Even earlier than that. "Pseudonymity" (not using your real name online) were adopted very early on Internet. Facebook is the big exception.

This first claim seems weak to me, and the arguments made in TFA are generally weak IMO. It feels that this theory tries to "eat more than it can chew"; they try to explain a lot of things with a single hypothesis, which in the end yields unconvincing explanations.

For instance, let me answer the 4 opening questions:

Why is the news media so interested in telling you how much the world sucks all the time?

Because fear sells; but that aside, one can also say that we are a species who loves solving problems, and pointing them is generally the first step to a solution.

Why are so many of us obsessed with distraction and managing our attention?

Because something is aggressively trying to steal attention - that is, actually, time - from us. It's self-defence at this point.

Why is it so hard to stop comparing ourselves to others?

Because of the atavistic instinct of reproduction, in which mating partners are selected mainly based on social status. It takes training to go against this instinct, and it is even more difficult when your time is being stolen.

And why does everything in art and design seem the same these days?

That's something a boomer could say... Mainstream designs can, maybe, look similar because when you target a large market you design for the average taste. Non-mainstream designs are just more expensive, harder to find, and less visible.

I think this is one reason online anonymity is so important for some of us. It is the thing that let's us tamp down the great unification, at least a little.

The article explains the distinction between identity and character. You are talking about character.

If you keep them distinct unification is a weapon to be used against you. You're writing your own blackmail someone just has to call you on it.

With prose fingerprinting, sophisticated tracking, now your identities are only separate by rapidly eroding social convention. Intentionally merging them allows you to have control over the process, and helps you maintain discipline about what you reveal where. If you don't do it it will be done to you.

I'm not a neurotypical xenial, but I wasn't any good at compartmentalizing, or when I tried maintaining different identities it didn't feel honest, like I was pretending. I didn't like the thought of anyone ever seeing sides of me that were inconsistent with each other.

Unfortunately that isn't a solution. When you keep separate identities, the only thing that can exist across platforms is your own participation. Everything you say and do is isolated to whichever identity and platform you are using in that moment. You still don't have the opportunity to exist completely, because your self has been fragmented. Even if you did manage to create a cross-platform identity, the product of your participation is fragmented, and every story you tell is objective to that platform's context. Even if you tell a story that links across platforms, you are still isolated to that specific cross-platform context.

From what I’ve observed, people are increasingly checking out of social media (or turning their profiles private), because it’s just unappealing unless you’re actively promoting something.

I think the difference is asking what happens if all contexts collapse. In the 2000s or 1960s context collapse was something that would happen occasionally when opted into. These days everybody is hyper connected and living in a collapsed context every day. That's the uni-context and the implications of it feel very different than that of a wedding or old-school forum. A wedding wouldn't push people to permanently change who they are or how they perceive themselves for more favor in the collapsed context. They would only do it momentarily.

Also, the wedding or forum had very limited scope. As mentioned in the interview, the uni-context is about context collapse on a global scale.

Yeah, the context collapsed into a uni-context

Is HN not a social network?

> I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore

A bit off topic, but you're not the only one. I've grown up with the internet and yet I'm now completely unable to find things on demand.

I sometimes resort to claude, not because I want to, but because it's so difficult to search the real internet now. Asking claude, then asking claude for sources, can uncover hidden gems. ( It can also reveal claude talking out of its arse. )

It also works both ways. Yes a plumber can be more easily outed as anti-gay and fired, but the same uni-context makes the plumber more likely to be anti-gay and more strongly anti-gay in the first place. Being exposed to anti-gay propaganda all the time will do that. Otherwise you just have people who are like, their church told them it was bad to be gay, but they don't really care about it.

But people can never be "pure" enough and what is acceptable in the uni-context will change over time. If you documented your life within it you will find you will be branded a heretic sooner or later.

That's a cool idea. I'm no longer the right age for such things, but I'm glad people are trying to create unsurveilled spaces.

It feels doomed, though. Smart glasses wearers are being shamed today, but the tech will only get more inconspicuous. And HD cameras are so small and cheap that phone cameras are only one of many potential sources of surveillance.

With ubiquitous tiny cameras, quality networks (even in remote areas thanks to Starlink), cheap storage, and increased analysis capabilities thanks to AI, it feels like planet panopticon is here.

I think many social sites have tried to solve it, but in a world where anything is easily saved or screenshotted, it's still effectively a "universal room". Not to mention that properly implementing a form of role-based access control is a big ask for a lot users.

Not tying your IRL identity to online communications only solves one side of the problem. You can't use your anon accounts to communicate as yourself to family, friends, and colleagues and maintain your anonymity.

Not having accounts tied to IRL identity also allows AI bots to operate as equals to human users, which dilutes the quality of conversation in those spaces.

We've built an incredibly effective communications apparatus. It's a shame its only users are money-obsessed primates and the robots we've built in our image.

Google had a platform called circles once that had a really neat solution to this.

If course it being Google, it got cancelled before it had a chance to catch on.

Atomization of the individual seems much more driven by a cultural valorization of liberalism and personal freedom than market dynamics per se. If the individual is free to act on their own, without obligation to their family or higher social structures, such as by marrying whoever they choose or by refusing to share their personal wealth with other members, or by following a different religion, then these higher level structures will eventually wither away. Community can only exist as a real force if the individual has obligations to it and can be bound to it. This has tradeoffs for sure, but I would much rather live in a world with more personal freedom than one where I am bound to a social contract I had no hand in creating and limited ability to change.

It also helps companies to exploit people easily. Example if you have are a fit person, then you should have an apple watch and now perhaps and oura ring as well.

Large companies and organisations are able to tap into our core emotions and needs of the human body and able to shape our day to day in a way we feel that we have the freedom to choose but in reality we are acting within hidden boundaries.

You made me wonder what would happen if I put a sign out front advertising people can borrow my lawnmower for free.

Worst I'd have to lose is a lawnmower.

I don't have a lawnmower or a lawn. But if I did... interesting experiment.

Yup. Get outside. Screens are increasingly addictive by design. I am going outside now. Enjoy your days. Use the internet and your phone as tools, not separate realities.

Took me a few reads, too.

We've replaced the title above with a representative phrase from the article.

She absolutely would have read Heidegger