This is delightful. It's the much funnier, more elaborate version of "don't feed the trolls", an admonition that goes at least back to the days of Usenet, and remains important to this day.
Hm, the last line of each stanza still doesn't really scan -- that's with hearing it. If you changed "make" to "get you to", it would scan a bit better, I think?
As somebody reading your blog religiously for years, but a continent away from any ‘meetups’ that have you, and with the fact you never do interviews/podcasts/talks/… even post-NYT-comeout… It feels strangely momentous/exciting to get to hear your (right?) voice for the first time!
Some of the lines are definitely amphibrachic ("Some IN-tern from WILL-iams or AM-herst") but I don't think there's enough regularity in the meter to call it one way or another
That line can be called amphibrachic, but it's not difficult to call it anapestic either; the beginning and end of a poetic line are always a little freer than the rest of it, but they're also the only way the rhythm could distinguish between an anapestic meter and an amphibrachic one. (There are other ways you might distinguish the two meters, such as looking at caesuras, but there is no way to do it by looking at the rhythm.)
By way of example, look at the line "if you even admit their existence", which must be analyzed as either amphibrachs with an extra syllable at the beginning of the line, or anapests with an extra syllable at the end of the line. Both analyses would be quite conventional, but the anapestic analysis is a little more conventional - I learned poetic scansion without any mention ever being made of amphibrachs at all.
Similarly, in the second stanza, the meter of the fourth line matches well with the meter of the first three lines (assuming that a comma represents a silent unstressed syllable), but it is offset from them. Either it must be analyzed as beginning with an extra syllable which doesn't count towards the meter, or the first three lines must be analyzed as beginning with "short feet" which are missing their first syllables. Again, either analysis would be normal.
> Everything except the refrain reads to me as standard English amphibrachic meter.
I'm not seeing it. We can rule out an amphibrachic meter in several ways: many lines begin with two unstressed syllables; a couple of them place three unstressed syllables in sequence; a few place two stressed syllables in sequence, and many have two stressed syllables with just a single unstressed syllable between them.
I scanned the poem in a spreadsheet and colored the stresses to make the rhythm visually obvious; it is not at all consistent. This doesn't work well as oral poetry, but musical support might help. Here's my scansion, with x unstressed and X stressed:
Funny enough Ryan Long just posted a video this morning making fun of a litany of vice articles, and the entire time I was wondering if those articles only get circulation from people making fun of them.
more serious commentary: we still make most of our choices with our meat brains; once we can better encode _our own values_ into computers, we can use the computers to make choices for us in ways that line up with our own values
The key question is: what is the cumulative social outcome of a contagious outrage extensively used by (social) media over the last 5-10 years? I wouldn't be surprised if it served as a self-perpetuating, self-fulfilling prophecy, significantly contributing to the polarization, depression/anxiety rates, and people actually drifting towards these nonsensical ideas. :(
My question is still: what if we ... didn't encourage that? I'm not sure we can stop the likes of Business Insider from writing bad-on-purpose content, but we might be able to stop 'the algorithm' from interpreting those clicks as a signal to promote the content further.
You know, I wonder if this is a problem we can outsource to AI. I'd love to have an AI assistant that would read the Internet for me, and return only the non-clickbaity parts (so, 0.01%). Of course, there's a danger that the adversaries would employ AI to generate clickbait, as well (more so than they do already), and we'll end up in an arms race culminating in the Singularity... but... is that really such a heavy price to pay ? :-/
This wasn't meant as a troll question. Was there some meme in the news recently, about how it's now considered an abrogation of consent to hack people's psychology to drive them into clickbait? Or that somehow blaming Facebook's algorithm instead of people is the ultimate collective, moral failing?
Pretty sure this is not a response to any specific thing recently in the news. More like “here’s a helpful principle to keep in mind when you see totally bonkers headlines”
I don't think there was any broader moral or social observation. Just a pragmatic rule to keep in mind to stay sane and moored to reality when using social media
The phrasing has really strange syntax, and I've seen things in the rat-sphere that make me think he's tapping into something that's been talked about, at least when this post was first written.
Good. Yes. I like it. Now we need a poem for the danger of "It's good on purpose to make you click". That one may be even more insidious, since it can make you feel virtuous even though it substitutes rational action towards fulfilling your own utility function by trapping you in someone else's beautiful mental explorations and furthering theirs. Not that I would speak from experience :)
I'd love to have this translated into my language so that I could recite it whenever my parents show me some terrible toxoplasma-of-rage-filled article about wokes in USA, bureaucrats in EU, etc. Unfortunately, the idea of me translating (or writing) such a poem is so above my head it's funny.
Something about this gave me strong Gods of the Copybook Headings vibes, with a similar sense of "Oh, I've learned something useful just by having something obvious beaten into my brain more."
Forgive my ignorance. Is "It's bad on purpose to make you click" a well known phrase? I remember reading it on Twitter in response to the New Yorker article about SSC, but have not seen it since.
Here, guys, have some Dunciad, by Alexander Pope -- about the flood of dullness in his day quenching the fires of intellect and inspiration. I love his vindictive passion at the end!
I couldn't help myself and set this to music. Hope you don't mind. This video is unlisted so that it should only be accessible from here. Of course, I'll take it down upon request. https://youtu.be/J1boM_6tFbk
Thanks for the compliment. Two reasons I didn't do the whole thing: first, because I don't have a fancy setup, I'd have to do the whole thing in one take, and I just know I'd flub a line in verse 4 and have to start over. The second reason is that I'm simply lazy. :)
If I ever get into a recording studio again, I might (ask for permission and then) do the whole thing.
This is where you lost me. My father believes it all. He probably didn't in the 90s, so it's a trend. His brother died of Covid, his favorite televangelist Marcus Lamb died of Covid, so of course he's more convinced than ever that vaccines are the REAL threat. This is just the latest. He put a button on the BACK of my phone to protect my brain from the harmful EM rays it generates. He hates Obamacare but has probably relied more on health insurance payouts for Mother than anyone else I know. I sent him the book Scout Mindset; he said the author "overthinks things", but that I should read the book again while pondering if the antivaxxers might be right (this, he thinks, is the trick to making me change my mind, rather than evidence). Finally, he says, I don't know what a "scout mentality" even is.
I still think about this regularly, and am so grateful it exists to console me when I see a headline like "Yes, slavery is on the ballot in some states." This piece is easily worth the price of my subscription unto itself. At some point I hope you'll make it public.
I love the sentiment and most of the poetry. I am bothered by the way the crucial refrain does not seem to scan! What about, instead, "It's meant to be bad so you'll click"? I think the message still comes through, and it fits better with the verse.
This is delightful. It's the much funnier, more elaborate version of "don't feed the trolls", an admonition that goes at least back to the days of Usenet, and remains important to this day.
This is great. You should make it public
Touche! Though I'm with Jason. I anticipate wanting to be able to link to this, like, a lot.
It's 'bad' to make you click... :^)
'It’s paywalled on purpose to make you subscribe.'
Sorry, I've got the meter in my head now...
For Scott's longer write-up of this idea, see https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
I like this but the rhythm - lack of rhythm, that is, unless I'm missing something - threw me a bit.
Is there a tune I should match it to in my head?
*It's bad on purpose to make you click.*
http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/BadOnPurpose.m4a
❤️
I was fearing an rms moment (🐈🎵Join us now and share the software🎶🐈)
I wonder if you might be (distantly?) related to Jacques Bailly (similar voice and appearance/vibe): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DxMSufIIqY
Can we get a team together to make a high-production-value, memeable version of this? :D
Can we hire Jeremy Irons? I want to hear an exasperated Scar say, "And the links overwhelmingly suck".
https://jeremyirons.net/contact-jeremy/
Get it radio play!
Hm, the last line of each stanza still doesn't really scan -- that's with hearing it. If you changed "make" to "get you to", it would scan a bit better, I think?
Awesome reading, but I think the last line of each stanza would sound better with the stress on PURpose, i.e. “It’s bad on PURpose, to make you CLICK”
As somebody reading your blog religiously for years, but a continent away from any ‘meetups’ that have you, and with the fact you never do interviews/podcasts/talks/… even post-NYT-comeout… It feels strangely momentous/exciting to get to hear your (right?) voice for the first time!
It has one rhyme per stanza, a line skip rhyme with “click”. So the 3rd to final line will rhyme with “Click”.
Tic, dick etc
The final line of each stanza messes up the rhythm (though it does rhyme). I think "It's bad on purpose to make you click" is, itself, bad on purpose.
Yup, that is right on target. Everything except the refrain reads to me as standard English amphibrachic meter.
Although I wouldn't call it "bad on purpose", I would say "different for emphasis".
“Bad on purpose to make you click” is only true for the headline. If the content is also bad on purpose, you might share it.
Though plenty of people share with out every reading the content, potential errors in this blog post are of a different kind of “bad”.
I think its mostly anapaestic tetrameter, with a fair amount of liberties taken (as they should be).
Out of curiosity, where are you getting amphibrachic? I thought amphibrachs were pretty rare in English poetry.
Some of the lines are definitely amphibrachic ("Some IN-tern from WILL-iams or AM-herst") but I don't think there's enough regularity in the meter to call it one way or another
That line can be called amphibrachic, but it's not difficult to call it anapestic either; the beginning and end of a poetic line are always a little freer than the rest of it, but they're also the only way the rhythm could distinguish between an anapestic meter and an amphibrachic one. (There are other ways you might distinguish the two meters, such as looking at caesuras, but there is no way to do it by looking at the rhythm.)
By way of example, look at the line "if you even admit their existence", which must be analyzed as either amphibrachs with an extra syllable at the beginning of the line, or anapests with an extra syllable at the end of the line. Both analyses would be quite conventional, but the anapestic analysis is a little more conventional - I learned poetic scansion without any mention ever being made of amphibrachs at all.
Similarly, in the second stanza, the meter of the fourth line matches well with the meter of the first three lines (assuming that a comma represents a silent unstressed syllable), but it is offset from them. Either it must be analyzed as beginning with an extra syllable which doesn't count towards the meter, or the first three lines must be analyzed as beginning with "short feet" which are missing their first syllables. Again, either analysis would be normal.
> Everything except the refrain reads to me as standard English amphibrachic meter.
I'm not seeing it. We can rule out an amphibrachic meter in several ways: many lines begin with two unstressed syllables; a couple of them place three unstressed syllables in sequence; a few place two stressed syllables in sequence, and many have two stressed syllables with just a single unstressed syllable between them.
I scanned the poem in a spreadsheet and colored the stresses to make the rhythm visually obvious; it is not at all consistent. This doesn't work well as oral poetry, but musical support might help. Here's my scansion, with x unstressed and X stressed:
xxXxxXxXx
xxXxxXxX
xxXxxXxxXxxX
xxXxxXxxX
xxXxxXxxXx
xxXxxXxX
xXxxXxXxxX
xXxXxxXxX
xXxxXxxXx
xXxxXxxX
xXxxXxxXxxX
xxXxxXxX
xXxxXxxXx
xXxxXxX
xXxxXxxXx
xxXxXxxXxX
xXxxXxxXx
xxXxxXxxX
xXxxXxxXx
xxXxxXxxX
xxXxXXxxXx
xxXxXXxxX
xxXxxxXx
xXxXxxXxX
xxXxxXXxXx
xxXxXxxX
xXxxXxxXx
xxXxXxX
xxXxxXxxXx
xxXxxxX
xxXxxXxxXxxX
xXxXxxXxX
xxXxxXxxXx
xxXxxXxxX
xXxXXxXx
xXXXxX
xxXxXxxXx
xXxxxX
xXxxXxXx
xXxXxxXxX
A couple of tweaks would go a long way, to my untrained ear. These restore the general DA-da-da rhythm without breaking any of the rhymes.
---
Or that sunsets are transphobic
->
Or that sunsets are super transphobic
---
As engagement metrics rise
->
As engagement and metrics both rise
---
Then you're falling for their trick
->
Then you're caught in their devilish trick
["stupidest" also works]
---
When spoken, all troubles vanish
When thought, all sorrows fall
->
When spoken, all troubles will vanish
When thought, all sorrows will fall
Yeah, that does seem a bit better
*looks around*
Oh, you're talking to me. Got it, I'll do better. :)
Funny enough Ryan Long just posted a video this morning making fun of a litany of vice articles, and the entire time I was wondering if those articles only get circulation from people making fun of them.
I am happy that this post was good on purpose.
https://youtu.be/uVwFyMF9JO4
This was fun. I’d make it a children’s book if I had DALL-E access
Coming less than 10 minutes after I clicked on a link just to read something I knew would piss me off… I suppose this is prescient.
*postscient
mostly identical thought:
https://apxhard.com/2021/03/18/a-prayer-for-sanity/
more serious commentary: we still make most of our choices with our meat brains; once we can better encode _our own values_ into computers, we can use the computers to make choices for us in ways that line up with our own values
You mean like mom and dad used to do?
Nah, mom and dad used to make choices for us in ways that line up with *their* values.
Or maybe that was our meat brain getting in the way of good advice...?
Anyway, I love the idea of a computer telling me what’s good for me.
The key question is: what is the cumulative social outcome of a contagious outrage extensively used by (social) media over the last 5-10 years? I wouldn't be surprised if it served as a self-perpetuating, self-fulfilling prophecy, significantly contributing to the polarization, depression/anxiety rates, and people actually drifting towards these nonsensical ideas. :(
:)
My question is still: what if we ... didn't encourage that? I'm not sure we can stop the likes of Business Insider from writing bad-on-purpose content, but we might be able to stop 'the algorithm' from interpreting those clicks as a signal to promote the content further.
We could of course just use better algorithms! I'm very happy with RSS and email.
Beautiful.
This is great. That is all. I hope you post it without a paywall eventually, so I can share it with people with a clear conscience. :-)
It's sad on purpose to make them… nevermind.
I agree, this should be posted for all to see. Would do a lot of good if it went even slightly viral.
Well, it's better than Moldbug's poems.
You know, I wonder if this is a problem we can outsource to AI. I'd love to have an AI assistant that would read the Internet for me, and return only the non-clickbaity parts (so, 0.01%). Of course, there's a danger that the adversaries would employ AI to generate clickbait, as well (more so than they do already), and we'll end up in an arms race culminating in the Singularity... but... is that really such a heavy price to pay ? :-/
Scott continues his quest to turn his blog into a Kipling appreciation society, I see.
What I was going to say. “When the young internet user signs onto the web, they click like a babe and they…”
I knew the rhythm of this reminded me of something! https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/winners.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlKao_Pox5A
just don't look
Kipling for the Very Online set. I love it.
What does it mean?
This wasn't meant as a troll question. Was there some meme in the news recently, about how it's now considered an abrogation of consent to hack people's psychology to drive them into clickbait? Or that somehow blaming Facebook's algorithm instead of people is the ultimate collective, moral failing?
Pretty sure this is not a response to any specific thing recently in the news. More like “here’s a helpful principle to keep in mind when you see totally bonkers headlines”
I don't think there was any broader moral or social observation. Just a pragmatic rule to keep in mind to stay sane and moored to reality when using social media
The phrasing has really strange syntax, and I've seen things in the rat-sphere that make me think he's tapping into something that's been talked about, at least when this post was first written.
Should be lyrics of a punk tune.
Excellent! Just to confirm — you did write this poem, right, Scott?
Yes.
Good. Yes. I like it. Now we need a poem for the danger of "It's good on purpose to make you click". That one may be even more insidious, since it can make you feel virtuous even though it substitutes rational action towards fulfilling your own utility function by trapping you in someone else's beautiful mental explorations and furthering theirs. Not that I would speak from experience :)
I'd love to have this translated into my language so that I could recite it whenever my parents show me some terrible toxoplasma-of-rage-filled article about wokes in USA, bureaucrats in EU, etc. Unfortunately, the idea of me translating (or writing) such a poem is so above my head it's funny.
Something about this gave me strong Gods of the Copybook Headings vibes, with a similar sense of "Oh, I've learned something useful just by having something obvious beaten into my brain more."
Turns out Mel Brooks was into something with The Priducers.
I'd like to have a go at translating it into Dutch, but who are 'the frogs and the pinks' in the third line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_the_Frog
Thank you!
Forgive my ignorance. Is "It's bad on purpose to make you click" a well known phrase? I remember reading it on Twitter in response to the New Yorker article about SSC, but have not seen it since.
it isn’t that well known except on a certain part of Twitter. I think it’s a catchphrase from the (excellent) anonymous Twitter poster @eigenrobot
Thanks
It's a general lesson that appears everywhere. Don't feed the troll, don't fall for the (click) bait, etc
Here, guys, have some Dunciad, by Alexander Pope -- about the flood of dullness in his day quenching the fires of intellect and inspiration. I love his vindictive passion at the end!
In vain, in vain,—the all-composing hour
Resistless falls; the Muse obeys the power.
She comes! she comes! the sable throne behold
Of Night primeval, and of Chaos old!
Before her Fancy’s gilded clouds decay,
And all its varying rainbows die away.
Wit shoots in vain its momentary fires,
The meteor drops, and in a flash expires.
Nor public flame, nor private, dares to shine;
Nor human spark is left, nor glimpse divine!
Lo! they dread empire, Chaos, is restored;
Light dies before they uncreating word:
They hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall:
And universal darkness buries all.
I had a go at making a Dutch translation. I can't figure out how to separate the stanzas though, or how to make things italic:
Terwijl je de kronkels van Twitter doorkruist
En je trekt door de bergen van Zuck
En rechts en links overstelpt je met links
En de links zijn modern gezegd ‘ruk’
Als de redditors zeggen ‘lees dit eens’
Als de TikTokker tokkelt en tikt
Houd dit dan steeds in je gedachten:
’t Is met opzet zo slecht dat je klikt.
Echt, geen mens gaat het geloven
Het wordt heus geen trend, nationaal
Een gekkie in Gein met een ziekelijk brein
Heeft iets doms gezegd. Einde verhaal.
Een stagiaire op een redactie
Heeft de hele zooi overgetikt
En nu staat het vooraan in de kranten
Met opzet zo slecht dat je klikt.
Iemand die denkt dat-ie slim is
Vindt dat kinderen hinderen zijn
Of dat je ‘geprivilegieerd’ bent
Als je loopt met je hond aan de lijn
Kattenliefhebbers zijn nazi’s
En lezers van boeken getikt
En zonsondergangen transfobisch
’t Is met opzet zo slecht dat je klikt.
Als je pagina’s volschrijft ertegen
Met een lijst van hun leugens erin
Dan lachen ze als een hyena
Want die aandacht die is naar hun zin
Als je blijk ervan geeft ze te kennen
Dan hebben ze jou al gestrikt
Laat ze dus stikken door niet meer te klikken
’t Is met opzet zo slecht dat je klikt.
Met deze mantra verdrijf je
De demonen van Mara en Baal
Gesproken verjaagt hij problemen
Gedacht wordt hij zorgen fataal
’t Is een zwaard om illusies te doden
Dat iedere leugen verschrikt
Schrijf het dus maar op je voorhoofd:
’t Is met opzet zo slecht dat je klikt.
Heel leuk! Mijn Nederlands is niet zo goed maar ik heb toch genoten van je vertaling
Dankjewel! <3
Can we get this on a t-shirt?
The psychosecurity essay written in the style of "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" we all needed.
But seriously, thank you so much. This piece is incredibly important, and it needs to be amplified.
I couldn't help myself and set this to music. Hope you don't mind. This video is unlisted so that it should only be accessible from here. Of course, I'll take it down upon request. https://youtu.be/J1boM_6tFbk
Excellent! And I think you adapted well the rhythm-breaking last line of each stanza. That's a hard part of putting poetry to music
Why not all of it?
Thanks for the compliment. Two reasons I didn't do the whole thing: first, because I don't have a fancy setup, I'd have to do the whole thing in one take, and I just know I'd flub a line in verse 4 and have to start over. The second reason is that I'm simply lazy. :)
If I ever get into a recording studio again, I might (ask for permission and then) do the whole thing.
> No actual person believes it
> It isn't a national trend
This is where you lost me. My father believes it all. He probably didn't in the 90s, so it's a trend. His brother died of Covid, his favorite televangelist Marcus Lamb died of Covid, so of course he's more convinced than ever that vaccines are the REAL threat. This is just the latest. He put a button on the BACK of my phone to protect my brain from the harmful EM rays it generates. He hates Obamacare but has probably relied more on health insurance payouts for Mother than anyone else I know. I sent him the book Scout Mindset; he said the author "overthinks things", but that I should read the book again while pondering if the antivaxxers might be right (this, he thinks, is the trick to making me change my mind, rather than evidence). Finally, he says, I don't know what a "scout mentality" even is.
I still think about this regularly, and am so grateful it exists to console me when I see a headline like "Yes, slavery is on the ballot in some states." This piece is easily worth the price of my subscription unto itself. At some point I hope you'll make it public.
My attempt to make it scan better:
As you travel the sewers of Twitter
As you pass through the Lands of the Zuck
And the frogs and the pinks overwhelm you with links
And the links overwhelmingly suck
When the Redditors ask if you've read it
When the TikTokkers talk and then tic
Remember this fact, before you react:
It's awful on purpose to get you to click.
No actual person believes it
It isn't a national trend
Some loony in Maine with a turd for a brain
Said some idiot thing, that's the end
Some intern from Williams or Amherst
Wrote all of it up, real slick
And now it's displayed, on WaPo's front page,
But it's stupid on purpose to get you to click.
Some galaxy-brainer in Brooklyn
Says that kids should be thrown in a bog
Or that you have "revealed your white privilege"
If you don't let them murder your dog
Or that liking cats makes you a Nazi
Or that reading books makes you a dick
Or that all sexual acts are transphobic attacks:
It's outrageous on purpose to get you to click.
If you shoot back a twelve-page rebuttal
With a categorized list of their lies
They'll laugh like demented hyenas
As they watch the engagement scores rise
If you even admit their existence
Then you've fallen headfirst for their trick
Let them rot in their lair as you starve them of air
'cause it's garbage on purpose to get you to click.
This invincible mantra will banish
All the demons of Mara and Baal
When spoken, all troubles vanish
When thought, all sorrows will fall
It's a sword that defeats the illusion
And cuts it right through to the quick
Tattoo this refrain on the front of your brain
IT'S ENRAGING ON PURPOSE TO GET YOU TO CLICK
If the author says outgroup is making them sick
If the headline is someone just being a dick
If you follow the link then you fell for the trick
It's just bad on purpose for making you click
https://twitter.com/yashkaf/status/1217581651309604866
This doesn't scan, Scott.
I love the sentiment and most of the poetry. I am bothered by the way the crucial refrain does not seem to scan! What about, instead, "It's meant to be bad so you'll click"? I think the message still comes through, and it fits better with the verse.
this will be our anthem