Does Anyone on the Internet Do Anything?

 "Irony poisoning" is cope and distraction. Very nearly everyone on the internet is too scared of looking lame to do anything, and the 3-4 exceptions are doing things that can be done alone (Kaze Emanuar) or under other extreme edge-case conditions. Irony is the result, not the cause.

 Extreme High School Civilization.
 Not a coincidence that my major example is working (very hard) on a game for teenagers.

 Naively I would think they would at least get good at banter. Instead, none of them know improv. It's uniformly bitter, resentful, and contrary to the irony posture, taken too seriously. Now I'm wiser, I realize that upadana for looking cool will destroy, first, their coolness. How could it be any other way. 

 It's important to remember that since the Eternal September, the internet has been CIA territory. The social norms are spook-bureaucrat norms. Trolls are normal CIA employees doing their normal day-to-day, it's just that the CIA doesn't need to pay most of them. They only need to pay a few here and there and the rest will unconsciously recognize their superior, their paragon, and go all monkey-see monkey-do.

 If you do something real, the trolls will criticize you for it, if it is not absolutely perfect. They are trolls, after all; they'll sort of try even if it is perfect. You are also CIA, so you feel the trolls are significant ingroup representatives, as indeed they are. 

 Also, it can't be perfect, because the CIA is evil. Perfect evil looks awful, and perfect good looks anti-CIA. Faux pas either way. 

 Certainly it doesn't help that nobody wants to clean their room. You can't throw up a doodle for your mom and her friends. It always has to be trying to conquer the world (violently, if possible). Egalitarianism, narcissism: it has to appeal to everyone. You have to shove it in everyone's face to prove it. For some reason, this norm is not conducive to joyful exploration or enthusiastic skill-building. What a coincidence. 

 You can't just play around in photoshop (or paint.exe) and post it.

 

 If you do something real, then the criticism will matter. It will apply to you. Narcissism: if you do something fake, then you were just faking anyway. "I was just pretending to be retarded." You could do something for real whenever you wanted, right? 

 If you like something, it tells the CIA trolls exactly what to attack. "Ah, this is how we harm you." Yet, nobody thinks to isolate themselves from the CIA trolls, they only think to hide their liking of anything. 

 Even if something genuinely likable was created, nobody would acknowledge it. 
 To do Moldbug's 'art scene' properly, you have to absolutely destroy any political relevance, by isolating it completely. Nobody outside the scene ought even know it exists. The way the Amish are (almost) unheard-of.

 Plato's Despotic Man: no courage. Substitute fake risks for real risks, to hide your own cowardice from yourself. 

 Generally, I think netizens are correct. They cannot afford to talk about their real ideas. They cannot afford to do a science, and expose their ideas openly, and allow them to be refuted. They simply don't have the strength of character to withstand the process. Their friendships are fragile, they would shatter at the slightest jostling, and they don't have the stocks to survive a search for new ones. 

 I can show any number of quality videos that were made either by a sole auteur or a small team. There's no need to go to Hollywood for your TV.
 But this suggest it was never necessary to go to Hollywood. It was always possible to found and sustain a competitor. They just choose not to. And likewise for all other media. All other product, even toasters. Supply? Supply? The problem is always demand. 

 

 Nevertheless, I do miss the world where the internet could bring together those who were interested in sincere creation. Even though that world was always an illusion. Where are those who wanted to create beauty for beauty's sake? Rather than trying to carefully, cynically craft a 'message' for an 'audience,' naturally so as to aim for the largest possible audience.
 Surely there must be one, somewhere, right? Who likes things because they're likable, not due to how liking it makes them look to their twitter followers?
 Surely?