How Children's Content On The Internet Is Indicative Of a Larger Problem With The Internet

[Bacon McShig]

That's why I'm saying, the "durrrr algorithm youtubes are scary!" is a dumb argument, and totally got lost in the weeds of what the dude was trying to say. I disagree with Cow's summation that this is the dark age of entertainment, BUT I do believe that these content mills (who manufacture memes, videos, etc.) should be investigated. I don't even necessarily mean prosecuted to the full extent of the jam, I'm just curious who these content creators are, how much they make, who they work for, etc. I think we're at a far bleaker part of journalism's history - when some really simple, fascinating stuff like this gets watered down to "durrrr cartoons were cooler when I was a kid." Sooooo not a worthwhile argument.

Yeah, it's a really reductive argument. As crass as cartoons and commercials may be or may have been, they operate under a creative foundation, no matter how commercialistic their underpinnings. There are teams that are tasked with inventing, designing, and marketing a product or license, and they put forth an honest effort to make it stand out and be compelling. The cartoons tried to craft some serviceable stories and instill some worthwhile morals inbetween all the toys they were hawking. The things that come out of the process are unique, if not terribly original, and they live or die by their ability to compete in the marketplace and actually get people to watch the shows and buy the damn thing(s) over their competition.

Stuff like Doc posted has no such risk/reward dynamic. Some people identify trending keywords, rent some cheap costumes based on other peoples' IP and prance around a bit. It's aggressively exploitative, nuclear-grade creative bankruptcy. There's not the faintest pretense of original thought or trying to make anything of any value whatsoever in the process. The nature of internet monetization makes the whole 'being compelling' part of the process entirely optional; A kid can click through because "hey this has Batman and I like Batman" and then click away three seconds in because they're bored or distracted by the next thing that has Batman, and that still registers as them 'supporting' the 'product.' The people that just vomited out a mercenary salad of keywords that triggered the bare minimum Pavlovian response get their pockets lined for the 'engagement' of a button press. Hell, probably not even that in most cases, considering that videos just autoplay one after another if left idle.

[Fe 26]

the toy reduco argument for every cartoon that came out of the 80s gets tiresome. Yes, apparently John Kricfalusi died a little on the inside everyday knowing that his work had anything to do with toys before going on to make his own way, and then ruin that. BUT, I have trouble believing that no one enjoyed what they were doing. You'll never convince me that no one working on the first season of the real ghostbusters didn't enjoy it. Or heman. Or Transformers. Or GI Joe.

How would you not enjoying coming up with weird ghosts and monsters? Or doing anything with Skelitore? Or stories about alien robots? Or this:

[Bacon McShig]

Skelitore

At'sa spicy-a meat-a-ball, myeah!

[Frogacuda]

Youtube is full of mindless stuff, and most of it is no worse than watching Bob Ross for the 900th time. Even I can sit there and watch someone unbox a Gundam model for like 10 minutes like a zombie.

The computer-algorithm-generated cartoons are pretty psychotic though. I don't know that they make me worry for future generations, but I'd probably try to keep my kids from zoning out on them.

[Doc Holliday]

That's why I'm saying, the "durrrr algorithm youtubes are scary!" is a dumb argument, and totally got lost in the weeds of what the dude was trying to say. I disagree with Cow's summation that this is the dark age of entertainment, BUT I do believe that these content mills (who manufacture memes, videos, etc.) should be investigated. I don't even necessarily mean prosecuted to the full extent of the jam, I'm just curious who these content creators are, how much they make, who they work for, etc. I think we're at a far bleaker part of journalism's history - when some really simple, fascinating stuff like this gets watered down to "durrrr cartoons were cooler when I was a kid." Sooooo not a worthwhile argument.

Clearly, this is the work of Harvey Weinstein & John “Cheesy Pizza” Podesta.

[Satsuki]

CLEARLY!

[Cowutopia]

I don't think we're in a dark age yet, but the conditions seem to be right for a dark age to come upon us in the next century or two. It's no guarantee but there are lots of disturbing trends. Since all the empires of the world are basically hopelessly connected at this point I feel like it will be a global phenomenon. I am not sure it'll happen in my lifetime but we'll see. It's kind of a pessimistic view I suppose.

Part of what is disturbing is how there doesn't seem to be any real oversight or control over these systems that are being built. So many resources are being pumped into monetizing big data and what is basically coming down to algorithmic predictive sociology when we could be spending these efforts solving the energy crisis or revitalizing and updating infrastructure, which is something that seems like it may not happen until it's too late.

[Fe 26]

hey, facebook needs to try to sell me vintage pin ups with ebay ads

They don't have time to fix your bridges

[Satsuki]

So many resources are being pumped into monetizing big data and what is basically coming down to algorithmic predictive sociology

God, I can only hope. Kidding. But seriously, some of the main issues we have with the data in sociology (and for sociological factors) is that it isn't predictive, but people ASSUME it is, so policy/content is based around it. Take literally any data about people who commits crimes - it's not actually a predictor of who will actually commit crimes, but companies/law enforcement/politicians run with that shit and wreck havoc and create bizarre programs around the idea that sociological data can predict the future. it can't, or I would be putting "psychic" on my degree

anyway, similar results to big data - it will collapse in on itself at a certain point. we will create new avenues of entertainment and culture long before it does. Will that be good? I dunno. I don't inherently believe that any point in time is more or less superior to another point in time, but I think a lot of people disagree.

[Fe 26]

I took some sort of business software development cycle class while getting my mba, and one section warned of too much data collection. That you could actually waste money collecting too much data, especially if no one actually looked at it.

I have to wonder if that is where we are headed. Who is actually buying the data, and are they actually making their money back with it?

Like, how many dings or page hits do you need to figure out men like girls with big butts and tits?