In June 2015, with Vanity Fair’s cover of now Caitlyn Jenner launches the post postmodern era.
But like the postmodern era, the changing in the information landscape took time to manifest. the birth of the post postmodern society with the starts in 2007. With Steve Jobs introduction of the iPhone,
the iPhone just being the latest expression of the geometry of computing allows us access to the variable image machine at an unprecedented rate in human history. Social media use predates the iPhone, but it took time and the right medium to achieve critical mass
The Personal Computer Revolution:
The peak year of the postmodern era is 1969.
For those serious about life, we got the moon landing and the first variable image machine the computer.
The hippies got Woodstock.
Although the mass commercilisation of computing occurred in the years preceding.
These were mostly mainframe computers that could slowly be interfaced, that can be slowly interfaced with computer code. This limited the number of people who could interface with computers. As a result, their use was limited to large institutions, not individuals.
Then comes Douglas Engelbart, the most important consumer designer of all time, and gobike introduced the mouse, the idea of visualised computer objects and .
The next significant achievement in the computer revolution was the establishment of a coherent network of communication between machines. The ARPANET, the precursor to the internet, established a proof of concept for the internet. Prior to the World Wide Web (www.) the internet was restricted to known as BBBs. These were for the computer enthusiast of the world. Still for them BBBs provided much of the same experiences afforded to current Social Media.
It wasn’t as establishment until the World Wide Web did the internet go mainstream. The exact inflection point being 1996 with the biggest disaster in Everest history being reported in real time on the internet.
In all of this increasing network capabilities corresponded an explosion in processing speed. This can be seen in the sophistication of CGI and George Lucas industrial like magic. The matrix and the Lord of the Rings look better than anything Marvel has made decades later.
Concurrenntly, video games shifted from being an arcade phenomenon to people’s homes. A circus need no more be hardwired. The first viral video game were spread via the aforementioned BBs is in the 80s via shareware. With early Doom copies outselling Micrososoft Windows, despite the two just being the latest application of a common technology.
Fundamentally the personal computer represents the current commercialization of computing as such, with much of what Engelbart displayed in 1969 being accepted to your average consumer in 1984, the computer being the latest extension of the image machine the television. Computers as an information technology did not take off until the introduction of a word and number processor programme, the earliest version of Word and Excel, basically, replacing the previous information technologies of the typewriter in the calculator.
The Macintosh-Insanely Great
Although there’s a parallel history of computing in many countries, which given enough time could have invented the mainframe computer. However, the personal computer is squarely an American phenomenon. Like all good American phenomenon was was cited by dudes tinkering in a garage, usually that parent’s garage. Prior to the personal computer computing was restricted to centralise mainframe computers. So much, so much so that France missed out on the personal computer revolution. Everything in France being centralised, the French state could not resist the investment. However, as the cost of storing a bit decreased, computers became more accessible to hobbyists. Enter the Homebrew Homebrew Computer Club. One such hobbyist was the shy Steve Wozniak who along with his other friends, his other friend, Steve would start a process that would change the world. Apple’s first business was literally commercialising personal computers. As Apple’s first computer were just pre assembled hobbyist type computers. These pre assembled computers would increase in sophistication eventually culminating in the first modern personal computer the Macintosh in 1984. The personal computer as an information technology was not mass adopted until this replaced Information Technology of the modern era, the calculator and the typewriter.
The company the two companies that would fundamentally dominate the personal computer revolution would be Microsoft and Apple, and would represent a fundamental shift in the computing industry at large with the balance of power shifting from hardware to software. As the attention has shifted from hardware to software, something Bill Gates had an understanding of Apple, unlike Microsoft offered an end to end computing experience towards a much higher end market. From a network effect, Microsoft was able to capture a larger market because its price demand curves being down sloping made it more accessible to a greater market. Additionally, the rise of Microsoft computing, Microsoft software company represented a shift in this shoe away from the International Business machine IBM with hardware components becoming increasingly commoditized. It was not until the personal computer revolution met the variable image revolution that computing became ubiquitous. As part of this point computers could only be interfaced with through computer code, making a knowledge of programming a prerequisite from computer use the same technology, leading to an explosion in the gaming industry with the home console and other gaming consoles. When it comes to the argument that Windows copy Apple, Bill Gates told Steve Jobs that if you were to be accused of such that Steve was would be one of in one of his reality distortion fields. if bill believes that he is in his own reality distortion field, Steve did not simply copy paste the work of Xerox PARC in a very in a viable commercial computer, Steve added to the design. Additionally, like Steve explained in his legendary Stanford address, Microsoft copied the size of the spaces between the letters. The only unfortunate thing is that bill did not copy Steve Moore, a mistake Google will not do. Like Steve said the thing about Windows is that they have no taste whatsoever. Instead of calling it windows they should have just called it boxes, Microsoft boxes. The reason why Apple purchase their products have rounded edges, comes down to Steve Jobs genius and computer design. It is easier to detect change than a static object. So when the edges are too sharp, they’re starting to the eye as the rate of change is to create. The reason why you just don’t do a circle is because the rate of change at any given point in time is too great. To solve this Steve Jobs literally squared the circle
Although the usefulness of the personal computer is independent of the internet, it was not until the network effects were felt that computing explored as an appliance. The Internet is a natural successor to the information if we thought about the telegraph, as both are a means of distributing information. The computer is a natural successor to the typewriter, both a means of writing information. Artificial Intelligence is a natural extension of the printing press, both a means of automating a repetitive human process. Robots I mean, robots are the natural successor to electricity, both allow work access. However, different degrees of freedom. I have seen about every permutation of the above, never with any justification whatsoever. Can all of you please stop? You have no idea what you’re talking about?
The Rise of CyberSpace
What the Wachowskis meant by the word Matrix. In the movie The Matrix, is really cyberspace. The Matrix refers to the matrix of binary digits which are the fundamental underpinnings of Cyberspace.
Cyberspace– the inside of the computer. To be delineated from imaginationland. Cyberspace, being the current best externalisation of imagination. But cyberspace and the rules that underlie it are independent of the specificities of human consciousness.
It is a mistake to think of the size of cyberspace as the total memory available to computers. The size of cyberspace is the total time users are in cyberspace, not the rest of reality. The bottleneck by which we interface with cyberspace, is the total information used in a fetch and retrieve cycle on a computer. This bottleneck was increasingly what has been increasing by orders of magnitude since the first computer. The exact extent to which this bottleneck is increasing is known as Moore’s law, a phenomena which is scheduled to hold for the foreseeable future (thank the gods).
Around this time the Macintosh was returning to commercial viability with a new design and even better technology. The design of any Macintosh contrasting with that of any other machine is that the Macintosh is one appliance, a unit of computing on its own, come with its own handle. Well Apple chose to fit everything on the desktop, or the computer manufacturers chose a more segmented approach with the CPU and screen as different entities. This is for practical purposes, mind you, with less of a spatial constraint over which to maximise over one is able to save costs, which can then be passed on to the consumer. But that’s one way the point of Apple computers it’s not a mass consumer brand. From the design of its product, to its manufacturing, Apple is meant to appeal towards the higher end of the market. This is why the comparison to Bill Gates never made any sense. They never competed for the same users
Steve Jobs would not be alive to see his laptop designs mature into something astounding. With the maturation of laptops coming around 2012 I had purchased a 15 inch MacBook in 2011, only to purchase another 18 months later, a computer I would keep for five years only upgrading when my college dissertation required more compute. The laptop industry now closely resembles that of the television industry, where the differences between generations are becoming increasingly decreasing. So there isn’t much of a point to upgrading laptops as people are not. I’m not sure what to do with the excess processing speed besides better quality photos and videos.
In redundant purchase I had as I had to rent as many servers as Amazon would give me to try to run some regression. On my birthday I would shut down the servers only to realise that had been running them several days in a row costing me what could have what would have amounted to me sponsoring a table at one of London’s mediocre What didn’t we this anecdote, perhaps best representing the confused nature of computing at this point of confusion that Steve Jobs is not around to navigate, as Apple has done its best to ignore the cloud computing revolution as opposed to to the insurance with Microsoft, which has pivoted perfectly to the new paradigm, the supposedly in transit
Then came the iPhone.
The iPhone a new portal to cyberspace came with a new geometry of computing. The next iteration in the variable image revolution. The iPhone or the two way mobile variable image machine. Is to the post post modern generation what the telivision was to the post modern generation.
The iPhones larger screen, created at the expense of the keyboard made it more conducive as photographic as a photography device. The iPod is the successor to the Walkman, the iPhone the Polaroid, the ability to capture and share variable images. The various camera based social medias created for the iPhone reflecting this.
Steve Jobs is the single most impactful human being since Winston Churchill. For something he did decades after Apple’s inception. But in a lot of ways the iPhone was a culmination of the events that would feature him being removed from the CEO of Apple.
Although he is the second greatest computer designer in history. Trailing the one and only Douglas ‘Doug’ Engelbart. Jobs is the greatest computer manufacturer of all time. Despite not being a hardware guy. Jobs early exit from Apple was because computing, as an industry, was still too immature to fulfil Jobs’ vision brackets. And Jobs did not know enough about computers to know what they can or cannot do.
Jobs would go on to fund NEXT (later acquired by Apple) and buy Lucas animations (later pixar). Jobs would end up making the bulk of his money from Pixar. After after going 50 million in deep before the release of Toy Story. The technological successor to Walt Disney’s Cinderella.
Jobs would return as CEO of Apple. Rescuing the compagny with the release of the revolutionary iPod, the technological successor to the Walkman. Jobs even creates a new type of media, Pod-casting. The iPod one of the great examples of Jobs’ genius. Someone showed him a small hard drive that was too slow to be commercially viable. They showed him a hard drive Jobs gave them the iPod.
Variable Sound Machine
podcasts the principle difference between a podcast and radio is that radio encodes audio over the electromagnetic spectrum. Podcast records audio in a binary radio is always live a podcast can either be live or recorded. A podcast is the evolution of radio in the sense of podcasts can be stored in cyberspace, while a radio has to be live broadcasted. Additionally, a podcast poses a superior user experience, as it can be accessed via the phone, while radio before the phone could only be accessed with special purpose devices. Therefore, podcast took off with the advent of smartphones. Like much of the media of the post postmodern age.
Another highlight of the loneliness which persuades our society is that the most successful podcasts are the podcasts between friends not those between an expert and the podcast hostspodcasts just being a name for audio data And a podcast fundamentally represents a room in cyberspace out of all the possible sub realities that exist on Earth
Long Form podcasting is credited to be one of the future plays of independent discussion. This is because as of writing it is too computationally expensive to have a machine learning transcribe and report improper conversation across all podcasts. As soon as this occurs podcasting as a medium would be like any thing else. This also has much to do with the measure of podcasting in the shows with writing, where there is no centralised podcasting platform for content to be curated over and for people to be upset about.
podcasts return to interesting place in cyberspace. This can be measured in terms of advertising. Most of the advertising on the Internet is controlled by the big tech platforms through algorithms. Posting on content on this platform is less rewarding per viewer because YouTube for example, is is bringing the advertiser to you for an audience they already have and marketing your content towards independent podcast advertising returns more because the set of people being advertised to is unique. The preferences are more specific. Therefore and additionally, the product is also being read through by the podcasts are allowing for greater mimetic identification with the product. Additionally, people interface more
To sum up Jobs’ computing career. He commercialised one paradigm of computing (the personal computer). Replaced the Walkman and the CD player with the Ipod. Inventing two different portals to cyberspace, the iPhone and Ipad. Both portals, different dimensions of the same fundamental technology. Different evolutions in the geometry of computing. Where instead of having a keyboard and mouse. Computing is interfaced via fingers.
The reason for this comes down to efficiency. The buttons on the screen sre used about half the time. So it’s not worth dedicating a button to something that is not essential. Space being scarce on such a small device, as the point for it is to be mobile.
Variable Sound Corporation-Spotify
What started out as a natural evolution of, of nature of the music streaming has ended up as a colossal waste of money. Spotify still has time to resume the music revolution that they started, in the sense that the ultimate destiny for Spotify, like company to become a platform for audio content like YouTube is a platform for video content. The last attempt at the sound card failed due to a limited business model. Unlike Spotify, SoundCloud did not offer a subscription to catalogue of labelled music. Its premium subscription was to post more data on cyberspace. Spotify stopped restricting itself to just music and look to capture the greater audio market, which makes sense given the current sub organisation of attention in the scale free network of cyberspace. Technically speaking, YouTube can host audio content, but he’s not actively pursuing dominance in the podcasting industry.
Despite this, YouTube dominates the podcasting industry. This is thanks to YouTube Google centralised advertising model and said Spotify chose to overpay for talent that YouTube got for free to then force advertising for other podcasts that they overpaid for, for users who pay not to be advertised to, while not investing in the underlying information technology that allowed these podcasters to go to YouTube in the first place.
If Steve Jobs were alive Spotify as a company would not exist. Or if Jeff Bezos ran Apple, Apple had the lead in the digital music industry, literally starting the digital music industry with the revolutionary iTunes and the iPod. In addition to having a cash in the bank orders of magnitude more than Spotify, Apple refuses spent any money, yet officially transitioned apple from the world’s foremost computing company to a former farm for capital, even the products. Even the products name Apple Music is suspect the appeal of the appliance for Android users. The generic Spotify name makes more sense
Variable Image Machine
The Internet Revolution
Web Browser- A Cyberspace navigator
The first means of private interpersonal communication comes from email. As the name suggests, there’s just an electronification of mail with an instant messenger.
With the Internet came the first social media bulletin boards (BBs). BBs would not only share intrapersonal discussions, but computer games and other salient information. The legacy of these BBs live on with the modern day equivalent-Reddit.
It was not until the establishment of the world wide web (www) did Internet culture become mass culture. Altough like ARPANET the point of the web was academic in nature. The purpose of the early was to scale the ARPANET to anyone with an Internet connection by Tim Berners Lee at CERN. Since its inception, however, the web was used mostly to share pictures, not academic papers. The first web browser Mosaic. A web browser, being another term for portal to shared cyberspace. In economics the only cost are opportunity costs. Functionality dedicated to the sharing of images comes at the expense of academic papers.
As shared cyberspace got denser, it became increasingly valuable to navigate it. Google made its first dollar by selling the views received from advertisers to users who wanted to use their search service. Their ability to organise cyberspace, as it turns out, is extraordinary valuable.
Google, however, far from the first search engine, was just the best. The dominance of Google highlighting the winner take all effect of internet markets (fat tails). Google, unlike its competitors used unique and increasing complex algorithms to organise data. The sheer volume of cyberspace makes it impossible for anything but a computer to sort through.
As Google’s founder put it, Google’s goal is to organise all of the information on the internet. Not to tell Google’s founders about their business model. But Google organises insofar as they index unscructured data in cyberspace. What first started out as an index of the most relevant websites on the on the web. Then ended up as an index of just about everything. Google Photos, videos maps.
After indexing shared cyberspace Google will start indexing the real world as well. The creation of Google Maps is part of a greater effort to map the world.
Web 1.0-Space to Cyberspace
After a certain point, shared cyberspace starts to overtake private cyberspace (the personal computer). Google during its early history was the world’s largest computer manufacturer. Their best client being themselves. Manufacturing only their own internal servers Google made more computers than anyone on earth.
The only difference between private cyberspace (the personal computer) and shared cyberspace (The Internet) is the location of the data. Is it stored on your hard drive or Google’s data server? The shift from hard drive to Cloud Storage started with Google Docs and other related products.
Unlike traditional computing, cloud computing has two bottlenecks to overcome, not one. Both suffer from the fundamental bottleneck of computers. The amount of binary digits that can be fetched and retrieved per cycle.
While cloud computers have to contend with fetching and retrieving these digits over a larger geographical area. The distance between your terminal and Google’s servers being greater than the distance between your CPU on the terminal. Internet speed and coverage, currently the dimensions by which cloud computing scales over.
The journey to the cloud is a gradual one. The same efficiency arguments in favour of self driving cars apply to cloud computing. The minimization of slack. As most of the processing power is unused most of the time as most people spend their time idle on the computer versus using it.
A Portal to cybperspace
The first attempt for Google to solve this problem was with the Chrome web browser. What is known as controlling the default in industry. Or controlling the attention span another way. Or said another another way, owning a portal to cyberspace. As once Google decided to launch an attack on one of Microsoft’s core business, the Office Suite, they feared retaliation from Internet Explorer. So Google decides to compete Microsoft, the world’s most prestigious technology company at the time. On one of their core products.
Before Google would then challenge the next most prestigious computer company in the world, Apple. Google’s Android took the Microsoft route towards Apple. Offering an operating system both as a service for other foreign manufacturers. Also, offering their own and 10 computer experience with the pixel. This eventually led Google to displace Apple as the world’s largest phone company.
The first principles definition of a social media is shared cyberspace. A means of interpersonal communication through the information medium of the internet.
The marginal unit of attention informational theoretically speaking, the only difference between a movie and TV show is the length, with movies being around an hour and a half around the human automotive, automotive attention cycle, the fundamental cost of a for content creators the cost of encoding, processing and transporting bits of information. This cost has been decreasing through time in relation to an increase in the amount of time people attend to content while contending with an increased number of content. And legacy content has yet to adjust to this new paradigm. YouTube runs less ads per second of content and television.
Blogging as a medium peaked in the early aughts having a recent Renaissance under Substack in the early 2020s. Substack fundamentally solving the problem with blogging. A centralised directory to sort through all blogs. Substack solves monetization, by allowing users to subscribe to creators.
Blogging during the wild wild west days of cyberspace was more successful. As the transition from print to cyber was slow, giving bloggers less competition in addition to In addition, social media became a much more market effective way of self expression. There wasn’t a Metis metastasize, sudo system smash and self expression.
Before the commercialization of the internet proper.A decentralised network of blogs emerged. a model that Twitter subculture would follow. However, the decentralisation of early blogging is what made it such a compelling medium.
Bill Simmons, the most succesful blogger of all time.
Bill Simmons and the rise of ESPN online.
Bill Simmons is the greatest sports media personality of all time for much of his work outside of actually being a sports media personality. In the sense much of real success has come from his work as a sports media executive, using his own work to draw attention to the other people he helped build.
Bill rose to prominence as a sports blogger who caught the eye of ESPN after the ambassador ESPN sells serious award show the ESPYs in the early aughts. Prior to the internet, there was no national sports columnist.
Newspapers fundamentally costing information on the city scale, resulting in sports information being specific to the city in order to appeal to a national audience will use pop culture otherwise known as national culture to bring the to bridge the divide
Bill parlayed his pitch to success in the sports nerd website. Grantland. Grantham launch at the zenith of ESPN was prior it was prior to the iPad and before the shift to mobile. Grantland was ahead of its time in a lot of ways and is directly a function of time and another. Grantland fundamentally illustrates ESPN lethargy and exploiting the burgeoning podcast market. It was this experience in podcasting, which proved to Simmons great success for upon leaving ESPN. He would sell his media company to Spotify for $250 million
industry analysts were sceptical at the time if Bill would be able to replicate the same success he had at ESPN elsewhere, because it was said that one does not leave the mothership. However, social media puts bill and ESPN in the same place in space. They’re both accounts on a website. They that the consumer attention portal has shifted from websites to social media. Much of build success as a media executive is exploring the value of niche content with a deep dive on almost every mundane aspect of pop culture. But most of Granton stuff, staff being a bunch of ivy league nerds talking about Beyonce like it’s Shakespeare
As an industry that cool that Google couldn’t break into social media. Google’s closest thing to Social Media, YouTube. Purchased as Google’s video own video streaming service could not take advantage of network effects in its attempt to compete with
Facebook, Google, really Google race Google Plus, which was very not good. Google have great advantages and is artificial intelligence. Their closest competitor,
Variable Text Machine-A social media
MySpace, the first modern social media is perhaps the greatest example of the shift from academia to media. MySpace, more of a media than technology company, came up with a product a generation early. As is mostly the case with non technical founders. Myspace, provided a clunky user experience due to slow internet connection and poor computers.
The emphasis on MySpace was more on content creation. Whereas Facebook the empahsis was on creators. The audiences were more content to watch creators.
Facebook a technology compagny, by contrast. Was quickly able to scale a minimaliat user experience. Facebook was not a revolutionary product, with Friendster already exploding. However, Facebook was the best social media.
Facebook’s minimalist design superior technology and greater vision culminated in a paradigm shift- the newsfeed. In contrast to visiting your friends profile one at a time. Facebook would algorithmically aglomorated salient information on the Newsfeed. Before Facebook would try to incorporate other features of other popular social media websites.
The concept of a shared cyberspace with the prominence of gaming in early Facebook. These games bolstered by Facebook network effects were eventually out competed behind mobile gaming as as the experience on mobile became superior than that on the desktop and the current shift to cyberspace went to the mobile.
Sharing photos on Facebook, although possible was not emphasised by the site with photos falling on a mobile uploads album, albums becoming needed to post pictures on Facebook versus just posting a singular picture. The shift of the portal to cyberspace from desktop to mobile is the differentiating factor between Gen Y and Gen Z. Facebook on desktop was not outdated, but obsolete.
In fact, Facebook never able never actually shifted to mobile. The nature of the site changed by the smaller screen. no longer was there a redundant sidebar to fill. Therefore mobile ads had to be part of the feed.
Early Facebook was very much a web 1.0 phenomenon. The goal was to bring a network of friends from space onto cyberspace. Before social media would then shift to the web 2.0 paradigm with the goal now to make connections in the website and for users to be creating the content that generates the cash flow.
As Facebook developed, content created by professionals dominated. This point is fundamentally algorithmic one. Facebook chose for this to happen. As this allows them to promote a secondary advertising business to their own content creators. Instagram at some point decided to to emphasise your human network over professionals. It’s a choice.
The Internet reached its apex with social media. Although the movement started out with MySpace, Facebook proved to be the first mass social media. With other the social media sprouting out alongside and eventually overtaking Facebook. These social medias look to fill a specific niche. Unlike Facebook, which is broad in nature.
Up to 2015, Facebook remained the dominant social media. Only to be overtaken by another acquired Facebook product, Instagram. Instagram represents, as a social media, a subset of the features offered by Facebook. But made these limited functionalities easier to navigate. During the 2016 uSA presidential election. Twitter would overtake Facebook in terms of the effect on the geist. As Twitter, proved to be a better means of mass communicating information. Twitter as well as just being another subset of a subset of the features offered by Facebook, only to be overtaken by them.
Web 2.0-Network Effects
Variable Video Machine-Youtube
Variable Picture Machine-Instagram
Instagram, who would later be acquired by Facebook. Chose to have limited functionality that was emphasised-the photograph. People could share photos. While having access to a mobile Photoshop-the filter.
The filter is to the post post modern society what Photoshop was to post modern society. The attention having shifted from Magazines to phone screens. Filters as a concept was so successful that phone manufacturers would provide them as part of the default camera application.
The advanced and mobile camera technology has shifted from hardware to software, during this time. The definition of what constitutes a picture becoming increasingly distant.Given that CGI did nothing but enhance cinema. Filters, just as accepted because photos are already Photoshophed.
The only difference between the post and the post post modern era is the the difficulty of the Edit. Demand curve being downward sloping, the easier it is to edit pictures. The more people will do it. Filters made Instagram as a service more valuable. By making it easier to post, while decreasing the difficulty on content creation. Making uglier pictures artificially more attractive. Therebey increasing the number of media that can be shown socially.
The real effects of this trend will be seen in video editing. as the ability to engage in increasingly fanciful edits will make the sharing of increasingly sophisticated but nonetheless amateur content possible.
A perfect encapsulation is the fact that having no filter at all is something that needs to be delineated as that is the exception (#nofilter). Instagram, literally changed the fabric of reality with food that looks but does not taste good. Vacation locations chosen to post the same picture as everyone else. Every Cafe looking like every other Cafe.
These camera based social media is a function of the portal to cyberspace with people operate under with the iPhones larger screen making it more conducive to the sharing of variable images.The iPhone being the greatest inflection in camera technology since the Polaroid. Snapchat inherited Facebook status as the media of the youth.Not only did Facebook fail to pivot to mobile. they also did not adapt to the features that were emphasised on the new portal to cyberspace.
Instant Photo Machine-Snapchat
Instagram self imposed quality limit allowed other camera based social medias to traffic in the less attractive. Snapchat was less picky, and was therefore able to create to get more content. Attract more people to more places in cyberspace. It was not until Instagram relaxed this constraint that they were proper competitors to Snapchat.
Snapchats biggest innovation was the concept of a story. A story is a picture which will only be visible for a day. The time constraint being the delineating factor between stories and traditional posts. The fleeting nature of it is the attraction. Snapchat did not take off until the introduction of filters and other markers used to edit photos.
Short Variable Video Machine-Vine
Vine another camera based technology was bought by Twitter. Before the launch of video on Instagram, which eventually murdered Vine by introducing video media.
Vine was ahead of its day.It took some time for the geist to to adjust the vine. People did not know what to share at first. Its audience exclusively, exclusively of extroverted youths with excessive amounts of energy. A refelection of this.
Vine was thought to create a new means of communication. While in actuality reintroducing the concept of the flipbook to the 21st century. The meme is the modern day poster.
tic tock the newest social media since Snapchat shows us how the times have changed is tic TOCs is just another vine vine being a short video sharing social media these short videos are just the modern day version of a flipbook.
Facebook operates a lower scale to Google. It was it was the very issue of scale, which forced Facebook out of making smartphones. Facebook would then try to compensate with a reduced version of Google’s Android. Alternatively, Facebook could have partnered with a traditional smartphone manufacturer. Write and OS as a competitor to Android, with a greater emphasis on social media.
But that is exactly Facebook’s problem. It is just a social media that is not contented with being just a social media. It has no portal to cyberspace, putting it behind all of its would be competitors in that respect. This was the reasons for Facebook big push into the homepod market however, privacy concerns made them the least desirable of all the competitors. Although Facebook operates at a lesser scale than computer manufacturers, it does operate at a larger scale, compared to other social medias. We know this because Facebook keeps buying all of this social media to have the ability to attract attention away from Facebook’s ecosystem with the acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram.
Industry analysts who have no idea what they’re talking about. claim that this breaks antitrust laws, the nonsensical nature of antitrust noted previously these are these analysis about technology lack any technical training insight technology. They do not understand that Facebook is a series of data servers, which returns through AI self organise information. So when Facebook purchases an attention product, the attention products given the technology equivalent of meth. Instagram, literally loads faster with Facebook. Since acquiring these brands, Facebook has proceeded to destroy any previous brand loyalty, but from a technological perspective, it makes total sense to merge with Facebook.
Variable Text Machine
Concurrent to the social media explosion, came the cultural phenomenon of the Blackberry. Most people do not see BlackBerry success as derived from networks expect associated with instant messaging.
Despite infinitesimally small costs, carriers charged exorbitant fees for texts and calls. As a result, a slew of services arose to deal with these issues (Skype, AOL Messenger, MSN).
The advantage of the BlackBerry over these other services. Is that Blackberry had a mobile portal, to a still nascent cyberspace. BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) was just the mobile version of AOL Instant Messenger.
Whatsapp was just an instant messenger, which works across devices, allowing it to take up an advantage of the greater network network effects, as it could appeal to not only other smartphones, but it was a point of emphasis of its creators to scale WhatsApp across non smartphone devices. WhatsApp having started the success of WhatsApp having stemmed from the ubiquity WhatsApp having started before the ubiquity of smartphones, Facebook, paid an order of magnitude more for whatsapp than they did Instagram. Despite these purchases occurring  months apart, the rise of the group chat occurred, occurring with Facebook branching out messenger to its own application in 2011 in addition to the rise of Apple’s message iMessage in 2011
For the ability to clip content allows for more content to be created as each individual segment of the video is able to appeal to a specific set of the preferences that may not be appealed by the entire video. For the ability to clip content allows for more content to be created as each individual segment of the video is able to appeal to a specific set of the preferences that may not be appealed by the entire video
Facebook was its prosperity to copy us closer to Chinese based technology companies or practice which is considered a point in the valley an accusation which has been levelled against Facebook since its early earliest days with Mark Zuckerberg is conflict with the Winklevoss twins
As to the question to what extent is Twitter real life?
A naive answer, the extent that people attent to Twitter. Corporate media disproportionately influenced by Twitter, therefore, espouse the views on Twitter onto other informational channels. Although lacking the user base of Facebook or Instagram. Twitter’s effect on culture is superior. 2016 can be though as the year Twitter went mainstream. I got on Twitter before my freshman year of high school in 2011. Prior to the Trump phenomenon, Twitter, I can assure you with fun.
Twitter much like early blogging, witnessed the development of independent clusters of self referencing accounts. I was on NBA Twitter before it was NBA Twitter around the 2013 playoffs. e the development of less benign subcultures from Red Pill manosphere to its equivalent feminine group. to the development of alternative left and writes increasingly straining the political discourse.
Twitter as a social media bolstered by smartphones as now people have more opportunities to micro blog over and people have more time to read microblogs over.
Twitter as a medium was fundamentally altered by the switch from a time based feed to a feature based feed Twitter when thought as an ideological amplifier ideas as something more amplified, leading to greater homogenization across platforms.Even if a time variable is incorporated into the model it still limits the extent to which items go viral or fat tail the nature or the alpha of the fat tail.
As shared cyberspace is increasingly filled with ideological ideological landmines. The group chat remains a relatively safe space for refuse. With future social media is built on the shared media of the self selected private networks. The best suited for the social media would be Facebook, but it remains unclear if they will. But if someone does, they will definitely copy. Perhaps after reading this, they might. But I fundamentally believe that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of the most successful social media of all time, does not understand social media, both from his treatment of his users in the sense that Facebook suffered a series of crippling PR disasters. Instead of allowing users to optionally be monitored with a machine learning algorithm, then allowing their information via an algorithm to decide the mutual Cohen’s of once allowing for better advertising. We already know Google in 2003, with Gmail, receive backlash for this very same thing. Facebook, unperturbed did the same thing on the slide, seemingly hope, hoping no one would notice the fact that everything that comes in their text messages is showing up on their wall. This security, privacy vulnerable vulnerability of the users come into question
Facebook, in the never ending quest for growth look to make Facebook more of a platform for publishers, then a place for interpersonal connection. The original goal is a website as a monetization by publishers much easier than with people, as people are less likely to pay for advertising credit, Facebook looking to out compete the web as a platform for publishing. Shifting ad dollars from Google to Facebook in the process. The issue is that the shift from publishing to the rest made the rest of the social media worse, reducing the number of people and therefore the number of ads that it would reach a Faustian bargain. Additionally, there is a fine calculus between consumer and producer related content where consumers can stop producing content altogether if they feel that it’s not a sufficient quality when publishers are doing it.
On the evolution of video streaming
On the evolution of video streaming, why are people confused that the information technologies of the latter half of the 20th century, the personal computer is out competing the Information Technology of the first half of the 20th century cinema. Television. The Information Technology at the midpoint of the 20th century shows us the evolution of broadcasting visual information. With the medium of television receiving more prestige with time, content was as better content was broadcast by the medium. Television as a genre was fundamentally changed with the advent of DVD allowing shows more in depth story arcs, as audiences are given a means catching up with a boxset prior to this any one episode of Seinfeld without John any contemporary TV, but nobody has minded having missed an episode prior to the rise of binge culture. fundamentally speaking, video streaming is just video content being delivered through fibre optic cables as opposed to satellite or other cables is important to understand. It is just an evolution crowdsource as opposed to network content has dominated the internet.
Surveying the landscape:
As of writing, the leading players in video streaming are Youtube, Netflix, Amazon, and because this is not 2005, Apple is lagging behind in the media space.
Although these outlets are different, they fall under the same general umbrella. However, the video streaming market could be further subdivided into two camps- platforms and services.
Platforms vs services:
Websites, like Youtube, are platforms and others like Netflix, are services.
Netflix, Disney, and HBO are services, in the sense that you provide them with money, and they will provide you with pre-selected content. Content that they decide is worthy of your attention.
On the other side of the spectrum we have platforms. A platform, in the general sense, (roughly) is when the total of all added value of the users of that platform surpasses the value add of the platform itself. Something like Microsoft is considered a platform. Where the total that humanity was able to achieve with Windows XP from electronic oil drilling, to aeroplanes to the pure distribution of knowledge is greater than the value of the Windows operating system itself.
Youtube is a platform, as instead of pre-selecting content, they aggregate their content from the crowd. Youtube gives the average person the ability to broadcast themselves via broadband. And outside of their terms and conditions, Youtube does not curate the content.
Before Youtube, the closest thing you would be able to get to this would be broadcasting your own radio show. And let’s face it, you were definitely a weirdo if you were broadcasting your voice via radio waves.
This means that one company (Netflix) has to pay billions to get a single click while the other (Youtube) just needs to wait for a viral cat video. And although per piece of content whatever Netflix produces is probably better than YouTube (even the Adam Sandler movies). Youtube has the ultimate advantage.
As Napoleon said:
Quantity has a quality all its own.
It is worth remembering that the internet remains undefeated. You cannot out-create it no matter your budget. People are migrating to the internet not only because of the change from satellite to bandwidth. But also the content on the internet is not overproduced drivel. As on TV, there are 9 producers who will ruin anything to justify their existence. Additionally, the idea of a platform absent of gatekeepers is not specific to Youtube. But is one of the underlying business models of the internet.
At this point, you must be thinking Netflix provides different video content than Youtube. So you could say that there will always be a demand for a product like Netflix.
But then I would say, yes there will always be a demand for high budget content. But what makes you think high budget content won’t be found in the same space as aggregated crowdsource content in the next 5 to 10 years?
This is because tech firms are trying to attract as much as your attention as possible. Because their currency of interest is no longer the US dollar but your attention span as well. Said another way, the attention economy underpins all other economies.
This more intertwined competition in tech allows for a more of an isomorphism to occur in the field. Isomorphism in a business sense is (roughly) the phenomena where companies which compete with each other become more like each other.
This is taken to the nth level in tech. Where you have a video game company (Fortnite), competing with a media company (Netflix), competing with an online store (Amazon), who is then competing with a search engine (Google).
As everyone is competing for the same output, each individual internet firm is competing with each other firm through some sort of fractal competition structure. Fractal in the sense that companies are competing at different scales/products. And is, in turn, becoming more like their competitor in terms of product offerings (and a variety of other factors).
That is why everyone, their mother and even Facebook (given their privacy history) are competing in the smart speaker market (still funny.) Because if you control the home, you control most of the attention of said home.
So although Google, Amazon, Twitter want to do different things with your attention, they all want it equally and desperately.
How will the future of video streaming look?
In the future, you are going to get a bifurcation in the types of video streaming outlets. Some services will survive and keep producing the kind of content they’ve always been producing (think HBO). And another group of platforms which combine both aggregated content and pre-selected content in the same space.
In this model, the aggregated content would be free, and you would need to pay a subscription fee for the dramatic content.
Formally, the best way to think about this would be a two-part tariff in economics where you are still getting the benefits of the network effect by having people use your website for free. But you are also monetizing those who would be interested in paying to watch your dramatic content. So, in essence, you are able to monetize two different subscriber bases.
This has the added benefit of in-housing your advertisement. Where instead of paying other people to advertise the next season of Westworld (like is traditionally done). You can just run ads on the people who use your platform for free. This has the effect of virtually integrating your advertising cost.
Who is in the best position to win the streaming wars? Short answer- Amazon:
Amazon has the best chance of winning the streaming wars because it already has a video streaming service (Amazon Video), a live streaming service (Twitch) that are still currently separate. They now only need to come up with a real rival to Youtube (no offence Vimeo) before they have a slice of all the streaming pie. I would even go so far as to argue that Amazon has some of the best types of content on the internet.
It’s also a great business move because Amazon vertically integrates their costs through AWS. But also manage a horizontal integration as they are taking up more of the attention pie, from their main rival no less.
Amazon’s potential advantage over Google:
I think it is fair to say at this point, Amazon and Google are playing by different rules. Amazon, unlike Google, doesn’t have to generate profits for a quarterly earnings call. The principal metric is being judged on is its rate of growth.
If you want to map this formally, Amazon in a game theory sense is playing an infinite game while Google is playing a finite game. Because of this, Amazon is able to think in a longer time frame, this vision for the future, allows them to focus on the long term while their competitors are increasingly obsessed with their next quota.
So how does this advantage translate into a rival against Youtube?
Like I mentioned previously, for now, Youtube is predominantly a crowdsourced platform.
So to attract the consumers, you must first focus on the producers.
Content creators are fickle. Especially nowadays, due to the lack of competition, they are severly underpriced by the market.
Amazon could give its platform a structural edge by increasing its advertisement share (ad-share) with content creators. This is the start of a dynamic process. The more you pay the independent content creators on your platform, the higher the quality of content they produce.
Ben Thompson (who is very good) makes a good point of explaining that the Apple App store is stifled because Apple insists on taxing developers. Not allowing them to spend their additional profits back into actually making, you know, apps. This feedback loop would probably result in them earning more in the end, but alas, Tim Cook has quarterly earnings to prepare for.
As a side note, as we see Apple slowly drift away from the iPhone, expect some of this sort of rent-seeking behaviour to creep up more and more as Apple tries to keep up their share price.
What type of data analysis could Amazon use:
Amazon could use Network Analysis to find out who the main drivers of flows are from Youtube (or whatever proxy service they want to use). And give them an exclusivity deal. The old media equivalent would be what Howard Stern did for Sirius XM Radio As he is the one who brought most of the attention that they could later build on.
As of right now, Youtube has made the bet that they bring viewers to content creators and not the other way around anymore. They are wrong. The internet (and video streaming by extension) is highly Pareto. Gobble up as many Jake Paul’s as you can (while you still can).
And if you want to maximize profits, just take a page out of Moneyball. Go after the influencers with the highest ROIs based on whatever criteria you are trying to attract.
Why Netflix was never going to win the streaming wars:
The narrative at least early on was that Netflix (by construction) was going to run content on the internet. Or at the very least be the number one player in the field. Maybe not everyone thought that. But that was the narrative.
In their grand vision, Netflix became a gatekeeper for content on the internet. Meaning that they gave you money, and you gave them the new opium of the masses (TV). But the reason why that was never going to work is that Netflix cannot have a monopoly on good ideas. They cannot just out-content everyone forever. So all it took for someone to compete or even beat them was just better content available on the internet as well.
This means that the only advantage Netflix ever had was the technology gap between them and old media. Said formally, Netflix had a first-mover advantage. Because they were on the internet first they did not have to compete with anyone, so we’re able to establish a subscriber base.
But the problem with the first-mover advantage is that (like everything else) it fades away. The issue with always was/is for Netflix to beat Disney they need to become Disney. While to beat Netflix, all Disney has to do is register an IP and take out some server space.
Netflix does have one advantage of traditional gatekeepers for now. Instead of overproducing everything, they give people a lot of money and don’t get too involved. Which definitely gives Netflix a competitive advantage.
Machine learning and video streaming:
There used to be a lot written about how omnipotent Netlfix’s algorithm is. But it turns out that algo could be improved upon.
In order to do machine learning, you need to be able to sort data into categories to then learn from it. Because an unsupervised machine learning algorithm which is able to group and sort tv and film just by watching it is still very far off. Because of that we need to rely on humans to fit these movies into different categories by manually watching them.
Then based on the different categories customers are put into different taste profiles. These taste profiles then instruct what type of content Netflix recommends to you.
Data and revealed preferences:
Netflix knows the type of content that their consumers want to see but can’t because it is not on Netflix. This is called an intervention (more on that later).
So unlike the method of association that Netflix currently uses. Which recommends what people want to see based what is already there. The method of intervention allows Netflix to know what you want to watch, so it could either acquire the rights to it (where their margins are worse). Or could make things right with the universe by rebooting the Matrix franchise. But from the second movie because that is when things when downhill. And with Keanu reeves playing young Keanu Reeves because he still looks the same.
With this data, Netflix can use these searches to figure out what people want, and then produce their own content to match their need. This way, Netflix would always be on the pulse of its customers. Making their offering more complete than that of their peers.
The reason why the intervention is superior to the association is due to the fundamental limitation to data itself and beyond the current scope of this article. Where, in reality, data is fundamentally limited to what questions it can and can’t answer. The current understanding seems to be that through statistical analysis, we are able to tease out the answers to our questions. But the problem has always has been that data can only tells you what happened in the past, nothing else.
Current machine learning algorithms run on association. Which is squarely in the bottom rank on the ladder of causality. So in the case of Netflix, they are looking at what types of shows you watched and trying to find a good enough association from another show to recommend it for you.
- Association (seeing): Finding variables which are related. Example: Given you already watched Friends, what TV have people in your taste profile watched most afterwards.
- Intervention (doing): Allowing the customer to reveal their preference to you by searching. Example: Given you wanted to watch the Matrix, here are what movies it is in a similar category to.
However, the data you collect in the Matrix example falls under the second rung on the ladder of causation. Meaning that your customers are revealing their preferences to you directly.
So you do not have use data to get an answer. As the first rung data will still be worse in predicting the preference of your customers. When compared to allowing them to reveal their preferences to you.
The closest thing to this in traditional industry would be focus groups. But that isn’t even doing this data suggest. Because unlike focus groups, Netflix gets to observe the hedonistic consumer in his natural habitat.
An election in cyberspace
In 2015, is the birth of the post postmodern age and the effect of social media can be seen by the influences they had on the elections of that time. with all of the candidates who had a big presence on social media, Trump 230 and the Brexit campaign. all using the newest techniques to appeal to voters.
While they, their traditional adversaries were more likely to run a post modern election campaign, making them unable to compete in this new medium of political engineering as the Russian call it.
Facebook data provided Cambridge Analytica with data for the psychometric models. These models will then guide machine learning algorithms in order to create and distribute personal contact to individual users.
Cambridge analytical represents the automation of political engineering. The term political engineering pioneered by the Russians but applies anywhere in the world usually on the determine public relations. This venture is not possible without the lax data policy of Facebook and other data centres represents quantum fundamentally the incorporation of the data is developing advertising to the political sphere.
Since the presence of machine learning in the sense previously, ads were more generic as they were meant to appeal to more people. However, with everyone’s newsfeed being a unique display, they adverse retirements, either commercial or political or more bespoke. The bespoke pneus of.
these ads in the case of Cambridge Analytica is bolstered by the use of psychometrics determined to personality personality than used to educate machine learning algorithms. psychometrics fundamentally derived from clustering human behaviour by either giving a list of adjectives. To self select from or by clustering answers on a questionnaire human behaviour can be classified amongst five dimension, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, industriousness and openness. These five dimensions are meant to be determined so personality ad advertisements greater in personality and more problems in a user’s attention space.
The data partially government is gathered thanks to Facebook’s last data policy represents brackets of the data being used by Cambridge Analytica.
Facebook was also used as an information dissemination mechanism to address voters
Another term for at risk voters being the term idiot. If one is looking for direct evidence of the 2016 election, everyone lost their absolute mind. Facebook with its I voted button is known empirically to increase voter turnout and experiment. We know this because we an experiment was one where a randomised control group received the button while a random while another group did not. And this was used as an example of how Facebook was biassing an election, not understanding that any good study randomly selects its users. The only experiment during the experiment did was increase voter turnout, not voter registration. All it was wasn’t was getting more people to express their preference.
Much was made about the level of fake news in the platform. Facebook points the total value of fake fake posting being low. The question is not about total proportion, but a proportion to a specific user. The question then becomes, what percentage of you what’s a fake news makes up an individual news feed of a user? The question should be the question of fake news should be a user experience while not a political scapegoating. To what extent does fake news deter from the Facebook experience? And that is to the extent that it should be discontinued from the website, not a political witch hunt.
A Post Modern War
Afghanistan. The American withdrawal from Afghanistan is reminiscent of the Roman retreat from Britain less than 100 years before the fall of the empire itself. The original conquest of Anglo stand by Caesar closer to a comparison towards the moon landing, as there wasn’t much to conquer at all really anger Stan was so remote location that the ability to rule was taken as a triumph of Roman Roman technological ingenuity. So when the Romans less than that it was because they were not able to maintain the apex of empire
For many an empire has been lost in the mountains and cave of Afghanistan. The USA even credits Afghanistan with ending the USSR. Fret not because the Americans have precise weapons not understanding that you cannot precisely guide and miss out into a cave, the US the USA, how does a state respond to the aggression of a non state actor? Bush blame the state that they were housed in? The question then becomes how does one deal with the situation? Does one invade Mexico to deal with the cartels? And if you do succeed in neutralising the criminal syndicate you engage in state building in order to ensure that the cartels never return
It can be argued that after the 911 terror attacks, Americans wanted war for what amounted to be the greatest attack on the country United States since the War of Independence. The conflict with al Qaeda emblematic of the shift of scale of warfare from mass engagement between countries to countries trying to use mass armies to fight non state actors. As a result of the decreasing cost of destruction, warfare is now possible by non government institution. Warfare is officially in the postmodern age. A more sensible response would have been the use of special forces and regular and elite Lego regular forces units on an attack on al Qaeda, not a full scale invasion followed by cyclins attempts at State Building, a state that has never been achieved in the history of the Afghani people.
Private Military Contractors-An Army With No Nation
The Winder Solider:
This is the best movie Marvel ever made.
And will ever make.
Because the thing about Marvel is that they make movies.
Mass outputs begets mass standardization.
The first Avengers movie was shot in colour, not the dripless drab that we call digital.
Directed by the directors of Marvel’s supposed climax (but their biggest disapointment)-Infinity wars.
Perhaps this is to be expected as the Russo brothers made their bones on community. Community a niche TV sitcom, is quite the shift of scale from the biggest movie of the year.
However, the reason why this movie is so good has little to do with the Russo Brothers something to do with Scarlett Johansson and most to do with Chris Evans’ Silver Age Superman impersonation.
A lot of time (and steroids) have passed between Chris Evans role as Johnny Storm in the Fantastic Four. In fact you cannot write more different characters. Chris Evans’ acting chops sort of get lost in the spandex.
He’s such a good actor in fact is almost the only one not doing a Robert Downey Jr (RDJ) impersonation.
Marvel’s original Iron Man was the best and worst thing to happen to the studio.
Not everyone is RDJ.
Let RDJ be RDJ.
So far the best RDJ impersanation came from (also Sherlock Holmes) Benedict Cumberbatch. So much so, I basically make the argument they are the same person in my Doctor Strange review below.
The worst impersonation comes from the Hulk.
He is the Hulk, not Robert Downey Jr.
Marvel has characters in name only. There’s a complete lack of Personality saved for one Steve Rogers.
I also love how at this point Marvel are fully aware of the fact that they have no idea how to make compelling villains. So they just said screw it, and made a movie with barely a bad guy (with a very complicated plan) in order to have enough screen time for the rest of the squad.
In any estimation Civil War has the greatest fight scenes in comic movie history by far and some of the most iconic moments we’re ever going to see in the genre that I could write 1000 more words on but because I can’t do that I am going to limit it to these two scenes that give me chills everytime I see them: