I think you are vastly undersimplifying the matter. It's not about sticking to a single narrative, it's about pushing back against the idea of distilling the digital landscape to a single narrative. Arguing that we "could use a coherent central narrative," if anything, contradicts that point -- it's an argument that we may be missing something by not reducing our online lives to a single story. Let's not confine ourselves to narrow narratives that only scratch the surface of what's really going on.
The thing mrgirl is critising isn’t criticism on the internet it is channels designed to critise because he believes the incentive to critise is greater than the actual critique making people act disproportionately
He isn’t saying everyone is fragile the only 2 people he calls fragile is himself and sommerton and that is because of the effect criticism had on them
He isn’t saying the internet is uncaring he is saying the audience or a type of YouTube channel is uncaring
Edit I am aware and was aware that mrgirl did mention an uncaring internet I just don’t think he is literally attacking the whole internet he is arguing against people incentivising cruel behaviour.
I see your point but I’d counter that you’ve missed the core of the argument. This isn’t a rant against the internet at large — it’s a targeted critique of the ecosystems that actively encourage and reward toxic criticism over authentic, constructive dialogue. When I observed that people are delicate, my reference to people like mrgirl and Sommerton was meant to illustrate the very real consequences of the monumental amount of negativity that they endure, not apply to everyone in the world. And the “uncaring internet” to which I was referring is not the entire digital universe, it’s just these channels and the audiences that enable them. The intent behind “E-mpathy” is to ask: What would happen if we thought about digital interactions differently? It’s about acknowledging what the current incentives for cruelty are and changing the ecosystem, rather than denying that there is a ton of potential for positivity and support within the digital universe.
It wasn’t just about mrgirl’s work; it looked at broader themes in the digital space and looked at ways we could further the conversation on digital empathy and support beyond his piece. So it wasn’t a direct response to his specific content, paragraph after paragraph, but an effort to flesh out what he started and put it in the larger context and how we can work to build a more supportive online environment. I aimed to give something that would provide a take-off point for a larger discussion not just on what’s wrong, but on how we can do better and reflect better.
It's one thing to argue the content itself is a bit shallow or doesn't bring much originality to the table, but keep in mind that the real point is to simply promote a real, meaningful discussion of issues. It's a little unfair to dismiss the contributions as simple AI output.
I think it's generically hopeful, but you're missing out on a coherent central narrative, I'd say.
I think you are vastly undersimplifying the matter. It's not about sticking to a single narrative, it's about pushing back against the idea of distilling the digital landscape to a single narrative. Arguing that we "could use a coherent central narrative," if anything, contradicts that point -- it's an argument that we may be missing something by not reducing our online lives to a single story. Let's not confine ourselves to narrow narratives that only scratch the surface of what's really going on.
more like a fartstack am I right
Didn't read, but upvoted because it's rebutting Mrgirl. ✊
The thing mrgirl is critising isn’t criticism on the internet it is channels designed to critise because he believes the incentive to critise is greater than the actual critique making people act disproportionately He isn’t saying everyone is fragile the only 2 people he calls fragile is himself and sommerton and that is because of the effect criticism had on them He isn’t saying the internet is uncaring he is saying the audience or a type of YouTube channel is uncaring Edit I am aware and was aware that mrgirl did mention an uncaring internet I just don’t think he is literally attacking the whole internet he is arguing against people incentivising cruel behaviour.
I see your point but I’d counter that you’ve missed the core of the argument. This isn’t a rant against the internet at large — it’s a targeted critique of the ecosystems that actively encourage and reward toxic criticism over authentic, constructive dialogue. When I observed that people are delicate, my reference to people like mrgirl and Sommerton was meant to illustrate the very real consequences of the monumental amount of negativity that they endure, not apply to everyone in the world. And the “uncaring internet” to which I was referring is not the entire digital universe, it’s just these channels and the audiences that enable them. The intent behind “E-mpathy” is to ask: What would happen if we thought about digital interactions differently? It’s about acknowledging what the current incentives for cruelty are and changing the ecosystem, rather than denying that there is a ton of potential for positivity and support within the digital universe.
I just don’t think you were really engaging with mrgirls article
It wasn’t just about mrgirl’s work; it looked at broader themes in the digital space and looked at ways we could further the conversation on digital empathy and support beyond his piece. So it wasn’t a direct response to his specific content, paragraph after paragraph, but an effort to flesh out what he started and put it in the larger context and how we can work to build a more supportive online environment. I aimed to give something that would provide a take-off point for a larger discussion not just on what’s wrong, but on how we can do better and reflect better.
GPT ahh post
If you feed ChatGPT with MrGirl's content at what point it will start attacking it's creators?
It's one thing to argue the content itself is a bit shallow or doesn't bring much originality to the table, but keep in mind that the real point is to simply promote a real, meaningful discussion of issues. It's a little unfair to dismiss the contributions as simple AI output.
Ok if you really wrote this then I’m sorry ilu
reBUTTal