The decade of social media has witnessed an unprecedented surge in viral content, a phenomenon that has fundamentally altered our understanding of trends and cultural influence. While ‘6-7’ and ‘looksmaxxing’ have recently breached containment, the internet’s history is littered with fleeting moments of apparent dominance – from the NFT frenzy of 2017 to the ephemeral appeal of Clubhouse in 2020 – suggesting that virality, as a primary indicator of lasting cultural impact, is a somewhat overstated metric. Ruby Thelot, a cyber-ethnographer and media theory researcher at NYU, argues that the internet’s ‘balkanized’ nature – where each individual is isolated within their own digital sphere – is the key to understanding why virality often operates outside of mainstream adoption – it’s less about inherent cultural value and more about the immediate, often short-term, consumption of content. The book, *In Defense of Being-On-Line*, explores this shift, framing virality as an outdated measure of cultural impact, a concept that Charles Goodhart’s ‘bhart’ law – the principle that a measure becomes a target, ceases to be a good measure – underscores. The interview with Jason Parham reveals that the traditional notion of virality as a proxy for long-term cultural significance is flawed, particularly in the context of dating burnout and the pervasive narrative surrounding societal pressures. Dating burnout, for instance, has propelled dating apps to re-evaluate their engagement metrics, with Bumble’s swipe feature being reduced to a gambling activity. The rise of prediction markets, like those utilized by Kalshi and Polymarket, illustrates a new form of cultural participation, offering consumers a chance to bet on the outcomes of events, and this is being done across a vast array of groups, some of which are experiencing a level of engagement that’s genuinely concerning. The data reveals that, on average, around 25% of things that go viral are negative, and the focus on identifying the specific negative trends within these markets – particularly the ‘trenches’ in the metaverse – is a significant point of investigation. The industry of prediction markets, which focuses on betting on events like Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance, exemplifies a shift from individual consumption to a collective, group-based engagement. The data suggests that this focus on betting, rather than the underlying value of the event, is a key element of the engagement. The recent trend of engagement with meme coins, particularly around 2020 to 2024, reveals a stark contrast: individuals are actively participating in the culture, not simply consuming it. The sentiment around heteropessimism, which has been reported since 2019, suggests a widespread feeling of malaise among straight women when dating straight men, driving the creation of niche communities and focused engagement. A study by a New York Times writer, ‘There’s Nothing Wrong With Wanting Men,’ highlights the prevalence of these groups, emphasizing the value of the act of wagering or betting, which, to the author, is not a significant driver of engagement. The concept of intelligence, as championed by Sir Francis Galton, is being increasingly challenged, as it assumes a monolithic group of individuals possessing the most advanced cognitive abilities. The discussion around intelligence, as a measure of cultural value, is problematic, because it overlooks the value of emotional intelligence, artistic intelligence, and other forms of human expression. The book suggests that we may be overlooking a whole range of untapped human intelligences, those that are not quantified or measured by our current systems. The future of cultural validation may lie not in simply tracking engagement metrics, but in recognizing the diversity of human experience and value, moving beyond a narrow focus on individual success and towards a broader appreciation of the nuances of human interaction and cultural expression. The challenge, as Thelot notes, is to shift from a model of ‘viral’ as a primary indicator of lasting cultural significance to a more holistic understanding of cultural value, acknowledging the complexity of human interaction and the myriad of intelligences that contribute to the richness of culture.” , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Source: Wired
