This Is Phil Fish

What people said

pdkl95 · 2022-01 · Strong recommendation

While some people certainly seem to subscribe to "feeling their masculinity/world-view is threatened" interpretation, the fundamental problem that q lot of people don't seem to understand is that the internet changed the mechanics of fame . The best explanation I've seen - and possibly the most important video on youtube - is "This Is Phil Fish"[1] by Innuendo Studios. It's not really about Phil Fish; it's about everyone who isn't Phil Fish acted when they decided he became "famous". In the past, being "on tv" or "in a band" or other traditional examples of fame required some amount of buying into fame. Becoming famous required media access that was controlled by gatekeepers. You had to work with those gatekeepers if you wanted to be "on tv" or whatever, and because you had to choose to participate, people often see the decision to become famous as also accepting some amount of responsibility to "act like famous people are supposed to act". This internet fundamentally changed the mechanics of fame, because the internet IS media access . Now it is possible to become famous - to become a "celebrity" with a "responsibility" to act in a certain way - simply by being yourself in your normal everyday life. [1] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

pdkl95 · 2020-01 · Strong recommendation

> there’s this style of response This type of reprehensible response will keep happening until society finally learns how the internet fundamentally changed the nature of fame . The best explanation of the problem is the video "This Is Phil Fish"[1] by Innuendo Studios. If you haven't seen it, please watch it. It's not about Phil Fish; he is simply a useful example of how fame works on the internet. Please watch the video! The core problem is that fame used to be opt-in . Becoming famous required infrastructure. Gaining access to that infrastructure required the permission various gatekeepers, time, and resources. You had to work to become famous, because media access was a scarce resource. On the internet fame became something that happens to you , because the internet IS media access. We're used to seeing fame as something that was chosen ; if you didn't want to be famous, you could walk away from the media infrastructure and go back to your "normal life". The famous band could quit touring. Now that everyone has media access, that "normal life" can become famous directly. When that happens, walking away from fame means walking away from your normal life . [1] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

pdkl95 · 2017-03 · Strong recommendation

The internet has changed the nature of "fame". In the past, you needed to generally buy into fame. To be famous, you needed managers, publicists, etc. Media access was a limited resource that was handed out only to those that met approval. This created in the audience certain expectations about what it means to be famous. Don't treat the audience wrong or do anything too far outside those expectations or face the audience's wrath. The internet changed what it means to be "famous" because the internet is media access . Unfortunately, the sociology of the audience hasn't caught up and often still apply the old expectations. In the past, it was possible to walk away from fame because it wasn't your normal life . Being famous was a job you could (usually) leave. However, a lot of people that have become famous through the internet cannot leave. It was their normal life that became famous. Tight coupling between fame and personal life causes or amplifies a lot of these problems. For a much better explanation, I highly recommend watching Innuendo Studios' video essay "This is Phil Fish"[1]. In spite of the name, it isn't really about Phil Fish. It's about everybody who isn't Phil Fish and how they (miss-)handle internet celebrity. [1] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗