social media reform

Substack announced a new “fellowship” for video creators, and it sparked a vitriol reaction. They’re looking to lure and boost big TikTok creators in panic instead of helping those within their own ecosystem. Why would they email this to everyone on Substack? Only 1 in 10,000 are applicable influencers. Wouldn’t 1:1 outreach been more appropriate?

Quote from The State of Culture (by Ted Gioia), resurfaced to me by Salman:

"The tech platforms aren't like the Medici in Florence, or those other rich patrons of the arts. They don't want to find the next Michelangelo or Mozart. They want to create a world of junkies—because they will be the dealers. Addiction is the goal."

What if mindless scrolling wasn’t possible? What if you had to actively engage with 1 post at a time through a Tinder-like format (swiping left or right on a piece onf content)? By saying “yes” to something, it’s a vote to curate your feed, and also a public like. To say “no” (or, to not publicly endorse it), it means you want less of this in your

Against flat social graphs. I don’t want to follow people 1:1. I want to a more customized way for our specific interests to connect.

If social media were to live up to it’s name, it could be the biggest cultural revolution of modern times. Instead, it’s reality TV.

Summarizing Kola 🔑’s idea from a conversation:

Our methods of critiquing software are shallow. We have reviews, reactions, tutorials, puff-pieces, and clout-chasers. It’s important to have independent, thorough, and cultural critique, and it should be distributed among those who are building the future (The Paolo Alto Review).

This isn’t about rev