At @geraldine's lecture yesterday I was thinking how hard it is in general to criticize any big tech infrastructure project without becoming complicit in its success. You cannot criticize YouTube, facebook, crypto, or similar projects operating on a similar layer of the stack by engaging with them. The classic media art "hack" tactic doesn't work because any criticism is structurally appropriated by these platforms. When the only goal of a project is growth, any engagement will work towards that goal.

For instance, even highly coordinated trolling attacks such as "operation porn day" against YouTube only made YouTube stronger, because YouTube received neatly identifiable training materials for their machine learning algo to prevent such attacks in the future. Any criticism against facebook just gives facebook the material they can put into their next press release about what they're supposedly working on. Any demonstration that exposes how crypto conceptually is unable to deliver on its promises can be minted the next minute.

Only creating and sustaining a parallel infrastructure, not an oppositional one, can have any effect.

Follow

@despens As a general rule, my advice is to make people feel bad for using it, and offer alternatives. Attacks of any sort definitely won't work. You have to show them that they're being misled, what they're doing is hurting people, and in what way they should be sharing videos . Without alternatives, you're just doomposting which makes the problem worse, but with alternatives, it stands a chance at reducing engagement.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!