Conversation

Replying to
If your product is based on appealing to “better” natures of people along a dimension (say civility, intelligence) you’ll attract virtue signaling clueless types along that dimension, adversely select for hypocrites along that dimension, or outright bad actors good at faking it.
2
33
Nobody ever went bankrupt underestimating the [insert virtue here ____] of the masses. The job of good tech is not to make people good, but to use technical ingenuity to make average people act as though they are good, even if for the “wrong” reasons by your ethics
1
13
Hmm. Yet more fodder for #mediocrity here. I’m definitely the most mediocre champion of mediocrity, unlike that guy who ironically wrote a reportedly excellent book about it.
1
9
Aside, as you might guess, I vastly prefer inhabiting environments designed with average humans, rather than virtuous ones, in mind. Environments of exaltation: temples, churches, better-twitter type concepts, etc leave me cold. They’re religious spaces with sacred architecture.
4
17
Replying to
I'd specify that "worse is better" with spectator sport short term / fleeting social dynamics (which is the experience for most of twitter) and fails terribly for intimate social dynamics.
1
Replying to
I was just re-reading your essay on escaped realities, and twitter definitely seems like a crashed reality
1
1