Yup, the middle powers have to organize and work together to avoid being chum. The economic power is there, and they can shift from purchasing US weaponry (thus paying US workers) into purchasing middle-power weaponry (thus paying middle-power workers). Car/truck plants can be repurposed, and if Ukraine's lesson is valid then smaller, portable weaponry is now the preferred solution. Cheaper, and the middle powers don't have huge investments in tanks and ships.
The Theucydides quote Carney leads with, of course, recently rolled off the tongue of the white house deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller. The days of might making right are, apparently, back.
Just in case anyone thought the genie could be stuffed back into the bottle once Trump is gone, Carney goes on to state that the rules-based world order we've been living under since WWII is somewhat of a sham. The rules have not been applied equally. Some nations, the powerful ones, have been given much more latitude to do what they want. Middle nations have gone along with this to avoid trouble.
The reward for avoiding trouble for so long is... big trouble (e.g. invasion threats for an ally of a big power and economic terrorism applied to its allies). So, why pretend the old system works to avoid trouble if the trouble lands on your doorstep anyways?
The answer seems obvious. Middle powers of the old rules-based order need to band together and put bigger powers in their place. It's not impossible. Just very, very difficult. France and Germany may be sticking up for Greenland, but where's Hungary (another EU member)? For this to work, you need everyone. Also, looking ahead, how would you prevent such an alliance of smaller powers, were it successful, from behaving like a bigger power?
Trump is currently showing off AI photos where he's meeting with world leaders in front of a map where both Greenland and Canada are a part of the U.S.[1]. As a Canadian, I think Carney gave a stirring speech here, but I suppose I'm biased given that he's our PM and his vision is one of the few things between us as being swallowed up by Trump's MAGA empire while the other big powers fall upon the respective apples of their eyes.
> "Many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.
Sounds like an economic NATO (without the USA). It's good that other counties are waking up at last. Taking the hit now (and blaming it on Trump) will make them stronger on the long run.
Not true in case of NATO. NATO does not have a military, but it's member states do, each contributing in ways that are unique to their geopolitical and strategic situation (see Estonia leading NATO's Cyber Defense Centre, Norway's Cold Response exercises).
This is all eloquent and game-theoretic, but who is this being said too? Other davos attendees, and it will be the small people who must pay for this shift, through rising prices, worse labor conditions, austerity, etc. His astute observation about competing powers running to the lowest common denominator is intrinsically a property of capitalism.
As someone from the US, I thought we were the leaders in choosing strange government figureheads, until Canada elected the head of a foreign bank as their's.
That speech reminds me of the conclusion the main character in the movie Antz settled on. Being forced to be a cog in the machine is awful and no one should accept it. Instead we should be happy to volunteer ourselves to be cogs in the machine.
Technically Carney was never the head of a foreign central bank; he was the head of a Commonwealth central bank. Canada and the UK do not consider each other to be foreign nations, as evidenced by their exchange of High Commissioners rather than Ambassadors.
> First, it means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.
Nobody leading a western country would’ve dared be this direct about America a decade ago.
The great irony with the current political climate is that America has truly been first for many decades, leading the world order to tremendous financial, military and material success. But nothing lasts forever.
We won’t know for many years if this moment represents America’s true descent into a has-been empire, but the message from our closest allies is very clear: world leaders don’t speak that kind of truth to a power like America unless they mean it.
What i find fascinating is that, if we hold that Trump being elected twice was because of frustration and rage against society, this is the way they are now when the US is literally the most dominant country in the world. Can you imagine the rage, if the US actually saw real decline. Christ
> Nobody leading a western country would’ve dared be this direct about America a decade ago
America (and China) a decade ago were still trying to make the (or at least a) rules-based international order work. Not perfectly. (China annexed Tibet. America invaded Iraq.) But there were many times sacrifices in self interest were made for the sake of alliances and international law.
Today, that is gone. None of the great or regional powers are playing by those rules. Outside Europe, nobody even pays them lip service.
We didn’t hear such language a decade ago because it wasn’t yet true, and it wasn’t necessary—that was the point of the rules-based institutions. You could adjudicate differences through them instead of calling for new systems of military alliances.
"Rome was destroyed, Greece was destroyed, Persia was destroyed, Spain was destroyed. All great countries are destroyed. Why not yours? How much longer do you really think your own country will last? Forever?" - Joseph Heller, Catch-22
My question is, why? This has been obvious to me over the past decade, and I just got into the financial world on the ground floor 2015-ish. Every damn trade agreement has in one way or another been projecting U.S. soft power through financial integration.
It's an admission that the decades of preference falsification and praise of the emperors clothes is not worthy anymore. Carney hints that the same pressures that kept the dysfunctional Soviet system is similar to the same pressures that keep the dysfunction of capitalism, Neo-liberalism (religion) as well as Neo-classical economics (theology).
The full video is at the top of this post's secondary (transcript) link, although that version doesn't translate his initial ~minute in French. If you want to skip to his (main) section in English: https://www.youtube.com/live/5UqQTqvhFRg?t=104s
the current world split starts to eerily look, while still far from it of course, like the 1939 split in Europe - totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Hitler allied together against Europe's democratic countries. Here we have authoritarian leaning Trump starting to ally himself with totalitarian Putin and China against democratic countries by dividing the world in very similar way as Stalin and Hitler divided Europe between themselves.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened in WW2. The tl'dr is Hitler lost, fascism won.
Germany only became a national project in the 19th century. It was a collection of principalities before that. Unlike its neighbours, who were actual Great Powers at the time, it lacked colonial interests to exploit and get rich from. And then when oil became important in the early 20th century, Germany didn't have access to oil.
So Germany felt like it would get swallowed up by its neighbours at some point and sought to assert its dominance, throwing away the Bismarck order. When scores were settled, Germany was punished with devastating reparations that laid the groundwork for WW2 and, on the side, countries like Britain secured their oil interests in the Middle East.
Post-WWI brought the Spanish flu (pandemic anyone?), hyperinflation to Germany, a badly attempted coup (the Beer Hall Putsch; sound familiar?) and the rise of a populist fascist who blamed all of Germany's problems on undesirables, Jews and Communists (any modern parallels, at all?).
Europe had entered an era of appeasement, desperately seeking to not repeat the "Great War". Reunification of German peoples was used as an excuse to seize all sorts of land.
Now Stalin tried to warn Britain and France of the dangers of Hitler and form an alliance in 1939, which failed [1]. So instead Stalin formed what you'd have to call an uneasy alliance with Hitler.
WW2 breaks out, yada yada yada, Hitler betrays Stalin and Stalin basically defeated Hitler at a terrible cost. The US had 400k casulaties in the European theater of WW2. The estimates for Soviet military and civilian losses in the same period are between 26 and 29 million.
Where FDR had sought to rebalance the inequalities in the Depression and created lasting legacies we depend on today such as Social Security, Truman decided Communism was the enemy and, as such, the USSR was the Great Enemy, a decision that led directly to the Korean and Vietnam Wars and other smaller conflicts.
And who would be good at killing Communists? Nazis of course. Operation Paperclip is well known. Less well known is how hudnreds if not thousands of former Nazis were forgiven their "moral lapses" and joined the ranks of the CIA, the FBI and NATO as well as the new West German military command [2].
Hitler and Stalin were fundamentally different beasts. I'm not saying Stalin was a good guy. He commited his share of atrocities. So did every American president if we're keeping score. But one thing Stalin was really good at was killing Nazis.
So began almost 50 years of Cold War that saw the Red Scare and the near complete destruction of any form of organized labor in the US. All to fight Communism.
I say "fascism won" because the Nazis weren't wiped out and we're seeing fascism reborn in the US and Europe while people who survived the Holocaust are still alive. That's how little time it took.
> We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigor, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
> This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
An interesting observation I came across today:
> The genius of American foreign policy since 1941 was that it found a way to be both the single strongest state and the leader of the strongest coalition of states: power and legitimacy, together. That's the achievement Trump has jeopardized - and possibly permanently wrecked.
The speech was surprisingly good. I think it's going to prove effective. This "taking the sign off" thing, good imagery.
But I can't help notice the inconsistency in this imagery. First, he says it himself a few minutes later. He doesn't "take the sign off" for NATO. We can understand why it's important to keep this facade.
But another one that bothers me is "energy, both clean and traditional". Oh, you didn't go for "clean and dirty"? Categories are clearer thus. Oh, not ready to take the sign off on the climate front? Too bad.
> For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order.
As an Indian listening to this, this comes across as absurd. Trudeau constantly invoked this phrase when dealing with India about the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. It basically meant Trudeau could level allegations, not provide any evidence, and strut as if he as won. In due course, the murderers turned out to be their own terrorists.
> "great powers" are using economic integration as "weapons."
This is so true and I think economic sanctions should be recognized as the weapons they actually are.
Just a taste:
No Amazon, No Gmail: Trump Sanctions Upend the Lives of I.C.C. Judges
President Trump’s retaliation against top officials at the International Criminal Court has shut them out of American services and made even routine daily tasks a challenge.
https://archive.is/KflDP
Now consider the US has been doing this to entire countries for decades. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran. Forget Amazon, the inability to use the SWIFT banking system has all sorts of nasty consequences that get elided by a clinical sounding term.
From the Lancet:
Our findings showed a significant causal association between sanctions and increased mortality. We found the strongest effects for unilateral, economic, and US sanctions, whereas we found no statistical evidence of an effect for UN sanctions. Mortality effects ranged from 8·4 log points (95% CI 3·9–13·0) for children younger than 5 years to 2·4 log points (0·9–4·0) for individuals aged 60–80 years. We estimated that unilateral sanctions were associated with an annual toll of 564 258 deaths (95% CI 367 838–760 677), similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
Peter Zeihan has been predicting this for a decade which means there has been a lot of academics also predicting since he generally repackages academic work.
Really it isn't just a different order. Imo it is a reversion to imperialism with us eyeing Latin America, Russia Ukraine, China Taiwan.
They would have gone right-wing in Carney's election if not for Trump meddling. He needs to get those cost of living issues fixed ASAP, probably starting with housing.
All well meaning and good and all that, thank you Canadians.
.
.
but...
Invoking Thucydides's "and the weak suffer what they must" at a time when weak-on-strong warfare has fundamentally changed, in a fluid still-small world where for example:
-Some russian goons can poison someone on a bench in England.
-Some north korean hireling lady can poison someone in any airport.
-Some radicalized youths will go on rampages using easily-accessible assault weapons.
-So many systems that "strong" societies depend on are so so fragile and running close to many edges.
-Lethal FPVs are cheap cheap.
...is I think falling into the trap of adopting the mindset of the loudest man in the room (initials DJT) who's thinking in early 20th century terms, instead of looking at the world and conflict the way they really are.
> Carney said Canada must be "principled and pragmatic" and turn inward to build up the country and diversify trading relationships to become less reliant on countries like the U.S., now that it's clear "integration" can lead to "subordination."
They surely needed some decades to underestand this.
Much quicker than the Europeans, though.
Trump fundamentally misunderstands how power really works. Power doesn’t mean others kiss your boot and give you peace prizes. People hate being ruled over. They absolutely hate it. So you have to hide your power through, ideology, laws and institutions. Galeev explains it well [1].
This is how American imperialism works. The American led western liberal order was an unprecedented alliance and America was the house. The house doesn’t win all the time, but everything is rigged in its favour.
The issue is that there is no 4d chess at play here. Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder combined with dementia and has surrounded himself by yes-men.
I agree that there is no 4d chess here but I disagree that Trump actually does or decides anything.
At this point I'm suspicious of any viewpoint that posits Trump as a president/person with an agenda. I'm pretty baffled by the serious policy "experts" analyzing his actions and trying to determine cause and effect.
It's pretty clear to me he's a demented old man reading off the teleprompter. I'm sure he finds all these duties of presidency pretty hard and tiring on his body and mind. I feel that all he really thinks about is golfing, his estate business, increasing his wealth through other means like crypto scams and the like, and always getting more attention which he desperately craves.
The White House administration, intelligence services and the Pentagon collectively decide what to do, be that invading Greenland, Venezuela or the like. Trump has occasional stupid demands as well, like the FIFA Peace Prize which I'm sure the admin staff find very hilarious but comply regardless to make his little boy wishes happen to preserve the status quo.
Even more spicy takes: The only reason the societal divide exists in the US today is Meta. Facebook and Instagram. When people are exposed to entirely separate spheres of content for hours a day every day their opinion changes slowly but surely and there's pretty much no escaping it.
I don't use any social media besides HN (which no doubt also does this covert influencing). I can spot a person's social media app of choice is in 5 minutes. They literally change a person's character and the way they speak.
--> I can spot a person's social media app of choice is in 5 minutes.
I find this sadly hilarious. What are the current tells you see? I'm similar in that I read a lot of HN and don't have other social media accounts. But I couldn't even guess at what a person's preferred social media is.
I can spot it because I used the various social media apps in the past for a time.
X users will start intensely talking about societal/political issues in the first 5 minutes of introduction.
Facebook users will often belong to the conservative political party of any given country and will start talking about one of the numerous conspiracy theories that provide a simplistic and satisfying yet false explanation to the complex reality of the current world.
Instagram users will almost always have the implicit belief that the most important thing in life is to be rich or a celebrity. The platform just implants that into their mind. It takes a bit getting to know the person to see that.
Snapchat users are teens/college/youth who are usually very social.
Reddit users? I can spot them by their looks, the way they talk, or their writing. Obviously not %100 accurate but Reddit is by far the platform with the highest hypersocialization effect.
Tiktok users have a secret language constructed of a large repertoire of memes among them and will constantly reference them when talking. Some of the memes they talk about are 10+ years old. As a young person who have always avoided social media honestly it's hard to communicate with some of my peers because I don't get the memes.
51 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 91.8 ms ] threadJust in case anyone thought the genie could be stuffed back into the bottle once Trump is gone, Carney goes on to state that the rules-based world order we've been living under since WWII is somewhat of a sham. The rules have not been applied equally. Some nations, the powerful ones, have been given much more latitude to do what they want. Middle nations have gone along with this to avoid trouble.
The reward for avoiding trouble for so long is... big trouble (e.g. invasion threats for an ally of a big power and economic terrorism applied to its allies). So, why pretend the old system works to avoid trouble if the trouble lands on your doorstep anyways?
The answer seems obvious. Middle powers of the old rules-based order need to band together and put bigger powers in their place. It's not impossible. Just very, very difficult. France and Germany may be sticking up for Greenland, but where's Hungary (another EU member)? For this to work, you need everyone. Also, looking ahead, how would you prevent such an alliance of smaller powers, were it successful, from behaving like a bigger power?
Trump is currently showing off AI photos where he's meeting with world leaders in front of a map where both Greenland and Canada are a part of the U.S.[1]. As a Canadian, I think Carney gave a stirring speech here, but I suppose I'm biased given that he's our PM and his vision is one of the few things between us as being swallowed up by Trump's MAGA empire while the other big powers fall upon the respective apples of their eyes.
[1]https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/trump-shares-altered-m...
Sounds like an economic NATO (without the USA). It's good that other counties are waking up at last. Taking the hit now (and blaming it on Trump) will make them stronger on the long run.
That speech reminds me of the conclusion the main character in the movie Antz settled on. Being forced to be a cog in the machine is awful and no one should accept it. Instead we should be happy to volunteer ourselves to be cogs in the machine.
Nobody leading a western country would’ve dared be this direct about America a decade ago.
The great irony with the current political climate is that America has truly been first for many decades, leading the world order to tremendous financial, military and material success. But nothing lasts forever.
We won’t know for many years if this moment represents America’s true descent into a has-been empire, but the message from our closest allies is very clear: world leaders don’t speak that kind of truth to a power like America unless they mean it.
America (and China) a decade ago were still trying to make the (or at least a) rules-based international order work. Not perfectly. (China annexed Tibet. America invaded Iraq.) But there were many times sacrifices in self interest were made for the sake of alliances and international law.
Today, that is gone. None of the great or regional powers are playing by those rules. Outside Europe, nobody even pays them lip service.
We didn’t hear such language a decade ago because it wasn’t yet true, and it wasn’t necessary—that was the point of the rules-based institutions. You could adjudicate differences through them instead of calling for new systems of military alliances.
The last was Amsterdam.
If Trump goes ahead with his Greenland obsession, we'll likely know before the end of 2027.
I’m seeing the Sino-Soviet split.
Europe might have a unique opportunity to ally with China to pry it from Russia. America gets the Western Hemisphere. Eurasia contains itself.
Germany only became a national project in the 19th century. It was a collection of principalities before that. Unlike its neighbours, who were actual Great Powers at the time, it lacked colonial interests to exploit and get rich from. And then when oil became important in the early 20th century, Germany didn't have access to oil.
So Germany felt like it would get swallowed up by its neighbours at some point and sought to assert its dominance, throwing away the Bismarck order. When scores were settled, Germany was punished with devastating reparations that laid the groundwork for WW2 and, on the side, countries like Britain secured their oil interests in the Middle East.
Post-WWI brought the Spanish flu (pandemic anyone?), hyperinflation to Germany, a badly attempted coup (the Beer Hall Putsch; sound familiar?) and the rise of a populist fascist who blamed all of Germany's problems on undesirables, Jews and Communists (any modern parallels, at all?).
Europe had entered an era of appeasement, desperately seeking to not repeat the "Great War". Reunification of German peoples was used as an excuse to seize all sorts of land.
Now Stalin tried to warn Britain and France of the dangers of Hitler and form an alliance in 1939, which failed [1]. So instead Stalin formed what you'd have to call an uneasy alliance with Hitler.
WW2 breaks out, yada yada yada, Hitler betrays Stalin and Stalin basically defeated Hitler at a terrible cost. The US had 400k casulaties in the European theater of WW2. The estimates for Soviet military and civilian losses in the same period are between 26 and 29 million.
Where FDR had sought to rebalance the inequalities in the Depression and created lasting legacies we depend on today such as Social Security, Truman decided Communism was the enemy and, as such, the USSR was the Great Enemy, a decision that led directly to the Korean and Vietnam Wars and other smaller conflicts.
And who would be good at killing Communists? Nazis of course. Operation Paperclip is well known. Less well known is how hudnreds if not thousands of former Nazis were forgiven their "moral lapses" and joined the ranks of the CIA, the FBI and NATO as well as the new West German military command [2].
Hitler and Stalin were fundamentally different beasts. I'm not saying Stalin was a good guy. He commited his share of atrocities. So did every American president if we're keeping score. But one thing Stalin was really good at was killing Nazis.
So began almost 50 years of Cold War that saw the Red Scare and the near complete destruction of any form of organized labor in the US. All to fight Communism.
I say "fascism won" because the Nazis weren't wiped out and we're seeing fascism reborn in the US and Europe while people who survived the Holocaust are still alive. That's how little time it took.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_alliance_negotiations
[2]: https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-thousands-of-na...
I haven't seen Trump allying himself with China. Any references?
> We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigor, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
> This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
An interesting observation I came across today:
> The genius of American foreign policy since 1941 was that it found a way to be both the single strongest state and the leader of the strongest coalition of states: power and legitimacy, together. That's the achievement Trump has jeopardized - and possibly permanently wrecked.
* https://x.com/davidfrum/status/2013735844721349115#m
* https://xcancel.com/davidfrum/status/2013735844721349115#m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum
But I can't help notice the inconsistency in this imagery. First, he says it himself a few minutes later. He doesn't "take the sign off" for NATO. We can understand why it's important to keep this facade.
But another one that bothers me is "energy, both clean and traditional". Oh, you didn't go for "clean and dirty"? Categories are clearer thus. Oh, not ready to take the sign off on the climate front? Too bad.
As an Indian listening to this, this comes across as absurd. Trudeau constantly invoked this phrase when dealing with India about the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. It basically meant Trudeau could level allegations, not provide any evidence, and strut as if he as won. In due course, the murderers turned out to be their own terrorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar#Diplomati...
This is so true and I think economic sanctions should be recognized as the weapons they actually are.
Just a taste: No Amazon, No Gmail: Trump Sanctions Upend the Lives of I.C.C. Judges President Trump’s retaliation against top officials at the International Criminal Court has shut them out of American services and made even routine daily tasks a challenge. https://archive.is/KflDP
Now consider the US has been doing this to entire countries for decades. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran. Forget Amazon, the inability to use the SWIFT banking system has all sorts of nasty consequences that get elided by a clinical sounding term.
From the Lancet:
Our findings showed a significant causal association between sanctions and increased mortality. We found the strongest effects for unilateral, economic, and US sanctions, whereas we found no statistical evidence of an effect for UN sanctions. Mortality effects ranged from 8·4 log points (95% CI 3·9–13·0) for children younger than 5 years to 2·4 log points (0·9–4·0) for individuals aged 60–80 years. We estimated that unilateral sanctions were associated with an annual toll of 564 258 deaths (95% CI 367 838–760 677), similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
Really it isn't just a different order. Imo it is a reversion to imperialism with us eyeing Latin America, Russia Ukraine, China Taiwan.
https://data.worldhappiness.report/chart
They would have gone right-wing in Carney's election if not for Trump meddling. He needs to get those cost of living issues fixed ASAP, probably starting with housing.
Invoking Thucydides's "and the weak suffer what they must" at a time when weak-on-strong warfare has fundamentally changed, in a fluid still-small world where for example:
-Some russian goons can poison someone on a bench in England.
-Some north korean hireling lady can poison someone in any airport.
-Some radicalized youths will go on rampages using easily-accessible assault weapons.
-So many systems that "strong" societies depend on are so so fragile and running close to many edges.
-Lethal FPVs are cheap cheap.
...is I think falling into the trap of adopting the mindset of the loudest man in the room (initials DJT) who's thinking in early 20th century terms, instead of looking at the world and conflict the way they really are.
They surely needed some decades to underestand this. Much quicker than the Europeans, though.
This is how American imperialism works. The American led western liberal order was an unprecedented alliance and America was the house. The house doesn’t win all the time, but everything is rigged in its favour.
The issue is that there is no 4d chess at play here. Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder combined with dementia and has surrounded himself by yes-men.
[1] https://kamilkazani.substack.com/p/might-makes-right
At this point I'm suspicious of any viewpoint that posits Trump as a president/person with an agenda. I'm pretty baffled by the serious policy "experts" analyzing his actions and trying to determine cause and effect.
It's pretty clear to me he's a demented old man reading off the teleprompter. I'm sure he finds all these duties of presidency pretty hard and tiring on his body and mind. I feel that all he really thinks about is golfing, his estate business, increasing his wealth through other means like crypto scams and the like, and always getting more attention which he desperately craves.
The White House administration, intelligence services and the Pentagon collectively decide what to do, be that invading Greenland, Venezuela or the like. Trump has occasional stupid demands as well, like the FIFA Peace Prize which I'm sure the admin staff find very hilarious but comply regardless to make his little boy wishes happen to preserve the status quo.
Even more spicy takes: The only reason the societal divide exists in the US today is Meta. Facebook and Instagram. When people are exposed to entirely separate spheres of content for hours a day every day their opinion changes slowly but surely and there's pretty much no escaping it.
I don't use any social media besides HN (which no doubt also does this covert influencing). I can spot a person's social media app of choice is in 5 minutes. They literally change a person's character and the way they speak.
I find this sadly hilarious. What are the current tells you see? I'm similar in that I read a lot of HN and don't have other social media accounts. But I couldn't even guess at what a person's preferred social media is.
X users will start intensely talking about societal/political issues in the first 5 minutes of introduction.
Facebook users will often belong to the conservative political party of any given country and will start talking about one of the numerous conspiracy theories that provide a simplistic and satisfying yet false explanation to the complex reality of the current world.
Instagram users will almost always have the implicit belief that the most important thing in life is to be rich or a celebrity. The platform just implants that into their mind. It takes a bit getting to know the person to see that.
Snapchat users are teens/college/youth who are usually very social.
Reddit users? I can spot them by their looks, the way they talk, or their writing. Obviously not %100 accurate but Reddit is by far the platform with the highest hypersocialization effect.
Tiktok users have a secret language constructed of a large repertoire of memes among them and will constantly reference them when talking. Some of the memes they talk about are 10+ years old. As a young person who have always avoided social media honestly it's hard to communicate with some of my peers because I don't get the memes.