Writing – Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

Sunday Morning Reading

Reading is a gateway drug. Get your buzz on.

Sunday Morning Reading is about…well, it’s about reading. In my personal opinion some don’t read nearly enough. Read. Read those you agree with. Just as important, read those you disagree with. Stretch those reading muscles and stretch your mind.

I linked to a Rose Horowitch piece earlier in the week entitled The End of Reading Is Here. It’s controversial. I don’t agree completely. But that’s the point of reading. If that’s still a thing.

Follow that piece up with Sonny Bunch’s R.I.P. Attention Span. Closing his essay he says “The end of reading may be here. But so too might be the end of watching anything that lasts longer than the time it took you to read this sentence.”

In an age where some are eager to ban books (surprised we haven’t seen any book burnings yet) Mendel Uminer chose to move rather than reduce his collection of books after his landlord complained. Check out Alex Vadukul’s story Too Many Books.

You know that reading can satisfy curiosity. It can also raise it to new levels. Neil Steinberg’s Etymological Field Notes tells such a tale. Do you flânuer?

And for those who tell you not to believe everything you read, here’s John Semley on The Fanfare Around The Band Geese Actually Was a Psyop.

In the wake of all of the seemingly unending horrible daily doping of bad political news, (some about wakes to be, some about wakes possibly delayed), James L. Bruno writes The “Last Best Hope On Earth” Crashes & Burns.

With the act and art of reading being in question, especially when it comes to the news, the click matters more than the content now that most of what we’re presented isn’t worth being displayed in a supermarket checkout line tabloid rack. Or does it? According to Pete Pachal when it comes to the news Speed Still Matters In News, But The Prize Is No Longer The Click. Maybe there never was a prize.

Speaking of prizes. Winning isn’t everything. Unless it is. JA Westenberg reminds us that A Battle Won Is A Terrible Thing.

Rob Urie tells us Why AI Doesn’t Think, Cannot Reason, Isn’t Intelligent and Will Never Achieve Consciousness. It’s not magic.

(image from the author)

Thanks for reading. Feel free to subscribe if you want. It’s free. If you’re interested in just what the heck Sunday Morning Reading is all about you can read more about the origins of Sunday Morning Reading here. If you’d like more click on the Sunday Morning Reading link in the category column to check out what’s been shared on Sunday’s past. You can also find more of my writings on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. This site does not use affilate links.

The Myth of Character

There’s nothing new under the sun

I’m a pretty good judge of character. My profession as a theatre director trained me to understand a character in a play’s dramatis personae from reading a script. I hear you. That’s life on the stage. That’s make believe.

Shutterstock 1782039683.

Here’s the secret. No character on a stage ever appeared for the first time in a play. They debuted in life and someone described them in words and brought them to theatrical life. Playwrights don’t create characters out of whole cloth. They, like poets and writers before them, write characters as they have experienced them in the real world, or borrow them from those that have written them before. We are a decidedly unoriginal species.

If you live long enough and pay attention to the world, you develop the same skills as writers and theatre directors. You quickly come to realize that there are indeed a limited number of character types around us and they are easily identifiable. There are apparently a finite number of molds we’re baked in.

Hell, dogs recognize good and bad characters much like humans. Often faster. So do children, but something happens as we mature that dulls that instinct.

Writers for the page, stage and cinema people their stories with recognizable types, not for lack of trying, but as recognition that we don’t really change that much through the ages. In the theatre trade we call these easily identifiable types “stock characters.” Stock, as in picking them down off of a shelf.

Aristophanes and Theophrastus for the Greeks, and Plautus for the Romans get most of the credit for this. Although most consider Plautus to have simply borrowed the concept. Later, Commedia dell’Arte became famous for its stock characters, and also the masks created for them. The humans behind the masks became less important to the story than the costume. That should tell you something.

Supposedly the first time the term “stock character” appeared in the English language was in the 1860’s. Other cultures had and have their own versions of stock characters. Asian and African forms of storytelling also developed their own easily recognizable familiar characters.

When it comes to literature and entertainment there haven’t been that many new characters recreated from life’s observances since antiquity. “Good” characters have a flaw or two or three. So do the “bad.” That’s what makes them human. Even the dramas written in the days of multiple gods featured those beings as flawed. Without flaws there is no conflict, no drama, no comedy.

In today’s highly charged political atmosphere, with villains currently holding winning hands here and abroad, looking for perfect characters to defeat them is a fool’s errand. And yes, there are more than plenty who fit the character mold of fool.

When a person creates a role behind a mask representing good character or one on a path of redemption, that’s an age old character trait also. Those characters always get their comeuppance in the end when the flaws are exposed. It’s only recently in the history of literature that we’ve forced happy endings that include the irredemable into the mix. It’s a sad and unfunny joke that people keep trying the trick. Audiences, like dogs, sniff it out.

When someone says a man or woman is of good character it doesn’t mean they’re perfect, pristine, or pure. We might like it to, but that’s wish casting. Flaws will always emerge. Otherwise the story generally sucks.

I wish we’d stop looking for those mythical creatures and recognize that the good and bad ones that populate our real life off the stage are just copying what came before and mirroring the life most of us lead.

(Image from mariesacha on Shutterstock)

Thanks for reading. You can subscribe to this blog if you care to. You can also find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. I can also be found on social media under my name as above. This site does not use affilate links.

The End of Reading?

Let’s not make it so. At least until you read this piece.

File this one in the “Depressing If True” category. Rose Horowitch has written an excellent piece for The Atlantic entitled The End Of Reading Is Here. Yes, you read the title correctly. Unless you’ve already given up on reading you should give the piece more than just a look. If you have given up, try to remember how.

I’m not sure I’d agree completely that we’ve reached or are nearing the end point of reading, but I have to admit that we sure seem to be rushing headlong to cliff noting, bullet pointing, and summarizing everything to a point that it’s far too easy for some to break the habit and shy away from reading as a way to discover knowledge, new ideas, and well…advance ourselves and civilization while understanding from whence we came.

An excerpt:

Reading has never been natural. Humans have no innate cognitive machinery designed to string letters into words and connect them to their real-world analogues. To read, people had to repurpose regions of their brain used for speech and object recognition. The practice first emerged 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia.

Horowitch traipses through the history of the written word hitting the high and low water marks, many easily recognizable, some not nearly as discernible, pointing to an age when Marshall McLuhan predicted we would become “post-literate.” He predicted that in 1962. She marches on from there.

The usual, and occasionally unusual, list of the enemies of writing and reading make their appearance on her march through the ages, but Horowitch lays them out, dare I say, in only the way a writer could. And yes, AI makes its appearance on that list. For it is not just reading, it’s also the writing of the words we read that is under threat.

Another excerpt:

The written word is fundamentally different from oral language. Writing detaches the message from the messenger, allowing for a more dispassionate spread of information than was possible in oral societies. Because writing a phrase takes longer than speaking it, writing forces the author to slow down and reflect. Written language tends to employ more complex sentence structures and vocabulary than spoken language. And unlike speech, it doesn’t disappear into the ether.

In her conclusion Horowitch reminds us that in our digital age we have the capability to read much more than at any point in human history.

When the Library of Alexandria disappeared, the knowledge inscribed on its scrolls was lost forever. We can only guess what else Eratosthenes and Euclid might have written. The text turned to dust. That won’t happen today; all of the words in the great library could be stored on a single computer chip. Nowadays, even the most obscure academic monographs are scanned and digitized. Google Books and the Internet Archive represent libraries of unfathomable proportions. We can navigate to them with a few keystrokes, not a perilous journey across the Mediterranean. There’s little risk of their texts succumbing to humidity or mice.

But the threat of apathy remains. What we’re losing is the ability and inclination to read those texts. An astonishing wealth of information and wisdom has been bequeathed to us. What we’ll do with this inheritance is up to us.

That makes it all a choice, does it not?

I won’t question the assumptions, nor the excellent way she has written them. I will add that if we are indeed reaching the end of reading, the logical next step is the end of thinking.

The piece is more than worth your time, should you have in the inclination to read it. I hope you do. It might actually make you think.

This Is A Bummer. Open Source Dropbox Client Maestral Will Shut Down

Ch…ch…changes

I would say Monday always seems to bring bad news, but bad news seems to show up on any day that ends in “y” lately. But this is a Monday and this is bad news.

Maestral, an open source client for Dropbox has ceased to be maintained as of the end of June 2026 according to the develper on the app’s website. Hat tip to John Gruber who posted the news this morning, and for posting this quote from the developer.

As of 2026-07-28, this project is archived. It’s been a fun challenge to develop a syncing client, but unfortunately, I find too little time to invest in Maestral these days. I’ve also moved away from using Dropbox myself.

Maestral will still remain usable in the medium term, but will no longer be actively maintained or receive updates.

I’ve been using Maestral for quite some time to manage file syncing on Dropbox, primarily because I despise Dropbox’s own apps. Maestral is a far cleaner and less resource intensive experience, and has more than served my needs syncing files back and forth. So, I’ll either have to bite the bullet and swallow some pretty foul tasting software again, or find a different solution.

The different solution will be a difficult one as I work with a variety of theaters and clients, all of which using different file syncing and sharing solutions, (Google’s solution being the runner up to Dropbox) so I have to keep up with most of the file syncing services out there.

All shows must close at some point, but it’s a shame to see this one posted it’s closing notice. I wouldn’t count on any new ones appearing on the horizon.

Sunday Morning Reading

Words, words, words…

Meaning. It means so much. So do the words that deliver it to us. But remember, there was meaning before we constructed words into language. This week’s Sunday Morning Reading comes on the final day of a weird and wacky 4th of July weekend in the U.S when an often mean Mother Nature reminded us who is really in control no matter which words we choose or manipulate to pretend we are. It was kinda fun to watch. There’s also a few interesting pieces about America’s founding, and the myths and the meaning behind it all.

Kicking it off is a short piece from JA Westenberg asking Remember When Words Had Meaning? What comes first the distortion of language or the devaluing of the culture that employs them?

Speaking of meaning, Jack Loftus gives us The U.S. Constitution Is For Simple Folk Still Burdened By The Belief That Words Have Meaning. You can argue it was always thus, but we sure do spend an awful amount of time, energy and money arguing the opposite.

In this age of WTF, it has become an accelerating trend to see pieces disemboweling many of the myths we assign to the founding of America around the 4th of July. We used to share common myths more than we did a common history, but now even the myths get mangled. So it’s no surprise when the powers that currently be toil to rewrite both. Noah Berlatsky‘s The Constitution Sucks is a good example of how we can forever flip the coin looking for the right result, ignoring the edge.

T.H. Breen takes a look at some of the too often un-heralded folks and local movements during America’s revolutionary war period in It Wasn’t Just The Founders.

John Warner offers up For The Fourth, 9 Books For Your Sense Of Patriotism, saying “I’ve come to (personally) understand patriotism as a not a fan-like allegiance to a team, but a responsibility to understand the country’s history, warts and all as we pursue the illusive promise of life, liberty and happiness for all from the Declaration.” The key is knowing we all “come” to understanding.

Will Frivolous Charges Be Brought Against Future Ex-POTUSes? That’s Okay Too by Josh Marshall offers up an excellent piece on how we can twist and morph words in a legal context that shift the ground under most mythical mountains like “no man is above the law. “

Speaking of words and meaning, the bad guys seeking to survive a legal onslaught ahead of what they fear is a political tsunami coming for them are trying to rekindle old fears about communism and socialism as their latest talking points. Not sure those old saws will cut the same way they used to, but it demonstrates just how limited the dictionary is. David Todd McCarty takes a look behind the hooting and hollering in Democratic Socialism: Keeping The Great American Experiment Alive.

And in a quasi-hysterical look at shifting meanings and changing words, Rogé Karma is wondering Why Everyone Is Suddenly Talking About ‘Universal Basic Capital’. The quasi-hysterical part is that it’s coming from the AI market masters and a few politicians substituting the word “capital” for “income” following the words “universal basic.” Language is hard. When you can say anything to get what you want.

And in another word substitution, Doc Searls suggests we shift from an “attention economy” to an “intention economy.” Check out The First Source Of Personal Intent. I’m not sure the meaning changes with the substitution.

(Image from Alexandra on Unsplash)

The Not Always Serendipitous Bug When Text Messaging With Spouses

But honey, I didn’t get the text!

I enjoy driving long distances alone. One of the benefits is that it gives me time to catch up on podcasts and audio books, so there’s the bonus. Even though that doesn’t come close to making up for the current high prices of gas or driving through summer road construction.

My wife is in the final weekend of a production of Always Patsy Cline at Hope Summer Repertory about three hours away. This morning I left Chicago before the crack of dawn to avoid the current heat wave baking our glass bubble of a car and pass through the construction zones a little easier. The trip is to catch her last two performances, then pack her up and bring us back home after what will be two months of her being away and me traveling back and forth. We’re theatre folk so we’re used to that home again, away again lifestyle.

Here’s where the serendipity begins. While listening to the post-show portion of The Accidental Tech Podcast episode #698 (I subscribe to the podcast) host Casey Liss brought up an iPhone messaging bug that I’ve encountered for quite some time. One that would pop up again on this trip.

In essence the bug is this.

When his wife texts him on a solitary thread between the two of them, he will not receive a haptic tap on his Apple Watch. He does however receive the “tap-tap” as he calls it, if she is a part of a group thread. Liss’s thinking is that this has something to do with Focus modes. In those of which he runs, he has configured his wife to be able to break through with a haptic notification on his Apple Watch when she texts.

One of his other co-hosts Marco Arment also has the same issue. The third co-host John Siracusa has the problem but in reverse. He doesn’t wear an Apple Watch, but his wife does, and she claims she never gets an Apple Watch notification when he texts either.

I have the exact same problem. Like Liss I also have a specific self-designed haptic touch configured for my wife. I have seen this bug for so long that I’ve just relegated it to another that Apple will never fix. But there is a slight difference, which I’ll get to in a moment.

This morning’s serendipity wasn’t just hearing this issue discussed and getting the satisfying momentary knowledge that if these much more sophisticated tech guys than I can’t figure it out, I’m not crazy and I’m not alone. We’ve all been there in those moments of relief with our own tech frustrations. But the story continues with a bit of zemblanity. (Today’s word search was looking up the opposite of serendipity. Everyday is a good day when you learn something new, and also discover you’re not alone in your tech woes.)

While on this early morning drive, listening to this very section of the podcast, my wife texted me, asking me to stop off at the store when I hit town before heading to her company housing to pick up a few things. I never got the notification of her text on my Apple Watch, and didn’t see the one on my iPhone until after I had reached her residence, stopped the car, and began to unload.

Yup. I had to turn around and go back to the store.

During the ATP discussion of all of this much good natured back and forth was had about one spouse or the other not receiving these text message notifications and the “fun” it can cause in spousal relations when your only and honest answer is “Honey, I didn’t get your text!” Of course the logical next response that never works is “Blame Apple.”

As I mentioned earlier, Liss seems to think this has something to do with Focus modes. He may indeed be correct, but this happens to me whether I am running a Focus mode or not.

I long ago gave up on using Focus modes to any great degree. I just found them too complex to set up, and often not working as I expected. As an example, I no longer allow even the two I do use to flow through my chain of Apple Devices and none are turned on for my Macs. And yet, a Do Not Disturb mode will still launch on my iMac at odd hours on random days. Focus modes in my experience are just too fiddly and in my experience too buggy to be reliable.

The only Focus modes I currently use are the default Do Not Disturb and Sleep modes on the iPhone. I do have my wife, and several family members, set to break through those. Whether I’m running those modes or not, I do not get a “tap-tap” notification on my Apple Watch when my wife texts, unless, like Liss, my wife is part of a family group message thread, and then those come through as designed.

During her two month gig, my wife and I have resorted to “don’t text, call” as our way of reaching each other when some level of urgency or import arises. We’ve been through a few dicey family situations during her gig where I have resorted to turning off the Sleep focus at night. Breaking my wife’s habit of always texting first is a challenge in and of itself. But that’s another story.

Note that I always receive “tap-tap” notifications from all others I’ve set to break through Do Not Disturb or Sleep, or when I’m not running either Focus mode, which the majority of the time. This only happens with my wife.

I don’t know if this is the locus of the problem or not, but I would bet it floats somewhere in Apple’s iCloud. Focus modes, like Messages, flow through iCloud (assuming you have Messaging in iCloud turned on). Liss is convinced he’s configured something wrong. How notifications flow from one device or the other for those, like I, using multiple Apple devices, is also an inconsistent issue in my experience.

My guess, is anyone experiencing this at some point may have flipped a switch in an earlier generation of the software that has since changed, but there’s a flag set somewhere in that user’s iCloud account that’s hanging around causing the problem.

I’ve experienced several issues with my specific iCloud account that required things to be reset on Apple’s end in the past to suspect this is the case. As a little birdie told me during all my iCloud adventures, keep in mind every time Apple updates the operating system for your device, updates are happening on the backend as well.

Perhaps this is one of the many bugs Apple may be cleaning up on the backend preparing for the release of iOS 27. If not, it should be. It certainly would make for happier households that use Apple’s products.

(Image from Andrej Lišakoy on Unsplash)

Resilience Is Our Strength But Also Our Weakness

Time to break a few things

There are two big conversations popping around the political universe these days. Both seem to miss not only the larger point, but the stakes.

The first is how the Democratic Party is trying to still figure out what it wants to be in the wake of progressive victories in recent primaries. The centrists are appalled. The progressives are ecstatic. The people are pissed off. The politicians are clueless. This post isn’t really about that fight, only to say that it provides some context to the second.

The second conversation takes place on the larger battleground heading into the midterms and beyond. No, that’s not the inevitable mud fight between what was once the Republican Party and the clueless Democrats. It’s yet another intra-party scrap on the Dem side.

There are those who think we need to restore to what we had before. Achieve some sort of balance again. There are those, like me, that think playing that game is not only equally clueless, but is trying to pretend we can put all of the dismantling and destruction aside and find some sort of way forward in some semblance of what we used to call unity. As I said, I’m not buying into that myth. Reconstruction didn’t work the first time around. It won’t this time either.

The reconstruction and balance crowd makes a sadly profound observation about the electorate. As pissed off as most people are, the movers and shakers are counting on the resilience of the American people. Sad fact, the bad guys now in power and trying to desperately hang on to it out of fear of retribution, continue to count on that same resilience.

Resilience doesn’t always mean a stiffer spine. Many times it means hanging in and taking care of the immediate business of living day to day. When that daily struggle is the focus, it’s no surprise the bigger picture gets lost, or muddled up over passionate issues that in the larger scheme of things mean less than those that take advantage of them push like dope.

Yes, we are a resilient people. We can withstand a lot. But that resilience also makes us far too compliant, hoping that the next election, or some court decision will change things the way they always have in American politics. Those legal and civilized ways of bringing change have often, albeit slowly worked, but we’re finding that given everything that is broken, those same legal and civilized tools can be used to quash that progress at a quicker pace.

While we haven’t yet launched into a full-blown shooting Civil War, the damage that has been done since the Confederacy rose again and took over the federal government under the leadership of a Queens, New York conman and pedophile (something that strikes me as ironic and on the surface just damn funny) is in many ways just as damaging as was the end of the first Civil War, if not more so, because many of the institutions and norms that helped the Union survive have been and continue to be dismantled.

At the conclusion of that war in 1865 there was a great debate about how to handle the states and its leaders that formed the Confederacy. One side wanted retribution and punishment, the other not so much. Equal to our resilience is our capacity for compassion and our compunction to think that dark hearts can be changed. The compassionate side largely won out in an attempt to heal the nation’s wounds. Sad to say, here we are again.

The difference this time around is that on top of the fight for freedom, civil rights, and equality, we’re fighting a government that’s largely owned by a handful of billionaires. Many of which were on the other side of things not too long ago. Money talks and bullshit walks. They’ve largely made their haul, so the only reason I can see for them to continue what they’r doing is they’re also afraid of retribution.

In a brief conversation earlier today with friend David Todd McCarty after reading a new piece of his called The Quiet Truth, I remarked that his citing of the quote from Confucius about a willow that bends being stronger than the mighty oak that breaks in the storm, got me thinking. Those willows are indeed resilient. That same story appears in many cultures, proving its own resilience. But I’ve come to believe the only way out of this mess we’ve allowed ourselves to be in is going to require some breakage. Breakage that must require building something new, not restoring the old.

We made that mistake after the American Civil War. The country literally broke in two. In attempting to heal it, we proved our resilience as a people, but unfortunately left two many places for the losers to hide and lurk in the resilient reeds. They have resurfaced a few times since in our history, but have always been beaten back. Each time accepted back into the fold with that same practical compassion and resilience.

They’ve been openly enjoying breaking things. We might not enjoy it, but we need to break a few things with equal desperation and energy, before too much more is broken.

(Image from Halinskyi Max on Shutterstock)

Sunday Morning Reading

Comings and goings as life goes on.

It’s a Sunday, so it’s time for a little Sunday Morning Reading. As usual, I’m sharing a collection of links and once again they somehow touch one upon another. Funny how that happens. Some point to big issues. Some about the comings and goings of life. Some about its shifts. Take a look. Take a read. Happiness is a choice.

a bronze statue depicting a young boy sitting on a stone ledge and reading a book. He sits cross-legged, leaning slightly forward, with a large open book resting on his lap. Perched on the open page of the book is a small, detailed bronze bird looking back toward him. The boy's right arm rests on a stack of four large bronze books piled beside him on the stone ledge.

David Todd McCarty’s On Being Good At Life talks about abandoning the quest of success, fame, fortune, and just being better at life. Deciding how one defines life is always the first obstacle.

If you read one piece among those shared this week, read Josh Marshall’s Google, AI, Oligarchy and the End of the ‘Open Web’. I’ve been writing about Google’s recent moves and how they will change the web as we know it. Josh nails it better than I ever did. Some think we’re ready for this. I’m not one of those.

We lost a one of the good ones this week when Om Malik died. By all accounts a great human being and a giant in tech for so many years in so many spheres. Om’s writing has been featured in this column many times. As a human he was so much more than just his achievements. Two great pieces about Om that you should take the time to read. John Gruber’s simply titled Om, and Mathew Ingram’s Om Malik 1966-2026. Sail on, good sir.

Tom Wellborn takes a look at The Art of the Fail. You can guess his target. You should read his piece.

JA Westenberg takes on the pursuit of optimization and the cult of the extreme in The Extreme Is The Easy Way Out. Choosing a middle path is also not necessarily easy.

Mike Masnick tells us How The Internet Became A Tool For Domination and Control Instead of Liberation. Joke’s on us. I’m not laughing.

Ken White’s not laughing either. Or maybe he is. There’s always some kind of fracas happening in social media, regardless of the platform. When you step back, it’s weird that we designed something to explode and exploit that kind of chaos. Weirder still that we think we can control what people say or social media or anywhere else by banning them. Ken White of PopeHat fame was recently suspended from Bluesky and writes about his thoughts in A Bit of Tedious Drama At Bluesky. The piece is much more than just about those circumstances and worth your time. You are what you think and say. Ken defines it well.

A tip of the hat to Dwight Silverman who’s retiring (again) after a terrfic career writing about tech. I have always enjoyed Dwight’s work because he kept the focus of his tech adventures on the user, while having a firm grasp of the bigger picture. Check out The Grand Finale (for real this time): My 30+ year column ends, It’s exit heralded by AI, and also his thoughts about his retiring on his personal blog. I’m guessing (and hoping) we haven’t seen the last of what Dwight has to say.

Social Media Influencers Left Adrift With The Odyssey

Perhaps this starts a new trend

I find this move by movie maker Christopher Nolan to be quite fascinating. Prior to the opening of his next film, The Odyssey, Nolan is skipping the now usual round of screenings for social media influencers. In and of itself, it’s a great way to generate the same kind of annoying buzz that typically follows social media screenings. In the bigger picture, perhaps it’s the start of a healthier trend.

A Christopher Nolan film is going to generate its own momentum one way or the other these days, regardless of what critics and influencers say early on. So, you can argue that it’s a shrewd move for a movie that’s already generated quite a bit of social media furor over casting and other issues. That said, I hope this move starts a trend that has nothing to do with this particular movie.

Social media influencers, like critics, are by and large out for themselves, more than whatever they’re covering. They were born that way. Critics evolved into that mutation. What we used to call critics will say they are there for their readers, relying on that trope far too often. Social media influencers don’t even try to fall back on that concept as an excuse. It’s a hit and run business.

Those days when criticism on any level was an opinion to measure your own against are largely gone. The world wants others to form their opinions for them. Everyone’s just too busy. Taking the time to think on your own is too hard and time consuming. Heck, in that context, I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t eventually see early takes on new films, books, theatre, etc… generated by Artificial Intelligence.

In my opinion, we’d all be better off forming our own opinions, but that’s not how the world works. I’ve often derided the Siskel and Ebertization of thumbs up, thumbs down movie criticism. The move to creating another substrate of quick hit takes via social media was both a logical and illogical extension of critics as personalities pleading for attention.

The equation is a simple one that falls back on the cliché that any mention, good or bad, is good for business as long as the name is spelled correctly. That’s still largely true, thus my opinion that this is a shrewd move on Nolan’s part as long as this game continues. Since any level of criticism has become a sport, that cliché has opened the doors to rooms empty of thought, nuance, and dare I say, substance.

When criticism becomes a contact sport for attention it’s no longer criticism, no matter the form.

That’s my critical opinion.

Dear Algo Shenanigans

The joke has always been on us.

I’m looking for someone to tell me I’m wrong here. Then we’ll laugh together. At the moment I’m laughing alone at what I believe is a masquerade that’s hiding the ball while promising social media users new capabilities.

According to reports, Threads, Instagram, and TikTok are offering ways for users to tune their own algorithms, providing better control over what they see in their feeds.

That’s the masquerade. I’m sure users will have a ball jumping at the chance to fine tune their feeds. That may indeed prove beneficial, but the way I see it this is just a way for Meta (Threads and Instagram) and TikTok to fine tune user preferences for better and more specific data collection and targeting.

I love this quote from the TechCrunch article:

The shift reflects an evolution in how recommendation systems work. Social media feeds are moving away from a one-size-fits-all TV channel and toward something more like a streaming service, where users can tune recommendations to their interests and have more control over what they see.

Like that works so well on streaming media services.

The “Dear Algo” posts, which I’ve seen on Threads for a while now, may send a signal saying none of, or more of this or that, but a signal is a signal that throngs of users will think they control, but it’s serving the companies more than it ever will the users. It’s the same game as before. The house always wins.

Go ahead, call me crazy. But bad things get masked behind supposedly good things all the time. Oldest trick in a very thick book of tricks.

Looking at the big picture and speculating further one could argue that this is a tacit admission that these tech companies have discovered better, perhaps or perhaps not more efficient ways to capture data than their algorithms ever provided. I’m guessing AI has something to do with it.

Actually, I’m not guessing.

(Image from the author)