I have started posting my ruminations on pipe smoking here instead of social media for several reasons. First, the interesting people are all bailing on social media because of the nanny-esque environment:
Back in 2012, 94% of teens had a Facebook account, a Pew Research survey of 12- to 17-year-olds found. Almost 10 years later, only 27% of adolescents say they're on the platform, according to a 2021 survey of 10,000 teenagers conducted by Piper Sandler.
Megan Baron, a 19-year-old from Ohio who uses Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter, and YouTube, cited privacy concerns as one of the reasons she does not use Facebook, adding that the platform “seems so toxic.”
That last line might be my concern: these platforms are toxic like a bad relationship, specifically a variety of Stockholm Syndrome caused by the constant censorship, drama, and deletions. It does not make sense to enter high-value content into social media, since if someone complains your account may be arbitrarily deleted. This is why they want to stay away from the Boomers, who are either absurdly politically correct on the Left or nagging moral nannies on the Right. Kids want to socialize, and that includes sex, drink, drugs, and making fun of losers, and the “adults in the room” demand that they be able to censor that and manipulate these kids toward buying stuff from the corporate sponsors.
I started out in 1980s BBSes, moved to USENET, and then early web forums. I never had any problem getting along with people until 2007 hit and the cell phone people got on the net, at which point everything became manipulative and circumpect in respect to “the optics.” You cannot have an honest conversation under those conditions. I was kicked off Pipes Magazine Pipe Smokers Forums for making fun of JimInks and a particularly dumb thread titled something like “What do you like to do while smoking your pipe?” It was an obvious plant: started by the webmaster, populated quickly by the forum toadies with prop answers, and designed to bring in a lot of activity that looked from a distance like compelling content. In my experience, when you do that to a forum, you may get more users but they do not stick around, and you dumb down the content. Dumbing down the content makes the interesting users leave, and soon you have an echo chamber of people with nothing better to do and nothing much to say, so the site slowly fades into irrelevance like MySpace.
I went over to Pipe Smokers Forums where I was banned by some neurotic moderator for my perceived political views, even though they had not been expressed on that forum. Someone complained, as usual. I didn't consider it a loss, since the conversation there had that sickly feeling of conversations in Communist or Fascist countries about how great Dear Leader is. I was banned from Smokers Forums for making fun of JimInks, again, showing how the crony system which takes money from Big Tobacco to promote the latest junk boutique blends is important to this little ecosystem. I liked The Briar Patch but left after I saw them censor another user, and left the Christian Pipe Smokers forum because, as someone who has failed at every religion, I felt like a fraud. The people there were quite nice however, being like most who have their minds on “big things” every day, namely not distracted too much by the petty squabbles, disadvantages, glitches, and pains of normal life.
On Facebook, I was banned after tackling SJWs in the heavy metal scene. I wrote the truth, using screen captures of these same people talking, and they mass-complained. Facebook then demanded that I take a picture of myself, holding my driver's license, to verify my identity. This obviously made no sense, so I never went back there. I was banned from Twitter in the run-up to the 2016 election, but I don't know for what in particular; my political views span the gamut from anarchist hippie through Nietzschean realist, but if any of what you post hits their media-coordinated filter, they remove the account. Reddit banned me as part of one of the political purges. These bans are never content-related, but happen when the site decides to expand its vague rules in order to filter out people whose political outlook does not favor that of the user base that Reddit wants to cultivate. I went back to Reddit only to interact with the pipe tobacco community there, but I fear that this has come to an end, too.
I tend to be pretty old school on most things in that practical way that normal people worldwide are. We like codes of behavior in which people can get along, especially when they violently disagree (the “violence” here refers to degree of disagreement, not bashing in heads, although the former often leads to the latter). That means that if you are in the right place to be talking about something — usually something spicy like religious, cultural, social, economic, political, or genetic critique — and you say it politely without spammy repetition or dogmatic indifference to context, we want you to be able to say it, to say “I agree” or “I disagree” or some variation on the two, and then move on. We like having ideas out in public, and we dislike viewpoint discrimination:
Viewpoint discrimination is a form of content discrimination particularly disfavored by the courts. When the government engages in content discrimination, it is restricting speech on a given subject matter. When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.
For example, if an ordinance banned all speech on the Iraq War, it would be a content-based regulation. But if the ordinance banned only speech that criticized the war, it would be a viewpoint-based regulation.
Social media could have gone with content-based regulation and banned all talk of religion, politics, sex, and other hot topics. Then again, that sounds about as much fun as counting yeast, so the smart move would have been for them to say, “Welcome to the Octagon. Here people are going to say all sorts of stuff, and you're going to hate some of it, but as long as they stay polite and on-topic, we don't have a problem with it; just use that mute/block button!” Since this is human history we are talking about, obviously they did not do that. Instead they waded in by removing anything that offended their audience. Keep in mind that there are several layers of interpretation here: low-paid employees at social media, basing their knowledge of the people they want to use their sites on what they read in the media, are removing the content that they can identify as offensive to these people. It is a comedy of errors, and ends up with anything controversial being erased and replaced by the insipid, sort of like Kevin Godbee's grand plan to turn Pipes Magazine Forums into a place for happy Teletubby style conversation about pipes and tobacco.
The sad thing in all of this is that online is not reality. The online audience is 8% of 31% of the population, and this tends to be the people who have nothing else to do, as Facebook found out. The internet favors the retired, people on disability or mental health disability, individuals stuck in permanent entry-level jobs where you have to wake up for fifteen minutes a day but otherwise just look busy, and students who are not socially successful, therefore spend most of their free time on their phones instead of going to parties, having boyfriends or girlfriends who actually like them, smoking weed, and listening to music that scares their parents. The old internet required that people have a modicum of ability to read instructions, configure a computer, and learn some basic software. The new internet pops up an application in with the video games and text messages that is designed for people who know nothing and want to know nothing.
Luckily, the social media boom is winding down. Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and Google are going the way of the dinosaurs. It is clear now that they have been faking their statistics since day one, and that users are defecting en masse for pastures that are not such a snarky combination of Nanny State and Corporate Advertising. We are seeing coordinated activity between these firms to blacklist users, ban topics, and promote a small group of stooge influencers who astroturf corporate products, pimping those products for pay while pretending to be a normal citizen journalist who just happened upon these fascinating new purchase options. This means that the world of social media is as fake as the world of three big television channels (ABC, NBC, CBS) and a few crappy UHF ones (usually PBS). As it turns out, in any market, once you start the process of regulating it, the costs go up and so all the entrants die out and you get a big monopoly, sort of like with the FARTNAGS (Facebook, Apple, Reddit, Twitter, Neftlix, Amazon, Google, Spotify) who are now de facto monopolies that, not surprisingly, have used that market position to eke out more cash from their audience while growing to bloated size and becoming less able to produce a quality product. Corporate America is not a thing so much as it is a syndrome by which companies, in order to deal with increased costs, massively centralize and genericize, while focusing on risk and efficiency, missing out entirely on the idea of a good, basic product. I find this fascinating, especially the way it repeats.
Continuing our narrative, I have been banned from other places as well. The guys on Speak Easy, a Reddit offshoot, think they're clever. They asked me political questions, then banned me for answering. This came after a wave of censorship that removed everyone but the little clique who are most active on the site, which is about typical of what happens on small forums. The only thing good about the place was a lack of influencers hyping up the latest Sutliff boutique blend made from $2/ounce tobacco pressed and splashed with rum to sell for $8/ounce (a nearly perfect product, similar to the profit margins from Coca-Cola, Friends, or your average healthcare visit; the MBAs must be pleased!). I have been banned from other forums, too, like Stormfront, where they did the same thing the Speak Easy guys did: they asked if I thought Jews were responsible for the downfall of the West, and being an honest man with some experience in the world, I said that I thought that was a paranoid fantasy, and the causes of our decline starting shortly before The Enlightenment™ were obvious. I was banned from a Rage Against the Machine forum in the past because I posted the biographies of band members, including their families who were wealthy and powerful in Hollywood, and suggested that the band was a fraud. I was banned from a Mumia Abu-Jamal forum for pointing out that Mumia did, in fact, shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner. I've been banned from a number of other forums for various blasphemies and heresies, many related to heavy metal music, genetic literacy and human biodiversity, environmental activism, and skepticism of religion and the Moral Majority.
What did I learn from this? First, that people who crave power come to the internet and get established as “jannies” or moderators in forums. Some good people do, too, and if you find one of those, hang on to them. For the most part, the only people who have time for forums and social media are obsessives whose “real lives” are unsatisfying. That is sad but true, and I didn't realize how true it was until a recent injury sidelined me for a long time, and I found myself turning to the internet for distraction from the pain. I do not like pain meds, since having a fogged-up head is about like not being alive, although please do not read this as a jeremiad against, uh, recreational use. I did not widely experiment with drugs, but I was fond of smoking weed, and only quit because I followed the wisdom of Alan Watts:
If you get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope, he goes away and works on what he has seen.
For me the message was to look at cause-effect relationships to understand the structure of reality. That led me to extremes on both sides of the political divide, and sent me away from certain lifestyle choices. In my view, sometime in the 1950s the modern world brainwashed itself into a kind of “I got mine” me-first mentality which resulted in the rise of consumerism, and then consumerism consumed media, government, non-profits, and eventually culture itself, making us into a culture of bratty entitled people who want to be insulated from all the things they fear while being feted as important for trivial achievements. It is exactly as Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World, William S. Burroughs warned of in Naked Lunch, Scott Fitzgerald hinted in The Great Gatsby, and Plato ominously predicted in The Republic.
Let me share a brief passage from Fitzgerald that tells us what is going on, in my view:
“You’re a rotten driver,” I protested. “Either you ought to be more careful, or you oughtn’t to drive at all.”
“I am careful.”
“No, you’re not.”
“Well, other people are,” she said lightly.
“What’s that got to do with it?”
“They’ll keep out of my way,” she insisted. “It takes two to make an accident.”
“Suppose you met somebody just as careless as yourself.”
“I hope I never will,” she answered. “I hate careless people. That’s why I like you.”
We have all become the careless driver, narcissists who think that our own mental state is the world around us, instead of merely part of it, who wants someone else to solve our problems. Most of all, we want someone else to make us happy, whether that is a FWB, wife, husband, lover, subordinate, or merely a mention on television. Humans learned how to make fire and erroneously assumed that we could handle every problem the same way, by forcing nature and manipulating others to go along with it, and only now are we seeing how evil and destructive the modern world has been all along. I have failed at every religion known to humankind, but I find most inspiration in the Christian and Buddhist authors who point out that our megalomania and reliance on external sources to provide “happiness” has made us delusional, and the groupthink of modernity re-enforces this in a kind of echo chamber, which means that what Immanuel Kant called “radical evil” — destructive acts accepted because they are commonplace — has won out over what I think Jesus Christ and Buddha both desired, which was a human species that desired to affirmatively do good instead of avoiding evils, risks, fears, and inefficiencies and then concluding that because the result did not immediate self-destruct, it was a moral pathway forward. “Progress,” before it meant science or politics, designated the process by which cities replaced farms, jobs replaced callings, and relationships of convenience replaced community bonds. It seems that going forward is going backwards, even if it takes centuries to see that, although I am not sure that going backwards is the new going forward either.
Enough of that. I had to get it out of the way so that if you are wondering why you did not see this content on the usual social media sites, and feel like you were abandoned. There are many great people out there on social media, but fewer every day. They are running back to the decentralized internet, where you visit little sites and no one is keeping track of your data. They want pages without Google advertising, Bing rewards, or any of the other manipulative little programs that these bloated self-congratulatory “virtuous” corporate citizens promote. That was the promise of the internet: basically not just citizen journalism, but citizen self-expression about real-world topics and not navel-gazing, so that we could escape the dual threats of ideology and consumerism, both of which “gate-keep” in order to exclude necessary controversy. Maybe once upon a time social media served that goal, but it quit doing it, so I quit social media.