This kind of thinking is itself a major cause and component of the Miasma.
People have been forwarding those funny emails for decades.
The concept of a meme is a unit of information or idea, akin to a gene in living organisms. Successful memes are good at spreading and being replicated. Much like with genes, they alter over time and can become better at being picked up and spread further.
It's more a way of looking at the spread of ideas than an actual "thing" but it encompasses everything from lolcats to recipes to economic theories to religions. A successful idea is one that inherently makes people want to share it.
The other day I came up with a dorky acronym for social media and what it does: the CRASER. CRASER stands for Craziness Amplification through Stimulation of Engagement with Reactivity.
The idea is that primitive emotions like fear, hate, anger, outrage, etc. are the things that drive engagement. In other words: emotional reactivity. We've programmed computers to moderate our discourse with the goal function of driving engagement, so they selectively amplify signals that push those buttons. The result is a craziness laser that is causing everyone to adopt increasingly extreme, irrational, and provocative belief systems and styles of expression. Like in a laser all the various forms of madness feed on each other and intensify each other.
In the end there will only be Nazis advocating a new holocaust, Neo-Leninists advocating new gulags, and people who just hate everyone equally and want to destroy the world for the lulz.
For what it's worth I remember the early Internet too and in my memory it all really started to go to hell when gasified social media appeared: algorithmic timelines, up/down votes, likes, etc. That's when the CRASER fired up.
Guess she's a misollectual.
I think what she's saying is that if you were part of this group, the early Internet seemed welcoming and inclusive, but if you weren't, it was the opposite. From within a community it's easy to feel inclusive!
For whatever it's worth, even though I am a white male nerd myself, I never really felt welcome in "hacker spaces" and such. It must be a lot worse for people who are not white or male. And I'll believe her when she says that that was her experience with the early Internet. (Or, well, today's Internet.)
Arguably, the people who weren't "in the group" at that time were people who weren't interested or didn't have access. Internet was neither global nor cheap nor popular back then.
As for the misogyny angle, I feel either she fixated herself on a problem and is projecting, or this remark was included to signal allegiance with the social justice crowd. As it is now, the comment reeks of antiintellectualism.
> It must be a lot worse for people who are not white or male.
I don't think it was back then, because back then people didn't care much about it, and a lot of communities of post-university Internet were text-only pseudonymous communication anyway. As for what's today, increasingly it's being white or male that makes you out of place in a hacker space.
So is this. Which is enough for you to spread the old, tired, harmful, and incorrect trope that "people who are not in tech are just not interested". A text-only discussion of how women or minorities don't belong because they don't want to belong is unwelcoming in itself.
> As for what's today, increasingly it's being white or male that makes you out of place in a hacker space.
You are twisting my words. For one thing, I don't feel "out of place" among non-white non-male people. People are people, I'm not afraid of them because of the color of their skin or what I guess their genitalia are like. For the other, all the hacker spaces I've seen where I didn't feel welcome had large white male majorities.
This seems like your own biases are your worst enemy then. So a predictor of your comfort is the non-white, non-maleness of the group? I wonder what this predictor would be called if it was black men that made you feel uncomfortable?
You really feel equally "in place" among a group of Hmong women as you do among a group of Honduran women as you do among a group of Nigerian women, but you can't get settled in a group of Russian women?
No. I said "X is not the case", from which you cannot deduce "the opposite of X is true".
Yes. And I don't know what your race or gender is, nor do I care, nor would it make a difference if I knew.
> Which is enough for you to spread the old, tired, harmful, and incorrect trope that "people who are not in tech are just not interested".
At this point in time today, not only it's not a tired trope, it's pretty much an obvious truth. Programming today has zero structural barriers to entry, minimal capital requirements, and unprecedented amount of affirmative action targeted at all kinds of minority groups. If in 2019 you aren't programming, you're either not interested in doing so (a fine choice!), or can't (due to economic or health constraints).
Still, I was talking about the times where the Internet was a peculiar things only particular types of nerds, discriminated against in the physical world, ever found interesting. Getting on-line, or into programming in general, required more effort and money - you had to convince yourself or your parents that a PC and a modem and future phone bills were useful expenses - and didn't yet offered obvious paths to riches. If you were in there, it meant you were interested and had wealth to spare. That means, obviously, that a lot of people were excluded.
But if the point you're making is that any group with barriers to entry will exclude someone, then I don't see the point of making that point.
(You'll also notice that all the talk of the tech being unwelcoming started only after commercial Internet exploded and some of those high-school oppression targets made a shit ton of money and influence. Once tech became seen as the easiest path into money and fame, people started asking "how come the population of tech workers isn't uniformly distributed across all the characteristics you could think of", and people who were underrepresented followed that with "how can we fix it so we too get a piece of the pie?".)
I see some people on-line have a peculiar definition of what it means for a field to be welcoming - not only it has to remove all the barriers to entry, but it also has to bend over backwards to make the demographics uniform. It's true that the tech, until recently, didn't do the latter.
In a very trivial sense this is true-ish. In the US lots of women seemed to have lost interest in computing in the mid 1980s: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
With a massive change like this, there must be some sort of societal shift behind it. You don't have to buy the article's thesis regarding the concrete reason. But there was something going on in society that changed young women's minds.
But "society pressured me into losing interest" is not the same as "I wasn't, our could not have been, interested in the first place". So yes, many women "aren't interested" in the trivial sense of "we had enough discussion threads in HN and elsewhere signaling that they shouldn't be interested, and finally this perception stuck".
> If you were in there, it meant you were interested and had wealth to spare.
If we agree that in many cases that wealth came from parents, there is no reason to assume that young women had less of it than young men. Unless there were factors like parents saying things like "computers are for boys". From the article above: "In the 1990s, researcher Jane Margolis interviewed hundreds of computer science students at Carnegie Mellon University, which had one of the top programs in the country. She found that families were much more likely to buy computers for boys than for girls — even when their girls were really interested in computers."
If you were in there, it meant you were interested (check), your parents had wealth to spare (check), and you were very likely a boy.
Anyway, all of this has been rehashed many times before, and we're unlikely to change each other's minds.
I never really felt welcome in my university sci-fi club, and only went a couple of times. Looking back, I realise it's because I was cripplingly shy rather than through any fault of the other people in the club. (In fact some of my good friends now were in the club at the time!)
I think this kind of thing is more common than usually acknowledged, especially in this kind of discussion. It's one thing to feel out of place or unwelcome, it's quite another to lay sole responsibility for your feelings on the people around you.
Shyness is a thing, and it can be hard to overcome. And harder still if you are shy and you are not a white male in a white male dominated community. If the community wants to be inclusive, it has some responsibility in communicating who is welcome and what is offered to help newcomers overcome their shyness.
Neither is "invalid", but we should remember the difference between "great" and "great (for the small set of people that enjoyed it)"
But Amy's world has won, the social web is a popularity contest, discussions are group-think and emotion-based, "white male nerds" can be ridiculed. Tragic.
It was always a popularity context. The groupthink was so bad that adequacy.org could very effectively parody the obsession with Linux and AMD, as well as other tropes.
It looked like a golden age because "we" had a community that was "ours", but the only reason it was "ours" was that a lot of people invisibly bounced off it.
If there was a golden age, it ended somewhere between the Columbine shooting (remember /.'s response to that?) and 9/11. The response to that by Adequacy parodies so many comments before and since : http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html
> Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.
Trolling was in it's infancy and at least labeled as such. Today it's organizations successfully influencing elections through social media. And I do think the discussion of events was more nuanced and objective than today, the parody you've linked is actually a pretty good outline for a comment, better than most 140 character tweets.