The problem is that the pervasiveness of technology and mass marketing is screwing up a lot of people’s expectations for themselves: the inundation of the exceptional makes people feel worse about themselves, makes them feel that they need to be more extreme, more radical, and more self assured to get noticed or even matter

On Kelsey’s recommendation (and also several others’ recommendations over the past few years), I’ve decided to crack open “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck” (by Mark Manson). I find it odd that this book has lately become so successful — particularly on the heels of Occupy Wall Street. Let me explain by contrasting two quotes taken from a short section of the book near the heading “The Tyranny of Exceptionalism”:

It’s strange that in an age when we are more connected than ever, entitlement seems to be at an alltime high. Something about recent technology seems to allow our insecurities to run amok like never before. The more freedom we’re given to express ourselves, the more we want to be free of having to deal with anyone who may disagree with us or upset us. The more exposed we are to opposing viewpoints, the more we seem to get upset that those other viewpoints exist. The easier and more problem-free our lives become, the more we seem to feel entitled for them to get even better.

vs.

Having the Internet, Google, Facebook, YouTube, and access to five hundred–plus channels of television is amazing. But our attention is limited. There’s no way we can process the tidal waves of information flowing past us constantly. Therefore, the only zeroes and ones that break through and catch our attention are the truly exceptional pieces of information—those in the 99.999th percentile.

I hope the contrast between these two quotes is clear enough — but let me underscore the ridiculous absurdity of the completely opposite arguments, separated by only a few lines of text.

First Mark Manson says we are more connected than ever. Then he follows this by maintaining that only the 0.001% matter. Either we are connected to each other or we are insulated from one another — which one is it?

That largely depends on your level (or perhaps “kind”) of literacy. If you believe in irrational media (based on brand names), you thereby allow such brands to function as gatekeepers, insulating you from the 99.999%. If you believe in rational media (based on natural language) then you will become more connected to other similarly literate people (note that literacy is not an “either / or” switch, but rather a choice to engage with people who use a similar language, a similar dialect, a similar jargon, a similar communication style, a similar manner of speech, a similar mode of expression, understanding, feeling, seeing, believing, and so on).

So-called “social media”, being based on brand names, fall into the irrational media category. The market-leading brands (mainly Google and Facebook) use quite simple algorithms — clearly Google search has one of the most widely respected brand names, and the Google search algorithm is a slightly adapted version of the “Go” “Goto” (see “GoTo is considered to have been an influential pioneer of paid search.” [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search_Marketing#GoTo_and_Overture ]) algorithm , acquired by Google about 20 years ago: higher bidders get higher rankings (Google has primarily adapted this by preventing users from being shocked by information they might find disagreeable, which Google carefully monitors via their meticulous user tracking throughout all the aspects of a user’s life which the company are able to collect data on). In this context, it remains unclear whether Google’s own media properties (which they appear to obscure under the “Alphabet” corporate body) get a “free ride” or at least reduced (and therfore non-competitive) rates.

As a young person very connected and reliant on the internet, I’ve kind of made peace with the fact that my data is taken and out there

Keywords: general , alexa , amazon , companies , data , facebook , google , info , internet , marketing , privacy , trust , webcam

There’s the argument that since we’re using Facebook and Gmail and stuff like that for free, our data is allowed to be collected (and used for marketing) as a trade-off, and while I guess that makes sense, it’s still kind of gross. Especially because that privacy doesn’t kick in once you do pay for an upgraded account or something. And with more and more companies just monopolizing everything like Amazon does for example, I think some have way too much info. If they get hacked, you could be screwed.

https://coolbeans4.wordpress.com/2021/04/20/online-privacy-to-care-or-not-to-care

How far is enough to be scammed or come across fraud accounts on social media?

Artificial Intelligence, Cyber security, Data storage, Digital Media, Disruption, Facebook, internet of Things, Investigation, Public Relations, service, Software, Strategy, Technology

Ying Yang Technology

As recently as 2016, half of the communication you had with people on dating app based on match group company were based on bots and frauds. This shows that the alarming rate for people when they are looking for something, the scammers are at their best to act upon it online.

As it shows the scammers are looking to get any form of payment, information, or identity from their behalf to be pleased from their operation. Therefore, they are looking to make matters worse for the victim when they find out that they have been scammed and now they have released information about themselves. This is not the most pleasant thing but it’s pretty shameful and embarrassing to disclose it to your friends.

Due to this, your friends will say well it’s online what do you expect it to be besides a cesspool of fraudulent and scammers running operations on…

View original post 341 more words