Forget 'Breaking Up' Internet Companies, Senator Josh Hawley Says They Should All Die Because They're Too Popular

from the say-what-now? dept

We've had our issues with politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren whose plans to "break up" big internet companies don't seem to make much sense, but it appears that Senator Josh Hawley has decided to take things to another level of insanity altogether. In an op-ed for USA Today, Hawley makes the argument that Facebook, Instagram and Twitter should all die. And while there are plenty of people who appear to support a dead Facebook in response to that company's long history of sketchy practices, that's not really the reason Hawley wants them dead.

He wants them dead because they're too popular. Hawley cherry picks some evidence to suggest that using social media is bad for our health.

And in order to guarantee an audience big enough to make their ads profitable, big tech has developed a business model designed to do one thing above all: addict.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram — they devote massive amounts of money and the best years of some of the nation’s brightest minds to developing new schemes to hijack their users’ neural circuitry. That’s because social media only works — to make money, anyway — if it consumes users’ time and attention, day after day. It needs to replace the various activities we enjoyed and did perfectly well before social media existed.

This hearkens back to nearly every other overblown, ridiculous moral panic of yesteryear. Television, radio, video games, novels, comic books, dungeons and dragons, pinball, rock and roll. They've all received this nutty treatment. Even chess.

"A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages. Why should we regret this? It may be asked. We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body. Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, but persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises--not this sort of mental gladiatorship."

Or, remember the report from 1909 by the "NY Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children"

This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood ... Depraved adults with candies and pennies beguile children with the inevitable result. The Society has prosecuted many for leading girls astray through these picture shows, but GOD alone knows how many are leading dissolute lives begun at the 'moving pictures.'

Hawley's piece is one and the same with those previous moral panics. It's kind of amusing for a guy who claims to be a "free market, less government intervention" conservative to now stand up and argue for literally shutting down private enterprises because they're popular, but politics and hypocrisy go hand in hand.

Of course, to make his point, Hawley wants to tie popular social media to another moral panic: "drugs!"

Let’s be clear. This is a digital drug. And the addiction is the point. Addiction is what Mark Zuckerberg is selling.

Like other drugs, this one hurts its users. Attention spans dull. Tempers quicken. Relationships fray.

And those are the benign effects. The Journal of Pediatrics recently noted a surge in attempted suicide: more than double the attempts over the last decade for those under 19, with a tripling among girls and young women 10 to 24. The study’s authors can’t prove social media is to blame, but they strongly suspect it plays a critical role. Congress has a duty to investigate that potential link further.

Meanwhile, as we noted just earlier this week, another comprehensive study did not find any evidence to support the idea that social media is driving depression. But who needs facts when you have a moral panic to sell.

Filed Under: addiction, drugs, health crisis, josh hawley, moral panic, popularity, social media
Companies: facebook, instagram, twitter

DailyDirt: Seemingly Innocent Things...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Sometimes it's pretty easy to track down the origin of how a meme gets popular. If you've ever seen gifs with the caption "Do Not Want" -- you might not have realized where that phrase came from (or just assumed it was just the typical bad grammar of the internetz), but it actually comes from a bootleg version of Star Wars Episode III with comically bad "Engrish" subtitles -- specifically the scene where Anakin Skywalker is first revived as Darth Vader and screams "Nooooo" which was hilariously translated from English to Chinese and back to English as "Do Not Want." That aside, some products have become unusually popular in unexpected demographic groups without clear explanations. Here are just a few things that have crossed cultures.

• The Casio F-91W watch was introduced in 1991, and it's a remarkably reliable inexpensive digital watch -- that's also been used as a bomb timer by terrorists. There's nothing inherently sinister about the F-91W, but maybe you shouldn't wear one if you want to minimize your time at a TSA checkpoint. [url]
• ISIS appears to be brand loyal when it drives around -- almost exclusively in Toyota trucks. Toyota doesn't know how its vehicles get into the hands of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Syrian rebels, or fighters in Chad/Libya's "Toyota War," but these trucks have a reputation of being indestructible which might be one of the reasons why Toyota's trucks are so popular. [url]
• The kaffiyeh was a brief fashion fad in the US that seemed to supplant Che Guevara T-shirts. It's just a scarf usually worn in Middle Eastern countries, but it also became popular among hipsters and some kids in Tokyo. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: casio f-91w, fad, fashion, gadgets, isis, kaffiyeh, popularity, terrorists, toyota war
Companies: casio, toyota

Shockingly, Kickstarter Doesn't Work For Every Movie (Psst: Neither Does The Old System)

from the pointless-articles dept

Internet contrarian Evgeny Morozov has built something of a career out of being the online curmudgeon du jour when it comes to being skeptical about those who see benefits and opportunity on the internet today. So it comes as little surprise that he's now turned his "hype deflater ray" on Kickstarter, in an article for Slate that tries to bash Kickstarter for not funding every possible movie. I'm not joking. That's about the extent of the critique. He cites a study that finds that certain types of movies do well on Kickstarter (and other similar platforms), while others don't. Uh. Yeah.

...this revolution has a few mitigating circumstances. First, Kickstarter might produce many new documentaries, but the odds are that those documentaries will be of a very particular kind (this critique also applies to other sites in this field like indiegogo.com, sponsume.com, crowdfunder.co.uk, pledgie.com). They are likely to be campaign and issue-driven films in the tradition of Super Size Me or An Inconvenient Truth. Their directors seek social change and tap into an online public that shares the documentary's activist agenda. A documentary exploring the causes of World War I probably stands to receive less—if any—online funding than a documentary exploring the causes of climate change.

I see. And does the "old" system of Hollywood regularly make documentaries exploring the causes of World War I? I'm really not sure I understand how this is a criticism at all. Unless a platform can fund any and all types of movies, it's not really that big of a deal? Under those conditions, nothing is particularly good. Basically, what this paragraph seems to argue is that, "gee, Kickstarter is good at funding projects that lots of people want to see, but not so good at funding projects that people aren't as interested in." I'm not sure that's a critique. It seems to be the purpose of the site itself.

Second, some films require significant startup costs (think drama-documentaries or history movies) or involve considerable legal risks that may be hard to price and account for. Say you are making a film that includes an undercover investigation of the oil industry. When you have the BBC's lawyers backing you up, you'll probably take many more risks than when you are relying on crowdfunding. But if Kickstarter is your platform of choice, you'll probably forgo venturing into the thorny legal issues altogether.

I'm curious to know if there's any actual evidence to support this argument. One could just as easily claim that when your project has the backing of a big corporation with liability-averse lawyers, you're a lot less likely to be allowed to take risks, than when you rely on crowdfunding. I don't know which is true (though having spent too much time around movie industry lawyers, I'm pretty sure my statement is a hell of a lot more accurate than Morozov's), but where is the actual data to support this bizarre claim?

There are further complaints that seem equally silly. For example, Morozov points out that someone raised money on Kickstarter to help get his film on physical screens in movie theaters -- and that's somehow proof that Kickstarter isn't that special, since the "old" way of showing a movie is still involved. I'm at a loss as to how any of this is mutually exclusive. There is nothing inherent to Kickstarter that says if you use it, you can only do things online. What's wrong with using it to show a film in theaters?

All in all, this seems a lot like Morozov set up what he thinks Kickstarter should be about -- and then knocked that down. In the logical fallacy world, that's known as a strawman.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, documentaries, movies, popularity
Companies: kickstarter

Modding Video Games Is Good For The Original Game Creators And Future Game Developers

from the breating-new-life dept

Earlier this year we talked about how a video game mod, DayZ, breathed new life into a 2 year old game, ARMA 2. This game was not a critical success by any means at release, but because the developer welcomed and made possible the ability for others to mod the game, it recently became one of Steam's best sellers thanks to the popularity of the DayZ mod. Reflecting on this success, the creators of the mod, Matt Lightfoot and Dean Hall, spoke about what creating the mod means for the original game developer and other potential developers.

When asked how ARMA 2 developer Bohemian Interactive felt about the mod, Dean had this to say:

They’re very happy. The sales have been huge, just massive. By our calculations based on player IDs, you’re looking at 300,000 in sales, which is a very significant chunk of total ArmA 2’s sales. So they’re obviously very happy about that and it’s a validation for their strategy and focus with modding.

By embracing the mod culture in video games, the original creators were able to reach out to more gamers and make more money. This is a very powerful tool that game creators can take advantage of. Yet some developers seem to not want it, at all. Very strange. Perhaps as more developers look at successes such as this one, they will learn to be a bit more accommodating to fans.

But what is in it for the modder? Most mods are released for free and so there is little financial incentive to create them. Dean also has something to say on that front:

Yes, I think modding is really good because you go along someone else’s footsteps and you can learn a lot about how someone else has done something. It’s kind of like reverse engineering things. You figure out what they’ve done, how their data structure works, how their engine works and all these other things.

I think it is a really good place to start because you’re using someone else’s framework. If you want to cut your teeth straight in there with C++ I think that’s a lot to chew off and you can end up not getting exposure to all those issues that if you knew them would make a lot more sense when building your engine from scratch or using someone’s toolkit engine from scratch.

As a developer myself, this is something I can certainly attest to. You can learn far more by following and altering existing code than you can by trying to create something on your own. As you become more comfortable with inner workings of the programming languages or other tools you are using, you gain more confidence in your ability to create something from scratch. What better way to promote progress than to provide new developers the ability to learn from your work?

It is really great to see more discussion happening in the games industry about modding—and especially its potential to launch the careers of new developers. We have seen many mods such as Defense of the Ancients, a Warcraft 3 mod, spawn very successful stand alone games, which is a goal that Dean and Matt hope to reach as a result of this very successful mod.

Filed Under: arma 2, dayz, dean hall, matt lightfoot, mods, popularity, video games

Wait, I Thought Piracy Had Killed Any Chance Of Zombieland 2?

from the perhaps-not.. dept

Last month, we wrote about Zombieland director Rhett Reese, complaining on Twitter that the fact that his movie was a top unauthorized download would make it that much more unlikely that there would ever be a sequel. Others picked up that claim and ran with it, as if this was proof that piracy was harming the movie business. The whole thing seemed curious to us, since the movie has been quite successful at the box office, and has made a ton of money. Given that, who cares how much it's pirated. If it can make a bunch of money, of course it's ripe for a sequel.

And, guess what? Despite all the doom and gloom about how Sony would never make a sequel, Variety is reporting (you guessed it!) that Sony is about to ink a sequel for Zombieland, which will be done in 3D. Shocking. Even though the movie was pirated so much, the studio still wants to make a sequel? Could it be that there really are some people who recognize that how much a movie is pirated doesn't really matter if the movie can still make a ton of cash?

Filed Under: bittorrent, downloading, movies, popularity, rhett reese, sequels, zombieland
Companies: sony pictures

Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity

from the treat-your-fans-right dept

Charles Vestal alerts us to the news that Zombieland writer/director Rhett Reese has apparently be using Twitter to shame people who were mentioning that they were watching unauthorized copies of Zombieland at home, declaring to each one: "You realize we do what we do for money, right? Same as you." This comes soon after we highlighted some directors and moviemakers have found success by embracing those who were downloading their movie, recognizing that it was leading to more sales.

And, in fact, at least some of the people that Reese called out complained that they had actually seen the film multiple times in the theater and planning to buy the official DVD once it came out as well. In other words, the reason the movie is downloaded so much is because people like it, and yes, they still are supporting the moviemakers.

So, what made Reese lash out at these fans? You guessed it. He claimed he had just watched the 60 Minutes episode on movie piracy -- the one that we debunked for being factually incorrect, and it resulted in him getting angry at these fans, without thinking through the fact that the download might not be a substitute. But, even after the fans told him they had seen the film multiple times in the theaters, he's complaining that this decreases the chances of a sequel getting made. Given the massive popularity of the film -- both in the theater and online -- that seems highly unlikely. As we've seen before, the popularity of a movie in unauthorized downloads closely correlates with its box office take in many instances. It's rarely a sign of "lost revenue," and quite often a good indicator of actual revenue. In fact, the details show that Zombieland has done amazingly well, already earning back much more than it cost. Reese has a strong and loyal fanbase who want to support him and a very successful movie on his hands. Rather than attacking them, he should look for ways to embrace them and give them more real reasons to buy.

Filed Under: bittorrent, downloading, movies, popularity, rhett reese, zombieland

Early Warning Signs: iPhone Apps Might Not Be As Popular As Believed

from the people-don't-use-them dept

While the iPhone App Store is being used by some as an example of people willing to pay for software, people might want to wait before declaring the store a complete success. New research is coming out suggesting that many apps -- both paid and unpaid -- don't get much usage after they're purchased. The further out you go, the fewer and fewer apps people use. While this may mean that Apple and some lucky developers are making money from users who spend on apps they don't use, this should actually be an early warning that the App Store and the various apps in there aren't really delivering the value that users are expecting. That doesn't bode well for the long-term sustainability of the system. If people feel they're spending money on apps that don't have much value, they're going to be a lot less likely to come back later.

Filed Under: apps, iphone, popularity

US Immigration Office Unable To Understand Internet Popularity

from the wait,-so-you-became-popular-where? dept

In the last few years, we've heard numerous stories of musicians rocketing to stardom, thanks to the internet. In fact, some bands really are coming out of nowhere, with tons of internet support worldwide, even if the band has only been together a short while. Apparently, that's a huge problem for foreign bands looking to tour the US, as the type of visa that US immigration grants to touring musicians requires that those musicians can show that they are "internationally recognized" for a "sustained and substantial" period of time. Unfortunately for internet superstar musicians, US immigration doesn't seem to recognize internet popularity as being "internationally recognized" and the quick rise to popularity hurts on the "sustained and substantial" period of time analysis. The folks in immigration respond that they will consider internet popularity, but since they have no idea if the popularity is real or manufactured, the band needs to prove that the sites that talk about the musicians are popular themselves, first. Even if that's the case, it seems that a few well known UK acts are having an awful lot of trouble getting to the US. Perhaps they should simply show the ticket sales from sold out clubs in the US waiting for them (the article notes that clubs have had to cancel sold-out shows after the musicians were unable to make it to the US). Either way, it's yet another example of how the internet is making old processes obsolete.

Filed Under: immigration, internet, musicians, popularity, uk