted spiral wishing not just relief from the Trump administration but from the endless scroll that is now shown to be deliberately addictive.
Pete Buttigieg is the example of someone who repeatedly and constantly is out being interesting to the media and gets some traction. Usually when I am talking in real time with a person in this state, I mention Mayor Pete and they say "oh yes, he is pretty good on this."
If these doomscroll victims can get back to the beach, I would love for them to defy the algorithms in their way by actively finding and sharing GOOD content of the people whose message they value. That is a vote for something useful and may encourage those ideas to surface just a bit more.
It simply will not filter to the top of their feed. Idiocy and disaster will.
I read Ariella Elm's "We are Not Doomed" Substack for perspective.
I share the same frustration. Can we curate our algorithms to bring us those useful voices? Can our tiny voices move the needle on general algorithms? How do we make our voices count?
For me, this statement "we need something to vote for. What is that? What’s that platform? Who is that?')... I have not heard it articulated." is frustrating. This is me walking through what I think happens to get someone to this level of frustration:
A progressive person approaches their computer or phone. They see bad news. It hurts them. They are repeatedly injured by more bad news. Algorithms worth billions of dollars are specifically designed to do that.
Perhaps they go to a news source. That news source is not tracking its success not by accuracy or completeness. They are monetized by reach and interaction, so the writers and editors are, consciously and unconsciously, training themselves to repeat shocking things. So, the stressed progressive sees no solutions.
It is not a good situation, and I am happy to blame the billionaires, the social medias, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, terrible monetization models, and other familiar bugaboos.
Meanwhile, there are political thinkers and activists who **are** thinking and saying useful things. I would say Adam Kinzinger, James Talarico, and Sarah McBride are examples. They get no traction, particularly with the emotionally exhausted progressive on their phone or computer who is now in an emotional, addicted spiral wishing not just relief from the Trump administration but from the endless scroll that is now shown to be deliberately addictive.
Pete Buttigieg is the example of someone who repeatedly and constantly is out being interesting to the media and gets some traction. Usually when I am talking in real time with a person in this state, I mention Mayor Pete and they say "oh yes, he is pretty good on this."
If these doomscroll victims can get back to the beach, I would love for them to defy the algorithms in their way by actively finding and sharing GOOD content of the people whose message they value. That is a vote for something useful and may encourage those ideas to surface just a bit more.
It simply will not filter to the top of their feed. Idiocy and disaster will.
I read Ariella Elm's "We are Not Doomed" Substack for perspective.
I share the same frustration. Can we curate our algorithms to bring us those useful voices? Can our tiny voices move the needle on general algorithms? How do we make our voices count?