Haterz
I have said several times that, during my voluntary participation in the "Meme War" of 2016 , (I notice that now you no longer consider my statement "the American left wants a war in Europe" so crazy), I met on some chats of the experts in "hate speech" and " character assassination ", who explained some things to me, so I went back to being a blogger.
Since then, every time I say this I get inquiries about what I have learned, and have always been reluctant to explain it because the real question is “what should you DIS-learn”.
I'll explain.
When the first social networks were born, which were called "web 2.0" by the usual scoundrels, clearly the industry discovered that it was a good thing for advertising, but there was a lack of experts.
A group of people, characterized by chronic unemployment and almost useless studies, decided to take a course at the CEPU (or the equivalent of the period), and become self-appointed "social consultant", or expert in social communication, or all those figures useless, when company-fashion and cool . And especially, 100% incompetent at work they claimed to know how to do. And they literally shaped the web 2.0 to the sound of absurd ideas in the way it serves to give rise to polarization and hatred on the net. It is therefore the fault of a category of self-invented "s-professionals", who limited themselves to parroting the high-sounding bullshit said by the "futurologist" on duty.
Get rid of the haters and those who practice character assassination, or rather: no longer be afraid of them, it is something that requires not so much to learn new things, but to unlearn the things said by "futurologists" and "experts of social media ".
Alternatively, it is better to rely on the few certain things that psychology knows about man, regarding the origin of aggression. Online aggression originates from three fundamental factors:
- dehumanization
- the elimination of the identity and reputation of the actors.
- the dilution of liability
so far it seems to have already heard it, but things are not like that. It is necessary to UNDERSTAND what is meant by these terms.
When a journalist speaks to us of "dehumanization" or "dehumanization" he usually cites the example of the Jew dehumanized by the Nazis. Since we speak of "victims of dehumanization" it is natural to think that this is the case because the Jews were victims, but the example is wrong.
Superman is also dehumanized. As well as Chiara Ferragni, Fedez, Bill Gates, and anyone who is not "one of us".
The best way to translate "human", in fact, is "one like me", since we all take it for granted that we are human. In a group, "human" is "one like us", attributing humanity to common traits characteristic of the group.
Superman, as well as St. George, Flash Gordon, Hitler, and many others, are dehumanized, or dehumanized figures. This also applies to all hierarchies, from the general (seen by the infantrymen) to the person who reads the news there. The actor is dehumanized, as is the athlete. Whether its subhuman, superhuman, or simply "different from us", dehumanization is automatic.
How does the speech link to the blogger speech? Since I am speaking to you, I am dehumanizing myself. And if there were any comments, the group of commentators would be different from me, who write the things you comment on. And since I would not be "one like you", I would already be dehumanized.
It would be very different in a forum, or on Usenet, where everyone wrote and there were no de facto hierarchies. But if we say that every person "with a web reputation" must "build a community" we are talking about dehumanization. Then, there are many types of dehumanization, a spectrum that goes from the sub human to the super human, and these web 2.0 cazzari say that the trick is to be on the side of the superhuman. In reality, such an ecosystem implies that there will be subhumans, so there is no choice: once you have created a system where there is a "we" (the fans / commentators / community) and a "he" (who writes, the author, etc), we have already dehumanized "him".
The first pillar, that is the author (the copywriter, the influencer, etc) is dehumanized, and comes from the incompetent words of the "social experts". And I say this because alternatives existed, from usenet to friendfeed, and they still exist (ycombinator, reddit, etc).
Whoever says that around a blog there must be "a community" is building the first pillar of hatred on the net. The dehumanization.
The second point is the fine line between identity and reputation.
All web 2.0 Clarlatans understand as anonymous anyone who does not use the credentials that the state assigns to him on social media. In short, if you are Ivo Balboni and you go to Facebook as "Gawd on Earth", you are "anonymous" for them, while if you use the same credentials that the state uses (Ivo Balboni) then "you are not anonymous".
For example, if I say "Loweel" or "Uriel Fanelli", two invented characters, in twenty years of Blogging behind these names there is a precise "social identity", that is a reputation (good or bad it may be). When Ivo Balboni, who will also be the famous retired butcher of Surmallate sul Minchio, (3000 inhabitants), opens an account on Facebook, he is not fucking anyone.
The "real" name, in a social network of 2 billion users, is ANONYMOUS.
On the contrary, a stage name (if there is any art, or a reputation), is certainly a stronger identity.
Having overturned the order of the values of "identity" and "reputation" means that, unless they are famous (ie superhuman, see above), ALL ARE ANONYMOUS, that is, a fucking nobody with name and surname. Ah, ah, ah, Loredana Servelli, who the fuck is this? It is the phenomenon whereby Luce Caponegro becomes Selen in porn, and “Selen” becomes LESS anonymous than “Luce Caponegro”.
When you go to Facebook with your real name and surname, you have two choices: either you talk to the same people you know outside (and then Ivo Balboni goes back to being the famous butcher of Surmallate sul Minchio,) or Ivo Balboni is anonymous because on a Facebook scale, he's not fucking anyone.
Those who enter Facebook without being famous, if they do so with their real identity, see it canceled, reduced, annihilated. And it becomes anonymous.
Why is it essential? Because being deprived of identity and reputation is a known cause of increased aggression. If you had logged into Facebook as “Idan the Sparrow Impaler Demon”, you probably wouldn't have become famous, but the identity to be destroyed would NOT be yours.
When the cazzari of webz 2.0 fight against anonymity, in reality they have not understood the point: the "real" name of an ordinary person, on Facebook, is anonymous. It is completely emptied of importance, history and reputation. He's anonymous: J-Ax is famous, Alessandro Aleotti who the fuck knows him? It is obvious that J-Ax has anonymity if he books a hotel like Alessandro Aleotti, rather than J-Ax.
Not for nothing about 4chan, the realm of gratuitous aggression, everyone is “Anonymous”, and the possibility of BOTH having a story (old stories are deleted) and a reputation (recognizing the person is difficult) ceases.
But the web 2.0 cazzologists have always fought, even if from different positions, for the end of anonymity, or for greater privacy. In reality, people should choose their pseudonym, because even if it is not known to others, at least it represents something for those who chose it, and its identity disintegration does not affect the real person.
Whoever has brought billions of people on social networks asking them to use their true identity has created the conditions for a gigantic, if free, mass aggression. An environment in which you are suddenly fucking nobody or nothing is an environment that makes you aggressive. 4chan docet.
But the web 2.0 cazzologists had no idea what they were saying, and for advertising reasons they wanted your real data. And so you have your identity and reputation crushed, becoming super aggressive as a result.
If everyone entered social media with a pseudonym, or more than one, they would be MUCH less aggressive. On a social network of two billion people, it is simply ANYONE who is anonymous. Except the really famous ones on a global scale. Which are pseudonyms, see under Madonna, Marilyn Manson, etc.
Forget the concept of "identity" and "pseudonym", or "online reputation". In reality, on a global scale we are all anonymous, and reputations must be built through the media, which is why a pseudonym works MUCH better than “Ivo Balboni”.
The dilution of responsibility is normally explained as the "herd effect" or "sense of group impunity". But this is a trivial explanation. Forget it.
The dilution of responsibility is nothing more than a phenomenon of cognitive dissonance: if I beat an old woman and she dies, it was me, and I must tell myself that I originated the chain of events that caused the death of the old woman .
It has nothing to do with impunity (I could get away with it even in that case, if I'm good at losing track) and it has nothing to do with the sense of strength (I can kill an old lady even without a herd). What has to do with it is, precisely, responsibility: the possibility of perceiving the reality of the fact that I did, in practice and in reality, such a thing.
When it happens that an avowedly Nazi person is arrested for inciting the murder of, I know, Jews, you will find that the first thing he says is "I am not a Nazi". Apparently this is absurd and it is: it is a "cognitive dissonance". The person does not see himself shouting that Jews must be burned, even if he did it himself. And he doesn't think he is a Nazi, even though he claims he is and preaches that he is.
This (almost schizophrenic) disconnection from reality is the "dilution of responsibility" we are talking about: the individual "detaches" himself from himself, and produces an avatar "disconnected from himself". The person shouting obscenities is no longer perceived as the same person behind the monitor. From the same person behind the monitor.
It has nothing to do with feeling strong or feeling unpunished: it has to do with feeling “other” from your avatar. And this is normal, since entering Facebook, the individual becomes a fucking nothing, while the person at home has identity and reputation. His avatar on Facebook is any asshole, with a real name, but completely zero.
The fact that there is a group participating in the same game only increases the feeling of estrangement: who are they? Who knows them? They are anonymous in turn. The fact of being surrounded by "mr nobody" gives neither a feeling of strength nor one of "impunity". From only a feeling of "estrangement": if they are nobody, I am also nobody , and therefore we are not doing NOTHING.
It has nothing to do with being one in a crowd: the post office will find you. It has nothing to do with being strong or weak: the police are stronger than even a pack.
The question is whether we do it ourselves or not. The "dilution of responsibility" does NOT consist in spreading the responsibility on the group, it consists in considering oneself such an irrelevant part that one can shout "Jews in the oven!" and then "I'm not a Nazi" without the two things seeming contradictory: zero has no sign, neither positive nor negative. If you are nobody, you have done nothing. If you were surrounded by many others nobody, it is confirmed that you are nobody. Smoke.
If "human" means "like us", and all of us are little avatars with a name that nobody knows, then human means "mister nobody". And if I'm nothing on Facebook, you can't accuse "me" of anything. I am nothing. What I do has no consequences. He can't have any.
The disintegration of identity leads to the disintegration of responsibilities. If I'm nobody, I haven't done anything. If I did something then I would be someone, but my Facebook name is just a "who the fuck is this?".
All these characteristics of social media have been carefully cultivated by the genus of cazzari 2.0 who wrote the "webz 2.0 strategies", which social networks have adapted to intercept the business.
Think about it: if a social network had a button to remove comments from under your posts (as well as block authors), or allowed you to activate preventive moderation under your own content, the social world would be very different. But the fact that the person has to SUBSCRIBE comments to their own contents, and that they have no way to rebel except by selecting the readers who can respond (twitter) or banning people (facebook), says a lot about what the cazzari of web 2.0 they created speaking of “free marketplace of ideas”.
The problem is that the phony web 2.0 invented concepts such as "lifestream" when not "sharing", that in the end the social networks to satisfy them made sure that everyone could do anything at all.
But where was it written that I cannot delete comments and I have to undergo them? Why do I have to call a moderator to beg him to delete an offensive comment on MY post? Because the fakes 2.0 decided that the lifestream should be shared with everyone. And this thing has become so mainstream that it is never questioned.
For example, in my instance of the fediverse there are few chosen people. One or two are problematic (a trans woman) and so… they are all moderators. That is, they have the power to delete content from the instance, when they are in their timelines. I named them, who am the admin. What's the problem? What can a person delete a toxic comment in response to their post?
But no one has ever proposed anything even remotely similar. Twitter is moving slightly by saying that you can choose WHO can reply, but they don't give you the option to delete the content from your post comments.
BUT who did this? Who has NEVER asked for this feature to social networks. Who has always proposed a model in which you MUST put your life online (the lifestream, how cool it was!) And then it is right to allow anyone to attach to your post and write what they want, because it is " sharing "and the" free market of ideas "and who said that if the writer could cancel the annoying answers by himself, there would be the" echo chamber "where there was only what you liked. To then make sites of photoshopped models: which is not "echo chamber" if we remove two or three kilos of cells from our body from the background, but it is if we remove a stalker from the commensus.
These are the concepts to forget if you want to build a social life without the haters bothering you that much:
- on social media you "share" to a "community"
- social media is your "lifestream"
- "echo chambers" must be avoided
- "The pseudonym is anonymous"
- "The real name is not anonymous".
- being pseudonyms (the nick name but not the real name) is necessarily bad
this is the song of the clowns 2.0 that made social networks toxic. Forget it. And start thinking that:
- do not share, but publish on social networks.
- the social network must get its dicks, and also those who look at you: lifestream staminchia.
- the echo chambers are simply the place where you stay in peace.
- the pseudonym can have a reputation, as happens to many artists.
- the "real name" is anonymous because you are no fucking shit, unless you are famous by your name.
- the pseudonym is a second / third identity, and no one has ever said that only one identity is enough.
once you forget the bullshit of the "experts of nothing 2.0", and understand what it generates, then you will be able to counteract the phenomenon.
You just have to think about what you have (un) learned.