>When was the last time an important cultural moment happened on Threads? Has it ever?
I'm actually curious if anyone has an answer to this - does anything important happen on Threads? Does anyone regularly use it? If you do, I want to hear your experience! What are you seeing? Why are you there?
Not the main point of your post but it's amazing that TikTok is running around paying all these fines and shit when TikTok is, uh, *still banned in the United States*!
For those of us who were at Google during the years when we were desperately trying to make Google+ happen, the schadenfreude over Threads is particularly exquisite. You would think they might have learned from our failures... but apparently challenged-giant hubris is a hell of a memory-wipe drug.
Did Hanukkah Barbie actually go poorly? The NY Post story only says some randos online were offended she has a slightly larger nose, while an actual rabbi was complementary. Maybe people who are triggered by Jews were upset, I don't know (or care).
The Manhattan Institute/City Journal HAVE to expell Chris Rufo. You can't have essential urban policy analysis taken seriously while your senior fellow is joking but not joking about racially purifying the nation
I forced myself through the whole episode. It was a lot more reasonable than I expected it to be. They identify the *speed* of demographic change as the driving force behind the anti-Indian bigotry & discuss the forced assimilation Italian, Irish, and Japanese Americans endured. There were lots of things Rufo and Keeperman said that made me wince, but I have to wonder if Johnson listened to the ep in its entirety; frankly, now that I’ve listened to it, I find his characterization hysterical and irresponsible.
I think it borders on sanewashing to talk about how you have to listen to all the parts of the episode which _weren't_ virulently racist to really understand it.
Well, in Rufo and Keeperman’s defense, the clips being passed around are 1-2 minutes long, and the episode is ~73 minutes. When I saw an Indian-American commentator I've read for years advising people to hear them out, I decided to buckle in and listen to the whole thing.
Are you endorsing the view of the New Yorker on Caleb Hammer? Because it's atrocious.
I've watched a fair number of episodes. The people that go on that show have absolutely horrible financial habits. Many of them make plenty of money, but they spend it unwisely. These are not people being "held down by the system." He preaches taking responsibility for your own situation as much as possible. The piece calls this praying at the alter of billionaires. He never mentions billionaires. This isn't some sort of get rich quick show.
The part that the author takes greatest offense to is that he tells people not to go into debt to pursue degrees that don't pay well, like sociology. Maybe this is hard to understand for someone who writes at a publication that has a top hat and monocle wearing logo, but this is not, in fact, bad advice. What are people supposed to do? Go into debt with minimal hope of payback, then lay about complaining about how the system is keeping them down, man? Wait to be bailed out by the socialist revolution?
Does this help the people that go on the show? I don't know. You know who also doesn't know? The author. Every take is about how it made them feel. How about trying to talk to the people that are supposedly being exploited? Getting a take from someone who has been in that situation? Too much work, apparently, for someone writing at the New Yorker.
I didn't come from that sort of background. If I want to understand people in those situations, I look for perspectives that did. A couple I've looked at are https://www.youtube.com/@EdLatimore1 and https://substack.com/@follynomics/posts. Before I lambaste someone making content for people in poor financial conditions, I'd take off my monocle and top hat first, and talk to someone who has been there before.
I am irrationally obsessed with the poster the staffer held up during Schmitt's failed inquisition. How much time did they spend designing that? What did they do with it afterwards? I would love if somebody could dig it out of a dumpster.
I looked at that report on social media use. The chart included includes China and Russia, where many apps are blocked. The chart for mobile users places Threads above X.
I’m not on Threads, but the data doesn’t show a platform that’s not relevant. It maybe that people cross post anything big on all platforms
You should consider referring to X as X instead of Twitter if you want to reduce Elon's influence on the culture. It's cringe to say you use X, but not cringe to say you use Twitter, and giving people an excuse to call it Twitter is part of why Elon's been able to retain X's influence.
"Never interrupt your opponent while he is making a mistake" - Sun Tzu
>When was the last time an important cultural moment happened on Threads? Has it ever?
I'm actually curious if anyone has an answer to this - does anything important happen on Threads? Does anyone regularly use it? If you do, I want to hear your experience! What are you seeing? Why are you there?
> When was the last time someone showed you an awesome Threads meme?
Without a question, it came from Infinite Scroll. You may be the only reason I have ever opened that site. (Except when I misclicked on Facebook)
Not the main point of your post but it's amazing that TikTok is running around paying all these fines and shit when TikTok is, uh, *still banned in the United States*!
It's no longer banned - the law was never repealed, but TikTok did formally divest its US operations into a new entity.
Oh! I wasn’t aware that ever actually resolved - thanks for the correction.
For those of us who were at Google during the years when we were desperately trying to make Google+ happen, the schadenfreude over Threads is particularly exquisite. You would think they might have learned from our failures... but apparently challenged-giant hubris is a hell of a memory-wipe drug.
Did Hanukkah Barbie actually go poorly? The NY Post story only says some randos online were offended she has a slightly larger nose, while an actual rabbi was complementary. Maybe people who are triggered by Jews were upset, I don't know (or care).
The Manhattan Institute/City Journal HAVE to expell Chris Rufo. You can't have essential urban policy analysis taken seriously while your senior fellow is joking but not joking about racially purifying the nation
I forced myself through the whole episode. It was a lot more reasonable than I expected it to be. They identify the *speed* of demographic change as the driving force behind the anti-Indian bigotry & discuss the forced assimilation Italian, Irish, and Japanese Americans endured. There were lots of things Rufo and Keeperman said that made me wince, but I have to wonder if Johnson listened to the ep in its entirety; frankly, now that I’ve listened to it, I find his characterization hysterical and irresponsible.
I think it borders on sanewashing to talk about how you have to listen to all the parts of the episode which _weren't_ virulently racist to really understand it.
Well, in Rufo and Keeperman’s defense, the clips being passed around are 1-2 minutes long, and the episode is ~73 minutes. When I saw an Indian-American commentator I've read for years advising people to hear them out, I decided to buckle in and listen to the whole thing.
Are you endorsing the view of the New Yorker on Caleb Hammer? Because it's atrocious.
I've watched a fair number of episodes. The people that go on that show have absolutely horrible financial habits. Many of them make plenty of money, but they spend it unwisely. These are not people being "held down by the system." He preaches taking responsibility for your own situation as much as possible. The piece calls this praying at the alter of billionaires. He never mentions billionaires. This isn't some sort of get rich quick show.
The part that the author takes greatest offense to is that he tells people not to go into debt to pursue degrees that don't pay well, like sociology. Maybe this is hard to understand for someone who writes at a publication that has a top hat and monocle wearing logo, but this is not, in fact, bad advice. What are people supposed to do? Go into debt with minimal hope of payback, then lay about complaining about how the system is keeping them down, man? Wait to be bailed out by the socialist revolution?
Does this help the people that go on the show? I don't know. You know who also doesn't know? The author. Every take is about how it made them feel. How about trying to talk to the people that are supposedly being exploited? Getting a take from someone who has been in that situation? Too much work, apparently, for someone writing at the New Yorker.
I didn't come from that sort of background. If I want to understand people in those situations, I look for perspectives that did. A couple I've looked at are https://www.youtube.com/@EdLatimore1 and https://substack.com/@follynomics/posts. Before I lambaste someone making content for people in poor financial conditions, I'd take off my monocle and top hat first, and talk to someone who has been there before.
I think you spend waaaaaay too much time online.
I am irrationally obsessed with the poster the staffer held up during Schmitt's failed inquisition. How much time did they spend designing that? What did they do with it afterwards? I would love if somebody could dig it out of a dumpster.
Oh could you imagine if Jack Smith somehow got ahold of the original, it's be a worthy mancave trophy.
There's a t-shirt opportunity here.
I looked at that report on social media use. The chart included includes China and Russia, where many apps are blocked. The chart for mobile users places Threads above X.
I’m not on Threads, but the data doesn’t show a platform that’s not relevant. It maybe that people cross post anything big on all platforms
You should consider referring to X as X instead of Twitter if you want to reduce Elon's influence on the culture. It's cringe to say you use X, but not cringe to say you use Twitter, and giving people an excuse to call it Twitter is part of why Elon's been able to retain X's influence.
"Never interrupt your opponent while he is making a mistake" - Sun Tzu