In a Jos-like manner (:hug:), this question occurred to me when I read this article about censorship out of China.
QuoteChina launches campaign to keep killjoys off the internet
The Chinese government is taking aim at an emotion that has become all too common on the country's internet - despondency.
This week, China's Cyberspace Administration launched a two-month campaign to curb social media posts that "excessively exaggerate negative and pessimistic sentiments". The goal, according to authorities, is to "rectify negative emotions" and "create a more civilised and rational online environment".
In the crosshairs are narratives like "studying is useless" and "hard work is useless", as well as stories that promote "world-weariness".
China has been grappling with an economic slowdown in the wake of a property crisis, high youth unemployment and cut-throat competition for admission to colleges and jobs - all of which have given rise to a sense of disillusionment among its younger generation.
Young people in China "have serious questions about future prospects of their lives" and "must confront the fact that their livelihood is very likely going to be worse than their parents' generation," Simon Sihang Luo, an assistant professor of social sciences at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University, tells the BBC.
And Beijing's anxiety over the bubbling frustration has shown itself in a wave of sanctions hitting the country's influencers and social media platforms.
'Android people'
Last week, well-known content creator Hu Chenfeng had his social media accounts scrubbed of all posts. No-one knows why because Chinese officials gave no explanation. But it's widely believed that this was in response to a viral comment that he had recently made, classifying people and items as either "Apple" or "Android" - with the latter used to describe things that are inferior to the former.
"Yours is a typical Android logic, Android person, Android qualification," he rattled off during a livestream that has since been widely shared online.
While the gag was quickly embraced by many Chinese social media users, others accused Hu of sowing social divisions.
Such obvious jokes about inequality, it seems, have become tricky territory - because they reinforce the divides that the Chinese Communist Party would rather people not dwell on.
Censorship is not new to the Chinese internet. Anything that suggests criticism of the Party, its leaders, or touches on controversial topics that have political implications, quickly disappears.
What is unusual about this campaign against pessimism is that it seems to target a range of online behaviour that could create or add to a sense of negativity.
...
Now, I'm not in favour of the above, but it did get me thinking. It feels like general discourse online (and the news) is all about terrible things and reasons to be unhappy. Joy, when shown, often feels like it needs to either be limited/specific (happy to have won a medal, happy to have passed ones exams), done by unimpeachable target (happy very old person, children, people with animals), or apologised (Yes, I am happy to win this music award but we musn't forget about the situation in Gaza..). unadulterated joy is often derided or mocked.
What gives?
No, we are not. Because of money.
Unhappy people engage a lot more than happy people. Grifters are always on the prowl for new grifts and that's what the age of social media is.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 02, 2025, 06:17:49 AMNo, we are not. Because of money.
Unhappy people engage a lot more than happy people. Grifters are always on the prowl for new grifs and that's what the age of social media is.
Social media took cult tactics digital. Make you miserable and seeking validation and acceptance.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2025, 04:28:18 AMNow, I'm not in favour of the above, but it did get me thinking. It feels like general discourse online (and the news) is all about terrible things and reasons to be unhappy. Joy, when shown, often feels like it needs to either be limited/specific (happy to have won a medal, happy to have passed ones exams), done by unimpeachable target (happy very old person, children, people with animals), or apologised (Yes, I am happy to win this music award but we musn't forget about the situation in Gaza..). unadulterated joy is often derided or mocked.
What gives?
I agree with the sentiment, although as always the Chinese solution seems dystopian to me (that said, I don't have any solutions of my own). It does seem like Internet promotes a cult of negativity and apathetic resignation. Everything is terrible, and everyone is a victim of someone else making it terrible.
Friend Computer wants me to be happy, which can only be a good thing.
Heh. It didn't bother me so much before since things outside the internet seemed to be going decently well...but the general attitude of the internet escaped into regular life. Though I feel like this started with talk radio before the internet was even really mainstream.
It is kind of weird because when I am interacting with people in the flesh everybody seems well adjusted and good natured and generally pleasant. Well ok...outside of a few weirdos...
But you go online and suddenly you see those same people act like gargoyles. I have basically left all social media because of it. I just want that nice lady at the gym to stay my friend, not read how she wants all immigrants flayed with their own spines on Facebook or whatever.
If there was a strictly moderated positive vibes only social media site...I don't know...that might be tempting.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 02, 2025, 06:17:49 AMUnhappy people engage a lot more than happy people.
I believed this once, but I am not sure it is true. Look at the online reviews of any product on Amazon, or Google Reviews for any business, restaurant, hotel, destination, etc.
Outliers exist but overwhelmingly the reviews skew towards the positive. More people show positive engagement online by leaving simple approving reviews than negative ones.
When it comes to reviews in general, there seems to be a ridiculous inflation. If my Uber driver has 4.9 stars, I start sweating. The idiotic "perfect or nothing" mindset originally pushed by corporate management percolated down to everyone, and now reviews for anything have lost much of their power to differentiate.
Quote from: HVC on October 02, 2025, 06:40:48 AMSocial media took cult tactics digital. Make you miserable and seeking validation and acceptance.
I think social media is a part of it, but I actually think you need to go one step back. I think the key shift is the smartphone.
It is a gateway to products designed to leave you dissatisfied (including social media), to always want to leave you watching the next episode, scroll a little bit longer, get to the next level, maybe even share your own details.
I think the evidence in schools about smart phones is very persuasive. I think they're distraction machines. And where I think that ties into happiness is the constant FOMO of a phone that leaves people going back to apps and spending so much time. I think it's almost a low level permanent anxiety that you could be filling your time with that - and on the other side are things that we do less of like reading. I think Tyler Austin Harper put it, I think rightly, that smart phones were an extinction level event for hobbies. And it's those things we filled our time with before smart phones that often actually were where happiness was derived from - the hobbies, the interests, the small achievements of daily life and its satisfactions etc.
I also think there's a slightly specific lefty online angle - which is that I think the whole "do not look away"/"all eyes on x"/"you must pay attention" discourse on left-wing circles online is incredibly unhealthy (and I think potentially counter-productive). On the unhealthiness which we see with videos from Gaza, I don't think there is a moral obligation on people to bear witness to something just because they can and care. I think feeling a need to witness a conflict zone or engage as much in the grimmest content as demonstration or condition of caring is very unhealthy. I work in a media organisation - there are journalists who are paid to watch this stuff and do it because it's their job and they have knowledge and understanding to help the rest of us. They are all regularly offered therapy and other support because it is an emotionally damaging thing to do.
On counter-productive I just think there's something fundamentally dangerous that such an important piece of "activism" in the online age is precisely to consume content on the platforms that will then monetise your consumption. I also think it may be a slight distraction from other forms of caring. It is an act that you do alone, mediated through a device and platform - it is atomising and depoliticising, whereas I think alternatives whether protesting, organising, fundraising or doing donation drives for that issue are social and potentially politicising. I was thinking of the contrast with the 60s and 70s when there is huge political contestation and there's something fascinating in us moving from a world of "the whole world is watching" to "do not look away".
QuoteWhen it comes to reviews in general, there seems to be a ridiculous inflation. If my Uber driver has 4.9 stars, I start sweating. The idiotic "perfect or nothing" mindset originally pushed by corporate management percolated down to everyone, and now reviews for anything have lost much of their power to differentiate.
Also not wanting to screw over someone's algorithmic ability to make a living. I'd need something seriously, seriously wrong to rate below 5 stars because I don't want that person getting cancelled or pulled from the platform. People are talking about social credit - that's where it is already.
Although I suspect there's also a cultural angle here because I think in London, there's still 4.8somethings - so we still have a healthy base of miserable sods.
QuoteI agree with the sentiment, although as always the Chinese solution seems dystopian to me (that said, I don't have any solutions of my own). It does seem like Internet promotes a cult of negativity and apathetic resignation. Everything is terrible, and everyone is a victim of someone else making it terrible.
Yeah I'm reluctant to just go in on the Chinese solution. There is a bit of me that feels that maybe our "it's like nailing jello to the wall" approach to regulating the internet was a mistake v China's building it in line with the needs of their political order. Obviously that purposefully built, regulated as you go internet would look different for a liberal democracy than a Communist party state, but I'm not sure the approach was wrong (in retrospect - at the time I'd have thought it was mad).
I think those are some very valid observations, Sheilbh. It feels to me there's been a very marked transformation towards "this is something you care about? Great! Here's how to monetize it, let's transform it (and you) into a product that can be consumed."
I'd almost argue that it's become the dominant framing for enthusiasm of any kind.
Yeah and even if you don't you're sort of trapped in the monetisation cycle - because, for example, I think 99% of Meta's revenue comes from advertising. So even if you're not going down a monetisation route they're hoovering up the data on the users interested in your content to package them into segments - I suspect often of people who are trying to monetise that enthusiasm.
It's definitely a thing. It's just a fundamental flaw of psychology that rage and negativity is a better engager than positive things.
As I'm always moaning this is key to the far rights success.
I think bluesky is getting towards positive vibes only. If you want it. It let's you filter out posts based on key words, has simple effective blocking of annoying users, etc....
I never liked twitter but did used to use reddit and Facebook a fair bit. Bluesky is filling the social media itch at the moment without bringing on many negative emotions.
QuoteAlso not wanting to screw over someone's algorithmic ability to make a living. I'd need something seriously, seriously wrong to rate below 5 stars because I don't want that person getting cancelled or pulled from the platform. People are talking about social credit - that's where it is already.
Although I suspect there's also a cultural angle here because I think in London, there's still 4.8somethings - so we still have a healthy base of miserable sods.
Could also just be the amount of foreigners in London.
In Japan for instance ratings tend to be a lot saner. A restaurant which is a 3/5 is a solid decent place. Not going to blow your mind. But perfectly fine.
A 4 is great.
5 is not the default, that's food of the gods.
These days I stick to 5 stars with service people like this but whenever I face NPS, for instance workplace peakons, then 5 is fine damnit.
QuoteIn a Jos-like manner
Ey?
Just you like to post random musings.
Happiness and rage are not antonyms. The wokes discovered they can be complimentary a while back, the Trumpists more recently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2025, 12:39:05 PMHappiness and rage are not antonyms. The wokes discovered they can be complimentary a while back, the Trumpists more recently.
Dude. There was a right wing rage machine 40 years ago. I know. I got screamed at by an endless and tiresome series of enraged Republicans in the 1990s for disliking Bill Clinton to a level that was insufficient for them. Like I didn't like Bill but I failed to reach their acceptable level of disliking. And for this crime I was regularly subjected to unhinged screaming sessions.
So stop with the fantasy land shit about how right wing people just started being full of rage.
(https://i.imgur.com/og62Afq.png)
"One must imagine the algorithm happy."
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2025, 12:49:44 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2025, 12:39:05 PMHappiness and rage are not antonyms. The wokes discovered they can be complimentary a while back, the Trumpists more recently.
Dude. There was a right wing rage machine 40 years ago. I know. I got screamed at by an endless and tiresome series of enraged Republicans in the 1990s for disliking Bill Clinton to a level that was insufficient for them. Like I didn't like Bill but I failed to reach their acceptable level of disliking. And for this crime I was regularly subjected to unhinged screaming sessions.
So stop with the fantasy land shit about how right wing people just started being full of rage.
Isn't his point more that rage and happiness aren't opposed? In fact rage is enjoyable.
Although for what it's worth I'm not sure rage is quite right for MAGA. I think it's more like transgression or license - which is a different sort of happiness (which should be healthily repressed :lol:).
MAGA is powered by revenge. It's their turn to pick on the pesky judgemental liberals.
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2025, 12:54:31 PM(https://i.imgur.com/og62Afq.png)
"One must imagine the algorithm happy."
:lol:
Yes, I immediately thought of Camus when I saw the thread title.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2025, 12:49:44 PMDude. There was a right wing rage machine 40 years ago. I know. I got screamed at by an endless and tiresome series of enraged Republicans in the 1990s for disliking Bill Clinton to a level that was insufficient for them. Like I didn't like Bill but I failed to reach their acceptable level of disliking. And for this crime I was regularly subjected to unhinged screaming sessions.
So stop with the fantasy land shit about how right wing people just started being full of rage.
Dude. There have been angry people since Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden. The recent difference, IMO, is that people discovered if they let the cause of their anger fester, instead of solving it, and simultaneously invent new things to be outraged about, it can generate positive feelings. Or at least it's new that this mindset has been mainstreamed into political discourse.
That doesn't sound new at all. People have been fueled by rage forever, in politics or anything else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2025, 01:32:30 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 02, 2025, 12:49:44 PMDude. There was a right wing rage machine 40 years ago. I know. I got screamed at by an endless and tiresome series of enraged Republicans in the 1990s for disliking Bill Clinton to a level that was insufficient for them. Like I didn't like Bill but I failed to reach their acceptable level of disliking. And for this crime I was regularly subjected to unhinged screaming sessions.
So stop with the fantasy land shit about how right wing people just started being full of rage.
Dude. There have been angry people since Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden. The recent difference, IMO, is that people discovered if they let the cause of their anger fester, instead of solving it, and simultaneously invent new things to be outraged about, it can generate positive feelings. Or at least it's new that this mindset has been mainstreamed into political discourse.
Question for ya, is this creation of rage targets different in practice and outcome from the creation of moral panic targets and the fight against them? Rights been doing that forever. Rock and roll will be the end of us!
Quote from: HVC on October 02, 2025, 02:37:14 PMQuestion for ya, is this creation of rage targets different in practice and outcome from the creation of moral panic targets and the fight against them? Rights been doing that forever. Rock and roll will be the end of us!
Those people gave in. I think current grievances are eternal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2025, 02:50:16 PMQuote from: HVC on October 02, 2025, 02:37:14 PMQuestion for ya, is this creation of rage targets different in practice and outcome from the creation of moral panic targets and the fight against them? Rights been doing that forever. Rock and roll will be the end of us!
Those people gave in. I think current grievances are eternal.
Do they give in or die off*? Did those protesting rock, to keep that example, end up embracing or at least tolerating it?
*Well, I guess in some cases they live on in keeping it alive through their kids. Amish are still fighting the good fight against the morally corrupting buttons :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2025, 10:17:55 AMWhen it comes to reviews in general, there seems to be a ridiculous inflation. If my Uber driver has 4.9 stars, I start sweating. The idiotic "perfect or nothing" mindset originally pushed by corporate management percolated down to everyone, and now reviews for anything have lost much of their power to differentiate.
Totally true.
BTW I would never trust a driver with 5.0 stars. Something has to be wrong there. It's like an election result from a Cold War communist dictatorship.
Quote from: HVC on October 02, 2025, 02:52:48 PMDo they give in or die off*? Did those protesting rock, to keep that example, end up embracing or at least tolerating it?
*Well, I guess in some cases they live on in keeping it alive through their kids. Amish are still fighting the good fight against the morally corrupting buttons :lol:
They stopped bitching.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2025, 04:28:18 AMNow, I'm not in favour of the above, but it did get me thinking. It feels like general discourse online (and the news) is all about terrible things and reasons to be unhappy. Joy, when shown, often feels like it needs to either be limited/specific (happy to have won a medal, happy to have passed ones exams), done by unimpeachable target (happy very old person, children, people with animals), or apologised (Yes, I am happy to win this music award but we musn't forget about the situation in Gaza..). unadulterated joy is often derided or mocked.
What gives?
News has always been about bad news. I am not surprised that transferred to the world of social media. What has changed is people also display their lives on social media, including their happiness and joy.
I am not sure any of that is necessary for people to be happy - the exact opposite is probably true.
More negative news has always sold better it's true.
However the more high res, relatable and immediate it is the worse it is.
Today it's social media downloading promises of immigrants in your town committing vile deeds. It's shared phone video footage of deaths. It's AI images designed to specifically hit your buttons.
This is worse than 15 years ago when mass market 24 hour rolling news was spewing it's bile. You had to actually turn on your TV and go to that channel to get it. It wasn't ways in your pocket. It was also far more regulated and general.
You can keep going back with each step backwards being steadily weaker than the others.
This isn't the only factor at work of course. To counter the heightened fidelity and directness of the message the world should be getting generally less grim and people more educated.
But... That's not the case for everyone. Adapting to new media takes time. In negative times in particular people look for easy answers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2025, 03:10:59 PMQuote from: HVC on October 02, 2025, 02:52:48 PMDo they give in or die off*? Did those protesting rock, to keep that example, end up embracing or at least tolerating it?
*Well, I guess in some cases they live on in keeping it alive through their kids. Amish are still fighting the good fight against the morally corrupting buttons :lol:
They stopped bitching.
Fair enough :D
I was happy once. Can't remember why, though.
Maybe one aspect is that monetising fear and hate is far easier - one fearmongering article/news report is guaranteed to grab clicks and attention from a fairly predictable and large subset of people. Now try and engage the same amount of people with one particular happy article/news. What makes us afraid, and, even more, angry, is much less specific to the individual, I think.
Especially since in case of political news, the negative crosses boundaries. For example: "right wing douchebag complains about brown people raping white women" - the rightwingers will click to be outraged and thus reinforced in their racism. People on the left will click because they are outraged at this racist generalisation. Etc.
Quote from: Tamas on October 03, 2025, 05:58:36 AMMaybe one aspect is that monetising fear and hate is far easier - one fearmongering article/news report is guaranteed to grab clicks and attention from a fairly predictable and large subset of people. Now try and engage the same amount of people with one particular happy article/news. What makes us afraid, and, even more, angry, is much less specific to the individual, I think.
Especially since in case of political news, the negative crosses boundaries. For example: "right wing douchebag complains about brown people raping white women" - the rightwingers will click to be outraged and thus reinforced in their racism. People on the left will click because they are outraged at this racist generalisation. Etc.
I think that this is a big part of it. It is far easier to spark hatred than to spark compassion or joy.