Cinemorphosis

Tag: social-media

  • Screen Bilinguals and Screen Natives

    Screen Bilinguals and Screen Natives

    Screen Bilinguals

    noun

    Screen Bilinguals are those who remember Pre-Screen Life and Post-Screen Life and can mentally translate between the two. They know what it felt like to disappear into a book without notifications, to wander outdoors without documenting the evidence, and to experience friendship without performance. They may use screens constantly now, but they retain an embodied memory of undistracted attention and uncurated presence. That memory gives them perspective—and often a quiet grief.

    Screen Natives

    noun

    Screen Natives are those who never lived outside the Attention Economy. They have no experiential baseline for pre-digital reading, boredom, or intimacy. For them, screens are not tools but atmosphere. Experience arrives already framed, shareable, and optimizable. Connection is inseparable from capture, and attention has always been contested territory. What Screen Bilinguals experience as loss, Screen Natives experience as reality itself—neither chosen nor questioned, simply inherited.

    ***

    I am reasonably sure that some of the best memories of my pre-screen adolescence would not survive contact with smartphones and social media. They required a kind of reckless presence that today’s technology quietly sabotages. Every summer from 1975 to 1979, my family—along with ten others—made a pilgrimage to Point Reyes Beach, where the Johnsons’ oyster farm supplied what appeared to be bottomless truck beds of shellfish. From noon until sunset, hundreds of us devoured obscene quantities of barbecued oysters dripping with garlic butter and Tabasco, flanked by thousands of loaves of garlic bread and slabs of chocolate cake so moist they bordered on indecent. Ignoring cheerful warnings about nearby great white sightings, we periodically sprinted into the Pacific, then staggered back to the picnic tables, pecs gleaming with saltwater, to resume eating like mythological beings. In the summer of ’78, I told my parents to leave without me and caught a ride home in the bed of a stranger’s truck. Stuffed beyond reason, convinced I was some minor sea god, I lay under the stars with a gang of people I’d met hours earlier, trading delirious stories and watching the universe spin. No one documented a thing. We didn’t track calories, curate moments, or worry about time. Life simply happened to us, and that was enough.

    Those memories now trouble me. Were they the accidental privilege of being screen-bilingual—raised before devices trained us to perform our lives in public? Does being a screen native quietly thin experience itself by insisting everything be captured, filtered, and offered up for consumption? Free from the reflex to mediate, I could disappear into the moment without irony or self-surveillance. Had I grown up with screens, the day would have demanded angles, captions, and metrics. The magic would have curdled under the pressure to perform. The idea that every experience must double as content strikes me as a curse—a low-grade exile from real life, where spontaneity dies not from malice but from documentation.

  • Algovorous

    Algovorous

    Algovorous
    adjective

    Characterized by habitual consumption of algorithmically curated stimuli that prioritize engagement over nourishment. An algovorous person feeds continuously on feeds, prompts, and recommendations, mistaking stimulation for insight. Attention erodes, resilience weakens, and depth is displaced by endless, low-friction intake.

    ***

    You don’t know any other world because you were born inside the Attention Economy. There was no “before” for you—no baseline against which to compare the glow of screens to a quieter, unmonetized mental life. So let me tell you something grim about the system you’ve inherited: it runs on engagement at all costs. Not truth. Not wisdom. Not even pleasure in any deep sense. Just engagement. As Jaron Lanier warns in Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Account Right Now, the economy works best when it bypasses your higher faculties and plugs directly into the brain’s most primitive circuitry. This is not the part of you that reasons, imagines, or aspires. It’s the reptile brain—the swampy basement where jealousy, envy, FOMO, and schadenfreude slosh around, waiting to be poked with a stick. Stimulate that region long enough and you don’t become thoughtful or fulfilled. You become reactive, agitated, and strangely hungry for more of the same poison.

    The platforms know this. A successful YouTuber doesn’t need insight; he needs targets. Hence the booming genre of downfall porn: endless autopsies of other people’s collapses. Take bodybuilding YouTube, a carnival of oiled torsos and moral rot. Greg Doucette, with his two-and-a-half million subscribers, has perfected the form. His brand is not training wisdom so much as public execution. He thrives on predicting the imminent demise of rival influencers, especially Mike Israetel, whose Renaissance Periodization channel—approaching four million subscribers—shows no interest in collapsing on schedule. That hasn’t stopped Doucette from announcing the funeral. He does it in a tank top, veins bulging, traps flared, voice pitched to a squeaky fury, filleting his subjects like a caffeinated fishmonger. The performance is manic, theatrical, and wildly successful. Rage, it turns out, scales beautifully.

    I’m not a psychiatrist, but you don’t need a medical degree to recognize a toxic loop when you see one. Mental health professionals would likely agree: this is dopamine farming. The audience gets a chemical jolt from watching others stumble while doing nothing to improve their own lives. It’s adrenaline for the bored, envy with a subscription button. In the Attention Economy, toxicity isn’t a bug—it’s the feature. The viewer doesn’t flourish; the algorithm does. You sit there, immobilized, a butterfly pinned to corkboard entertainment, while someone else’s revenue graph climbs. That is the deal on offer: your attention in exchange for distraction from the harder work of becoming a person.

  • The Word of the Year Points to the Collective Loss of Our Minds

    The Word of the Year Points to the Collective Loss of Our Minds

    The Word of the Year is supposed to capture the moment we’re living in—our collective mood, our shared madness. As Amogh Dimri explains in “Rage Bait Is a Brilliant Word of the Year,” we’re no longer defined by reason or restraint but by whatever emotion the attention economy yanks out of us. Dimri reminds us that 2023 gave us rizz and 2024 bestowed brain rot. In other words, when our brains aren’t decomposing from endless scrolling, we’re wide awake and quivering with unhinged outrage. This may explain why I now hate driving more than folding laundry or going to the dentist. The roads are filled with people whose minds seem equal parts rotted and enraged—and the algorithms aren’t helping.

    Dimri cites the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of rage bait as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger” in order to goose traffic and juice engagement. An elegant description for something as crude as poking humanity’s collective bruise.

    Critics complain that Oxford’s online voting process indulges the very brain rot it warns us about, but I’m with Dimri. Oxford is right to acknowledge how digital speech shapes culture. Ignoring these terms would be like pretending smog doesn’t count as weather. Rage bait is influential because it packs the whole human condition—weakness, manipulation, and political dysfunction—into two syllables. And, as I’d add, it also produces drivers who treat the road like a demolition derby.

    As for predecessors, rage bait didn’t appear out of thin air. Vince McMahon practically drafted its blueprint decades ago. His wrestling empire ran on kayfabe, where performers wore the mask of rage so long they eventually believed it. Something similar has infected our online discourse. The performance swallowed the performer, and here we are—furious, fragmented, and algorithmically herded into traffic.

  • Today I Gave My Students a Lesson on Real and Fake Engagement

    Today I Gave My Students a Lesson on Real and Fake Engagement

    I teach the student athletes at my college, and right now we’re exploring a question that cuts to the bone of modern life: Why are we so morally apathetic toward companies that feed our addictions, glamorize eating disorders, and employ CEOs who behave like cult leaders or predators?

    We’ve watched three documentaries to anchor our research: Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion (Max), Trainwreck: The Cult of American Apparel (Max), and White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch (Netflix). Each one dissects a different brand, but the pathology beneath them is the same—companies built not on fabric, but fantasy. For four weeks, I lectured about this moral rot. My students listened politely. Eyes glazed. Interest flatlined. It was clear: they didn’t care about fashion.

    So today, I tried something different. I told them to forget about the clothes. The essay, I explained, isn’t really about fashion—it’s about selling illusion. These brands were never peddling T-shirts or jeans; they were peddling a fantasy of beauty, popularity, and belonging. And they did it through something I called fake engagement—a kind of fever swamp where people mistake addiction for connection, and attention for meaning.

    Fake engagement is the psychological engine of our times. It’s the dopamine loop of social media and the endless scroll. People feed their insecurities into it and get rewarded with the mirage of significance: likes, follows, attention. It’s an addictive system built on FOMO and self-erasure. Fake engagement is a demon. The more you feed it, the hungrier it gets. You buy things, post things, watch things, all to feel visible—and yet every click deepens the void.

    This pathology is not confined to consumer brands. The entire economy now depends on it. Influencers sell fake authenticity. YouTubers stage “relatable” chaos. Politicians farm outrage to harvest donations. Every sphere of life—from entertainment to governance—has been infected by the logic of the algorithm: engagement above truth, virality above virtue.

    I told my students they weren’t hearing anything new. The technologist Jaron Lanier has been warning us for over a decade that digital platforms are rewiring our brains, turning us into unpaid content providers for an economy of distraction. But then I reminded them that as athletes, they actually hold a kind of immunity to this epidemic.

    Athletes can’t survive on fake engagement. They can’t pretend to win a game. They can’t filter a sprint or Photoshop a jump shot. Their work depends on real engagement—trust, discipline, and honest feedback. Their coaches demand evidence, not illusion. That’s what separates a competitor from a content creator. One lives in the real world; the other edits it out.

    In sports, there’s no algorithm to flatter you. Reality is merciless and fair. You either make the shot or you don’t. You either train or you coast. You either improve or you plateau. The scoreboard has no patience for your self-image.

    I contrasted this grounded reality with the digital circus we’ve come to call culture. Mukbang YouTubers stuff themselves with 10,000 calories on camera for likes. Watch obsessives blow through their savings chasing luxury dopamine. Influencers curate their “personal brand” as if selfhood were a marketing campaign. They call this engagement. I call it pathology. They’re chasing the same empty high that the fast-fashion industry monetized years ago: the belief that buying something—or becoming something online—can fill the hole of disconnection.

    This is the epistemic crisis of our time: a collective break from reality. People no longer ask whether something is true or good; they ask whether it’s viral. We’re a civilization medicated by attention, high on engagement, and bankrupt in meaning.

    That’s why I tell my athletes their essay isn’t about fashion—it’s about truth. About how human beings become spiritually and mentally sick when they lose their relationship to reality. You can’t heal what you refuse to see. And you can’t see anything clearly when your mind is hijacked by dopamine economics.

    The world doesn’t need more influencers. It needs coaches—people who ground others in trust, expertise, and evidence. Coaches model a form of mentorship that Silicon Valley can’t replicate. They give feedback that isn’t gamified. They remind players that mastery requires patience, and that progress is measured in skill, not clicks.

    When you think about it, the word coach itself has moral weight. It implies guidance, not manipulation. Accountability, not performance. A coach is the opposite of an influencer: they aren’t trying to be adored; they’re trying to make you better. They aren’t feeding your addiction to attention; they’re training your focus on reality.

    I told my students that if society is going to survive this digital delirium, we’ll need millions of new coaches—mentors, teachers, parents, and friends who can anchor us in truth when everything around us is optimized for illusion. The fast-fashion brands we study are just one symptom of a larger disease: the worship of surface.

    But reality, like sport, eventually wins. The body knows when it’s neglected. The mind knows when it’s being used. Truth has a way of breaking through even the loudest feed.

    The good news is that after four weeks of blank stares, something finally broke through. When I reframed the essay—not as a takedown of fashion, but as a diagnosis of fake engagement—the room changed. My athletes sat up straighter. They started nodding. Their eyes lit up. For the first time all semester, they were engaged.

    The irony wasn’t lost on me. The essay about fake engagement had just produced the real kind.

  • The Eight Ages of –ification

    The Eight Ages of –ification

    From Conformification to Enshittification: how every decade found a fresh way to ruin itself.

    The Age of Decline, Accelerated

    In Enshittification, Cory Doctorow argues that our decline isn’t gradual—it’s accelerating. Everything is turning to crap simultaneously, like civilization performing a synchronized swan dive into the sewer.

    The book’s subtitle, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It, suggests that degradation is now both universal and, somehow, fixable.

    Doctorow isn’t the first prophet to glimpse the digital abyss. Jaron Lanier, Jonathan Haidt, and other cultural Cassandras have long warned about the stupidification that comes from living inside the algorithmic aquarium. We swim in the same recycled sludge of dopamine and outrage, growing ever duller while congratulating ourselves on being “connected.”

    This numbness—the ethical anesthesia of the online age—makes us tolerate more crappiness from our corporate overlords. As the platforms enshittify, we invent our own little coping rituals. Some of us chant words with –ion suffixes as if they were incantations, linguistic ASMR to soothe our digital despair.

    When I saw Ozempic and ChatGPT promising frictionless perfection—weight loss without effort, prose without struggle—I coined Ozempification: the blissful surrender of self-agency to the cult of convenience.

    Now there’s an entire liturgy of –ifications, each describing a new layer of rot:

    • Enshittification — Doctorow’s coinage for the systematic decay of platforms that once worked.
    • Crapification / Encrappification — The transformation of quality into garbage in the name of efficiency.
    • Gamification — Turning life into a perpetual contest of meaningless points and dopamine rewards.
    • Attentionification — Reducing every act of expression to a plea for clicks.
    • Misinformationfication — When truth becomes a casualty of virality.
    • Ozempification — Replacing effort with optimization until we resemble our own avatars.
    • Stupidification — The great numbing: scrolling ourselves into idiocy while our neurons beg for mercy.

    But the crown jewel of this lexicon remains Enshittification—Doctorow’s diagnosis so precise that the American Dialect Society crowned it Word of the Year for 2023.

    Still, I’d like to push back on Doctorow’s suggestion that our current malaise is unique. Yes, technology accelerates decay, but each era has had its own pathology—its signature form of cultural rot. We’ve been creatively self-destructing for decades.

    So, let’s place Enshittification in historical context. Behold The Eight Ages of –ification: a timeline of civilization’s greatest hits in decline.

    1950s — Conformification

    The age of white fences and beige minds. America sold sameness as safety. Individuality was ironed flat, and television became the nation’s priest. Conformification is the fantasy that security comes from imitation—a tranquilized suburbia of identical dreams in identical ranch homes.

    1960s — Psychedelification

    When rebellion became transcendence through chemistry. Psychedelification was the belief that consciousness expansion could topple empires, if only the colors were bright enough. The result: self-absorption in tie-dye and the illusion that enlightenment could be mass-produced.

    1970s — Lustification

    A Freudian carnival of polyester and pelvic thrusts. From Deep Throat to Studio 54, desire was liberation and the body was both altar and marketplace. Lustification crowned pleasure as the last remaining ideology.

    1980s — Greedification

    When morality was replaced by market share. The decade baptized ambition in champagne and cocaine. Greedification is the conviction that money cleanses sin and that a Rolex can double as a rosary.

    1990s — Ironification

    The decade of smirks. Sincerity was cringe; irony was armor. Ironification made detachment the new intelligence: nothing believed, everything quoted, and feelings outsourced to sarcasm.

    2000s — Digitification

    Humanity uploaded itself. Digitification was the mass migration to the screen—the decade of Facebook envy, email anxiety, and dopamine disguised as connection. We stopped remembering and started refreshing.

    2010s — Influencification

    When everyone became a brand. Influencification turned authenticity into a business model and experience into content. The self became a product to be optimized for engagement.

    2020s — Enshittification

    Doctorow’s masterstroke: the final form of digital decay. Enshittification is what happens when every system optimizes for extraction—when user, worker, and platform all drown in the same algorithmic tar pit. It’s the exhaustion of meaning itself, disguised as progress.

    Epilogue: The 2030s — Reification

    If trends continue, we’ll soon enter Reification: a desperate attempt to make the unreal feel real again. After decades of filters, feeds, and frictionless fakery, we’ll long for something tangible—until, inevitably, we commodify that too.

    History repeats itself—only this time with better Wi-Fi.

  • What If the Cranky Old Man on the Lawn Has a Point?

    What If the Cranky Old Man on the Lawn Has a Point?

    I’ve kept in touch with one of my former colleagues who retired from the college where she taught French for thirty years. She is close to eighty now. She told me she was already starting to feel a lack of engagement in her classroom at the end of her teaching days in 2016. Even though phones had to be turned to silent and be stowed away during class, she felt that the kids were just waiting until class was over to get back to their phones and social media. Their brains had changed, their attention spans had been truncated, and they needed to be constantly entertained.

    “Edutainment” was already influencing the way we teach, but the situation grew worse. Now, the addiction to screens has sucked the students into a black hole. Without their phones, they are detached, disengaged, and sullen. 

    It is a cliche that old people are annoying as hell because they are prone to reminisce about a golden age while lecturing the modern world for its recently acquired pathologies. They wax nostalgic for some mythical past that was full of grotesque prejudices, ignorance, and chicanery. To be a scold telling the world that you came from a better place is to be a pompous ass and a bore. I will concede all of that. But objectively speaking as someone who has taught over five decades, I can say there was a Before Times when life in the analog world wasn’t in competition with the digital world. Objectively speaking, something gets lost when we vacillate between the analog and the digital worlds. Public intellectuals such as Sam Harris and Jaron Lanier have made it clear that the digital landscape has become about commerce, addiction, loss of privacy, surveillance, fragmentation, and outrage. In other words, the Internet has had dehumanizing effects on us. 

    Parents who saw their children lying in bed scrolling over TikTok videos during the pandemic can tell you their children have been damaged, and that nothing makes them happier than to see their children hanging out with other kids–without their phones–and hanging out at the park, playing sports, taking walks at the beach, and finding respite from their screen existence. Parents wept with relief. 

    I enjoyed my youth without screens and curating my life on social media. Every summer between 1975 and 1979 when I was a high school teen, my family and ten other families and friends made the sojourn to Pt. Reyes Beach where the Johnson’s Oyster farm provided us with what seemed like bottomless truck beds of oysters. From noon to sunset, hundreds of us ate an infinite amount of barbecued oysters served with garlic butter and Tabasco sauce, thousands of loaves of garlic bread, and colossal slices of moist chocolate cake. Ignoring warnings of nearby great white shark sightings, we’d punctuate our feasting with forays into the waves before emerging from the ocean. Our muscular pecs shiny with rivulets of salt water, we returned to the picnic tables and had another serving of barbecued oysters. In the summer of 78, I opted to have my parents drive home without me. I got a ride home in the back of a truck with a bunch of random people I had met that day. Full from a day of feasting and feeling like King Neptune, we stared into the stars with our glazed lizard eyes and entertained each other with crazy stories. We had a healthy disregard for chronicling our experiences on social media, for monitoring the enormous food we consumed, and for time itself. Those were happy days indeed and pointed to an era gone and lost forever. 

    I would not have had that memory had I lived such a life with a smartphone. My memories would have been filtered through a prism of digital curation and a rewired brain that needs to filter my experience in such a way. We don’t grasp the depth of our brain’s rewiring because, like fish, we don’t know we are wet when all we know is the ocean around us. We have been rewired for this new oceanic environment.

    The screen has rewired the brains of young people. They don’t read. Many college instructors don’t assign books, or if they do, the books are on the short side. In the place of books, instructors assign short essays. When it comes to writing assignments, some high schools and colleges don’t assign essays anymore. They have the students hand-write paragraphs in class. 

    Of course, as you get older, you don’t want to be a bore and lecture the world on the way things were during Before Times. At the same time, if you taught in the 1980s to the 2020s and have seen the way technology has affected the human brain, self-esteem, addiction, reading comprehension, and critical thinking skills, you may have a lot to offer by contrasting the Screen Brain with the Pre-Screen Brain. You can can write academic books about this subject full of graphs and statistics, or you can give anecdotal narrative accounts, or some combination of the two, but it would be absurd to keep your mouth shut because you feared being reduced to the grumpy old person on the lawn arms akimbo screaming that the world is going to hell. Better to risk sounding like a crank than to watch silently as an entire generation scroll itself into oblivion.

  • Dopamine Nation: Self-Help Without the Fairy Dust

    Dopamine Nation: Self-Help Without the Fairy Dust

    I’ve never trusted the mythology of self-help books—the fairy tale that you identify Problem X, buy a book, read a few hundred pages, and Problem X vanishes. What I do believe is that a self-help book, at best, can make you stare harder at your demon, dull its sharper edges, and maybe hand you a strategy or two to keep it from devouring you whole.

    That’s why Anna Lembke’s Dopamine Nation: Finding Balance in the Age of Indulgence punched me in the gut. Her blunt lesson: dopamine addiction—whether through scrolling, swiping, shopping, or vaping—doesn’t lead to pleasure but to misery, pain, and the hollowing-out of your agency. Reading her, I shuddered at the years I wasted feeding my brain with Internet sugar highs.

    Lembke makes no bones about the world we live in: a digital carnival of “overwhelming abundance.” She puts it starkly: “The smartphone is the modern-day hypodermic needle, delivering digital dopamine 24/7 for a wired generation. If you haven’t met your drug of choice yet, it’s coming soon to a website near you.” Pleasure and pain, she reminds us, are processed in the same brain circuitry—and the more dopamine that flows, the stickier the addiction.

    The horror story isn’t abstract. Her case studies peel the skin off addiction’s double life: secret compulsions, corrosive shame, shattered relationships. Some people are more vulnerable—those with addictive parents, those with mental illness in the family—but Lembke insists access is the true accelerant. The Internet puts a casino in our pocket; supply breeds demand. Worse, social media monetizes outrage until we mistake 24/7 hair-on-fire hysteria for “normal.”

    Lembke’s most grotesque example is Jacob, a sex addict who literally builds himself a “Masturbation Machine.” She confesses she feels horror, compassion—and dread that she herself is not immune. Her verdict is bleak: “Not unlike Jacob, we are all at risk of titillating ourselves to death.” Seventy percent of global deaths, she notes, stem from modifiable behaviors like smoking, gluttony, and sloth. Addiction, in short, is a slow suicide dressed up as entertainment.

    Part of the problem is philosophical. As Philip Rieff noted in The Triumph of the Therapeutic, “Religious man was born to be saved; psychological man is born to be pleased.” We’ve traded the pursuit of goodness for the pursuit of good feelings. Jeffrey Rosen put it more bluntly: classical wisdom insists we should aim to be good, not simply to feel good. Instead, we’re anesthetizing ourselves with meds, therapy-lite, dopamine drip-feeds, and hedonism. And as Lembke observes, hedonism curdles into its opposite: anhedonia, the inability to enjoy anything at all.

    Her prescription? The brutal reset of a “dopamine fast.” Four weeks off your drug of choice to force your brain back to balance. She offers a framework—DOPAMINE (data, objectives, problems, abstinence, mindfulness, insight, next steps, experiment). It’s clever, but the hard truth runs underneath: most addicts, myself included, are not “moderators.” We’re all-or-nothing. For me, the Internet isn’t moderation-friendly; it’s a rabbit hole with no bottom.

    Lembke knows willpower is not enough. She prescribes “self-binding”: physical, chronological, and categorical walls between you and your poison. But in the digital economy—where work and addiction ride on the same Internet rails—such barriers are fragile. Moderation may be the fantasy; abstinence the only real survival strategy.

    So yes, I’m glad I read Dopamine Nation. It clarified the trap, exposed the double life, and framed the fight as both biological and spiritual. But let’s not be naïve. Like all self-help, it’s not a magic pill. At best, it’s a mirror, a warning flare, and a rough map out of the dopamine swamp. The walking out is still on you.

  • Posting Ennui and the Rise of Podcast Land

    Posting Ennui and the Rise of Podcast Land

    It’s a small miracle that Kyle Chayka’s New Yorker piece, “Are You Experiencing Posting Ennui?”, wasn’t published five years ago. The argument feels overdue—like an obituary written long after the corpse started to stink. Chayka observes what most of us have already felt in our scrolling bones: the golden era of amateur posting—your breakfast photo, your blurry concert shot, your moody-filtered selfie—has gone the way of the lava lamp and the Livestrong bracelet. What was once dubbed “valorized amateurism” now reads like cringe-inducing narcissism.

    In its place, we have the glossy perfection of influencers and the manic edge of doom content. It’s either an unboxing of a $5,000 Japanese toaster or a clip forecasting economic collapse by Tuesday. There is no middle.

    Some of this is generational. Millennials have aged out of thirst traps and into soft lighting and privacy. Gen Z, including my daughters, treat public self-aggrandizement with the kind of disgust once reserved for timeshare pitches and chain emails. To them, most online posting isn’t just unnecessary—it’s embarrassing.

    Chayka diagnoses the affliction as posting ennui—the existential fatigue of shouting into a void dominated by micro-celebrity algorithms and brand-filtered banality. We used to post in order to share something real; now we post to survive the algorithm’s cold indifference. And the algorithm doesn’t even show our friends anymore. So what’s the point? The casual post is now a ghost of its former self—undone not by controversy, but by irrelevance.

    Then there’s AI, which hangs over this whole landscape like a digital grim reaper. Now, even authenticity feels manufactured. Who made that caption? Who edited that face? Is that even a real voice? The uncanny valley has extended to your Instagram feed.

    Chayka predicts we may be headed toward what he calls Posting Zero—a post-social media state of blissful digital silence, where the compulsion to perform evaporates, and nobody’s life is reduced to a grid of curated lies.

    And honestly? I’m here for it.

    Let the pixelated word salads and beige hotel mirror selfies die a quiet death. Let the algorithm cannibalize itself. But here’s where I’ll add a wrinkle Chayka overlooks: even as posting dies, Podcast Land thrives.

    The podcast isn’t dead. It’s ascendant. While selfies wilt, microphones multiply. I know people—and I count myself among them—who have fully relocated to Podcast Land. Sam Harris talks to me for two hours a day. I fall asleep to history podcasts. I nap with AirPods in. I swing kettlebells to longform interviews about Stoicism and dopamine. I am deep in Podcast Land. I’ve got residency status.

    So yes, let the Instagram Stories dry up. Let the TikTok dances lose their rhythm. But don’t mistake this silence for disengagement. We’re still listening. We’re still absorbing. We’re just done performing.

    Welcome to Posting Zero. Now please keep your voice down—I’m trying to hear what Sam Harris is saying about the AI Takeover.

  • Brand Me, Break Me: The Confused User’s Guide to Digital Collapse (A College Essay Prompt)

    Brand Me, Break Me: The Confused User’s Guide to Digital Collapse (A College Essay Prompt)

    In addition to teaching Critical Thinking, I also teach Freshman Composition, and this semester I’m working with student-athletes—specifically, football players navigating the brave new world of NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) deals. These athletes are now eligible to make money from social media, which makes our first writing assignment both practical and perilous.

    Essay Prompt #1: Brand Me, Break Me: The Confused User’s Guide to Digital Collapse

    Social media is a business. Social media is also a drug. Sometimes, it’s both—and that’s when things get weird.

    In the docuseries Money Game, we watch college athletes play the algorithm like it’s just another playbook. They build brands, negotiate deals, and treat their social feeds like a revenue stream. Let’s call them Business Users—people who understand the game and are winning it.

    But then come the Dopamine Users, the rest of us poor souls, scrolling and posting not for profit, but for approval. In Black Mirror’s “Nosedive” and “Joan Is Awful,” we see social media mutate into a psychological carnival of rating systems, fake smiles, and avatars of self-worth. The result? A curated self that has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with anxiety, desperation, and an ongoing identity crisis.

    And then there’s the tragicomic third act: The Confused User. Think Untold: The Liver King. Here’s a guy who tried to be a Business User but collapsed into parody—lying, self-deluding, and publicly unraveling. The Confused User believes they’re optimizing for attention and success but ends up optimizing for ridicule and collapse.

    In this essay, use Money Game, “Nosedive,” “Joan Is Awful,” Untold: The Liver King, Jonathan Haidt’s essay “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” and Sherry Turkle’s TED Talk “Alone, but Connected?” to respond to the following claim:

    Social media can be a profitable business tool—but when it becomes a substitute for self-worth, it guarantees isolation, mental illness, and eventual collapse. Understanding the difference between Business Users, Dopamine Users, and Confused Users may be the only way to survive the algorithm without losing your mind.

    You may agree, partially agree, or disagree with the claim—but either way, take a position with clarity and nuance. Analyze the psychology, the economics, and the wreckage.

    And remember: this is a critical thinking exercise. That means no TikTok therapy takes, no AI-generated summaries, and no mushy conclusions. Think hard, argue well, and—above all—write like someone who’s seen the glitch in the matrix.

    Sample Thesis Statements:

    1. While social media offers entrepreneurial opportunities for Business Users, the vast majority of people are Dopamine Users unknowingly trading mental stability for validation, making the platform a psychological trap disguised as empowerment.
    2. The Confused User, exemplified by the Liver King, represents a cautionary tale in the digital economy: when brand-building and identity collapse into one, social media success becomes indistinguishable from self-destruction.
    3. Social media doesn’t inherently damage us—but without a clear distinction between economic strategy and personal validation, users risk becoming Confused Users whose craving for attention leads not to fame, but to ruin.

    In a world where your Instagram handle might carry more currency than your GPA, this isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s a survival guide. Whether you’re gunning for a sponsorship deal or just trying not to lose your sense of self in the scroll, this essay is your chance to interrogate the game before it plays you. Treat it like film study for the algorithm: read the plays, understand the players, and figure out how to stay human in a system designed to monetize your attention and, if you’re not careful, your identity.

  • College Essay Prompt: Your Brand, Your Legacy: How to Influence Without Selling Out

    College Essay Prompt: Your Brand, Your Legacy: How to Influence Without Selling Out

    Assignment Overview:

    In the NIL era, athletes are no longer just players—they’re entrepreneurs, role models, and public figures. The rise of influencer culture gives you the power to shape your own brand, connect with fans, and earn money. But with that power comes pressure: How do you stay real while staying relevant? How do you build your platform without becoming a product?

    In the Money Game docuseries, LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne models a smart, sustainable approach to NIL: blending athletic performance, personality, and professionalism. In contrast, the Netflix documentary Untold: The Liver King tells the story of Brian Johnson—a man who built an extreme, hyper-masculine fitness brand only to fall hard after revealing he built his image on steroids and deception.

    In this essay, you will write a “how-to manual” for student-athletes trying to build an ethical, authentic, and effective personal brand. Your argument should clearly explain what works, what doesn’t, and why. Use Olivia Dunne as a model of smart influencer strategy, the Liver King as a cautionary tale, and at least one additional athlete (from the reading list or your own research) as a supporting case study.

    Your Goals in This Essay:

    • Teach readers how to build a responsible and sustainable NIL brand
    • Compare successful and failed influencer strategies
    • Reflect on how an athlete can balance real identity with public image
    • Take a clear stance on what makes influencer branding admirable, ethical, and long-lasting

    Essay Requirements:

    • MLA format (12-point font, double-spaced, proper citations)
    • 8 paragraphs: introduction, 6 body paragraphs, conclusion
    • At least two credible sources (see the reading list or find your own)
    • In-text citations and a Works Cited page
    • A focused, argumentative thesis (not just “influencing is good/bad”)
    • Use specific examples and clear reasoning

    Suggested 8-Paragraph Outline:

    1. Introduction
      • Hook: Ask a question or tell a quick story about athlete fame or social media fame
      • Context: Briefly define NIL and explain how it has changed college athletics
      • Thesis: State your core advice—what makes an NIL brand ethical, effective, and worth following
    2. Lesson #1: Be Real, Not Just Visible
      • Use Dunne’s example to show the power of authenticity and athletic credibility
      • Contrast with the Liver King’s persona-based deception
    3. Lesson #2: Align Your Brand with Who You Are
      • Use a secondary case study (e.g., Shedeur Sanders or Chase Griffin)
      • Show how a values-based brand creates trust and long-term appeal
    4. Lesson #3: Build for the Long Run, Not Just for Likes
      • Talk about long-term goals vs. short-term popularity
      • Emphasize how transparency and substance protect your legacy
    5. Lesson #4: Know the Game—You’re a Business, Not Just a Feed
      • Explain the importance of smart partnerships, content quality, and self-discipline
      • Compare thoughtful NIL deals with hype-based gimmicks
    6. Lesson #5: The Spotlight Is Hot—Know the Risks
      • Social media can bring opportunity and scrutiny
      • One bad post or fake partnership can harm your name
      • Tie back to broader trends in sports culture
    7. Counterargument + Rebuttal
      • Acknowledge: some believe shock and virality are the fastest way to fame
      • Rebut: real influence lasts longer than a trend, and fake personas crack under pressure
    8. Conclusion
      • Restate your thesis about how to build a brand that reflects who you are
      • Leave readers with advice: if a younger athlete asked you for NIL advice, what would you say?

    Companion Reading List

    1. [“How Marketers Choose College Athlete Influencers” – Harvard Business Review](https://hbr.org/2024/05/how-marketers-choose-college-athlete-influencers)

    Overview: This article delves into the criteria marketers use to select college athletes for NIL deals, emphasizing authenticity, engagement, and brand alignment.

    2. [“College Athletes Are Now Online Influencers, Too” – Global Sport Matters](https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2023/02/08/whole-different-audience-college-athletes-online-influencers-too/)

    Overview: Explores the dual identity of college athletes as both competitors and influencers, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of this new landscape.

    3. [“How NIL Deals and Brand Sponsorships Are Helping College Athletes Make Money” – Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-college-athletes-are-getting-paid-from-nil-endorsement-deals)

    *Overview:* Provides a comprehensive look at the financial aspects of NIL deals, including the role of collectives and the varying scales of athlete earnings.([MarketWatch][1])

    4. [“Livvy Dunne Dishes on Her Social Media Strategy” – On3](https://www.on3.com/college/lsu-tigers/news/livvy-dunne-dishes-on-her-social-media-strategy-how-she-handles-rabid-fans/)

    *Overview:* Offers insights into Olivia Dunne’s approach to managing her online presence, balancing personal branding with athletic commitments.

    5. [“The Top 10 NIL Influencers To Follow On Social Media” – Viral Nation](https://www.viralnation.com/resources/blog/top-10-nil-influencers-of-2022)

    Overview: Highlights standout college athletes who have effectively leveraged social media for NIL opportunities, providing case studies of successful strategies.

    —

    College Football Players Exemplifying Savvy Social Media Use

    1. Shedeur Sanders (University of Colorado)

    Overview: Son of NFL legend Deion Sanders, Shedeur has cultivated a strong personal brand through consistent social media engagement, showcasing his on-field performance and off-field personality. His strategic use of platforms has led to significant NIL deals, making him one of the top earners among college athletes.([talkSPORT][2])

    2. Chase Griffin (UCLA)

    Overview: Recognized as a two-time NIL Male Athlete of the Year, Griffin has combined academic excellence with a thoughtful social media presence. He uses his platforms to discuss topics beyond football, including education and social issues, aligning with brands that reflect his values.

    3. Michael Turk (Oklahoma)

    Overview: Through his YouTube channel “Hangtime,” Turk shares content that blends athletic training, personal faith, and lifestyle topics. His authentic storytelling and engagement have attracted a substantial following, enhancing his marketability for NIL partnerships.([Wikipedia][3])

    4. Hendon Hooker (University of Tennessee)

    Overview: Hooker has utilized his platform to promote positive messages, including co-authoring a children’s book that combines sports themes with life lessons. His commitment to community engagement and personal development resonates with audiences and sponsors alike.([Wikipedia][4])

    5. Jaden Rashada (Arizona State University)

    Overview: As one of the first high school athletes to sign an NIL deal, Rashada has been at the forefront of athlete branding. His proactive approach to building a personal brand sets a precedent for upcoming athletes navigating the NIL landscape.([Wikipedia][5])

    [1]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-10-college-athletes-are-making-over-1-million-a-year-in-nil-deals-203649d7?utm_source=chatgpt.com “These 10 college athletes are making over $1 million a year in NIL deals”

    [2]: https://talksport.com/us/2066573/livvy-dunne-top-nil-deals-shedeur-sanders-college/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Livvy Dunne has $4m NIL fortune but it’s a trailblazing quarterback who tops college list”

    [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Turk?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Michael Turk”

    [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendon_Hooker?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Hendon Hooker”

    [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaden_Rashada?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Jaden Rashada”

    10 Dos and Don’ts of Athletic Social Media Branding

    1. DO show your work ethic.

    Post training clips, game-day prep, recovery routines, and behind-the-scenes discipline. You’re not just flexing muscles—you’re broadcasting your commitment.

    DON’T just flex your abs.
     A shirtless selfie with no context screams vanity, not value. You’re not auditioning for a thirst trap Olympics.

    2. DO engage with your audience.

    Reply to comments, answer questions, and create polls or stories that invite fans into your world.

    DON’T buy followers or fake engagement.
     It’s obvious. It’s embarrassing. And brands can tell.

    3. DO be authentic.

    Speak in your voice. Share your story—wins, losses, doubts, comebacks. Fans connect with real people, not curated robots.

    DON’T mimic influencers who aren’t athletes.
     You’re not a fitness model or a supplement shill—unless you want to be irrelevant in two years.

    4. DO collaborate with brands that match your values.

    If you believe in a product, use it, and can explain why, that’s a partnership—not a transaction.

    DON’T promote sketchy products or fad diets.
     One bad NIL deal can wreck your reputation. If it sounds like snake oil, it probably is.

    5. DO use high-quality visuals.

    Good lighting, steady framing, and thoughtful captions go a long way. Even a smartphone can create pro-level content now.

    DON’T post blurry, off-angle, or half-baked content.
     You’re not in a group chat. You’re building a portfolio.

    6. DO tell a story.

    Whether it’s a comeback from injury, a day-in-the-life, or your pregame rituals—narrative builds loyalty.

    DON’T just post random hype clips with rap beats.
     Unless there’s context, all we see is ego and noise.

    7. DO highlight your education and character.

    Brands—and future employers—like athletes with brains, purpose, and integrity. Show that you’re more than a stat sheet.

    DON’T trash talk, subtweet, or complain.
     Screenshots are forever. Emotionally tweet like you’re already in the NFL.

    8. DO maintain consistency.

    Post regularly, even during the offseason. That’s when the real connections are made.

    DON’T ghost your audience.
     Going silent for months makes it look like you only post when you’re winning.

    9. DO respect team rules and brand guidelines.

    If you’re repping a university or sponsor, know the line between personal and professional content.

    DON’T leak locker room drama.
     One bad post can get you benched, dropped, or worse—memed into oblivion.

    10. DO think long-term.

    Use social media to build a bridge to life after football—whether it’s coaching, media, business, or beyond.

    DON’T tie your entire identity to performance.
     Your value isn’t just in touchdowns. Build a brand that lasts longer than your playing career.