I read this some years ago, and one of the things I took away was that there is great power in being able to focus attention and debate in one direction rather than another. Permit debate so long as it works within premises that align with your narrative. Direct attention away from questioning the questions themselves.
> The most effective device is the bounding of the thinkable, achieved by tolerating debate, even encouraging it, though only within proper limits.
An example given in the book is focusing attention on how best to 'contain' the Soviet Union.
> In short, what is essential is the power to set the agenda. If controversy over the Cold War can be focused on containment of the Soviet Union -- the proper mix of force, diplomacy, and other measures -- then the propaganda system has already won its victory, whatever conclusions are reached. The basic assumption has already been established: the Cold War is a confrontation between two superpowers, one aggressive and expansionist, the other defending the status quo and civilized values. Off the agenda is the problem of containing the United States, and the question whether the issue has been properly formulated at all
Some of these folks do sponsored content, usually widgets or toys or something, but they're pretty up front about it. A few of them I follow religiously, others I choose which videos I'd prefer to watch.
You have to dig through this entire article to get to the punchline, but here it is:
> "These AI challenges, I would add, apply to monetization as well: one of the outcomes of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency changes is that advertising needs to shift from a deterministic model to a probabilistic one; the companies with the most data and the greatest amount of computing resources are going to make that shift more quickly and effectively, and I expect Meta to be top of the list. None of this matters, though, without engagement."
Relevant quote:
> "The junk merchant doesn't sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client." ― William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch
This is slightly more complex with the social media business model: the product is the viewer, rather like a fish. The heroin-like bait to catch the viewer is the stream of short distractive entertainment content. The actual client buys the fish (the viewer) from the social media outfit. The actual client is an advertiser out to sell a product, a government out to push propaganda, a politician out to get votes, etc.
The more interesting aspect of this is that the clients might be paying the social media providers to control the content stream as a means of manipulating their audience. Weapons manufacturers might want Facebook/Instagram/Twitter to bury anti-war content; corporate media giants might want independent outlets booted off the recommendation algorithm results; established political parties might want independents hidden from view; etc
It's very plausible that this monetization model - i.e. not just the delivery of targeted advertising content to the 'engaged' audience, but also the targeted removal of competing content as a kind of shadow control of what that audience gets to see, is part of the revenue stream of Meta, Google, Twitter, etc.
Of course, people will agree that China is doing this with TikTok, but many tend to get uncomfortable if asked if the US government and major corporations are also playing this game on Twitter, Google, Instagram, Facebook, and Reddit.
British "Ben Fogle New Lives in the Wild" and Dutch "Floortje naar het einde van de wereld" are over 100 documentairies on this theme. A few of them where programmers who quit their jobs and started a small homestead farm or go to the wilderness and hunt. The majority are young families going for sustainable living.
Another large group buys rural houses, fixes them up and rents them out as B&B rooms. They also have their own documentairies.
The latest group are youtubers who document their move into the country.
The lessons from these examples are that almost no one could earn a living from the farming. They all had problems with local laws. They all have unfixable infrastructure problems, especially for remote working c.q. programming jobs.
Many had to break off when they became sick or went bankrupt. Its is very hard, so I started a business to help make the transition.
I am trying to make a business combining the two extremes. I sell rural or remote wilderness land with a high-tech solar off grid tiny house with very good internet for around $50.000. At any moment I have around 10 suitable plots of land on offer. The best are in nature reserves, the largest 100 acres.
It takes on average 24 months or more to find land, get permits, build the road, water, electricity and internet infrastructure and move the mobile tiny house onto the land. Spain, Portugal and Arizona mostly.
This is for programmers and other remote workers, retirees or people who can't afford a house in the city.
Since Covid there has been an large increase in people moving to remote rural locations. Most of them homestead, some take on the #vanlife.
A new trend will be permanent living in a mobile house, RV, bus, truck while working remotely. This only becomes affordable with Starlink and an electrical truck completely plated with solar panels. Water is purified onboard.
I expect the trend of going rural or mobile to increase even more in the next 10 years. I'm looking for cofounders to accommodate this increase in my business niche.
Asimov and Larry Niven wrote some science fiction stories before 1970 on this theme. When Star Trek transporters become possible, you could go live remotely on or inside a mountain or another planet.
Chris Stewart's "Driving Over Lemons" is a nice book describing the move into the country.
> The most effective device is the bounding of the thinkable, achieved by tolerating debate, even encouraging it, though only within proper limits.
An example given in the book is focusing attention on how best to 'contain' the Soviet Union.
> In short, what is essential is the power to set the agenda. If controversy over the Cold War can be focused on containment of the Soviet Union -- the proper mix of force, diplomacy, and other measures -- then the propaganda system has already won its victory, whatever conclusions are reached. The basic assumption has already been established: the Cold War is a confrontation between two superpowers, one aggressive and expansionist, the other defending the status quo and civilized values. Off the agenda is the problem of containing the United States, and the question whether the issue has been properly formulated at all