From Fast Company:
Yesterday was Cyber Monday and already Amazon has revealed many flowery statistics about all the ways it earned tens of millions of dollars in a matter of hours. Amazon does this every year–it’s how it reaffirms to the world its dominance. But in the background something else is afoot, and it’s been slowly gaining traction: a backlash.
Yesterday, on Vox’s The Goods, writer Rebecca Jennings wrote about the slow and steady movement of people and organizations realizing that Amazon may actually be bad.
“Having covered Black Friday for the past few years, I’m used to the infinite roundups of Amazon’s best Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals–which, to be sure, won’t be going anywhere as long as publishers are able to monetize them,” she wrote. “But what I hadn’t seen as much before this year were media companies openly discouraging readers from shopping at Amazon.” Two examples she brings up are The Ringer and Gizmodo–both of which wrote pieces this year dissuading its readers from using the e-commerce platform.
. . . .
Similarly, individuals have joined the call too. Jennings points to numerous tweets–most of whom come from the loud but incestuous media twitter circle–of popular accounts imploring their followers to break ties with the company. (A search of Google Trends for the search query “cancel Amazon Prime” shows a spike last December, followed by a steady decline.) Other smaller creators have also tried to foster positive reinforcement in name of canceling Amazon Prime; online ceramicist and writer Marian Bull (who’s also, full disclosure, a friend of mine), held a brief sale on her Instagram imploring followers to part ways with the Amazon beast.
Link to the rest at Fast Company
PG suggests there are eight million stories in the naked internet. This has been one of them.
PG further suggests there are millions and millions and millions of tweets in the naked Twitter. If you spend five minutes searching, you can find a “Twitter trend” for any topic that might interest you and 15 of your followers.
Twitter makes it possible for online journalists to identify emerging trends and write their stories without actually interacting with any living person who does not exhibit symptoms consistent with a high likelihood of galloping bonkerhood. (See Geographical Distribution of Insanity in America: Evidence for an Urban Factor, which PG suggests could be updated to “Geographical Distribution of Insanity in America: Evidence for a Twitter Factor”)
Having just conducted 20 seconds of Twitter research, PG can announce the following:
- People on Twitter like to joke about how spending so much time there has given us all brain damage. Being online, or worse, Very Online, can often feel indistinguishable from descending into madness. Our brains simply cannot have been designed to withstand such a constant onslaught of conflicting information at once.
- Research conducted by the University of Pennsylvania, found that Twitter users with ADHD tended to tweet differently than those without ADHD, in a variety of ways: They were found to be less agreeable, to post more often and openly, and to swear more often than Twitter users who didn’t have ADHD, according to the research.
- Forecasting the onset and course of mental illness with Twitter data. Researchers developed computational models to predict the emergence of depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Twitter users. . . . State-space temporal analysis suggests that onset of depression may be detectable from Twitter data several months prior to diagnosis. . . . A state-space time series model revealed indicators of PTSD almost immediately post-trauma, often many months prior to clinical diagnosis. These methods suggest a data-driven, predictive approach for early screening and detection of mental illness.
UPDATE: Per Meryl’s request, the Piffle video makes an appearance here.