Brilliant writing and great comparison with Orwell. I’ve never really thought of ‘us’ as the Big Brother but I think you’re absolutely right. We are all low key big brother just peeping on others fabricated lives. Quite sad when you spell it out like you did.
I recently heard a quote, “There’s those who live and those who watch others live.”
Pretty jarring. We have gotten to the point we are selling off our experiences and losing the novelty, protection, and joy that simply being present provides. Life is less about documenting everything we do, showing the world, and then watching others do the same. It’s about living as you please no matter how weird, goofy, or stupid it may seem to others. Those are the people who really live, not the ones who cheaply sell off their life to social media or watch others live through social media.
True. As someone who moved from a smaller city to New York before the internet, I feel like we’re recreating the small town dynamic that everyone lived in before the automobile. There is no anonymity. Everyone knows everyone’s business.
Yet the real problem is rooted in human nature; the desire for status and recognition.
Psychologist John Dewey explained that the deepest urge in human nature is the desire to feel important. Freud called it the desire “to be great.”
All powerful entities, from social media and digital devices to nationalism, religion, and identities are about enforcing those desires and urges, to make people feel special, different, and seen.
This writing really surprised me. The depth and insight the author shows into such a complex and yet common place aspect of our lives was refreshing. Very impressed!!
I feel quite sad after reading this. It’s a nice wake up call though, knowing that the dopamine rush you get from socialising online actually isn’t real life.
I really enjoyed this, Sherry! And I’d highly recommend reading the preface of Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, in which he argues that the media environment we’ve created is not Orwellian but Huxleyan (and that’s the frame for the whole book, which is about the dangers of Television — written in 1984).
...and for people who read real books that's a strange thing these days, this whole situation permanently compared to "1984" - the true analogy is Brave New World, resurfing in Amusing Ourselves to Death. And the sad thing is both show that there's no hope left, because entertainment is king. And always will be.
Sherry, while I largely agree, I’d point out certain online personalities at least try to provide more than false friendships. Two examples: Russell Brand and Scott Adams. Interestingly, both of them have taken gigantic losses for failing to maintain their brands. Having watched/listened to them and many others for several years, I think I’ve noticed something odd. In an effort to break out of the mold you describe (false or empty friendships) they both break character. In allowing themselves to be genuine, they connect at a deeper level with their audience. Scott posts his podcast even or especially on holidays explaining he knows many of his audience members have no one else with whom to celebrate. We as viewers or listeners demand what we expect to see or hear. We enforce brand identity to the extent that online personalities become cardboard approximations of what made them famous. I think this is Laos what leads to so many online copycats (ie. Storytelling in which everyone poaches each others stories. The same way Hollywood is derided for lacking creativity. Shakespeare wrote great plays but many if not most of them were well known and well-worn stories. Largely that’s what audiences want. They want to know what to expect.
“Old George Orwell got it backward. Big Brother isn’t watching. He’s singing and dancing. He’s pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding your attention every moment you’re awake. He’s making sure you’re always distracted. He’s making sure you’re fully absorbed. He’s making sure your imagination withers. Until it’s as useful as your appendix. He’s making sure your attention is always filled. And this being fed, it’s worse than being watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what’s in your mind. With everyone’s imagination atrophied, no one will ever be a threat to the world.” - Chuck Palahniuk, Lullaby
“Instead of the daily encounters that enable communities to sustain a common life, random collections of solitary people are protected from each other.... Rather than connecting in troublesome relationships, they are turning to cyber-companions for frictionless friendship and virtual sex. The contingencies of living in a material world are being swapped for an algorithmic dreamtime. The end-point is self-enclosure in the Matrix – a loss of the definitively human experience of living as a fleshly, mortal creature..... the defiant smile in the face of cruel absurdity, the glance that began a love that changed us forever, a tune it seemed would always be with us, tears in the rain.” These are some words of British philosopher John Gray that I quoted in this post: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
Excellent dissection of the plague of social media. I recently read someone’s trenchant observation that social media should be understood as performative rather than communicative.
Brilliant writing and great comparison with Orwell. I’ve never really thought of ‘us’ as the Big Brother but I think you’re absolutely right. We are all low key big brother just peeping on others fabricated lives. Quite sad when you spell it out like you did.
I love nuanced perspective and Sherry hit the nail on the head with this one.
I recently heard a quote, “There’s those who live and those who watch others live.”
Pretty jarring. We have gotten to the point we are selling off our experiences and losing the novelty, protection, and joy that simply being present provides. Life is less about documenting everything we do, showing the world, and then watching others do the same. It’s about living as you please no matter how weird, goofy, or stupid it may seem to others. Those are the people who really live, not the ones who cheaply sell off their life to social media or watch others live through social media.
I like that quote
We live in the panopticon.
Yes, but it's a self-inflicted panopticon. There is no guard, we are our own guard.
True. As someone who moved from a smaller city to New York before the internet, I feel like we’re recreating the small town dynamic that everyone lived in before the automobile. There is no anonymity. Everyone knows everyone’s business.
Yet the real problem is rooted in human nature; the desire for status and recognition.
Psychologist John Dewey explained that the deepest urge in human nature is the desire to feel important. Freud called it the desire “to be great.”
All powerful entities, from social media and digital devices to nationalism, religion, and identities are about enforcing those desires and urges, to make people feel special, different, and seen.
👏🏻
I guess it's human nature, after all.
This writing really surprised me. The depth and insight the author shows into such a complex and yet common place aspect of our lives was refreshing. Very impressed!!
I feel quite sad after reading this. It’s a nice wake up call though, knowing that the dopamine rush you get from socialising online actually isn’t real life.
Sad but true..
Absolutely 👍
I really enjoyed this, Sherry! And I’d highly recommend reading the preface of Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, in which he argues that the media environment we’ve created is not Orwellian but Huxleyan (and that’s the frame for the whole book, which is about the dangers of Television — written in 1984).
A CLASSIC
...and for people who read real books that's a strange thing these days, this whole situation permanently compared to "1984" - the true analogy is Brave New World, resurfing in Amusing Ourselves to Death. And the sad thing is both show that there's no hope left, because entertainment is king. And always will be.
Not sure if you coined it or not, but I love the phrase "Sucralose Friends"
Sherry, while I largely agree, I’d point out certain online personalities at least try to provide more than false friendships. Two examples: Russell Brand and Scott Adams. Interestingly, both of them have taken gigantic losses for failing to maintain their brands. Having watched/listened to them and many others for several years, I think I’ve noticed something odd. In an effort to break out of the mold you describe (false or empty friendships) they both break character. In allowing themselves to be genuine, they connect at a deeper level with their audience. Scott posts his podcast even or especially on holidays explaining he knows many of his audience members have no one else with whom to celebrate. We as viewers or listeners demand what we expect to see or hear. We enforce brand identity to the extent that online personalities become cardboard approximations of what made them famous. I think this is Laos what leads to so many online copycats (ie. Storytelling in which everyone poaches each others stories. The same way Hollywood is derided for lacking creativity. Shakespeare wrote great plays but many if not most of them were well known and well-worn stories. Largely that’s what audiences want. They want to know what to expect.
Excellent piece. Brought this to mind:
“Old George Orwell got it backward. Big Brother isn’t watching. He’s singing and dancing. He’s pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding your attention every moment you’re awake. He’s making sure you’re always distracted. He’s making sure you’re fully absorbed. He’s making sure your imagination withers. Until it’s as useful as your appendix. He’s making sure your attention is always filled. And this being fed, it’s worse than being watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what’s in your mind. With everyone’s imagination atrophied, no one will ever be a threat to the world.” - Chuck Palahniuk, Lullaby
“Instead of the daily encounters that enable communities to sustain a common life, random collections of solitary people are protected from each other.... Rather than connecting in troublesome relationships, they are turning to cyber-companions for frictionless friendship and virtual sex. The contingencies of living in a material world are being swapped for an algorithmic dreamtime. The end-point is self-enclosure in the Matrix – a loss of the definitively human experience of living as a fleshly, mortal creature..... the defiant smile in the face of cruel absurdity, the glance that began a love that changed us forever, a tune it seemed would always be with us, tears in the rain.” These are some words of British philosopher John Gray that I quoted in this post: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
Every millenials are falling to this doomscrolling and the consequences are fatal .. admired your writing 🙏👌
Funnily I wrote something on the same lines yesterday. But yours is faaarrr more better than mine. Here’s my take:
https://substack.com/@sagarmehra/note/c-62437602?r=3ejq5o&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Brilliant writing Sherry!, "Hell is other people." Yas plis!
“People are fake on social media not because they want to be, but because they have to be.” This is it, this is brilliant
Excellent dissection of the plague of social media. I recently read someone’s trenchant observation that social media should be understood as performative rather than communicative.
(Said the guy commenting on Substack.)