EXTRA CRITICUM

Has anyone in the publishing or media industry ever asked Amazon to include quotes from actual reviews by critics?

A friend recently sent me a link to the Amazon streaming page for my first feature film, All the Rage. At first I was surprised by the choice of image they'd selected. But it didn't take me long to notice that out of 5 stars my film is listed as having earned only 3.5

And, look, 3.5 stars ain't bad... unless you know that in most newspaper reviews the film got 5.

So in that context, I'm thinking: What happened?

Of course we know what happened. Not unlike a Roberts Supreme Court decision, the facts on the ground may not have changed one bit. Only the referees are different. Amazon merely posts the average of all the consumer posted reviews to the site. 

Consumer-Only Reviews Support the Amazon Narrative. Amazon is God.

From one perspective—the business interests of a platform eager to remind us of its own hegemony—the choice is sound. No need to look beyond the feedback posted directly to Amazon by consumers just like you. Because as long as there's never a need to leave the site to help choose your next purchase, it gets just a little more awkward to argue with the fundamental Bezos belief: There is nothing for you beyond the walls of the kingdom.

But You Want Help Picking the Best Movie to Watch. And Consumer-Only Aggregates Are Not Very Helpful at All.

A Thousand Cuts Death by Social Media (06-08-23)

 
What changes when we ignore the impulse to post?

To access all the previously published posts in this weekly series, click the Social Media category in the right hand column. NB: Posts that appear to be fine

 

Last week I shared one striking observation from the first 7 days of 2018 when as an experiment I decided to completely abstain from Facebook. That when the impulse to post to social media is not immediately attended to, the thoughts we just let lie have a way of expanding, collecting connected ideas and developing into stuff of far greater significance and impact.

But as I asked last week: Why should we care?

There are at least two angles from which you might consider the question of posting to social media vs. keeping your thoughts to yourself at the initial moment you first notice them.

1. The Impact on the Thoughts Themselves.
2. The Impact on Your Thinking in General.

A Thousand Cuts Death by Social Media (06-01-23)

Beginning June 1, 2023 (and continuing with a new entry posted here each Thursday) I will be publishing a long and winding essay building an argument (brick by tiny brick) for a global decoupling from social media. It is my conviction that our very survival depends on it. And  this series is my earnest attempt to convince you as well. I want to be absolutely transparent. I have no skin in this game, no business relationships of any kind with any of the platforms. Although this first set of entries begins with Facebook, this is not an argument against Facebook specifically but against every single platform that appeals to our human need for connection and exploits that need without concern for the detritus and misery it leaves in its wake. If you find these arguments persuasive I hope you'll keep coming back for more, feeling free to post your thoughts in the comments and share the posts with your friends. It is not lost on me: the irony of asking for help sharing via the platforms a clarion call for all of humanity to reject these very platforms. But tell me, how else is guy with an idea and no marketing budget to get the word out? In the end, long after you and I have said our last goodbye, I'm sure of this: word of mouth will always be the most powerful way for ideas to spread: when one person looks another in the eye and says: "Trust me." Thanks. - RT

A Thousand Cuts Death by Social Media:
Intro to the Experiment

 

Jennifer Garner Social Media Controversy Should Be Heard as an Alarm. A Mass DeCoupling is Long Overdue

My InBox lit up with this eye-catching headline from Medium yesterday::

Jennifer Garner Can Fuck Right Off

Normalize Calling Out Child Abuse Even When Hot People Do It

The piece goes on to attack Jennifer Garner for the recent revelation that she does not allow any of her three children to be on social media. The author labels Garner's embargo as "child abuse" which I think is a bit over-the-top. I mean, even if you disagree with the parenting choice, it feels like calling it "child abuse" is a stretch.

By this logic, would we then call Mormon parents who forbid their children from drinking alcohol and caffeine child abusers by virtue of the fact that they've cut their kids out of a life experience commonly shared by everyone else they'll meet when they go to college? Is the parent who decides that their kid will not be joining all the other kids on a Spring Break trip to Florida because she doesn't want her children to set foot in that state also a child abuser?