I've Seen Tertiary Characters At Star Trek Conventions Get More Attention.

Viewer: "Are you going to Summit Live"?

Me: "No, it's bullshit".

Events like these have always felt self-masturbatory. Especially at a conference venue. Conferences imply authority, but with live-streaming I'm not sure what anybody can claim to be the authority of exactly, yet. Nobody should be claiming anything from what I've seen put on display this week.

Summit Live for those that don't know, is the live-streaming event for those invested in live-streaming*, it's live-streamers, live-streaming about live-streaming. It shouldn't be too much harder to organise something than the word play at play, right? It's not a puppy convention with some individuals saying, "hey let's stream this to the world". It should be better presented than that.

It's my modest expectation to be able to watch a live streamed event by live streamers, and have it marketed adequately enough to an outside audience, creating that crucial, precious FOMO for when the next one comes around, in order to better build out the next event to an even better degree. 

I'm not feeling anything.

After two years I find the Summit Live events aren't getting better, it's scandalous for two reasons (ignoring all other live-streams ever streamed before to the world in human history).

  1. I'm still watching presentations made available to me from someone's phone sitting in the audience. I understand that's the beauty of live-streaming as it's reactionary to an event. Conferences however aren't dramatic in the slightest, and as these apps develop, so should the manner in which video is streamed.
  2. Why is no one is sitting at the front streaming to at least hide the fact that nobody is turning up to listen? Who is charge of the room? Where are the backseat marketers and influencers saying this is okay? I would want to see a blossoming from a yearly event, not a drying out husk.

What you have then, is one of the best live-streamers, Josh Robert Thompson, (subjective I know, but definitely someone who brings more televisual experience to the event than anybody else, [this is why a woke JRT satirically examined the state of live-streaming in his talk]) and the day before you actually had the Community Manager of Periscope, presenting to not even half-filled conference rooms about upcoming new features; that on the whole are interesting, but who fuck is watching?

Honestly, a write-up on Medium might have been better use of Lili's time. 

Periscope's @lilisalzberg addresses their community at #SummitLive -https://twitter.com/geoffgolberg/status/834925321543643137

The photo above doesn't inspire confidence for further Summit Lives. Especially when Periscope themselves don't even promote their own speaker via the official Periscope account with over 9 million follows. Clearly Periscope didn't regard it as important enough. I've seen tertiary characters at Star Trek conventions get more attention. Would Periscope want to attend again?

There has to be at least 101 marketeers at the event, right?

To the people staging this event, you're not creating any buzz that's reaching the casual viewer. I have a mixture of new and old people attending my scopes who are unaware of what Summit Live is. I'm doubting if you're able to reach enough casual viewers collectively through those attending scopers with their own individual fan base, that it creates a perception that there isn't much FOMO to be shared out.

Getting the word out generally for something like an event via live-streams seems to be a problem endemic to the platform though. Still.

I'm aware of the politics to some degree and qualitative aspects to who was talking and the price and so forth, but I want to just focus on my two issues; the dog-fooding with setting up a stream, and the discovery of live-streams as a casual viewer. Yes I'm aware I'm a prolific scoper, and I'm not really just a casual viewer, but pretend I am one. 

I made no effort to get involved with anybody at the event, and I didn't bother to look up the info on the website. I knew about the event solely through word of mouth inside the Periscope platform. I can't say I tried hard to avoid it either. Further still, I found myself at a loss as to why this event is worthy of my time, as a live-streamer though I can't help but get annoyed for the platform as a whole when the most readily accessible live-streams are from audience members who just happen to be there.

These are the same audience members who by and large are going to get in the way of the subject at hand.

Periscope even featured a scope from San Francisco's Legion of Honor art Museum this week. Within 10 seconds of viewing, I realised the scoper is just part of the tour and is asking periscope viewers if they can hear the tour guide while he actually faces the scoper's portion of the crowd. No wonder it has an 18 second average view time.***

Why is this worthy of being featured? Even if it got better, will viewers see it through and give it a chance? We give movies (we paid money for) we think are bad, a chance.

People can be critical of me for having expectations, (and were critical in the scope I made) but my viewers have that opportunity to dismiss me in that way because I'm voicing my opinion on something that is lacking in general terms. The vast majority of Periscope viewers will simply just end the scope and move on to another one. The qualitative aspects I'm referring to are going to be judged no matter what, some of it with opinion, some with not giving a scope enough attention.

What's my investment in watching a stream if the person holding the phone is talking over the main speaker and/or engaging with the comments? It's amateurish and in my case, its only because I really wanted to watch JRT that I put up with it. It represents a kind of streaming ironically JRT is referring to. It shouldn't represent Summit Live, it's for viewers who don't know any better and don't realise there is an official feed.

Live-streaming it yourself seems like an after thought.

What's that you say? You DID live stream it yourself beyond the capabilities of someone simply holding a camera and pointing it in the general direction and the streams can be found (replays no) on summitlive.live?! Then why wasn't this promoted?

I learnt about the website while making a scope being critical of the event (in the same way here, but with more grunts, lost sentences and umm and ahhs). Once it was pointed out that what I asked for was available, it becomes a marketing problem. It shouldn't feel like an after thought. I can't even go to the website and catch up on past streams. I can on Periscope or Busker. So what's the deal with that?

Building on top of that, why is this web based? Is web traffic that much larger than the phone and tablets we're already using with which to view live-streams? Isn't this a contradiction of sorts when its live-streaming from mobile phones that created this growing new media in the first place? Shouldn't an event about live-streaming show to the world how live-streaming is done? 

Never mind not going next time, I'm probably not watching.

* It's the event by default since there aren't any others.

** Fear Of Missing Out.

*** It could also just be a poor choice generally by the editors at Periscope.

The Rump on Trump

We Still Aren’t Talking to Each Other.

It started with these two tweets that arrived on my timeline earlier this week.

Yes of course people overlooked racism in some form if we are to believe that is the pressing issue. We are self interested creatures. What for a moment if racism isn't everywhere across the United States, but putting food on the table is?

I replied to the second tweet; asking where are the racists shouting from the street that should be upset at Trump for immediately going back on his most infamous campaign promise to ban all Muslims from entering the country? He wants to vet them now, a position other republican candidates took earlier this year. I’m still wondering where the outcries are, they never made it to my twitter feed even when I asked for help on the topic.

Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) is right, it IS counterproductive to state everybody is racist, will fighting racism lead to paying the rent for some people? Sadly no it won't. People vote for priorities, not ideals especially if people aren't the victim of racism. The thing is, there have been people of colour who have voted for Trump.

I don’t like those tweets because they are trying to reduce a complex political outcome to one reason. One reason to explain nearly 60 million reasons for voting for Donald Trump. There is never one reason for anything, so stop it.

It contributes to a lazy mentality that is more likely applicable to a minority of those who voted. The rest of the voting base simply haven’t made it their priority because how do you find time to stamp out racism (which seems like a nebulous idea) compared to getting food on the table and looking after one's family? Hello, we are tribalistic-vote-for-my-team type of creatures!

Don't forget that all the rust belt states that voted for Trump voted FOR President Obama back in 2008 and again in 2012. As Michael Moore stated “Trump’s election is going to be the biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history”. Not a fuck you to racism, a fuck you to the system. Remember these are also the people, the media couldn't even care about, these were the people who were scared to reveal their true voting intentions incase of being labelled a racist. That reads like people were scared because they wouldn't be given a chance to explain themselves to a reasonable level. The progressive left is too quick to judge and castigate.

Labelling those 60 million voters as racists absconds us of any further action on our part because we can pretend there is nothing else to discuss. A nation isn’t going to heal itself without a proper understanding of one another through proper dialogue. Tweets don't mean shit, facebook is a minefield. 

Lets point out, the winners don’t give a fuck what you call them because they won anyway. Second, the progressive left has been calling out anybody for the slightest infraction as racist for what seems like an eternity. The word 'racist' has lost its impact. It doesn’t allow people to think anymore, it’s just another insult/label we’ve over used in our western society. It’s not even a constructive path to get someone on your side.

I'm not asking for an opening of hearts either. Just stop pouring scorn on so many people when you don't really know why they were motivated to vote Trump.

Watching the Young Turks below dismiss States in the lead up to Trump’s election on the night was ridiculous. They literally said, ‘oh have Kentucky, who cares”. They dismissed the first three states that were counting votes. That should have been a sign.

The whole exchange was gross, because of the geographies and its cherry picking towards their candidate. To me that says larger States like California will carry the people forward, we don't need those votes from those people. Those people have become easy to dismiss (just like the media and Hillary did) and we are still doing it. The losers are still dismissing the winners. Nothing is going to change unless people listen and engage.

The other line of reasoning was non-racists voted Hillary, therefore everybody voting Trump is for racism. That’s an igonrant logical fallacy if I’ve ever come across one.

Anyway, having said that, this is the wrong kind of discussion to have period. There are larger ones. Ones that keep us divided as a people. This belief that racism and sexism is running rampant across America can’t be the catch all argument from progressives.

He isn't a Racist

This focus on what Trump says is also harmful, the media ate it up for the past however many years because it brought it a wonderful ratings hit and put Trump inside a narrative that would set him up against Hillary. The media couldn’t stop reporting every single issue he held an opinion on. We all waited for his latest gaff to shoot him in the foot. Nothing happened. I read somewhere “the media took him literally, the people took him seriously”. (Just to note, I googled it afterwards and here is a decent write up on the situation.

Personally I don’t even think Trump is a racist, he’s an old man talking, that’s how they talk, we should focus on how he acts. We are wasting so much time on words instead of actions. Just a note who does he employ? Link 1, link 2, link 3. If anything he's an opportunist. So stop conflating the two.

Comment from Reddit. Ironically from someone calling themselves 'Darth Trump'.

Comment from Reddit. Ironically from someone calling themselves 'Darth Trump'.

A few weeks ago on Periscope I kept using the word ‘midget’ and everybody mentioned that it was wrong, I never knew because I'm not a day-to-day part of western culture. I can say midget all day in Hong Kong, and nobody is going to tell me otherwise, the same perceptions around that word don’t exist. I can also say oriental and nobody will find it offensive. (By the way for the record, it isn’t offensive here).

I’m living in a bubble, cut off from the West. Now imagine Trump’s bubble? He's 70 years old, set in his ways and he’s going to say stupid shit. My grandma said racist words that was part of our everyday language to describe and reference people. It was just a word to describe, not to insult. Was she a racist, by today's standards yes I guess so. The media also weren’t present in front of my grandma by the way taking her out of context either.

Not all Trump Supporters were White

When it comes to racism, the media stoked those flames and took him out of context on a number of occasions especially the 'Mexicans aren’t sending their best'. The media twisted it to make it sound like he disliked all latinos. Follow Red Pill Philosophy on Youtube, he’s a Latino and I’ve been watching him praise Trump throughout the campaign. He’s antagonising, but he’s mostly correct about the things he speaks.

We've seen the muslim woman who voted for Trump as well. Dig deeper you'll find more people of colour who voted for Trump.

But here is the thing, how many of us truly listened to those who opposed our own views and didn’t block them on social media platforms. I’m guilty of this, I block those I didn’t like.

People think I’m Pro-Trump and I know I’ve been blocked, they might have wanted a definitive answer instead of wanting to inquire, misunderstood my tweets because I’m saying we should give Trump a chance. I’m taking Trump seriously as so many people voted for him. Along the way I think we’ve gained an ability to take everybody at face value or suppose rather than ask ‘why?’. As usual we attack first, ask questions later to quote Ron Johnson.

Got to Follow the Law, Let Him Do His Thing or Go Full Godwin's Law

Let the guy take office (that means stop protesting). He’s already on the record for saying that we can throw at him later. Aside from calling Trump supporters racist I’ve seen tweets where we are cherry picking the worst parts of Hitler so they could be applied to Trump. 

People are screaming Hitler and nobody cares! Yet the holocaust is still in living memory! Crazy right? Hitler hasn’t happened yet and when it does I can get involved, but to brandish the incoming government with these traits now is far to early. Save it, otherwise it has no venom for later. Remember, Hitler killed people to get into government. Hillary killed people while IN government. Trump hasn't killed anybody, yet (and I'm talking with the socially acceptable sense like Barack Obama has).

We so desperately want Trump to fit into an established evil man narrative, we don’t want him to be a complex individual, we want him to be a complete Hitler or Emperor Palpatine figure we can dehumanise, or like before he was elected, a complete joke*. Again if we lash out all the time and he has total power in government is he going to act in your favour? Yes ridicule him some more in the hope he changes his ways. That has always worked.

From what I’ve understood, Trump doesn’t want WW3 with Russia and he doesn’t want America to continually police the world and have all its fingers in all the pies. This says a lot about my interests, I care about global issues rather than domestic. I want to see how he plays out on the world stage for everybody's benefit. Aside from WW3 I’m concerned about global warming, let’s see what happens there, especially when China of all nations have called on Trump to get America to do its part.

Second, I’d be more concerned about the people he’s surrounding himself with, all these fucking Republican dicks who were around in the 80’s. Fuck me haven’t they died of old age yet?

Trump is a man with no government experience so he’s going to look towards Newt Gringrich? Fuck me. These are establishment figures. It’s going to be the same old Republican party by the looks of it. Then there is this.

These are the things to get upset about. The best part if there is a positive takeaway, these are issues that both those who voted for and against Trump can take issue with.

Got to let go of what the media and Facebook are doing.

Last but not least (I want to be short on these points), we’ve got to get out of our collective bubbles. This goes back to the first point. Listen to the people we don’t like, ask ourselves why, and also realise we are being manipulated by algorithms (please FB question your influence) on top of news agendas at every turn now. We had the media spin us lies for the past two years on this presidential race, never mind all the other news stories ‘that bleed’.

Look at this piece from The Guardian newspaper.

The issue here isn’t that Trump inherits them, its that ANY incoming President gets their hands on these tools and sets a precedent and example for other countries to do the same. The USA has created the template.

The article focuses solely up Trump inheriting these tools while Obama failed to shut the programs down, would this article have existed under Hillary? I wish I had some sort of device that would let me play out different real life scenarios. Why didn’t people scream absolute bloody murder at Barack Obama for continuing to use them? Those screaming ‘racist’ and ‘Hitler’ at Trump on Twitter didn’t focus on Obama’s administration to the same fervour in my opinion. 

To be fair to the Guardian and the New York Times they have both published 100 articles (can’t go past ten search pages) and 1,573 articles respectively on the topic of drone strikes.

We should have shouter louder at Obama. 

Can we take a minute and remember I think we forgot he was the President when he’s part of pop culture and all those funny meme’s, mic drops and late night chat shows. We humanised him above and beyond Bush and we fucking loved him. But guess who else is part of pop culture with his own fanbase? Some of us saw it coming all along.

Personally I’m exhausted, but it goes on. Just a few tips to leave you with. 

  1. Get off Facebook and the social media sites. Don’t take them seriously, don’t rely on them as a replacement for real discussion, at least you know who you’re responding to and the engagement is true. Also oh my quad!, if you disagree with someone it isn’t the end of the world, that’s life.**

  2. It might help if you also unblock 1 person you disagreed with. Throw them back out there, give them a second chance.

  3. The media haven’t learnt anything, but we can. We have to raise that curtain together. Look at the news the day after when the media had a collective moment to wonder what happened before they went back to business. Did they decide to shine light on the real issue and report the Dakota pipeline protests so we can question government policy? No, they covered the anti-Trump protests so we can mock them.*** Again setting us up against one another, being divisive as usual. They aren’t changing. You change.**** 

  4. The media made some of the biggest fuck ups and nobody has been fired. Think about that.

  5. Stop pointing at the people and expecting them to change, change comes from the top. It’s cliched, but change comes from becoming intolerant of what we are told by the media and government. Hold them to account, not ‘Joe Blow’ as Michael Moore describes.

*Do you remember all the navel gazing we did when it comes to Game of Thrones characters? None of them are really purely evil, and none of them or really purely good. The characters set up in those books are deliberately complex and flawed so we sit and think about what it is to be human. All that flies out of the window when looking at real complex people. I'm interested in why, my current theory is we're prepared to explore the fantasy of others for an hour because we're detached personally from those people and its entertainment. Real life analysis of people isn't as mediative it seems.

**This is the reason why I don’t take Facebook seriously and neither should you. It’s been proven we all get different feeds that provide immediate value for us and sets up echo chambers.

***The media would rather cover the protests than a pipeline because of money and identity politics. They still want people to be divided, keep the heat turned up, the media are still after Trump because Trump isn’t invested in the media, he doesn’t even want a press core to follow him.

**** Give a follow to these guys on Twitter: 

JordanChariton, Mehdirhasan@IndepStream@medialens@FAIRmediawatch@AlterNet

Podcasts to note on this topic.

Podcast Grow Big Always - How culture controls our decisions

Tangentially Speaking - 210 (Primal Parenting)

Dan Carlin’s - Common Sense episode 311 - Trumped