Polygon: Indie TTRPG Companies are "sitting in their own little corners of the internet and wringing their hands"

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do brand training for an ambassador group of thousands, and there's also a few other things going on that get people to fall into this trap:

• Top-to-bottom scrolling. We don't even realize the algorithm is deciding what we see, and it is not by importance, or relevance, or anything else, it's by monetization, and therefore it's not actually curated in any way that is beneficial to us, it's already biased to the platform -- but it's invisible. You don't even know what you're missing.
• Shared spaces. Facebook in particular is guilty of blurring the lines between your personal page, a friend's page, a brand page, an ad, and a group. This is on purpose so that you don't stay in one bubble for long. However, it means many people actually have no idea who sees their posts, and there is a high number of users who aren't educated enough to know how it works (I'm always amused by spouses tagging their partners on things that we all have no business knowing about).
• Smart phones. Social media requires attention to use it correctly. The Atlantic recently shared an article where the elderly find it nearly impossible to keep track of all the updates, scrolling, changes, "improvements" to the platform, etc. Users who ONLY use phones cannot see pictures very well and are unlikely to read more than a few sentences. Social media wants their "strafing" level of engagement but not actual long-form conversations.
• Anonymity. There is no account police. There is no hashtag police. You can make multiple fake accounts all the live long day on most platforms without consequence. There is no authority of any kind ensuring social media is used in any way that's appropriate, appeals to authority are to an anonymous feedback form completely disconnected from real humans.

Add all this up, and the only ones who benefit are those who are there to make money off of the rest of us. Social media's supposed convenience and value to average users is heavily favoring bots, provocateurs, and bad actors. It's why moderated platforms are so important (EN World) and why LinkedIn finally put a stake in the ground and is asking for license/government ID to prove who you say you are.

You mention a lot of good points. I kinda mostly look at the first when I think about it:
The way media is presented to us is now chosen by engagement, as you mention. And that might be good for the platform, but not good for us.

I have some hope that this is something governments in the world will really have to look into - making up rules about how social media algorithm work, how transparent and comprehensible they are to users, and provide some sort of guidelines. (This isn't really easy, because, for example, Google at least to put a lot of effort into making its Algorithm actually provide relevant search and had to fight search engine optimziation by spammers and malware producers.)

Facebook basically started with the idea of showing you the posts of your friends. This could be about your favorite hobby, their dog, their last meal, their political opinion, or whatever. But it were people you actively decided to follow, eventually expanded by organizations and media sources you might be interested in. Maybe you created groups of like-minded people. But at some point we lost control over what we are presented, some algorithm is picking for us to the benefits of the social media corporation and its advertisers (and maybe investors). We don't notice so easily, because a lot of is manipulative - it engages us emotionally, even if it's actually naughty word or at least distorted, in ways that maybe our father's talk about his sports team or our sister's talk about her dog wasn't. But the latter was actually still keeping us in contact with people we cared about and knew existed and even knew a tleast a little bit about how they are in real life, heck, we could probably even check out whether that sports team actually performed as described and how the dog is doing. But now we have no idea who the people talking are, they might not even be real and just bots created to parrot something.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is only the case when reporting on taste and opinion rather than facts and evidence. And if an institution is interpreting right and wrong for you it goes well beyond a news outlet.

If you believe news any news outlets aren't interpreting right and wrong for you to at least some degree, I'm not sure what to tell you, because the cold fact is that they are. You need to be real and think critically about what spin/bias is being applied, consciously and unconsciously, by various outlets.

Most of it isn't even political bias in a conventional sense, it's cultural bias.

Re: Gaiman that's just factually inaccurate. The issue wasn't a political one but rather a caution one, which is another form of bias you seem to be ignoring. Some papers, especially more mainstream ones, are much more cautious about reporting certain stories, especially if they're potential libellous or just might make them look bad if they turn out to be inaccurate. So the story came in from more fringe media first and as it got more confirmed and detailed, got reported by more and more mainstream media.

News sources, including big/mainstream ones, are also sometimes unreasonably incautious about reporting certain stories, if they think they have a scoop. The NYT has published a few absolute nonsense stories, basically pure fiction, over the last year because it thought they were scoops, and because of cultural bias, trusted the people reporting the stories to them ("They went to Ivy League universities and are from respectable families, they must be trustworthy!"). Anything that's a "scoop" should thus be held to a pretty high standard proof-wise.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

So case in point: An itch.io bundle was created in response to this #Polygon article in an attempt to 'get loud', which I'm only seeing shared... in their own little corner of the internet.

Social media's supposed convenience and value to average users is heavily favoring bots, provocateurs, and bad actors. It's why moderated platforms are so important (EN World) and why LinkedIn finally put a stake in the ground and is asking for license/government ID to prove who you say you are.

What we ultimately need is accountability. IDs and moderators are just one way of achieving that. Also smaller communities do not need to be governed in this manner and will actually become toxic if they are.

It makes indie sci-fi games like Mothership the exception, not the rule, for success in the sci-fi rpg space.

They adopted one of the simplest, familiar, and most engaging tropes in all of fiction, let alone science fiction, and then let the community run with it. And if the Alien RPG had done the last it would have become even more of a hit than it already did.

When it comes to science fiction most players expect to use science to solve problems, so the existence of problems which should have already been solved with it become a cognitive hazard. And the more exceptions like this you have to make, the harder it becomes to suspend disbelief and engage on an immersive level. The 'space monster' trope has fewer of these barriers. Meanwhile in fantasy 'a wizard did it' suffices.

The way media is presented to us is now chosen by engagement, as you mention. And that might be good for the platform, but not good for us.

Thing is I want the algorithm to present me the things that I want to engage with. Hell I want it to give me the #CliffNotes. The problem is completely in how the platform wants to redirect that attention.

After a certain point, when literally everything which can be said is, controlling what is heard becomes the message.

I have some hope that this is something governments in the world will really have to look into - making up rules about how social media algorithm work, how transparent and comprehensible they are to users, and provide some sort of guidelines.

Sadly I wouldn't trust any government to set those guidelines at this point.

If you believe news any news outlets aren't interpreting right and wrong for you to at least some degree, I'm not sure what to tell you, because the cold fact is that they are.

Scientific journals are objective. If they aren't, then by definition they aren't reporting honestly to begin with. The facts on the ground can also be accurately reported in less rigorous fields.

When reporting objectively the key issue becomes about what is left out. And while it's impossible to report every detail (especially the ones you don't know about) the decision on that should not be driven by what the reporter wants you to believe, as that's propaganda.

You need to be real and think critically about what spin/bias is being applied, consciously and unconsciously, by various outlets.

I'm #GenX. We stopped believing everything we read decades ago. Shame the next generation doesn't seem to have followed suit.

 

[grankless]

So case in point: An itch.io bundle was created in response to this #Polygon article in an attempt to 'get loud', which I'm only seeing shared... in their own little corner of the internet.

Reddit, famously a very small corner of the internet that nobody uses.

This bundle is extremely good. Buy it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Scientific journals are objective.

No.

You literally don't understand what a scientific journal is.

It's not reporting in the same sense at all. It's a vehicle for publishing research papers. You're confused as hell.

If they aren't, then by definition they aren't reporting honestly to begin with.

Again, you literally do not know what a scientific journal is, and you're proving that by saying this. You are making an incredible category error.

When reporting objectively the key issue becomes about what is left out. And while it's impossible to report every detail (especially the ones you don't know about) the decision on that should not be driven by what the reporter wants you to believe, as that's propaganda.

You are not remotely in a position to talk down to anyone about journalism, let alone to try and lecture people about it, as you've shown with this post. You need to go and seriously rethink your entire position, and also learn about scientific journals and what they are, because you're clearly not familiar with them.

I'm #GenX. We stopped believing everything we read decades ago.

GenX are the Joe Rogan generation, they are absolutely the most second-most gullible generation after Boomers, if you insist we must generalize in that fashion.

I accept that there's cynicism towards the reporting media in GenX, there has been since the mid-1980s, it's obvious in GenX-created films/movies/TV/graphic novels. But the cynicism rapidly turned into conspiratorial thinking and open-minded-ness turned into believing nonsense because it wasn't labelled as "mainstream" (even though the sources very often are "mainstream" and corporate, just risibly claiming to be "alternative"). GenX are Generation Ivermectin, for god's sake.

This appeal to birth-year-authority is not as compelling as you think.

Here are you free thinking GenX brothers in true superbrain action: Elon Musk backs mission to Mars to investigate 'square structure'

(Apologies to everyone for linking the Mail)

(Also, other GenXers, I'm sorry, I know most of you are reasonable, but you don't go "IM SMART BECAUSE IM GENX UNLIKE YOU MILLENNIAL DUMMIES".)

 

[Morrus]

So case in point: An itch.io bundle was created in response to this #Polygon article in an attempt to 'get loud', which I'm only seeing shared... in their own little corner of the internet.

Exactly. Polygon is not talking about. That's the point.

 

[Umbran]

You literally don't understand what a scientific journal is.

Mod Note:
Are you sure that making this personal is going to
1) take this discussion to a good place, and
2) end well for you?

Because I am unconvinced. See below...

GenX are the Joe Rogan generation, they are absolutely the most second-most gullible generation after Boomers, if you insist we must generalize in that fashion.

Oof.

A quick search shows me that Rogan's audience skews young. 56% of Joe Rogan's audience is under 35 years old!

In your zeal, you have gone far off topic, started skirting politics, making things personal, insulting age groups while being factually incorrect ...

Stop now.

 

[Umbran]

I'm #GenX. We stopped believing everything we read decades ago. Shame the next generation doesn't seem to have followed suit.

Stop with the anti-generational gobbledigook.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The best way to combat the scourge of social media is to use Enworld more! Morrus has created an TTRPG discussion utopia! Huzzah

 

[Bedrockgames]

No.

You literally don't understand what a scientific journal is.

It's not reporting in the same sense at all. It's a vehicle for publishing research papers. You're confused as hell.

Again, you literally do not know what a scientific journal is, and you're proving that by saying this. You are making an incredible category error.

You are not remotely in a position to talk down to anyone about journalism, let alone to try and lecture people about it, as you've shown with this post. You need to go and seriously rethink your entire position, and also learn about scientific journals and what they are, because you're clearly not familiar with them.

GenX are the Joe Rogan generation, they are absolutely the most second-most gullible generation after Boomers, if you insist we must generalize in that fashion.

I accept that there's cynicism towards the reporting media in GenX, there has been since the mid-1980s, it's obvious in GenX-created films/movies/TV/graphic novels. But the cynicism rapidly turned into conspiratorial thinking and open-minded-ness turned into believing nonsense because it wasn't labelled as "mainstream" (even though the sources very often are "mainstream" and corporate, just risibly claiming to be "alternative"). GenX are Generation Ivermectin, for god's sake.

This appeal to birth-year-authority is not as compelling as you think.

Here are you free thinking GenX brothers in true superbrain action: Elon Musk backs mission to Mars to investigate 'square structure'

(Apologies to everyone for linking the Mail)

(Also, other GenXers, I'm sorry, I know most of you are reasonable, but you don't go "IM SMART BECAUSE IM GENX UNLIKE YOU MILLENNIAL DUMMIES".)

Gen X often doesn’t take media seriously or will engage it with a sense of irony. I think it is a mistake to think Gen Xers listening to Rogan means they agree with his views on health science or politics. We used to watch reefer madness because we thought it was funny. And a lot of Xers like conspiracy theory as a genre but don’t believe in them (some do though and I think a lot of us have a ‘no skin off my back’ attitude that some mistake for an endorsement). I have listened to Rohan for ages because I am from Boston and a UFC fan. I also find his humor not funny at all. And I disagree with most of what he says. I still find the conversations entertaining though and I think he is good at engaging his guests for long swaths of time (so I like catching interviews with people like Dave Mustaine or seeing them being up old Boston comedians I remember from when I was a kid like Lenny Clarke). But he is like the guy at the bar here. You may be interested in what he has to say, enjoy the conversation, find him a nice enough guy, but not agree with his takes on the world