Gamma S. Foxlore, Comms Open (3/4)

There’s this really weird pattern I’ve noticed in tech, crypto, art, online communities, etc where a guy will create something that becomes really popular or successful and then it gets captured by a bunch of faceless nobodies who make it worse or at least don’t do any better. From that point, like scheming little court viziers, if the founder does anything other than roll over and die, they do everything possible to subvert his actions, denounce his name, and then desperately ignore his existence. If he should happen to gain any traction afterward, he gets desperately dismissed and countersignalled. There never seems to be any ambitious intent to continue, expand upon, or even try to sincerely alter the trajectory either. It’s usually just a bunch of parasites suckling off the momentum from the juggernaut originally created until it becomes an emaciated husk. Ideas get thrown out without any real volition, executed poorly, generating little to no notoriety from whatever fans, audience, or enthusiasts were left after the initial excursion. Despite their entire lives and time and energy being dedicated to orbiting around a particular thing, they have an incredible level of scorn for that thing’s creator. Left unchecked, their mindset shifts from “I could’ve done this” to “I actually did this first” while failing to do any better. These individuals often tend to be risk-averse, low agency, fearful of direct confrontation, and generally unexceptional. They default towards appeals to authority, often utilizing cancel culture, consensus astroturfing, or other disingenuous methods which emphasize the need for removal without placing emphasis on themselves. They’re often “the responsible ones just picking up the pieces” after ousting the founder or creator under pretenses of bad optics, which are often the result of the same unstable creative energy that allowed something good to be made in the first place. These kinds of court games aren’t new to history, but at least historically there’s some degree of dignity in the life-or-death consequences and stake of power that these games were played for in the past. The phenomenon of people doing this online over the past couple decades is nowhere near as sophisticated, cunning, or deliberate as, say, an ancient Chinese coup or a 19th century political usurpation. It’s often bumbling doofuses operating on pure instinct, picking up unconscious consensus tactics and riding a wave of social inertia generated by unintentional displays of weakness (like undue generosity or lack of hierarchical enforcement) from leadership. The funniest part about it is that you all think I’m subtweeting something specific but I bet each and every one of you can think of a different example of something like this happening. Maybe it was to a company, a movement, a franchise, a fandom, a forum, or even just a friend group. But all of you have either seen it happen or basked in the aftermath of it. It’s ruined something good you’ve enjoyed or something important you were a part of. As human beings learn to adapt to the next stage of evolution (the Network Hivemind), we find ourselves rediscovering the same principles and mechanisms we had to learn throughout our history as a species. The lessons of the past are harvested and recreated digitally, as we both participate and observe our own development in the great Petri dish of the Network. The sociopolitical mechanisms that online parasites have historically taken advantage of over the past twenty years are growing weaker. Fairly soon, genuine creators and contributors will have better context and weapons to equip themselves with, a proper immune system built up against the pungent thick vat of bio waste that’s encroached and corrupted everything we enjoy. Like a tragic prophecy in a Greek epic, every dire social consequence the digital cockroach has wielded as a bogeyman to cater to his interests will come true. A better, crueler world awaits them.

The day the Affordable Care Act passed was one of my proudest moments as president, because it meant that millions of Americans would have access to health care, some for the first time. The ACA also prevented insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions coverage, allowed young people under the age of 26 to remain on their parents’ plan, expanded Medicaid, and so much more. But the ACA was always meant to be a first step. We still have to do more to expand access and make health care more affordable for everyone.

"You're sentenced to work 9 to 5 with 2 weeks vacation a year for the rest of your life"