December 17

Not being on tumblr for a day and coincidentally reading about various topics related to the spread and accessibility of information (both studying for my course and in private, for fun) has made me reflect. I’m probably not the best person to get this point across considering I can’t be defined an expert on anything, but here’s hoping. I do think it’s important.

I find the direction the internet has been going in deeply disturbing. The more I think about it, the more disturbing it gets, in fact. Chances are that as soon as you’ve read this sentence you already have a particular event in mind — even one *besides* the TOS change on tumblr. We brush the instances off because they crept in gradually and it’s nothing new at this point if a large social media starts banning people, strictens its regulations or shuts down. It happened several times on youtube, at least once (that I remember) on twitter and there was something about patreon as well. It’s getting difficult to follow.

Just to be clear; this is *not* the usual free speech meme. Saying offensive things online and the philosophical implications isn’t what I want to talk about because its targeting is the symptom and not the illness. We also need to stop deluding ourselves that there’s a moral cause behind any of this; it’s money and marketing. If you think it’s morality (from any possible political side), you’re naïve and you’re the demographic this is aimed at. The only, *only* reason offensive content, porn or anything related is being banned is because it makes the right people *feel good* that it’s banned — and they’ll pay money to services that do. There’s a lot on this I almost feel cheesy mentioning because it’s been brought up so many times. Yes, calling online advertisements subliminal messages sounds edgy and a bit conspiratorial, so I’ll just say they’re subconscious influences. Not subconscious in a ‘scary brainwashing’ way, but part of that deluge of information taken in by our brain on the daily that we aren’t aware of out of pure convenience. Habitual thinking and fleeting first impressions can be dangerously wrong (just think of the mental illnesses and addictions that stem from these neural processes) and it’s no secret that everyone’s been exploiting this loophole left and right — maybe since the dawn of time.

I’ll try to organize this sensibly since there are too many points I need to make.

/Point One: Online advertisement is the root of all evil/

Hyperbolic — but that’s where the root of this particular problem is. At this point we’ve accepted ads as a part of our daily lives, but I doubt there’s anyone who doesn’t find them annoying. That’s the irony of it; that *everyone* (at least millennials for sure) dislikes them, but they’re pushed so hard we gloss over them nonetheless. Advertisement is the only working way to monetize websites and sustain them, which brought about this universal desperation to put them anywhere and everywhere. This whole social media sanitizing mess wouldn’t have happened without ads— I’ll put that better: obviously, there’s a reason ads are there and they’re a natural byproduct of the internet, but they *are* the cause of a problem we can’t brush off and they *don’t necessarily need to stay*.

It’s inevitable to ask whether advertising in its current form even works. As somebody who went into the question unbiased (sort of; the bias was outbalanced by my last shreds of hope): there is, apparently, some psychological research saying it doesn’t, while I personally remember full-on studies with neuroimaging proving it does, at least subliminal messages (the sunscreen one, you know which). Though I’m not sure of the participants’ age in the latter and it can be argued that it was done in specific circumstances. I’ll go with the hopefully realistic assumption that *some* ads prompt you to buy the product and others don’t.

The problem with ads that *don’t work* isn’t big, except that it needs to be shown and clearly made to understand that they don’t. To corporations specifically. Catch; if we can’t tell which types work and which don’t, all of them will be used. I admit that advertising being completely useless would be a fantastic scenario, possibly the best case. More ominous possibility: ads work. This is *much* more complicated to tackle and I’ll get back to it in my list of vague solutions at the end.

In essence, online advertising needs to be at least un-popularized and possibly removed entirely. No matter how much it works, it’s ruining things and we’re getting a taste of exactly how.

/Point Two: Format changes the value of information/

I’ll write it down three more times until everyone understands this because I find it really, really frustrating that we, as a society, don’t.

**Format changes the value of information.**

**Format changes the value of information.**

**Format changes the value of information.**

If you need to spend time and labor on extracting information from a source, it has less value. I didn’t make it sound good, but think about the simple fact that we *pay* to get something in a more accessible form than before. We pay for resumes, we pay for shortcuts — we get books on a topic with references instead of reading the sources one by one, we get netflix instead of pirating everything even though I don’t doubt it’s possible. I don’t think most people pay for netflix subscriptions out of pure honestly and generosity; it’s just a service which saves you time and has a good interface.

Even more obvious is the fact that we easily give up on information presented in an incomprehensible form, because our time and attention span are limited, especially in the context of the internet. People don’t look at the 200th page of a google search. It’s pointless to say “they *could*” because they *factually won’t*. Time *is* money, and there’s probably an equivalence between both those and energy as well. We’re used to conceptualizing this property of information as a binary ‘accessible’ vs ‘inaccessible’, whereas it’s more of a spectrum. On one end is the total lack of comprehensiveness (a text in a language you don’t speak), then it moves from complicated to easier encryptions; I’d put information spread in various sources or with a lot of ‘noise’ in the middle (eg. a long text only some of which is relevant; effectively steganography); moving on to clumsily presented or manipulated messages (social media) to pure facts that contain only what you need at the other end. The value of information varies accordingly — less value for the obscure, more value for the clear. The more time you would spend decoding the information, the less worth it has, with the limit case of gibberish which is completely worthless or, in other terms, needs infinite time to decode.

You might wonder what this is and what it has to do with the fact that you can’t look at porn on tumblr. Besides being my personal middle finger to anyone who’s ever said ‘Just google it!’, it also relates in important ways to what I was talking about before. Mostly that yes, though I was boycotting, I *did* read caps of that post staff put out about the TOS changes. And it did make me mad in how perfectly it fits with the discourse on the value of information.

It’s supposed to be reassuring that the content is ‘not deleted’ and just hidden by an algorithm. Another massive mistake on staff’s part (are we even surprised) is how the tone of that post brings in the open the conundrum. More blatantly so than *every other social media that gives the same excuses*. Making content inaccessible — not just completely hidden but also not brought to the front by the sorting — actively decreases its value. This term sounds confusing here, so I’ll rephrase: it makes you pick between something more valuable (an accessible post) and something less valuable (an inaccessible post) for the same monetary price (either zero or whatever you pay for your internet connection if you count that). If this makes more sense; it forces you to perform more labor (or spend more time, which equals labor) to get an information, the equivalent of selling a disassembled object at the same price as an assembled one was sold previously.

/Point Three: There is a difference between a human being and a function, in case you haven’t noticed/

Heavy sarcasm aside, I almost said ‘computer’ instead of function, then realizing that *even a computer doesn’t live up to the expectations we like to posit*, to the point where I can use it in an example.

We need to stop thinking of a person as an abstract actor with infinite time and energy. I’m still, in fact, stuck on this annoying notion of assuming any information we *could potentially* consume, *can* and *will* be consumed. Nothing that actually exists in the world will *ever* have that freedom and concerning ourselves with the value of an asymptote that won’t be reached is pointless here. No matter what you do, there’s always a better choice, a potential you didn’t fulfill, or — more information you could have consumed. It’s interesting as a philosophical exercise, maybe, just like it’s interesting to look at which functions are computable, but sorting content on an *existing website* isn’t the right context to say “You could have reached that post in fewer than infinite steps”.

We actually need to know *how many steps*. How much we have to work to get that particular post. It’s such an important factor that methods of securing information *rely on it*. Sure, your credit card number could be matched to you in less than infinite time by trying out every combination, but it’d probably take longer than the age of the universe. It’s a finite number, it’s just too big for human limitations. In the same way, a program could be the most brilliant one in the world, but nobody would care if it took even years (...or ten minutes) to start up, let alone any amount of time less than infinite.

It probably looks like I’m juggling with big numbers to discredit everything with the most extreme cases — it’s just a foolproof demonstration of how the fundamental way of thinking is flawed. A simple one would be that nobody has the time to scroll to the bottom of their social media feed, or the patience not to refresh the page for that matter. Better yet: apps will refresh it *for you* and most people check those sites in a limited timeframe. The site could make a post the last one before you reach the end (the facebook feed does have an end, by the way) and claim it wasn’t hidden because it technically wasn’t and it’s ‘just how the algorithm works’.

/Point Four: We’re not selling the air we breathe, so why can we sell *basic cognition*?/

Anyone who knows me is aware that I’m the last person who would go on a rant about how terrible capitalism is. But there’s a limit. Social media controls the flux of information for monetary gain like a power plant, always turning the way that will earn more and milking the sources of income dry with no regards to the average person that fuels it. And no, I don’t want to make this about any other industry because the nature of what’s being traded is different.

Frankly, I’ve disliked copyright laws since before they got stricter. Not only is the line between ‘stolen content’ and original ideas blurry, but people have *repeatedly* demonstrated not being able to draw it, ranging from false-flagged parodies on youtube, through people on deviantart claiming their art was traced because someone drew a pose vaguely similar to theirs, up to article 13. I’m not saying it should be unregulated, much less that it should be legal to make money off of other people’s content as if it was yours. But sharing *information* is hardly monetizeable physically and — I suppose this is ideological of me — I don’t think it should be on the internet either. Sure, you can be fined for photocopying some books, but you can’t be fined for someone lending you the book. It’s not the paperback object itself that’s being shared but the information contained in it, and that’s what’s being translated into money.

I’m vehemently attached to the free flow of information, especially in the way it’s existed on the internet until now. The reason? That I’m used to it. It doesn’t go deeper and it shouldn’t. Our whole generation has adapted to data being shared as it is online and while the motivations behind monetizing it are understandable, it’s still kind of like getting someone hooked on a drug and making them pay for it more with each dose. We depend on our current means of connecting. I don’t even need a moral appeal because here’s what will happen if the source gets cut off: we’ll suffer for a while and then we’ll find a different drug. It’s not a permanent money-making machine for corporations either and it will burn out sooner or later; except their CEOs don’t have a reason to care because they’ll already be millionaires by then.

My point is less the generic ‘should anyone make money off of information?’ and more ‘why can *these specific people* do it when all they did was point to something that was free before and decide it’s theirs to sell now?’ Big emphasis on *who* we’re talking about because it’s entirely possible that if it was *someone else* they wouldn’t try to ruin our online experience. The same thing has happened before with other commodities (see: colonialism) and I’m not saying it’s realistic to walk back on that, but it’s time we put an end to it. Evidently, we’re running out of things to sell so badly that now we’re doing it with information itself and that completely blows my mind on many levels.

Information isn’t like coal, wood or oil. It’s our basic way of interacting with the world around us. When somebody’s able to put a price on it, we’re headed down a nasty path that won’t do any of us good. It doesn’t matter that it’s presented on the internet — being able to use this means *already* costs money, you pay for your device and your internet connection, so don’t try to tell me it’s thrown at everyone for free. By putting something online on a public forum it’s implied that anyone can see it.

Perhaps the real problem is that we’re not *aware* our information is being commodified. If we knew, we’d exercise conscious control over who gets it and at what price — most importantly, we wouldn’t give it away for free, letting someone use it as a resource unwillingly. We’d go out of our way to use sites that require a payment of less personal data and only then would this sensibly work like a market. The fact that our attitude towards information, stemming precisely from how fundamental it is, is what allows this to happen is nothing short of ironic.

/Point Five: This will fix itself eventually/

Why are people outraged in the first place? Evidently, something about whimsically regulating information flow is bothering us and hindering our experience. Revolutions and conscious efforts may work *sometimes* to fix a problem, but what works even more is the inevitable consequences of people’s actions. As slow a change as it is, it’s ruthless and viral; it couldn’t have *not* happened for the simple fact that you can’t get money in exchange for nothing for long time periods. What I’m saying is that people will turn away from services that abuse of their algorithms naturally sooner or later because one step too far makes those services *not interesting anymore*. I say you shouldn’t be cynical about everyone staying on tumblr; if it does get boring, we’re all going to leave.

However, just because it will get better later doesn’t mean the process can’t be sped up and that you have to suffer from it while it’s going. Most of all I hate the idea of big companies getting away with it in the meantime. I’ll put a list at the end with realistic steps that can be taken on part of an average person who doesn’t want to spend too much time on it.

/To sum it up:/

1 - Social media manipulates how easily accessible information is in order to make it advertiser-friendly
2 - The content you produce is needed for them to earn money while you’re unawarely giving it to them for free
3 - This is deceptive because we’re not used to conceiving of the internet this way
4 - Fortunately we’re now noticing this so it will come to an end when restrictive and ad-ridden social media gets too boring and we don’t feel a need to use it
5 - This can conclude either sooner or later depending on how we act

As for what I think should be done — this is, like everything else I’ve said, a personal opinion.

* Give away as little personal information as possible online, or if you really have to, don’t make it easily collectible to algorithms (note: this wouldn’t necessarily mean it has no exposure to other users). Don’t fill out forms that ask for your verifiable name/age/gender/number/email unless it’s *very important*, fill them with fake, unrealistic data if possible. I’m not savvy enough about IP protection and such but that could also be necessary.
* Semi-related to the above; we need to start avoiding searchable keywords, especially if they lead back to personal info. Have personal or not entirely obvious tags on sites with a tagging system. The two easiest ways to not have to keep this in mind would be either a plug-in that reminds you not to use certain words or a widespread normalization of quickly-changing internet slang that corporations can’t keep up with (they did show themselves to be quite tone-deaf so far)
* Not only use adblock but let sites *know* that you’re using it. If a sites asks you to disable it, DON’T; just stop directing traffic their way and find an alternative site every time you can. Using multiple similar services can also be useful; I remember a point where adblock wasn’t working on youtube so I whimsically installed ublock and it did its job.
* Countering online advertising as a whole is incredibly difficult and I, by no means, have a solution; but it there is one, it lies in the direction of making it unprofitable. I admit that this is complex, but bringing subconscious influences into awareness is a step forward. Even better would be an aggressive counteradvertising, a comprehensive list of companies that overuse this and frequent reminders about it happening. Parody, mockery, memes, deep dissections of a company’s wrongdoings, etc. Anything that will make us know *all the time* that it’s there.
* A big loophole of this ‘branch of market’ is the question of morality. One thing corporations can be pressured about is people thinking they’re outright evil — and though I’m politically and morally neutral, there’s a case to be made there. If you have an issue with rich people, you *should* have an issue with companies controlling the flow of information, as they profit off of it in an underhanded way. Seeing ads as evil would also put these people in a corner, but I’m not sure how to construct that.
* I can’t stress this enough: make terms and conditions more accessible. If you have some legal knowledge and want to do something nice and useful, pick a big social media and create a short, comprehensive summary of their T&C that anyone can understand and go through quickly (I’ve seen some people do similar things before with laws and such). Expose the caveats, the parts about data collection, the pros and cons. If you yourself made or have seen someone make these, send them my way and I’ll go out of my way to share them.
* The moment you register (or if you already have) to a site, make it your routine to go to the settings first thing first and disable any option that seems shady. Tumblr is full of these and there’s been quite a fuss about the privacy dashboard and such, but it needs to be done periodically and on every possible social media.
* Generally, hit these companies’ weak spots: their lack of understanding of internet culture, their measures being tailored to big averages, and their reliance on automation. Encourage obscure ways of communicating — if they’re going to mess with the accessibility of our information, we can make it less accessible to them. I know it hurts a lot of people’s vanity to share their content only with smaller circles but remember that being a tumblr funnyman isn’t necessarily the highest goal in life and has its downsides, so being less known and more free might just be a good thing.

As I said, I’m not an expert, just a random person with a personal interest in how we interact with information. I know this post is nowhere near concise or well-structured and it’s because my thoughts on it are very hard to organize even for me. But please, value your internet freedom because adapting to a life without it will be painful and tedious if it has to happen.

/My personal rants/opinions/notes/

This whole thing has put me in a near delirious state, that’s something I need to admit. More than panic it’s an overwhelming sense of doom and anger — I’m fed up, more than a little, and while I welcome constructive comments with progress in this situation I’m unaware of, research, other ideas or reasons why mine factually wouldn’t work, I advise you not to come to me with something along the lines of “But it isn’t that bad! Look at all the small creators who make money from ads! It’s just how things work!!” I’m in a terrible mood. There’s no online phenomenon right now that I hate with more intensity than advertising. As such, I will be unfollowing any blog here that posts any kind of ad (you know those clothing discount ones) regardless of how much I like their content. I really, really don’t care if it’s their only source of income. It already bothers me enough as it is that government agencies have such a free hand in classifying information that *significant historical impacts of people* are proven to have been hidden from us for a very long time. A time long enough for the momentum to die out and the information being, well, effectively still hidden considering the lack of exposure when it was relevant, hidden because *nobody knows it exists or cares*. Yes, I know why it’s done and that it’s sometimes military strategy, I’m not an idiot. But I hate it that a niche of people just *gets to decide*. It’s not just about porn on tumblr, it’s bigger and nastier. This instance was the last drop simply because of how shameless it was.