A conversation about how attention was commodified, why it's so easy to steal, where industry is looking for new supplies, and whether democracy can survive this.
Good interview - well done. It helped me see a way forward for society. We'll get so sick of vacuous screen time that we'll move on to things worthwhile.
Our 35 year old son just dumped his smart phone for a dumb one - calls and texts only. His 10 month old first child helped with his decision. Comes home from work, puts the phone with his keys, and doesn't look at it until he leaves for work in the morning. Uses his laptop in a deliberate way for "valuable" stuff.
But it's currently my best option for navigation. I already own it - it does the job.
After that, my podcast app is nice (Overcast, iOS only).
Social media apps are absolutely not allowed on my phone.
I have a handful of other apps that are helpful when traveling.
I can also understand that abstinence can be the only option for dealing with an addiction. There's no shame in that, and I've kind of taken that route by not installing any social media apps.
Great interview! Two of my favorite people to read/listen to so not a surprise. Makes me want to be a lot more deliberate in where on social media I put my valuable attention. I will be concentrating on the issues raised in this interview for some time. As an 82 year old woman, my time is my own. I want to use it more wisely!
That was fucking amazing. I took a whole document full of notes but I think I'm going to just sit with it for a while before I decide what/whether to comment re: those notes. I did want to get at least this in though. Appreciate both of you.
And this has everything to do with clean energy. I don't remember your exact quote, but I know you've talked about how we CAN fix this (clean energy/climate wise), there just isn't the political will. And this topic is all about that political will.
Very interesting to think of things in terms of attention. But I find it curious that the word "advertising" was mentioned only once. Attention is profitable because of advertising. Advertising drives consumption. Over consumption drives planetary destruction. Another thing, while Bluesky was mentioned, the Fediverse wasn't. The concept of corporate control of the internet and social media was discussed, to me that would lead to the Fediverse as a way out of the corporate advertising driven social media and internet?
Absolute best use of an hour of my attention today! I found the conversation engaging, insightful and often times quite humorous. Our shared collective experience is that we're all engaging in this casino experience of the modern Internet. I agree there is hope for society to end the destructive behaviors and be more thoughtful about where we spend our attention. I've been a follower for a while but feel now is the time to become a paid subscriber. Keep up the great work!
Here's something that struck me: It's like we are all being pushed into the experience of living in poverty, which is an attention-sucking experience (where will the next meal come from? how can I juggle my bills? get to the free clinic when the bus doesn't come close to me? etc). We know that living in poverty results, by necessity, in weighing short-term concerns ahead of long-term ones, and often leads to political/civic disengagement. It's just that it's poverty of time and thought, rather than material poverty (although some of that too, with the Muskian takeover).
Yep, you're onto something with that train of thought. Connects to the "stuffed but starved" discussion. The billionaires monetize and sell our attention. There are many examples of product developers who've worked on Facebook, Pinterest, name your favorite time sucking app and yet they recognize the danger. They gatekeep themselves and their family from using these products. Like a drug dealer smart enough to not get high on their own supply. The healthy and meaningful place to put our attention is out in the real world with real people engaging in things that matter to us.
This episode seems like a bit of an attention grab by trying to make something more interesting than it really is.
I listen to this podcast in my car. Having a fully self-driving car doesn't seem like it will increase by much global available attention that can be grabbed.
Amazon grabs attention by making the attention more efficient. Instead of spending attention driving to a specialty store and walking the aisles to find the product of interest from a limited selection, we can directly attend to exactly what we are interested in. How do you make more global available attention? Make that attention more efficient.
The podcast spends some time on the horrors of systems that grab attention through bad acting. I don't have that problem. I don't use Twitter nor Facebook nor Bluesky. For the most part, I direct my attention to a few carefully chosen content providers: David Roberts, Paul Krugman, Kevin Drum, Cracking the Cryptic (daily logic games), NPR. Most of the time corporate algorithms are not choosing what I attend to.
I was a programmer during times of much earlier versions of the internet. It was simply about finding information. One learned to filter out channels with low signal-to-noise. It was a community where good citizens made valid contributions. Loud mouths, attention seekers, and liars were simply ignored.
When I first heard about social media, I just wondered, WHY? And then I heard a segment on NPR where Daniel Schorr and two of his junior colleagues *gushed* over Twitter. And I got sucked in. So sad.
I doubt that I'm going to have time to read Chris's book, so I really appreciate this podcast.
One thing I like to offer is that the quirky internet 2.0 is here in the Fediverse.
Whether or not it will gain sufficient momentum to defeat the commercial walled off gardens and enshitified internet of Meta, Google, Apple and Amazon is certainly open to question.
I do hope that the rising level of disgust with the corporate internet will be sufficient to overcome the need for instant gratification that keeps people from putting in the bit of time it takes to get acclimated to the Fediverse.
I can't wait to get a chance to sit and read the book.
It really reminds me of the phrase "Journalism is the rough draft of history." I think the thing that would return focus is the common narrative.
I feel like blowing up a narrative makes lying far easier, and that's why conmen seem to rule the world now. A narrative from journalism that unites across cultures could be like peer reviewed science of the enlightenment and the printing press.
A common thread to knit the fabric of reality back together, stronger and more inclusive than before the disruption, atomization and siloing we live in presently..
Yeah, hard to disagree with much or any of this. The negative/outrage bias is becoming very destructive. The focus/elevation of isolated anecdotes and failures. The way this created vaccine skepticism/cynicism/pessimism has recently been similarly used to create renewable energy. For every story or post about solar and wind power and energy storage hugely reducing fossil generation and emissions, it seems like ten stories about these contributing in some way to "injustice/inequity," or "destroying" wildlife or habitat, or "raising prices," or "consuming resources," or "foreign supply chains," or "being unreliable" or "containing toxic whatever" or... Then even liberal or progressive or environmental journalists seem to pick up the attention that these themes generate and elevate them. And pretty soon politicians are even afraid to say the names of wind or solar except to attack them.
From enviros who should support wind and solar for decarbonization, I've heard literally, "The cure is worse than the disease," and the only "real solution," is some bio-based, non-capitalist, local, etc. eco-utopian nirvana, to avoid "collapse of the biosphere," though it's never clear how to get there and support ten billion humans.
As in David's concluding remarks, how do we get positive "attention" on the success of amazing renewable, sustainable tech and turn that back into support and that support back into influence where it matters?
Good interview - well done. It helped me see a way forward for society. We'll get so sick of vacuous screen time that we'll move on to things worthwhile.
Our 35 year old son just dumped his smart phone for a dumb one - calls and texts only. His 10 month old first child helped with his decision. Comes home from work, puts the phone with his keys, and doesn't look at it until he leaves for work in the morning. Uses his laptop in a deliberate way for "valuable" stuff.
I'm really tempted...
If my phone died, I might get a flip phone.
But it's currently my best option for navigation. I already own it - it does the job.
After that, my podcast app is nice (Overcast, iOS only).
Social media apps are absolutely not allowed on my phone.
I have a handful of other apps that are helpful when traveling.
I can also understand that abstinence can be the only option for dealing with an addiction. There's no shame in that, and I've kind of taken that route by not installing any social media apps.
That’s a good approach. The social media apps are the real time consumers and wasters. The others you go, read/listen, and leave. Thanks.
"We are in the jello salad period of the internet" is a phrase that would never have entered my mind but somehow makes perfect sense.
Great interview! Two of my favorite people to read/listen to so not a surprise. Makes me want to be a lot more deliberate in where on social media I put my valuable attention. I will be concentrating on the issues raised in this interview for some time. As an 82 year old woman, my time is my own. I want to use it more wisely!
I listened to his interview on the Atlantic Podcast and saved it, will re-listen, then order the book. Marxist theory of social media! Geez!
That was fucking amazing. I took a whole document full of notes but I think I'm going to just sit with it for a while before I decide what/whether to comment re: those notes. I did want to get at least this in though. Appreciate both of you.
I will say that I enjoyed the content and definitely interesting to me.
Given that I’m a paid subscriber, is this the direction the podcast is going or was this a one-off type episode as far as content is concerned?
The podcast is just "stuff I'm interested in," Chris, which is mostly clean energy but also the wider culture & society around it!
Thanks for clarifying David!
And this has everything to do with clean energy. I don't remember your exact quote, but I know you've talked about how we CAN fix this (clean energy/climate wise), there just isn't the political will. And this topic is all about that political will.
Very interesting to think of things in terms of attention. But I find it curious that the word "advertising" was mentioned only once. Attention is profitable because of advertising. Advertising drives consumption. Over consumption drives planetary destruction. Another thing, while Bluesky was mentioned, the Fediverse wasn't. The concept of corporate control of the internet and social media was discussed, to me that would lead to the Fediverse as a way out of the corporate advertising driven social media and internet?
Absolute best use of an hour of my attention today! I found the conversation engaging, insightful and often times quite humorous. Our shared collective experience is that we're all engaging in this casino experience of the modern Internet. I agree there is hope for society to end the destructive behaviors and be more thoughtful about where we spend our attention. I've been a follower for a while but feel now is the time to become a paid subscriber. Keep up the great work!
It was so nice to hear two smart people talking on the internet. I normally have little patience with philosophy, but this rang a bell.
Here's something that struck me: It's like we are all being pushed into the experience of living in poverty, which is an attention-sucking experience (where will the next meal come from? how can I juggle my bills? get to the free clinic when the bus doesn't come close to me? etc). We know that living in poverty results, by necessity, in weighing short-term concerns ahead of long-term ones, and often leads to political/civic disengagement. It's just that it's poverty of time and thought, rather than material poverty (although some of that too, with the Muskian takeover).
Yep, you're onto something with that train of thought. Connects to the "stuffed but starved" discussion. The billionaires monetize and sell our attention. There are many examples of product developers who've worked on Facebook, Pinterest, name your favorite time sucking app and yet they recognize the danger. They gatekeep themselves and their family from using these products. Like a drug dealer smart enough to not get high on their own supply. The healthy and meaningful place to put our attention is out in the real world with real people engaging in things that matter to us.
Thanks for the heads up on Chris’s visit to Seattle. It was a great show and nice complement to your interview.
This episode seems like a bit of an attention grab by trying to make something more interesting than it really is.
I listen to this podcast in my car. Having a fully self-driving car doesn't seem like it will increase by much global available attention that can be grabbed.
Amazon grabs attention by making the attention more efficient. Instead of spending attention driving to a specialty store and walking the aisles to find the product of interest from a limited selection, we can directly attend to exactly what we are interested in. How do you make more global available attention? Make that attention more efficient.
The podcast spends some time on the horrors of systems that grab attention through bad acting. I don't have that problem. I don't use Twitter nor Facebook nor Bluesky. For the most part, I direct my attention to a few carefully chosen content providers: David Roberts, Paul Krugman, Kevin Drum, Cracking the Cryptic (daily logic games), NPR. Most of the time corporate algorithms are not choosing what I attend to.
Grampa Internet waxes nostalgic...
I was a programmer during times of much earlier versions of the internet. It was simply about finding information. One learned to filter out channels with low signal-to-noise. It was a community where good citizens made valid contributions. Loud mouths, attention seekers, and liars were simply ignored.
When I first heard about social media, I just wondered, WHY? And then I heard a segment on NPR where Daniel Schorr and two of his junior colleagues *gushed* over Twitter. And I got sucked in. So sad.
I doubt that I'm going to have time to read Chris's book, so I really appreciate this podcast.
One thing I like to offer is that the quirky internet 2.0 is here in the Fediverse.
Whether or not it will gain sufficient momentum to defeat the commercial walled off gardens and enshitified internet of Meta, Google, Apple and Amazon is certainly open to question.
I do hope that the rising level of disgust with the corporate internet will be sufficient to overcome the need for instant gratification that keeps people from putting in the bit of time it takes to get acclimated to the Fediverse.
That was great. Thank you.
I can't wait to get a chance to sit and read the book.
It really reminds me of the phrase "Journalism is the rough draft of history." I think the thing that would return focus is the common narrative.
I feel like blowing up a narrative makes lying far easier, and that's why conmen seem to rule the world now. A narrative from journalism that unites across cultures could be like peer reviewed science of the enlightenment and the printing press.
A common thread to knit the fabric of reality back together, stronger and more inclusive than before the disruption, atomization and siloing we live in presently..
Yeah, hard to disagree with much or any of this. The negative/outrage bias is becoming very destructive. The focus/elevation of isolated anecdotes and failures. The way this created vaccine skepticism/cynicism/pessimism has recently been similarly used to create renewable energy. For every story or post about solar and wind power and energy storage hugely reducing fossil generation and emissions, it seems like ten stories about these contributing in some way to "injustice/inequity," or "destroying" wildlife or habitat, or "raising prices," or "consuming resources," or "foreign supply chains," or "being unreliable" or "containing toxic whatever" or... Then even liberal or progressive or environmental journalists seem to pick up the attention that these themes generate and elevate them. And pretty soon politicians are even afraid to say the names of wind or solar except to attack them.
From enviros who should support wind and solar for decarbonization, I've heard literally, "The cure is worse than the disease," and the only "real solution," is some bio-based, non-capitalist, local, etc. eco-utopian nirvana, to avoid "collapse of the biosphere," though it's never clear how to get there and support ten billion humans.
As in David's concluding remarks, how do we get positive "attention" on the success of amazing renewable, sustainable tech and turn that back into support and that support back into influence where it matters?