Embodied Understandings, Journalism, and Things You Claim To Dislike
If you say you dislike something, you should act like you actually dislike it.
I’d like to do a short follow-up on my piece regarding embodied vs verbal understandings that I applied to Elon previously.
A quick rehash of this concept:
A verbal understanding is providing an answer that would let you pass a test. You demonstrate with words you correctly understand something.
An embodied understanding is when your actions demonstrate you understand it. The way you navigate the world shows a physical, action-oriented, internalized recognition of information.
Several weeks ago, the guy who came up with the e/acc movement (accelerationism for AI development) who goes by @BasedBeffJezos on Twitter was doxxed by the people of exceptional merit and integrity who do journalism.
I want you to notice the following:
I’m claiming to dislike this
I am not sharing the link to it
I did not ever click the link to it
This is a consistent verbal AND embodied understanding. I am not supporting the thing I dislike because I’m not promoting its consumption or propagation. Every time you click or share a link to any publication, you are helping them get paid. That is how online journalism works, with clicks and shares.
The outcry on Twitter against this was rightfully vicious, and the actions were uniformly this:
> "Doxxing is bad and journalists are wrong/immoral for it" (correct verbal understanding)
> *clicks article and shares it with everyone you know* (zero embodied understanding)
1 click = 1 fan of the journalism, 1 share = 1 gigafan of the journalism
This is the action of someone who thinks the behavior is good, while saying they think it's bad. The action being taken is directly reinforcing and rewarding the behavior. Harumph!
What a wildly successful night of clicks, shares, and ad dollars for that publication. You know what their editorial meeting discussed after that? “Well shit that was crazy popular, it got more views than anything we’ve done in months. Who else should we doxx next?” This behavior will happen again. It will happen again because the actions of the collective are saying "please do it again, we liked it".
"Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome"
I'm basically screaming into the void against the human condition, because people actually love scandalous events while decrying them loudly. The journos are motivated to produce soap-opera-tier drama because it will be voraciously consumed, even by those who lambast it. It’s just the way it be.
Almost everyone is passive about this. I know they’re not actively thinking the way I am here when they click/share. But I can assure you even if my lecture was read by all those detractors, 85% or so would still click. People always vote with their feet….
I HAVE A SOLUTION!
I know you’re still going to click even if you hate it, but how about this: create an archived version of the piece, THEN read it and share if you must!
Go to the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) and archive the article first. The steps to do so are here. Do not click the link, all you need to do is copy the URL and paste it in. It takes about 4 seconds, just input the URL and click save. Now you can read the article and share it with your based friends and not actually be condoning the thing you do not condone!
Seriously imagine if this caught on, you could imperil the business model of those who weaponize and monetize outrage and scandal….
Follow @BackTheBunny