When attention is very scarce, and you have some discretionary ability to boost signals, any act of public curiosity becomes a political act.
Whatever the content of your opinion on X, simply being publicly curious about X (minimum=liking a tweet) sends a message.
Conversation
I suspect one reason drew fire for broaching sex redistribution is simply because as a signal booster he diverted scarce public attention to that topic.
The actual opinion matters less than the act of putting that topic in the public short-term magic 7±2 meme buffer
3
2
27
Replying to
Unlike private curiosity, public curiosity of thought leaders deploys more than their own attention. It’s a public attention allocation decision. When you tweet or RT something, you’re deploying num_followers*clickbaitness*avg_time attention,
Like national park hygiene norms.
2
1
25
In an attention scarcity (or information overload) environment people are desperate for meta-signals on what to pay attention to.
Hell, there’s even a account that RTs things likes. That’s how starved the information economy is for quality meta-signals.
2
3
26
The “fiat news” concept from is useful here. It’s a billion channel universe and you have some ability to mint fiat news whether you are aware of it or not, so be mindful what you boost.
1
3
17
I have always tended to self-censor public curiosity to things I think will harmoniously interest others in that space. This is from before I had any sort of platform.
I suspect this is a basic personality trait. I just don’t like making a scene. I take all conflict offline.
17
Replying to
I've been thinking about this and the idea of specialization in activism. It seems obviously okay and practically necessary to specialize your activism on one topic/group of people, but at the same time it seems obviously not okay
1

