Links #694: Kategate, sharenting, and two visions for YouTube's future
"You can't post punk" is a perfect pun that will live in my brain forever
I hate to be the bearer of boring news, but I think Kate Middleton is probably … fine. Embarrassed, maybe. Chastened, definitely. But not kidnapped, spurned, mortally ill or otherwise fighting for her life.
I have reached this conclusion the dull, old-fashioned way — by reading reported articles in mainstream news publications and stringing their various insights together. In the process, I learned the following heretofore unknown facts (to me, anyway):
That fantastically botched Photoshop is likely composed of several takes of the same photo stitched together. It’s probably not different photos from different times, or different photos of different people, or different photos with inexplicably color-swapped sweaters.
Kate is actually an avid photographer, and royal hand-out photos are often doctored. Her Photoshop excuse sounded absurd, on its face, because we don’t expect the royals to possess any skills sourced from the real, peasant world. But if she loves photography so much, sure — maybe Kate knows a bit of Photoshop. And maybe she and all the Walses overestimate her skill, because they generally believe they’re beyond reproach and selected for some higher purpose by God.
On the subject of humility, or lack thereof — much as Kate Middleton overestimates her lackluster photo-editing skills, most people overvalue their own ability to suss out true information from false. Add that to the willing collaboration of the British press in all things royal, the uncomfortable possibility that everything online is at least a little fake now and the simple, undeniable fact that misinformation of this sort is FUN, and you have … the perfect tempest in a Wedgwood teapot for armchair conspiracists on both sides of the pond.
“This whole saga has been a perfect microcosm of how conspiracy theories are formed: lack of trust in a source of authority, a gap in the information filled with speculation, distrusting parts of online communities believing and amplifying speculation as fact,” Eliot Higgins, one of the world’s preeminent open-source researchers, told The Cut.
“It’s really poor analysis,” he added, “but I usually see that stuff about terrible war crimes, so at least it’s not that.” Small miracles, etc.
If you read anything this weekend
“On Popular Online Platforms, Predatory Groups Coerce Children Into Self-Harm,” by Shawn Boburg, Pranshu Verma and Chris Dehghanpoor for The Washington Post. This story — and others reported as part of this collaboration, by Wired, Der Spiegel and Romania’s Recorder — are so deeply disgusting and depraved that I honestly avoided reading them most of the week. (Imagine the absolute worst episodes of Law & Order.) I share them for two reasons: First, it’s obviously important to know where, and how, 764 and other cult-like groups prey on vulnerable kids. Second, I’m interested in these groups in the broader context of trafficking misinformation — the subject of last Tuesday’s edition.
"This can happen to you"
Katie Britt's misleading trafficking story didn't actually communicate anything about border policy or immigration. But *boy* did it say a lot about the cultural and political mainstreaming of Q-adjacent trafficking narratives — and the role that a certain type of concerned mom plays in popularizing and normalizing them.
Why does so much attention and “awareness” flow to false trafficking claims, when real abuse is happening on Discord and Telegram? Miiight it be because the victims here aren’t quite so shiny and pristine (in that they often have preexisting mental health challenges, or choose to join these groups themselves)? Might it be because the perpetrators aren’t easily classed as evil “others,” like … immigrants? Either way, it’s worth nothing that this is just one of a number of serious crimes orchestrated through Telegram, which — per a very rare new interview with its elusive founder — has almost doubled in size since 2021 and may soon seek to go public.
“The Terrible Costs of a Phone-Based Childhood,” by Jonathan Haidt for The Atlantic. The quality of any given article can, in my highly scientific and objective system, be measured in part by how long I spend discussing it on my daily post-work walk with Jason. This one got a full mile in, which is pretty good. I learned a hell of a lot about human psychological and emotional development, and how the constant soup of social media might interrupt those processes. I feared a bit for my friends in Gen Z, apparently a cohort of sexless, risk-averse crybabies. I also wondered if Haidt hadn't overstated the case a bit — a criticism of his last gigantic takeout for The Atlantic. But still … made me think! Quite a lot! Almost as much as Kate Middleton did.
“Can Reddit Survive Its Own IPO?,” by Robert Peck and Paresh Dave for Wired. Reddit is arguably the only social network of its era that hasn’t yet been ruined by management. But that’s not for lack of trying, unfortunately: In pursuit of scale, Reddit’s minders have at various times attempted to transform the “front page of the internet” into some bastard derivative of TikTok, Clubhouse or Twitch. Now, the site is gearing up to go public, and this voluminous history gives you a sense of everything that’s at stake — not only for the platform and its devoted users, but also for an internet increasingly deprived of true connection and community.
“What’s the Price of a Childhood Turned Into Content?” By Fortesa Latifi for Cosmopolitan. Advocates for child influencers, many of them former child influencers themselves, have recently gained traction on a number of bills designed to protect internet-famous kids from the whims of their greedy parents. Rarely, however, do we hear from those parents — at least in any substantive or nuanced way. Latifi, who is working on a book about child influencers, somehow got several to go on the record re: money, exploitation and the price of fame.
Two visions for the future of YouTube. Will the platform shift away from hyper-optimized, professionalized, sensational content, as Patricia Hernandez predicts for Polygon? Or — as Lindsay Dodgson argues, in Business Insider — has the MrBeast/AI junk era only just begun? My heart’s with Hernandez … but my brain tells me we’ll end up in the bad place on this one.
👉 ICYMI: The most-clicked link from last Saturday’s round-up sent you to the new NYT game Strands. (Thanks, I hate it!) Tuesday’s edition addressed the role nice white moms have played in mainstreaming QAnon disinformation.
Postscripts
“Viralflation.” Email apnea. On the appeal of tradwives and mukbang. How hustle culture bros exploit “young Indians” and why so many parents love Dr. Becky. The people ruining free returns for all of us. In search of local online spaces. “Nonconsensual porn” laws have done fuck all for victims, which does not make me hopeful for deepfake legislation.
The only two things Facebook remains good for: extreme dishwasher loading and buying used stuff. A weird island of prudery in my life, but: I really, devotedly hate the word cunt. Breakout, but for Gcal. Gamergate, but for now. Reports of the Gen Z gender gap were greatly exaggerated. AI could supercharge recipe copying. A guide to the TikTok ban legislation. “Maybe I don’t want to look at the world. Maybe I want this, the vast infinite canvas, unfolding over pixels and light.” Last but not least: “You can’t post punk” — and other observations re: identity online.
Until next week! Warmest virtual regards,
Caitlin
Oof. Why did I read this before bed. Going to hug my son now.
Oh my god. That 764 story. I think I want to write spooky stories, like Stephen King, and then I come across an article like that and wonder why reality is so much worse than anything I could imagine.