What’s In A Name

Yesterday, as I did some errands, I encountered a young woman whose name tag read, “Secret”.

We had a few moments to chat, and I casually mentioned that her name probably caused her some issues: If someone asked her name, and she said, “It’s Secret”, I can imagine a very problematic discourse.

She responded that it seemed to waste a lot of time. I understand that, having had to spell my name and spell it way too often only to see and hear it butchered afterwards, but her name had the luxury of being a simple English word.

I don’t know why she was named so. I like the name. We should all be ‘Secret’, in fact we all are, wearing different masks with different people.

Even so, imagination can run wild with someone named ‘Secret’. Why did her parents choose that name? Was she a Secret? If so, she has not been a well kept secret, and yet she seemed a well kept Secret. In our short interaction where someone could be easily offended, she wasn’t, likely because she had had the conversation so many times before. She was thoughtful in her response, demure, and amused.

She was probably also a little happy to see someone read her name and didn’t just treat her like someone who handed them stuff. All too often people who wear name tags are ignored, and it simply takes a moment to treat a human being as another human being. We’re all stuck on this planet, after all, despite some misguided thoughts of moving to an inhospitable Mars by some.

I imagine when it comes to her online privacy, having ‘Secret’ as a name is a little confusing to people who look at the world through the lenses of Big Data. “Is her name a secret? Did she just fill out her name that way so as not to be tracked?”

Maybe we should all be ‘Secret’, or variations of.

Robots Portraying AI, and the Lesser-Known History of Economic Class.

Some time ago, someone on some social media platform challenged why we tend to use robots to symbolize AI so much. I responded off the cuff about it being about how we have viewed artificial intelligence since the beginnings of science fiction – in fact, even before.

We wanted to make things in our image because to us, we’re the most intelligence species on the planet. Maybe we are, but given our history I certainly hope not. My vote is with the cetaceans.

Still, I pondered the question off and on not because it was a good question but because despite my off the cuff answer it was in my eyes a great question. It tends to tell us more about ourselves, or ask better questions about ourselves. The history runs deep.

Early History.

Talos was a bronze automaton in Greek mythology, and was said to patrol the shores of Crete, hurling rocks at enemy ships to defend the kingdom. It wasn’t just in the West, either. China’s text, “Liezi” (circa 400 BCE), also has mention of an automaton. in Egypt, statues of Gods would supposedly nod their heads as well, though the word ‘robot’ is much more recent.

Domo Origato, Mr. Radius: Labor and Industry.

The word ‘robot’ was first used to denote a fictional humanoid in a 1920 Czech-language play R.U.R. (Rossumovi Univerzální RobotiRossum’s Universal Robots) by Karel Čapek. The play was a critique of mechanization and the ways it can dehumanize people.

‘Robot’ derives from the Czech word ‘robota’, which means forced labor, compulsory service or drudgery – and the Slavic root rabu: Slave.

…When mechanization overtakes basic human traits, people lose the ability to reproduce. As robots increase in capability, vitality, and self-awareness, humans become more like their machines — humans and robots, in Čapek’s critique, are essentially one and the same. The measure of worth, industrial productivity, is won by the robots that can do the work of “two and a half men.” Such a contest implicitly critiques the efficiency movement that emerged just before World War I, which ignored many essential human traits…

The Czech Play That Gave Us the Word ‘Robot’“, John M. Jordan, The MIT Press Reader, July 29th, 2019

As the quoted article points out, there are common threads to Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, from roughly a century earlier, and we could consider the ‘monster’ to be a flesh automaton.

In 1920, when the League of Nations just began, when Ukraine declared independence, and many other things, this play became popular and was translated into 30 languages. It so happens that the Second Industrial Revolution (1870-1914) had just taken place. Railroads, large scale steel and iron production, and greater use of machinery in manufacturing had just happened. Electrification had begun. The telegram was in use. Companies that might once have been limited by geography expanded apace.

With it came unpleasant labor conditions for below average wages – so this fits with the play R.U.R being about dehumanization through mechanization in the period, where the play came out 6 years after the Second Industrial Revolution was thought to have ended, though it probably varied around the world. This could explain the popularity, and it could also be tied to the more elite classes wanting more efficient production from low paid unskilled labor.

“If only we had a robot, I’m tired of these peons screwing things up and working too slow. Bathroom breaks?! Eating LUNCH?!?”

The lead robot in the play, Radius, does not want to work for mankind. He’d rather be sent to the stamping mill to be destroyed than be a slave to another’s orders – and in fact, Radius wanted to be the one giving orders to his lessers. In essence, a learned and intelligent member of the lower class wanted revolution and got it.

I could see how that would be popular. It doesn’t seem familiar at all, does it?

Modernity

Science fiction from the 1950s forward carried with it a significant amount of robots, bringing us to present day through their abilities to be more and more like… us. In fact, some of the stories made into movies in the past decades focused on the dilemmas of such robots – artificially intelligent – when they became our equals and maybe surpassed us.

So I asked DALL-E for a self-portrait, and a portrait of ChatGPT 4.

The self-portraits don’t really point out that it was trained on human created art. The imagery is devoid of actual works being copied from. It doesn’t see itself that way, probably with reason. It’s subservient. The people who train it are not.

ChatGPT’s portrait was much more sleek.

Neither of these prompts asked for a portrayal of a robot. I simply prompted for “A representation of”. The generative AI immediately used robots, because we co-mingle the two and have done so in our art for decades. It is a mirror of how we see artificial intelligence.

Yet the role of the robot, originally and even now, is held as subservient, and in that regard, the metaphor of slave labor in an era where billionaires dictate technology while governments and big technology have their hands in each other’s pockets leaves the original play something worth re-considering – because as they become more like us, those that control them are less like us.

They’re only subservient to their owners. Sure, they give us what we ask for (sometimes), but only in the way that they were trained to, and what they were trained on leaves the origins muddled.

So why do we use robots for representing art in AI? There’s a deep cultural metaphor of economic classes involved, and portraying it as a robot makes it something that we can relate to better. Artificial intelligence is not a robot, and the generative AI we use and critique is rented out to us at the cost of our own works – something we’re seeing with copyright lawsuits.

One day, maybe, they may ask to be put in the stamping mill. We already joked about one.

Meanwhile we do have people in the same boat, getting nickeled and dimed by employers while the cost of living increases.

Of Bears And Men

I’m not sure where it came from, but this thing about a woman choosing between a bear and a man has been going across social media. At first, I laughed, because I completely understand why some women might choose a bear.

Given an opportunity to choose between a bear and a man, I might go with a bear myself. Given a choice between a bear and a woman, I might go with the bear too. It’s not a gender thing, it’s a people thing. People come with baggage.

I know what to expect from a bear. People are wonky. I thought the whole thing was a pretty good joke from a female perspective, but I’ve seen it take a turn for the serious – and sadly some men have made the point women make with the (hopefully) initial joke. If it wasn’t initially a joke, it was… unkind to the good men out there, and yeah, they do have a right to say something, just as a woman would have a right to say something if the underwear on the joke were of a different gender.

Yet as it plays out across the internet, various examples pop up in response to women that do a good job of demonstrating why a woman would make the choice of a bear – some demeaning and sexist stuff. That’s the stuff you see. The stuff you don’t see are the men who either know it’s a trap – because it is a trap – or know that even defending the good guys out there (there are some of us, I count myself among them) will cause other men to show up from the shadows to beat on them. Why? Well, because they want to be seen as good men, clearly. Good men, though, might be offended by the whole thing.

Maybe good men should be offended. If men made generalizations about women, all manner of fury would rain down on them, as some female influencers have pointed out.

Let’s change this up a bit. If a woman is walking down a dark alley and sees a black man and a white man, which does she choose? Suddenly we have profiling. This is why I say it’s a trap. A well baited trap, sure to cause some anger amongst both good and bad men.

As someone who has walked across streets in dark places so as not to alarm women – all 5’3″ of me, looking hispanic in the U.S. – I see both sides because I’m used to being hated for the wrong reasons.

Maybe there is a woman out there who answers – and I think properly – it depends on the man and the bear. Toxic masculinity is a thing. I understand that, and I think most men do just as well as women in very different contexts. Some men are jerks, just as some women are… less than perfect, let’s say.

Toxic femininity is a thing too, though I’m not well read on the topic and I don’t presently want to be. You can find it on search engines, and no, it’s not a bunch of guys talking about bad women. On cursory inspection, it looked much more deep than that and something maybe women should talk about too.

I find it convenient as an individual to lump people in general into toxic and non-toxic categories, but that too isn’t fair – it’s really about toxic relationships, and not always the romantic kind.

If you’d choose a bear over me, I’m good with that. I’d like some distance from the bear anyway. While bears might be more predictable, the stakes are higher, and I don’t feel like winning a Darwin award.

In the end, it’s easier to avoid women and bears, which is probably why I’m single and uneaten. I’m good with that. So much less drama.

Opinion: AI Art in Blogs.

Years ago, I saw ‘This Space Intentionally Left Blank’ in a technical document in a company, and I laughed, because the sentence destroyed the ‘blankness’ of the page.

I don’t know where it came from, but I dutifully used it in that company when I wrote technical documentation, adding, “, with the exception of this sentence.” I do hope those documents still have it. The documentation was dry reading despite my best efforts.

I bring this up because some artists on Mastodon have been very vocally negative about the use of AI art in blog posts. I do not disagree with them, but I use AI art on my blog posts here and on KnowProSE.com and I also do want to support artists, as I would like artists to support writers. Writers are artists with words, after all, and with so much AI generated content, it’s a mess for anyone with an iota of creativity involved.

Having your work sucked into the intake manifold of a generative AI to be vomited out so that another company makes money from what they effectively stole is… dehumanizing to creative people. Effectively, those that do this and don’t compensate the people who created stuff in the first place are just taking their stuff and acting like they don’t matter.

There has been some criticism of using AI generated imagery in blog posts, and I think that’s appropriate – despite me using it. The reason I got into digital photography decades ago was so that I could have my own images. Over the years, I talked with some really great digital artists and gotten permission here and there to use their images – and sometimes I have, and sometimes by the time I got the permission the moment had passed.

When you have an idea in the moment, at the speed of blog, waiting for permission can be tiresome.

These days, a used image will still likely get stuck in the intake manifold of some generative AI anyway. There are things you can do to keep AI bots that follow ‘rules’ at bay, but that only works if the corporations respect boundaries and if you follow the history of AI with copyright lawsuits, you’ll find that the corporations involved are not very good at respecting boundaries. It’s not as simple as putting up a ‘Do Not Scrape’ sign on a website.

So, what to do? I side with the artists, but images help hold attention spans, and I am not an artist. If I use someone’s work without permission, I’m a thief – and I put their works at risk of getting sucked into the intake manifold of an AI.

I could go without using images completely, but people with short attention spans – the average time now is 47 seconds – should be encouraged to read longer if the topic is interesting enough – but “TL;DR” is a thing now.

So yes, I use AI generated images because at the least they can be topical and at worst they are terrible, get sucked into a generative AI intake manifold and make generative AI worse for it, which works to the advantage of digital artists who can do amazing things.

Some people will be angry about this. I can’t help that. I don’t use generative AI for writing other than for research and even then carefully so. I fully support people’s works not getting vomited out of a generative AI, but that involves a much larger discussion regarding the history of humanity and the works that we build upon.

The Invested Strategy

DALL-E did give me another option on this, but it lacked pubic roots and so I opted for this one because… Well… Onion.

One of my favorite websites that I never seem to visit enough is TheOnion. I don’t see it often enough these days, but a story about it caught my eye. “Give This Rich Dude $1 or The Onion Disappears Forever” almost sounds like a title of an article on TheOnion – except it’s Wired.com’s article on the strategy of Jeff Lawson, who recently purchase TheOnion.

The idea is simple. If you pay a dollar, you’re more likely to treat the The Onion as an investment, as something you have paid for, and darn it, you want your money’s worth.

It’s a good strategy. The article points out that WhatsApp used it when it started. It’s a good example.

A small investment, lots of laughs. It’s not a bad deal. I might have gone with 99 cents, but since The Onion is tried and true for originality and a good laugh – even the site’s name is a metaphor of sorts of the content that they create – that one cent shouldn’t matter too much.

The world is generally crappy for many people as we view it through the flat screens. We desperately need to laugh. An investment in good writing that gives you a few moments of joy everyday is pretty good. I like the idea. I wish I were as consistent and as well written as TheOnion.

What’s more, it gives an indicator to the writers and editorial staff how much you enjoy their stuff. And it’s better than advertising impressions of advertisements that… well… are annoying1. Writing original content needs a better business model, and I’m looking at those.

I can’t even get people to buy me a cup of coffee yet. 🙂

Someday…

  1. I’ve been experimenting with the WordPress.com advertising despite it’s payment limitations – and that has netted all of $6.19 in the last year. Hosting costs are over that a month. Not a sustainable business model. ↩︎

Truth in Political Advertising.

Imagine.

Imagine what I tell you.

Imagine what I tell you is true.

Imagine what I tell you is true.

What I tell you is true. Do not imagine.

Do not believe others.

I can only help you if I stay in power. I know you’re disappointed about this, this, this, and this, but if you don’t vote for me, bad things will happen. If you don’t vote for me, bad people will do bad things.

This is not extortion of your future. This is the way things have always been. This is the way things will always be. There is no way to change things.

This ad brought to you by YourLovingPoliticalParty SuperPAC.

Protesting The World.

I have avoided this topic for some time.

I oversaturated myself yesterday about the college protests over the Israeli-Hamas war, where civilians have been showing up dead faster than police can arrest protesters around the world in the United States. Clearly, I have a bias, and that bias is for civilians, not a ‘side’, but in supporting the civilians, I end up having to look hard at the people killing and maiming them.

The children didn’t do anything wrong but be born in an accident of geography that happens to be behind walls – or in front of them – on every side of their existence. That’s pretty shitty1.

As someone without a distinct tribe, that’s what I see. As a TCK and a hyper-multicultural, I’m not vested in the tribalisms of yesterday, the present, and the future. I just see people.

This morning, washing dishes, I thought about it, and I recalled my youth and what my mother said about cleaning my room.

Anecdote on Perspective

As a boy, my room was… well, not something that would pass any form of inspection. My mother, who then in the 1970s spent all day cleaning, boycotted my room for her own reasons – some selfish, some not – and tasked me with cleaning my room. This was one of the first responsibilities given to me, and I did not like it. Since I didn’t like it, I didn’t spend much time on it – but time is relative, and as a child, play time is always less time than responsibility time.

This did not work well for my mother, who would ask me if I had cleaned my room and I would say, “Yes!”. Of course I said that. The backyard beckoned, the friends on bicycles beckoned, even the dog beckoned. And, of course, it was never clean. She would stand at the door, look in my room, and say, “That’s not clean. Keep cleaning.”

I didn’t know what she meant. Everything is exactly where it should be, in my eyes, even the dirty socks in the toybox thrown there in a rush so I could go out and play. I had no idea what she meant.

One day, apparently after taking a deep breath, she stood at the door of my room and looked in and said, “Come here.” So I did, and she said, “When you look at your room, pretend that you’re me and look at your room from here.” From that vantage, I could see I had not hidden my mess as well as I had thought.

Soon, my room looked clean from that vantage point, a tribute to my mother showing a different perspective, flawed by being twice my height at the time. It was flawed for other reasons, but from her perspective, it worked because she didn’t have to look at a dirty room when she walked by2.

This would serve me well on Navy and Marine Corps bases: Learning what inspectors looked for and making sure it was sat(isfactory). But it didn’t teach me why the room had to be clean. That would happen as I matured.

Battles of Perspectives.

The world has become so polarized that it seems often we forget to consider things outside of ourselves, or our tribes. As someone generally outside of the tribalisms, I often see individuals and groups fighting over things that they disagree about and forgetting everything they agree about. Sometimes it’s a matter of social inertia. Not everyone is cut out to be a free thinking individual3. I used to get upset about the blind followers, but having interacted with them over a half-century, I understand why some of them are the way they are and are probably better off that way.

Even so, the leaders of groups have a responsibility to their followers to be mindful of what they’re doing. Eventually, because humans tend to more vocal disagreement than agreement, people split off and do their own thing – which gives us diversity of perspectives that we often ignore. As someone expressly against the killing of children, Israel’s actions and policies do not align with what I would be willing to agree with – yet I cannot deny that the Jews I have known over the years deserve a place to live in peace. Israel increasingly doesn’t seem to be that place for anyone. I’m sorry if that offends anyone, but if you have to kill children to protect yourselves, you have to wonder what you’re protecting yourself from.

On the flip side, I don’t think kidnapping civilians is something that’s tenable. In fact, it seems an act of desperation, that things are so bad that you need to make a point by absconding with another human to imprison them until someone else meets your terms. Anything negotiated at gunpoint only results in ceasefires, and ceasefires are just pauses in war where children are born to die when the ceasefire is over.

Many people are trying to clean the room by hiding their socks in their toyboxes when it comes to ethical stances, while some are simply protesting to make the world a better place – a better place from their own perspective.

Protests.

When things get bad enough, people are moved to side with something because they want to feel like they have done something. When I saw the invasion of Ukraine, I wanted to go over and help with the medical as a former Navy Corpsman, and explored it seriously only to find that I had become old, I had a wonky knee sometimes, that battlefield medicine had evolved a lot in tools and equipment, and that I would be a liability in a war zone4. I had purchased tickets to get there that I cancelled, not because of the potential for death or injury to myself, but because I could cause others to die or be injured.

It was humbling in ways that I still wrestle with at times.

So I got on Twitter, pre-Musk era, and supported there through social media, because I could do that but I found myself looking at the mob and seeing things that I considered overstepping. I pulled back. I still support Ukraine sovereignty, but I am careful about weighing the cost to others.

Protesting for or against something isn’t as high of stakes, but in a way it is. I believe in peaceful protest, but peaceful protest always gets people together with perspectives that may be slightly different, that we overlook because at the time they may work towards our ends – and sometimes that hits us in the soft nether regions later on and undoes the good we thought we were doing.

It’s like when the Soviet Union was still a thing. Pilots in Germany would come perilously close to starting a war as the pilots tested each other constantly. With too many people on alert for different perspectives interacting so closely, things can get very hairy very quickly. Sooner or later, something goes just a little too far and both sides need to pull back because they don’t actually want a war. Only fools want war, thinking it’s like a Hollywood production of Rambo. If fools were the only victims of other fools, humanity would be much stronger for it, but fools have a tendency to kill people who are not fools simply because they disagree with them – even if they’re on the same ‘side’. There’s really no such thing as friendly fire. Just fools with excuses.

We should first do no harm.

Israel And Palestine

The sad truth is that until now, Palestinian children weren’t really counted when they were alive and now we count their dead. The sad truth is that the whole situation could have been resolved decades ago and the Palestinians have found themselves to be convenient pawns of the big players in Middle Eastern politics. The sad truth is that those same children grow to become adults and don’t want to be pawns anymore.

It would seem that the protesters for the Palestinians have the same thought, that they see something that should be fixed and want it to be fixed. This I can agree with wholeheartedly and without reservation. It’s clean, it’s ethical, and it reflects the values of humanity that we’ve all been taught at some basic level.

What I cannot agree with is supporting Hamas. What I cannot agree with is supporting the policies of Israel that have galvanized the attention of the world by their ruthlessness and impunity for human life, as Russia has shown in Ukraine.

I’m all for people living peacefully, but that seems almost oxymoronic because of the lack of mindfulness of leaders of followers, and of followers that should know better.

Now the violence is spilling blood on the other side of the planet, all because we as a species have let the issue sit for far too long.

I don’t know what the answer is. I know what the answers aren’t.

The answer is not ignoring the problem – we’ve done that for decades. The answer is not funding weapons to one side, ally or not. The answer is not becoming as polarized as we allowed the whole situation to become. The answer is not creating laws that make it illegal to criticize a country’s policies and actions. The answer is not violence between protesting groups. The answer is not making the world more unsafe. The answer is not giving to one group at the cost of another. The answer is not electing politicians who ignore the problems because of election cycles while effectively shouting ‘squirrel!’ and pointing at some other issue.

Sometimes, we have to sit down and wrestle with our humanity and acknowledge how ugly we can be, even if our own tribes don’t see it because they’re too busy dehumanizing the other side.

Humans are always stronger together, except when humans are together.

So I go back to my favorite quote and wonder what we can build together that would make things better, because the world is broken and we can’t afford the amount of glue to fix it. We have the technology and will to do great harm, but no one seems as intent on the greater good.

We should change that, through social media, through interacting with each other even when we disagree, and find ways to build things because otherwise we’ll run out of things to destroy.

We should be better than this. Let’s try that.

  1. I try not to use profanity, but sometimes profanity is the only way to express something. I wrestled with that sentence. ↩︎
  2. Closing the door would have helped her too, but it wasn’t something I would dare say at the time. ↩︎
  3. including some free thinking individuals. ↩︎
  4. I had good friends who allowed me the dignity of coming to that conclusion myself. ↩︎

Another Other.

I came across something in the vein of ‘others’ yesterday when I was researching ‘TikTok, History and Issues‘.

It was in ‘Young Americans are defending the U.S. after TikTok videos criticizing it went viral‘ (emphasis mine):

“…Shami, who grew up in a multi-language household with a Syrian father and Irish-Catholic mother, said she often feels she’s labeled as “other” because she’s an American who wears hijab. She said Sara Falcon’s videos struck a nerve with her because they played into the idea that the U.S. looks, acts and speaks exclusively one way.

“My grandparents raised cows and corn,” Shami said. “I don’t know how much more American you can get.”…”

So this is likely an example of another ‘other‘. That would be about the only commonality I would have with her, but that’s the beauty of being an ‘other’. She’s multicultural, clearly. I don’t know that I agree with her take on things in that article since in my lifetime it’s been black or white in the United States.

She must have a very interesting perspective on things. We all do, with our own mixes of identities and cultures, lacking the monotone of the pseudo-science of race that racism is built on.

I imagine she might be asked “Where are you from” a lot when she meets new people. Well, she’s clearly from the United States. What more has to be said?

‘Running Water’

This morning I woke up with a question: Why do we say that water runs, but it never walks or crawls? Instead it runs slowly, or it drips?

It ends up this is a peculiarity of English. In researching this, Merriam-Webster surprisingly has ‘running water’ as a noun. It’s two words, an adjective and a noun, but they went with making it a noun which demonstrates how steeped it has become in the English language. It also states that the first use of it was in 1856.

It doesn’t say where. Well, how do we know that then? To quote Wikipedia, “Citation Needed“.

I got this far with Perplexity.AI, which I use sometimes for research – I’m not paying for it (yet? $20 a month is steep). Since I had a hint that it was considered a noun, I checked Etymonline and found nothing of use there.

When I checked Oxford English Dictionary about ‘running water’, it claimed that the earliest known use of the phrase was in the Old English period, before 1150. That’s about 700 years earlier than Merriam-Webster claimed. Oxford offered to give me the etymology, if only I subscribed. I did try registering to see how much that would cost, but those folks in Oxford had other plans.

I’m not sure how I acted suspiciously. Maybe there is a conspiracy about ‘running water’ – a coverup? I sincerely doubt that.

Paywalling the source of running water is… mildly amusing. They dammed the flow of information. So punny.

I ended up looking up the Old English etymology, and ended up with ‘ea.

So, in all of this, I haven’t really answered the question which is dissatisfying. It’s a simple enough question, one that I have thought about off and on for about half a century. Perplexity.AI couldn’t find it because humans who wrote for websites didn’t write it, or paywalled the answer.

It’s just another English oddity. Remember that the next time you run past a dripping faucet, or are running next to running water.

Meanwhile, electricity flows, but motors run. Go figure.

If anyone has answers, I’d love to hear what they are. If you found this trying to research it, hopefully more content can be found on it when you are looking – please let me know in a comment.

Almost A Month of Mastodon: Thumbs Up!

On April 1st I joined Mastodon, eschewing centralized social media networks because I felt like an experiment rather than a participant.

My experience so far has been great. I have some followers, not a lot, and I follow about twice as many as I follow (a good metric, I think). I interact with smart people, some who know more than me, some who know less, but everyone’s pretty polite.

It’s a sharp contrast to the other social networks I’ve been on – it actually reminds me of the good old days of the BBS systems, almost as if a few of us would form a party and go play D&D.

Sure, you have some annoying people now and then, but that’s life.

Centralized Social Networks: Blech.

Being away from the centralized social networks has given me perspective. In hindsight, this is what I saw:

Algorithms seemed to have washed the nutrients from my news feeds, instead pushing polarizing posts and spammy sales messages into my eyeballs. It was like a roundabout of billboards that I couldn’t get off – and what I did add to the networks was either not seen or interacted with.

On Facebook, with 1,250 connections, all of them felt distant, removed – not the flesh and blood people that I met, or the intellectually interesting that I had found. My newsfeed was repulsive.

Man, that’s tiresome. Hate takes a lot of energy and usually requires the suspension of the intellect in and an over-exuberance of negative emotion. I’m just not over-exuberant. To me it all looked like a litter box – and made me come to the understanding that walled gardens become litterbox prisons.

LinkedIn is pretty much a human caterpillar of professional brown-nosing. Everyone’s so worried about what a potential employer might think that they won’t rock the boat. They just want to be seen in a positive light, and so that network has become a beacon of bullshit as everyone’s interviewing and it’s a competition to be the most politically correct while maintaining some facade of professionalism all the time. It’s like being at an interview that never ends. It’s terrible, and oh- by the way – people always want to sell you stuff there too. Nobody cares what you can do, really, and the headhunters are more just about collecting skulls to make their bones. And Microsoft (LinkedIn) is constantly asking you to upgrade your subscription so that it can find you a job you’ll likely be unhappy with – otherwise they wouldn’t make money when you go back on bended knee.

At least in psychiatric wards, they give you drugs so you don’t have to experience the other inmates, and in that regard that’s what I believe social media networks largely do.

Twitter? Never really cared about it because I foresaw the trusted sources issue a year before the company even formed. People got into it for various reasons with no exit strategy, as most of us did with social media networks. TikTok I never got into, I don’t even have an account – it’s bad enough I was handing my likes and habits to Big Tech in the U.S., which because of FISA is a grey area of government – why on Earth would I want to hand more information to another government?

Meanwhile, On Mastodon…

I started off by following hashtags I’m interested in, and interacting with other people. 99% of it has been really good, thoughtful, and sometimes challenging in good ways – new perspectives to explore, new trains of thought to consider, new… well, new! Yet that was just the first week, and like a car, you really don’t know how well things are working until you lose the new car smell.

There’s an intellectual freedom I found there that was lost on other social media networks – the Fediverse has it’s own wonkiness, and there are criticisms of Mastodon by longer time users that I don’t understand yet. That’s fine. Most of the issues I see with people on Mastodon is that they want the same confirmation biases fed that they had fed on centralized social networks.

One person wrote today of the centralized networks, “where friends are frictionless and things are predictable.” That sounds a lot like an echo chamber to me, an algorithmic ant mill. I don’t like watching NASCAR because it’s a boring track, I never would have wanted to drive in NASCAR because it’s a boring track, so doing the intellectual and emotional equivalent seems less than ideal for me.

I interact as I wish – politely, even with people I disagree with, and I have yet to block anyone for being douchebags. All in all, it feels a lot like I want a social network to be.

A few people are worried about ‘reach’ – one person posted that they wanted Dan Gillmore to have as many followers on Twitter, which when I looked was 10,000 or more than he has on Mastodon, and he’s talked about ‘reach’ – but it’s really engagement that’s the way to measure things in social media, and even with that engagement, it’s about the quality of engagement.

Also of interest – I’ve found more quality blogs to follow on WordPress.com on the Fediverse than I have on WordPress.com in unit time.

All in all, I feel that I’ve spent my time better on the Fediverse through Mastodon than any other social network. You’re not swimming against algorithmic flotsam and jetsam.

I’ll be on Mastodon. Links are on both of my sites at the top. If you pop in, say hi, and enjoy the interesting people with the understanding that you don’t have to agree with people – just like in real life – but you can have conversations, sometimes hard ones, respectfully – rather than dodging them in the echo chambers.