“We don’t need the critic to tell us what is good or bad, to tell us what to like and dislike. We need the critic, instead, to help us experience. We need the critic in the way that we need a friend or a lover. We need the critic as a companion on a journey that is a love affair with the things of the world.” — art critic Morgan Meis on Romantic Criticism
I still believe Balaji is frighteningly intelligent, but I would vastly prefer that he use those powers for good than, well, whatever this is. They do not sit around thinking about how they’re going to “get” people they write about, and when subjects think they do, it’s more a reflection of the subject’s self-perception (or self-importance) and, sometimes, a sprinkling of unadulterated narcissism. But mostly, I want them to be more rigorous: to acknowledge that ideas are meaningless in a vacuum that does not include real world material conditions, and that people pursuing innovation are not the only people who matter, or even the people who matter most. There is a huge swath of the tech industry whose only experience of real world inequality is tiptoeing around homeless people on the way to work. And it’s easy for them to continue to live in that bubble and entertain the delusion that absolutist ideas — both good and bad — can be implemented when they can’t. This interprets journalism as public relations, which it is not. Journalists are not supposed to cheerlead the industry; they’re supposed to cover it, and that means writing the good things and the bad with no overriding preference for one over the other. And everyone is an unreliable narrator when they articulate their own experiences.
“That sucks” is negativity. “That sucks, here’s why, and here’s how to fix it” is criticism, Someone with an informed, critical opinion is, in my experience, far less likely to be negative than someone not as informed. If anything, critical thinking adds dimension to an appreciation of the world around you.
I did all of this before writing any public criticism about Micro.blog because I want Micro.blog to be better. I love the core idea, and I'm already feeling bereft from no longer participating. But it's horrible to feel voiceless in a community you care about. I tried to make a difference and I kept hitting roadblocks. I tried to take my feedback directly to the creators and I felt ignored or brushed-off at every turn.
The depth of architectural thinking at work here makes a kiddie-pool seem oceanic. It really is the perfect name, however, not least because it implies a certain emptiness. It is a Vessel for a so-called neighborhood that poorly masks its intention to build luxury assets for the criminally wealthy under the guise of investing in the city and “public space.” Unlike a real neighborhood, which implies some kind of social collaboration or collective expression of belonging, Hudson Yards is a contrived place that was never meant for us. The presence of the elevator implies a pressure for the abled-bodied to not use it, since by doing so one bypasses “the experience” of the Vessel, an experience of menial physical labor that aims to achieve the nebulous goal of attaining slightly different views of the city.
“Stories that elicit a big reaction provide us with a big opportunity to acknowledge our most challenging emotions and to wrestle with the assumptions, ideas, and beliefs that may no longer serve us. And that's the *whole* point of writing, of communica
Stories that elicit a big reaction provide us with a big opportunity to acknowledge our most challenging emotions and to wrestle with the assumptions, ideas, and beliefs that may no longer serve us. And that's the *whole* point of writing, of communicating, and of being human.
The people that worked inside an organization are the ones that can explain and critique it with the most insight. They also tend to be more emotionally invested in the company’s success. I plan to continue criticizing (and praising) the organizations I’ve worked for, and I hope others do the same. Of course they did, but just because people ask for something doesn’t mean we should build it. Experimentation is something you can do internally, via user testing, in private betas, or on whiteboards. Experiments don’t have revenue goals, and usually don’t require full-time engineers working for months. Experiments don’t have splashy launches and email campaigns to hundreds of thousands of users. Would I have criticized this publicly if it was just an experiment? Absolutely not.
