This was not quite what I'd thought. I find these new "tailored" experiences cause boredom for me. I watched a WWII documentary once and now almost half of my netflix recommendations are more WWII films. I like other things too!

Google has a similar problem, it returns what it thought I meant - the keywords seems to have only minor importance to the results. Searching for a non-tech term when it has a tech meaning is near impossible because google knows I'm a nerd.

Idly click on a link to one offering in a marketing email and be prepared for a flood of follow-ups reminding you of that item you were interested in. I never click on anything in an email from Udemy for this reason.

This reminds me of that whole group think talk that was going on in the news a number of years ago.

People who are only exposed to the same things tend not come up with ideas outside of the group.

Fortunately the major newspapers aren't doing that to their front pages just yet - but I'm sure it will come at some point.

But I really disagree with the premise that its enjoyable to always be exposed to the same things. Serendipity really seems to be underappreciated.

There's also the premise of global superpowers locked into a theater of permanent economic conflict and the implicit balance of power perpetually threatening to break open and destabilize into massive full-spectrum conflict.

Given the state of nature that exists between large industrialized nations, each in incentivized to foment dysfunction in their rivals to slow them down economically. The more infighting in any given country, the more headaches present among citizens, the slower and more reluctant their economy becomes.

There's a slow, glacial, permanent grind that never goes away, because the world at large is trying to make you call in sick to work, so that they can gain some breathing room, and pump up their own economy.

Meanwhile, uncompetitive personality flaws get classified as mental illness, so that there's medical justification to ply you with productivity drugs. Take prescribed speed to perform for the economy. Take mood stabilizers so you don't snap at your co-workers. Take anti-anxiety meds for your impostor syndrome, and stop worrying about whether everyone hates you. They're all just cranky from the speed and psychological operations of global superpowers trying to slow us down.

I appreciate the concise description of your worldview, but what of it? People still have to survive, and inescapable despair is really not a good tool for that.

It's one thing to state a premise, but they're usually expected to be accompanied by conclusions.

I can only offer such views within the context of this particular article, to make the point that not all those wallowing in misery should dwell on instrospection, when there is a tidal force of nature beyond the individual drenching a broader collective in misery, for reasons beyond most anyone's control.

Even if you win the war with yourself, you'll still have an entire world to confont, but at least most of the problem wasn't even you to begin with. So at least there's that?

One conclusion could be that inescapable despair is an indicator of globalized psyops. Depressed individuals will rationalize overspending.

It isn't so much psyops as it is the consequence of the very specific brand of Asian capitalism that dominates the world today. One need only look to South Korea or Japan in order to realize that the United States is on the very same trajectory.

its interesting the push/pull that goes on with PED.

many students are taking adderall to ace exams/boards/bar/standardized tests, and athletes are taking steroids/HGH/etc. Its largely considered academic fraud / cheating, but also largely unpoliced.

sometimes i feel the world is becoming like the movie/series limitless. those that you see are succeeding / influential are juiced up.

I've never heard anyone call adderall academic fraud. It's not magic and taking stimulants and pulling all night study sessions is a hallowed academic tradition. It matters less if that stimulant is coffee or if it's adderall.

I think that Facebook is almost the opposite of what the author describes. Not so much a "“ontological insecurity.”, more like a place for reassurance and security, i've written about it here: https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.htm...

Regarding algorithmic doppelgangers and how we govern them (Zuckerberg 2020) this is a good place to start:

https://iainmait.land/posts/20170418-algorithmic-governmenta...

Would you say that networks like Twitter fall into the same category? People are also able to build comfortable "filter bubble" spaces there without the help of algorithms.

I think that the general characteristic isn't so much the algorithmic control inherent in social networks, rather it's our approach to it - the general characteristic of a transitional object is that we don't ask of it ...

'Is this part of me, or external to me? Did I come up with this, or was it presented to me?'

As long as a user avoids or suppresses those kinds of questions then yes it's a transitional object, and whatever algorithmic control is in effect is not so important to us. To a certain extent, the algorithms, just reflect our desire for a space where there is an illusion that the outer-world accords with our inner-worlds.

Meanwhile - in terms of differentiating Facebook from the other social networks ...

Unlike Twitter (word limits, textual), and Snapchat (ephemeral, visual) Facebook is gunning for limitlessness (VR, Everything) ... in this sense, in giving its users a sense of omnipotence and omnipresence it's in a different league, one where the fundamental question of where we end and our algorithmic doppelgangers begin is elided altogether in favor of an algorithmic state ... with it's own reality, and truth.

Yeah. The dreams of going to heaven or building a perfect society have been outcompeted by the dream of being genuine, which benefits mostly marketers and causes tons of misery otherwise. I think the only solution is learning to recognize and resist dreams that promise too much. Maybe that should be taught in schools.

This is a set of brilliant observations... Humans have always had a social identity around ourselves, formed through memories by others, our appearances and the surroundings we create for ourselves...both for us and for others to see.

Until the digital ages, (cameras, print, now bits), these external representations decayed somewhat organically. With perfect copies, these images persist for others and for ourselves. It makes it harder to escape.

As others noted, yes, we have more potential to escape our self-created representations, but there's also a higher escape velocity.

The magazine is funded by Snapchat. Just a fun fact.

You read my mind. I was just reading about social media and identity here: [1]. A very interesting read.

[1] - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

There are some good points here, but I think this article buys too much into the fantasy of magical algorithms -- that the systems for ranking and filtering that are tuned for maximizing engagement and trying to get people to click on ads actually change people's concept of identity in a noticeable way. People identified with stuff on Facebook just as much when it was an unfiltered feed of wall posts.

If anything, Facebook has sacrificed some of its identity-shaping power in exchange for more engagement and ad sales. People are moving more of their real social interaction to other places, leaving Facebook to be mostly a source of news and updates from casual acquaintances.

What about the subconscious suggestive effects of your feed as it evolves over time?

I think the effect of social media in general is way bigger than the effect of the ranking algorithms specifically. The "serial pleasures of checking for likes and other forms of micro-recognition made suddenly meaningful by the acute insecurity" (as the article so eloquently puts it) have a much bigger impact on how we choose to present ourselves than the news articles and ads we are shown, for example.

I potentially disagree. I think the impact of social media's reward cycle is major, but not directly on the user's identity - rather, I believe it causes significant feedback into non-algorithmic filtering (and from there to the algorithmic component, as the organic part is presumably valued by predictors). World-view, then, is shaped by the algorithmic filters and detailed by the performances of others on social media, but the effect on identity is circumspect.

So I would say that the algorithms are more important, because they define the environment that parameterizes normalcy. Identity forms mostly asocially, and it is not interactive.

> “Depression began its ascent when the disciplinary model for behaviors, the rules of authority and observance of taboos that gave social classes as well as both sexes a specific destiny, broke against norms that invited us to undertake personal initiative by enjoining us to be ourselves … The depressed individual is unable to measure up; he is tired of having to become himself.”

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Are they actually blaming clinical depression on personal freedom and social mobility?

There is research done on depression vs free choice - the "Paradox of choice" being the canonical reason that more freedom is not always better. I'll leave you to google the topic on your own if you're truly interested -- "happiness/depression correlation with freedom and choice".

I'm not trying to take a stand here, but your gut reaction (and my initial one) was based in emotion, not on research and facts -- get the facts (or as best you can) before throwing up any more.

The correlation between depression and alleged personal freedom and alleged social mobility is well known.