This is a pretty good article. I think the author dances around it a bit but gets it: it’s all about investors wanting infinite growth.
Think about it this way- if ad-supported social media isn’t profitable (which seems to be the case) and constantly requires VC cash to stay afloat, really the customers of the product are the investors. The cult of “line go up” demands that engagement be constantly increasing, which means that it’s effectively impossible nowadays to have a social media site focused on creating a vibrant active community. Community equals steady traffic and engagement once it hits its stable point. That’s just not good enough.
It really explains why every site is trying their hardest to become TikTok- short, relatively cheap to host video clips that press the dopamine button and get users addicted to the service. Add an endless feed to keep users hooked, and you have a recipe for maximum engagement. It’s the best bang for the Buck from an investor perspective.
And the fact the author dances around an idea is why I hate reading articles online or watching YouTube videos. They need to drag the content as much as possible to maximize profit. In a 10 minute video they can push more ads, the same way that in a 10 paragraph article they can push more ads in between paragraphs or on the sides.
I think this quality of content problem vs monetization isn't exclusive to social media.
Damn talk about the most depressing story of the week. Only Fans really seemed to be a boon for the loneliness problem in our society, but I guess I should never be amazed with how Capitalism can really destroy something.
Doesn't really explain how to get away with the perfect murder?
Just says that they have and found this guy yet.
It seems weird that the detective keeps calling it a perfect murder just because it hasn't been solved yet.
There are hundreds of unsolved murders every year, that doesn't make them perfect?
Is that what the " perfect murder" colloquiao means?
Also what's up with GQ messing up so much of their copy, all the "ff" letters transformed into symbols and there's a few spaces missing in the article.
Always interesting to listen to anyone talk about intelligence agency insight.
Every time I listen to a podcast with an intelligence official or something like that, they're so coy about so many topics, but in a way that they've repeated a thousand times so that it doesn't sound cool, it just sounds bored even though you know there's a powder keg behind all of their words.
All of these questions are very relevant. And I even tried to deal with them in my thesis. It took me some time to do it. And in order to complete it, I asked a literature review helper to do a review for me. And I got a good paper.
I didn’t read the article as I’m far more worried about the future of Nazism / totalitarianism in the US. (Yes, I do realise you must understand the past to make sense of the future)
Bite mark evidence is complete bullshit. There was a great short series of eps of Last Podcast on the Left breaking down how it was a cash grab building up the "science" and how it's not at all reliable. The article points this out in a line or two about courts not accepting this testimony anymore, but it's worth hearing about the "expert" who seized the opportunity to "legitimize" the practice.
Yeah for sure. It's a shame that so much of forensic science is just vibes. There's been a big push though recently to actually do the science part of forensic science, which I appreciate. They did also interview the dentist that testified in the case, who admitted that his methods were less than airtight and that in this day and age he would only use bite mark analysis to rule out suspects rather than secure guilt.
Also catch the prosecutor convincing the jury about the evidence not ruling out that he was at the scene. Innocent until proven guilty my ass.
LongReads
Top