> neither reading nor lurking are ever passive acts. In fact, readers of social media are making decisions and taking grassroots actions on multiple dimensions. Unpacking this understudied phenomenon, Just Here for the Comments: Lurking as Digital Literacy Practice (Bristol UP, 2024) by Gina Sipley challenges the conventional perspective of what counts as participatory online culture. Presenting lurking as a communication and literacy practice that resists dominant power structures, it offers an innovative approach to digital qualitative methods [...]
Something is a bit strange about this presentation. "Grassroots" is not the opposite of "passive", and likewise "participatory" is not the same thing as resisting dominant power structures. If anything, since lurking is something most people do most of the time, that would suggest it is first and foremost a conventional rather than radical activity (I mean this both literally and in terms of the implied political positioning of the typical internet lurker).
In any case, something can be understudied and worth studying, interesting or uninteresting, and worthy of celebration or not, whether or not it resists dominant power structures. If it turned out most people lurked because they were usually using the internet for information rather than action, and that it had nothing to do with resisting power structures, that would still be worth studying simply because it would be a major aspect of how people use the internet.
Yeah, to be honest this is a baffling description. I'm probably similar to a kind of person they're talking about and I genuinely do not understand what they're trying to say about my lurking practices.
This is about as bog standard as it gets for academic language in the humanities. For example:
> But neither reading nor lurking are ever passive acts.
These acts are indeed passive, relative to the active counterpart of writing or speaking. A basic academic move is to reframe a concept in a more abstract, generalized, and artificial context, within which you can argue pretty much anything. The more insane and counterintuitive the argument sounds, the more stylish and impactful it's perceived to be. "Understudied" means that no-one has yet marketed this particular flavour combination of intellectual schlock.
They're not actually talking about your lurking practices.
The idea that reading is not passive is not at all original. After all, authors are not “active” (and often do not exist), and books can't read themselves. A reader's head is needed for anything at all to happen, and that's the only “active” part at a given moment. There's enough words written about what's happening on the receiving side, the mirror of someone's “creative process”.
So called “passive consumption” should be defined as repetition of the usual, unchallenging, satisfying work (as opposed to trying hard to understand something). I have no idea what the book is about, but it must better be critical to a swindling which turns human beings into “dumb masses” instead of being based on it.
Also, there's mechanical reproduction side to it. Recorded music might be inferior to a concert in some ways, same with printed pictures and photos. But written text is also only a 2D projection of a conversation or performance. Many thinkers in human history wrote very little, and even actively disdained written accounts of their words. This is how that active-passive rift can be bridged.
"Taking ... actions" is the opposite of "passive". "participatory" seems to be about not being passive and is not connected to the next sentence.
Re: resisting dominant power structures, I think you'd have to read "Just here for the Comments" to know why she suggests it's a political move. The text here describes it without presenting the actual arguments I think.
I lurk probably 99% of the time. Most discussions I see (especially here), there are already comments that are far over my head, and I have nothing original to contribute.
"Grazing" versus "learning" - for lack of better terms is for me a more useful distinction. Probably because of the volume that we consume, there are each day 2-3 "fine articles" that I find really interesting and worth digesting - reading at least with attention, sometimes "in depth" which to me means following some references, looking up related things. By contrast there are more "useful comments", going all the way to an actual expert chiming in with a truly valuable clarification or take on a sloppy, borderline useless article. All of this to be contrasted with "grazing", or doom-scrolling, say on tikTok - which clearly some people find valuable.
And for me the question is always how to make it "more active". I have limited time (today, left in my life, whichever you pick). How do I spend it better? Clearly one way is to balance this with entire books. Follow some writers on what THEY have found interesting this week. Participate in comments occasionally. But what else?
HN has a few "best of" lists: highlights, active, best comments... And has the VERY useful "context" links. ... Might still do better but seems to deliberately want to preserve idle clicking around.
>>And for me the question is always how to make it "more active"
Some ideas:
* Write a summary/synthesis of what you read
* Annotate content as you read (with your own comments). Write in the margin of books - so reading turns into an active conversation with an author
* Email writers to say "thanks" for good posts, and share related links they might like. (I started doing this with bloggers. Yes, it's weird. But several felt happy to hear they're not just shouting into the void)
What you mentioned about reading references/related content on a theme is a great way to actively grapple with a topic. It's like surfing a wave of interest (today you're intereated, tomorrow it dissipates, overall you come out better)
And, HN is definitely built with affordances/barriers that gently funnel you into certain behaviours...
10 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 94.9 ms ] threadSomething is a bit strange about this presentation. "Grassroots" is not the opposite of "passive", and likewise "participatory" is not the same thing as resisting dominant power structures. If anything, since lurking is something most people do most of the time, that would suggest it is first and foremost a conventional rather than radical activity (I mean this both literally and in terms of the implied political positioning of the typical internet lurker).
In any case, something can be understudied and worth studying, interesting or uninteresting, and worthy of celebration or not, whether or not it resists dominant power structures. If it turned out most people lurked because they were usually using the internet for information rather than action, and that it had nothing to do with resisting power structures, that would still be worth studying simply because it would be a major aspect of how people use the internet.
> But neither reading nor lurking are ever passive acts.
These acts are indeed passive, relative to the active counterpart of writing or speaking. A basic academic move is to reframe a concept in a more abstract, generalized, and artificial context, within which you can argue pretty much anything. The more insane and counterintuitive the argument sounds, the more stylish and impactful it's perceived to be. "Understudied" means that no-one has yet marketed this particular flavour combination of intellectual schlock.
They're not actually talking about your lurking practices.
The idea that reading is not passive is not at all original. After all, authors are not “active” (and often do not exist), and books can't read themselves. A reader's head is needed for anything at all to happen, and that's the only “active” part at a given moment. There's enough words written about what's happening on the receiving side, the mirror of someone's “creative process”.
So called “passive consumption” should be defined as repetition of the usual, unchallenging, satisfying work (as opposed to trying hard to understand something). I have no idea what the book is about, but it must better be critical to a swindling which turns human beings into “dumb masses” instead of being based on it.
Also, there's mechanical reproduction side to it. Recorded music might be inferior to a concert in some ways, same with printed pictures and photos. But written text is also only a 2D projection of a conversation or performance. Many thinkers in human history wrote very little, and even actively disdained written accounts of their words. This is how that active-passive rift can be bridged.
Re: resisting dominant power structures, I think you'd have to read "Just here for the Comments" to know why she suggests it's a political move. The text here describes it without presenting the actual arguments I think.
Or at least, that's what I got from it.
And for me the question is always how to make it "more active". I have limited time (today, left in my life, whichever you pick). How do I spend it better? Clearly one way is to balance this with entire books. Follow some writers on what THEY have found interesting this week. Participate in comments occasionally. But what else?
HN has a few "best of" lists: highlights, active, best comments... And has the VERY useful "context" links. ... Might still do better but seems to deliberately want to preserve idle clicking around.
Some ideas: * Write a summary/synthesis of what you read * Annotate content as you read (with your own comments). Write in the margin of books - so reading turns into an active conversation with an author * Email writers to say "thanks" for good posts, and share related links they might like. (I started doing this with bloggers. Yes, it's weird. But several felt happy to hear they're not just shouting into the void)
What you mentioned about reading references/related content on a theme is a great way to actively grapple with a topic. It's like surfing a wave of interest (today you're intereated, tomorrow it dissipates, overall you come out better)
And, HN is definitely built with affordances/barriers that gently funnel you into certain behaviours...