I think this sort of video would benefit from more scripting to avoid the pauses and filler words between your points. Or, more editing to cut those out. I'd like to offer some notes: I appreciate the nuanced approach to generational stereotypes. I think there is a valid argument to be made that social media has generated a previously unseen concept of "clout chasing", where people do terrible things just to see stats like the viewcount rise for their own ego or satisfaction. I don't think this argument requires a cynical view of human nature, since it's psychologically appealing to see an increase in a number that you have given value to, and perhaps place your self-worth in. This is a temptation that selfish and selfless people can fall for. Social media does offer psychological and monetary incentives, but I think it's possible to look at this topic too much in a framework of incentives and rational self-interest. A lot of people, hopefully most, would simply not "clout chase" because they consider it unethical. It would be difficult, and sometimes impossible to get such people to do it anyway. I suspect that when people do terrible things for social media attention, they likely do not have an ethical reservation with those things to begin with. One thing to note is that televised prank shows existed before social media, operating on the same principle of profit from viewers who want to see some degree of pranking/harassment. Admittedly, they probably had people to tell them when something went too far, but not always. I think the difference between then and now is that the people running a television show presumably had better legal protections, and could go onto to other television work without affecting their careers much. Social media stars rely on their name as their brand, so getting intro trouble means their brand, and so their careers, are more at risk, especially without a company's expensive lawyers. You also mentioned some very successful "clout chasing" scammers like the Paul brothers, who successfully gained wealth (partially through) their infamy. I think this somewhat undermines your point about social media going against self-preservation, because it's better described as an unwise risk than simply as a bad thing.
Thank you very much for this comment! This is an excellent jumping-off point for another thing I wanted to speak about in the future, so the next episode of this will be dedicated to this comment and the ideas I spin off of it! I appreciate the interest in the subject matter for such a dedicated response as well, so thank you for that!
i love these vids so much, please keep putting them out❤❤ happy to have you putting out content again :)
Thank you! I'm feeling very inspired at the moment!
I think this sort of video would benefit from more scripting to avoid the pauses and filler words between your points. Or, more editing to cut those out.
I'd like to offer some notes:
I appreciate the nuanced approach to generational stereotypes.
I think there is a valid argument to be made that social media has generated a previously unseen concept of "clout chasing", where people do terrible things just to see stats like the viewcount rise for their own ego or satisfaction. I don't think this argument requires a cynical view of human nature, since it's psychologically appealing to see an increase in a number that you have given value to, and perhaps place your self-worth in. This is a temptation that selfish and selfless people can fall for.
Social media does offer psychological and monetary incentives, but I think it's possible to look at this topic too much in a framework of incentives and rational self-interest. A lot of people, hopefully most, would simply not "clout chase" because they consider it unethical. It would be difficult, and sometimes impossible to get such people to do it anyway. I suspect that when people do terrible things for social media attention, they likely do not have an ethical reservation with those things to begin with.
One thing to note is that televised prank shows existed before social media, operating on the same principle of profit from viewers who want to see some degree of pranking/harassment. Admittedly, they probably had people to tell them when something went too far, but not always. I think the difference between then and now is that the people running a television show presumably had better legal protections, and could go onto to other television work without affecting their careers much. Social media stars rely on their name as their brand, so getting intro trouble means their brand, and so their careers, are more at risk, especially without a company's expensive lawyers.
You also mentioned some very successful "clout chasing" scammers like the Paul brothers, who successfully gained wealth (partially through) their infamy. I think this somewhat undermines your point about social media going against self-preservation, because it's better described as an unwise risk than simply as a bad thing.
Thank you very much for this comment! This is an excellent jumping-off point for another thing I wanted to speak about in the future, so the next episode of this will be dedicated to this comment and the ideas I spin off of it! I appreciate the interest in the subject matter for such a dedicated response as well, so thank you for that!