The metaverse is supposed to take off eventually as young kids start using it.
How would monetisation work on a decentralized platform? Would the creator be limited with merchandise and promotions without ads?
We went over a related business case in my MBA just yesterday. You can look at what Adidas did: they partnered with the Bored Yacht Ape Club to produce NFTs that ended up selling for $22 million. That marketing strategy hinges on working with recognizable folks that are already established within decentralized areas. And that’s what it’s probably going to be about, at least at first: building relationships rather than direct monetization. It’ll actually be really nice, probably.
Except that’s how all internet platforms start. Then it’ll be enshittified. You know what enshittification is…but if you don’t:
it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a “two sided market,” where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, holding each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.
So, I predict over the next 5/10 years, as the metaverse gets set up and whatnot, social media might become slightly less shitty for some time in there if you’re willing to engage on these decentralized metaverse platforms. Because you know damn well that Reddit and TikTok are going become thoroughly eshittified until all the value is extracted from them, and users will have to look for alternatives.
The median engineer cannot, say, design anything to do with a tokamak fusion reactor.
But, of all engineering problems, how many of them are associated with a tokamak fusion reactor?
I’m not saying these people don’t exist or that they’re not highly valuable. I’m just saying their skills don’t need to be applied everywhere all the time, which leaves room for “regular” experts.
An electric maxi-scooter, like the BMW CE 04. I don’t want the BMW specifically, but the US market is extremely limited. It’s really annoying, actually.
And the hardcore computer j4k3@lemmy.world also wants. But I’m not a developer (at least not yet…maybe later). I think it’d be cool to have a super powerful computer just 'cause.
My approach is rhetorical in that it focuses on understanding the motives behind people’s statements rather than evaluating their truthfulness. We’re living in an age often described as “post-truth,” where the emphasis is not so much on factual accuracy but on what a statement achieves:
post-truth signifies a state in which language lacks any reference to facts, truths, and realities. When language has no reference to facts, truths, or realities, it becomes a purely strategic medium. In a post-truth communication landscape, people (especially politicians) say whatever might work in a given situation, whatever might generate the desired result, without any regard to the truth value or facticity of statements. If a statement works, results in the desired effect, it is good; if it fails, it is bad (or at least not worth trying again)
In this context, the question is not, “Is this person telling the truth?” Instead, we should be asking, “What is this person trying to persuade me to believe or do, and how are they going about it?”
So, when you find yourself in a debate and you’re not well-informed on the topic, consider the true objective of the conversation. Is it genuinely about searching for truth, or is it more about making a spectacle to win points, irrespective of facts or logic? Reflecting on this can help you decide whether the debate is even worth your time and effort.
Addressing your concern about convincing others they’re wrong, it’s important to remember that in a post-truth world, facts are often secondary. Instead of trying to prove someone wrong, try to understand how their incorrect beliefs serve them. What value or emotional payoff are they getting from holding these views?
Take vaccine skepticism as an example. For some, doubting vaccines aligns with a broader narrative that the government aims to control its citizens. This perspective provides them with a sense of resistance and preserves their individuality against what they perceive as an oppressive force. Their beliefs are deeply tied to their identity, which is a common human trait. Facts against the narrative of which they’re convinced is often construed as an attack on who they are as a person. And for that, you can just be a normal caring person.
Studying rhetoric. It’s hella fun sometimes and hella depressing others times.
The paradigm shift that studying rhetoric has caused for me will probably influence me for the rest of my life. I’m now agnostic about the truth and barely interpret rhetoric in terms of truth/lies. Like I feel this paragraph from Post-Truth Rhetoric and Composition:
…post-truth signifies a state in which language lacks any reference to facts, truths, and realities. When language has no reference to facts, truths, or realities, it becomes a purely strategic medium. In a post-truth communication landscape, people (especially politicians) say whatever might work in a given situation, whatever might generate the desired result, without any regard to the truth value or facticity of statements. If a statement works, results in the desired effect, it is good; if it fails, it is bad (or at least not worth trying again).
Everything about political rhetoric makes more sense to me when I think in terms of post-truth.
But also, rhetorical figures are cool af. The Elements of Eloquence: Secrets of the Perfect Turn of Phrase is one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read about how to turn a phrase. Plus, being able to name why a sentence like “The liberal arts are the arts of liberty necessary to the exercise of citizenship in a free republic” has a particular rhetorical effect is fascinating. And that sentence is a kind of chiasmus, my favorite rhetorical figure.
- @PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com to
- •
- 2Y
- •
The hell that giving birth can be.
A lot of women endure having a baby…and holy. shit. No.