How bleak. What are we doing here, then? I mean on this platform. The irony is that the platform also creates at least an illusion of relevance for now. Less and less so as the bots take over.
I'd argue, though, that Zuckerberg remains extremely relevant 20 years on from his act of creative revenge coding. He is not an author subsumed by the system in quite the same way as us ink stained scribes. He holds enormous social, political, and economic power. The film's symbolism, its juxtaposition between the real man and the created digital reflection, doesn't quite hold up to historical reality. The asshole won and has no regrets about being an asshole who cosplays manhood because he is, after all, a master of the universe. In fact he was and continues to be rewarded for this because the rest us have embraced what he made.
BTW -- smart and thoughtful post. I appreciated it.
How bleak indeed. And, indeed . . . How brave a man, despite his humiliations. His efforts to break from the machine again and again are admirable. I do not judge his moral character. Any great thing involves immense emotional input. I accept Fincher's film, however, for this same quiet compassion. Influence comes at great personal cost. Zuckerberg is one of the most prominent examples of a person with all "sins" exposed, who has persisted, grown, and become stronger and stronger for it. Developing nations are better for Facebook and Facebook market. Just as American literature is better for a Philip Roth, for instance.
Yes, he is. And he works within genre, but directs his actors to elevate the material so much. Jessie Eisenberg's performance, on rewatch, carries the film, as does the music, which he seems to embody, or which seems simply to paint over his expressions at times. Fincher is indeed one of our greatest artists, and his moral opacity is another definitive, elevating feature across (almost) every work.
I think this is exactly the question we should be asking -- what are we doing here?
I'm less worried about the bots tbh. The user is the content. Every things we post here, and on every platform that's not under our own control, is fueling a machine that profits from our free contributions.
This made me think more of City of Glass than Cohen...Auster’s whole disappearing act, the writer who observes the writer who becomes the written. That recursive ghosting. Anyway, really compelling stuff, Brock. Quietly haunting.
How bleak. What are we doing here, then? I mean on this platform. The irony is that the platform also creates at least an illusion of relevance for now. Less and less so as the bots take over.
I'd argue, though, that Zuckerberg remains extremely relevant 20 years on from his act of creative revenge coding. He is not an author subsumed by the system in quite the same way as us ink stained scribes. He holds enormous social, political, and economic power. The film's symbolism, its juxtaposition between the real man and the created digital reflection, doesn't quite hold up to historical reality. The asshole won and has no regrets about being an asshole who cosplays manhood because he is, after all, a master of the universe. In fact he was and continues to be rewarded for this because the rest us have embraced what he made.
BTW -- smart and thoughtful post. I appreciated it.
How bleak indeed. And, indeed . . . How brave a man, despite his humiliations. His efforts to break from the machine again and again are admirable. I do not judge his moral character. Any great thing involves immense emotional input. I accept Fincher's film, however, for this same quiet compassion. Influence comes at great personal cost. Zuckerberg is one of the most prominent examples of a person with all "sins" exposed, who has persisted, grown, and become stronger and stronger for it. Developing nations are better for Facebook and Facebook market. Just as American literature is better for a Philip Roth, for instance.
Fincher is a deft artist. He certainly understands the fragility and complexity of the human condition.
Yes, he is. And he works within genre, but directs his actors to elevate the material so much. Jessie Eisenberg's performance, on rewatch, carries the film, as does the music, which he seems to embody, or which seems simply to paint over his expressions at times. Fincher is indeed one of our greatest artists, and his moral opacity is another definitive, elevating feature across (almost) every work.
I think this is exactly the question we should be asking -- what are we doing here?
I'm less worried about the bots tbh. The user is the content. Every things we post here, and on every platform that's not under our own control, is fueling a machine that profits from our free contributions.
Use with caution.
This made me think more of City of Glass than Cohen...Auster’s whole disappearing act, the writer who observes the writer who becomes the written. That recursive ghosting. Anyway, really compelling stuff, Brock. Quietly haunting.