The Internet - Back in the Old Days: Part III

Today I want to reminisce about how the advent of blocking on Twitter (X) lifted a veil from my eyes. It was a real OMG, "Wow!" moment.

Yes, it's an Internet - Back in the Old Days article. PART III: Shocked by the Block.

Unlike most humans these days, who are forever stuck in the latest online moment, I don't have the memory of a goldfish. So I can remember what Twitter was like back before everyone was blocking everybody else. So allow me to be a modern day Samuel Pepys, as I take you back through my experience of living through these times.

I'll start a little further back - on Facebook.

I started using Facebook around 2012. I was a late-comer to it given my age. From the get-go I'd been instinctively wary of it. Viewing it essentially as an evil MySpace (I may do a future post about MySpace).

Anyway, I only really started using it as I'd somehow managed to (miraculously) develop a social life. I started working in a newly-opened, Poundland-type shop and became friends with the people I worked with. Being normal, they all used Facebook. So, naturally, I got sucked in. I actually enjoyed the novel experience at first. I was like, "Oh, this isn't actually too bad. It's a fun way to keep in touch and joke around." The thing was though, being new to it, and not being the most natural socialiser anyway, I didn't fully understand the etiquette. The dos and don'ts. Plus, I didn't quite realise just how seriously everyone else took it; that it wasn't just a silly online space, but an extension of real, personal life for most people. So there were quite a few cringe-inducing moments where I embarrassed myself or put my foot in it.

This gets me to the blocking. There were two girls I worked with (one I liked - a lot), and sometimes there'd be drama. I'd make a cocky joke that didn't get taken the right way, or there'd be some daft work issue that I'd inadvertently find myself on the wrong side of, and I'd later go online to find myself BLOCKED! Sometimes by one of the two girls, but usually (given they were 'besties') both.

So there was this continual back and forth. They'd get in a mood with me for some reason and I'd be blocked. Then, a week later, I'd be back in the good books and unblocked. Then, after a period of grace, (sometimes as long as a whole month if I was lucky), there'd be some other minor drama and I'd find myself excommunicated once again. And so it would go on. In fact, the only time I've ever blocked someone online myself is when I blocked these two. I knew I'd fallen into the bad books, so I quickly went online and pre-emptively blocked them before they'd have a chance to block me. Just as a joke. I got some amusement watching the response that week.

This is the thing though, and going back to my lack of experience with social media at the time. The first time the girl I liked blocked me I was genuinely quite shocked. In my head blocking someone seemed like a really serious thing to do. Like something you'd only use when dealing with a literal stalker or borderline criminal. It seemed almost akin to calling the police on someone. So, that first time I thought, "She's actually blocked me! What a little drama queen." It seemed so extreme and over the top that it was actually funny to me. Though I was also a little wounded.

Of course, I pretty quickly came to realise that all this was fairly normal behaviour for females on Facebook. That when they bitchily fall out with each other they reach for the block button. That if they think a lad is being an arsehole, or just plain annoying, they block him. It's not a huge deal. It's just a common social tool. A school playground, "I'm not talking to you anymore," type thing.

Twitter..

Fast forward a few years later. Twitter was a more grown-up place (at least relative to Facebook). It wasn't real life gossip and drama, but politics, art, debate, and everything else. You didn't tend to see people blocking each other like it was the school playground.

..but then that started to change.

I can't remember the exact changes to platform that facilitated this, or the exact years when they came into effect (I guess I do have a goldfish brain), but I remember the furores. The general view whenever such changes came along (at least in my circles) was that it was a terrible development. Another step towards making the once free internet less free. But, nevertheless, things were slowly streamlined in that direction.

And people, that you'd expect to refrain from such behaviour, suddenly started engaging in it. Like it was just perfectly normal. The old ways quickly forgotten. The sense of embarrassment that a person should have - that they're using a tool brought about with the intention of making women safe online from serial harassers - completely absent. Just, "I don't like your tone; I don't like your attitude; How dare you disagree with me! You're exiled from my kingdom! BLOCK!"

Like a delicate brat or impatient king.

All of a sudden lots of people were behaving exactly like the cute, foot-stamping missy I worked with. Journalists, academics, people whose content I watched. People I actually liked and respected. They were all throwing tantrums like moody checkout girls. And in a much worse way, as at least the checkout girl used to unblock me once her tantrum had subsided. Plus, to be fair, I was annoying her in real life too at times. With the people on Twitter it was just a cold use of power. Like swatting a fly.

It was a real eye-opener. An actual disappointment. I already somewhat lacked faith in authority and talking heads, but this took it to another level, and completely shattered any remaining illusion I had. "Wow, these people - the people in suits; the people running the country or presenting the news - they're just as petty as the average shopworker or playground schoolgirl. They're just as emotional and delicate, and unable to deal with criticism." It was a bit like at the start of COVID, when it suddenly dawned on you that most of your neighbours would gladly lock you up without a second thought for breaking curfew. The scales lifted from the eyes. A realisation that your respect had been truly misplaced. These people were never your equals, you'd been too generous.

After seeing grown men behave in such a way you really can't go back. The thought that there might be actual grown-ups, acting like grown-ups, somewhere in some ivory tower, exiled from your mind like they exiled you. In many ways it's another blessing the internet has given us. Even with the ever-increasing incursions into the free flow of information it remains the great leveller. Humans are just humans. Is it any wonder governments so readily censor people when the average person does the exact same thing when you give them a little button saying, "Excommunication." The promise that it would only be used to stop "genuine harassment" disappearing in a little puff of ego or temper tantrum.

Gold vs Platinum

I've had a cold this week, so I've been lounging around a bit. As ever though, I always find that during these bouts of snotty lounging I tend to find new avenues of interest. This time it was platinum that got me thinking. So I've been listening to talks about platinum and PGMs (platinum group metals).

Twenty odd years ago platinum was twice as valuable as gold - largely in thanks to its use in catalytic converters. Today, (with the hype for electric cars in full swing), gold is three times as expensive as platinum. So it's been quite a flip around.

It was always one of those odd little bits of trivia back in childhood. You'd make some reference to gold being the most valuable metal, then some other kid would chime in, "No, it's platinum. Platinum is more expensive than gold. My dad said!" Intuitively it always felt wrong, you'd even naively argue back against it. How can the most precious metal not be gold? It's gold. We all know that gold is the best. That's what gold means. It's golden coloured. How can something be more gold-like than gold itself? This feeling would then be heightened when you actually saw a piece of platinum jewellery and it looked ..silver.

Now gold is king again order is seemingly restored. So kids growing up today won't have the same sense of dissonance.

Anyway, it was jewellery that got me thinking. With the gold price so high, (will it keep going higher?), jewellery is getting more expensive for the average person buying a wedding ring or anniversary gift. The natural alternative is silver. However, for some occasions silver just won't do, as it comes with connotations of 'second best'. A lot of women aren't going to be too happy with second best. It likewise comes with a sense of cheapness. This is especially the case today with the price difference between gold and silver so large. Once gold was ten or fifteen times more expensive than silver. Now it's one hundred times more expensive.

So I was thinking, as gold climbs ever higher, will platinum jewellery increasingly fill the void. It is indeed more rare than gold, so doesn't come with the same connotations of second best. And it's still expensive, in spite of its current price relationship to gold, so comes with the reputation of expensive exclusivity. Platinum jewellery is also very beautiful. Having a sheen and brightness that silver can't quite match.

This might be amplified by the fact that gold is so heavily associated with finance and materialism these days. Men want it more than women do. So platinum could regain a sense of romance. That it's now less associated in the public mind with car parts may help this natural rebranding.

The 2p Copper Coin ..and John Lennon

Just a teeny weeny post today. Revisiting a recurring topic: the value of the copper in a (pre-1992) UK two pence coin.

Last time I checked, back in 2022, the value was (approx.) 4.7p.

Today it stands at 5.2p.

So an increase. Inversely, thanks to a decrease in the nickel price since then, the value of the raw metal in a (pre-2012) UK 5p coin has fallen. It was 3.2p, now it's 2.8p.

Finally, just to add some colour, I'll share a picture of an old John Lennon book that arrived in the house yesterday. It was given by an old woman to my mam (also an old woman). She won't read this.

Continuing the music theme from yesterday.

Female-Facing Rock Bands

I'm not really sure where to start with this post, but I want to explore the way some bands tend to appeal to women more so than others.

I did try to get some stats on which bands sell a higher percentage of their tickets/records to female fans, but couldn't find any. So I'm going to have to go entirely on anecdote and my own biased sense of how things are.

Bands that I tend to think of as appealing to women more than average are Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles, Bon Jovi, INXS (though this could just be because the singer is good-looking - an issue that's hard to factor out). As per my last post, a modern example would be The 1975. I think Bryan Adams fits this label too. A label I'm terming female-facing.

I think another good indication of whether a band/artist makes this list is if they tend to get a bit of dislike from males in the opposing direction. Like how a lot of people will actively dislike the Eagles. Though again, we're in subjective territory here.

Once (if) you acknowledge this as a real thing the question then is, why? What is it about the attitude or music that makes this the case?

Guitar Shapes

Another thing that adds into this in a vague sort of way is the symbolism and subtext of guitar shapes. I remember hearing somebody mention that round-bodied guitars are shaped like the female body, whereas the more slender Stratocaster-type guitars are more phallic-shaped. (We've all seen the hair metal guitarists thrusting their guitars forward with their hips - Spinal Tap style - as they play their "solos"). Hence it's been said that troubadours playing round-bodied guitars are symbolically caressing the female body, whilst the rockers thrusting their amped-up phalluses forward are, well ..going solo, so to speak. And that, furthermore, women are more impressed by the narrative, storytelling and emotion of the troubadour. And that it tends to be other men that are impressed by the thrust of the soloist. Watching on from the audience, seeking to emulate their strutting hero, with his big, powerful guitar.

Anecdotally this does seem to be the case, with the hard rock audience tending to be very male heavy. Whilst the emotive balladeer attracts the female gaze. Something you'd perhaps expect, given the dichotomy of men tending to be visual and women tending to prefer narrative. A la pin-ups and romance novels.

This all would then suggest that the bands that appeal more so to women play into this narrative and emotive angle. Either deliberately or naturally/accidentally.

Men want to impress women. Yet men also want to impress other men in this male dominated world. Or in male dominated pursuits/environments, be they sport or music or whatever else. So it's kind of a question of who they want to impress more. Are they more orientated to the females watching/listening or the other men?

Are they male-facing or female-facing?

Again, some people may just have a natural inclination one way or the other. However, you could also write a song thinking, "Will this appeal to a woman? Will the average woman want to walk out of the room if she sees/hears this, or will she be drawn to stay?" As above, you would then run the risk of displeasing your male peers though, who may see your female-leaning music as a bit too soft or delicate or romantic.

The Eagles

Finally, the Eagles as a band definitely have the emotive storytelling that would appeal to women. Most of their songs are about women and relationships. Think songs like Lyin' Eyes or Peaceful Easy Feeling. However, the Eagles aren't shy of a guitar solo as well. Without wanting to get too crude, perhaps the Eagles are the appeal to women band (and the hated by other men band) because they've perfected the art of female-facing music. Getting things started with the storytelling and troubadour emotions, then only bringing the phallic-shaped solos out once the mood is right, lol. Only moving from soft rock to hard rock later in the evening, when the lights are down. I've also seen it mentioned online that they were the most misogynistic American band of all time. So maybe that had something to do with it too, lol.

If only I'd have understood all this when I started playing in bands myself twenty years ago.

The Tale of Two Somebodies

To follow up on that last post. It occurs to me that today music seems to be much more sex-focused than love-focused. This might just be me getting older (am I even in a position to know what the music world looks like these days?). So I may be biased. It's hard not to be left with this sense though.

Like wider society, modern music seems to be sex and hook-up focused. A sense of true love is still in there somewhat, I guess, but it struggles to get out. So I think that depth of ambivalence I mentioned in the last post is more lacking.

Two more recent songs come to mind when I think about this. The first is the track, "Somebody Else," by The 1975. (The 1975 are a female-facing band - that's female-facing, not female-fronted. This is a nice segue into my next post.) I heard this song about a year or so ago in a bus station of all places. It grabbed me a little bit, though I've never been a huge fan of the band. It's about having to imagine someone you have feelings for being with somebody else. And it does capture this feeling quite effectively. It's a good song, and like the songs mentioned in the last post, it manages to convey the sense of mixed feelings.

These feelings are no doubt particularly relatable to the youngsters of this current generation, who are growing up in a world where true love has been bludgeoned to death by materialism, and where people exist within dating apps and hook-up culture. (Though, conversely, a large number of young people aren't hooking up at all, and just have to live with the feelings, within this wider plastic culture.)

Somebody Else comes with this sense that it exists in a modern world where meaning has been stripped, and things (even intimate relationships) are throwaway commodities. However, the song does convey the very real feelings of a person experiencing this.

The second song is kind of a darker version of this. It's the song, "Somebody That I Used To Know," by Gotye. Full disclosure: I hate this song. It doesn't help that it's been played to death over this last decade, and you can't go anywhere without hearing it. Consequently, it doesn't need explaining. Everyone will have heard it. Just for the record though, it's about someone completely cutting someone off after a break up. I think it's probably been such a huge hit because so many people have had this exact experience in today's world. Again, where even people you were intimate with are discardable.

I think this song's so much darker though as it's kind of resigned to this modern materialistic worldview. There's no sense that the love once meant something, and that it still means something, if only in memory. It's complete obliteration. The annihilation of all attachment between the two people. Of course, the person writing the song wouldn't be writing it if it didn't mean anything, and I'm sure people will say, "Yes, that's the idea." The singer is saying, "You're just somebody that I used to know," but obviously that isn't truly the case. Still, the sense of resignation and coldness is pervasive. Even the music feels cold. (Perhaps I'm being really unfair here, lol. Maybe it just isn't my cup of tea musically.)

Whereas Somebody Else, even though it also speaks of a love "gone cold," still captures and expresses some care and emotion. It even mentions the word soul.

"You're intertwining your soul with somebody else."

With Somebody That I Used To Know the soul feels absent and unbelieved-in. It really speaks of a generation of people that are longing for meaning, in a world where they've been told everything is simply random and accidental.

If It Makes You Happy

One of my favourite songs is "If It Makes You Happy" by Sheryl Crow. The other day my friend asked me that classic Desert Island Discs type question of what song you would save if you could only save one. I chose this. His text back response was, "Really?". So I guess he doesn't rate it as highly as I do, and was expecting something a bit more obscure and exclusive.

Anyway, it got me thinking about how the best songs (at least in my opinion) tend to capture feelings of ambivalence. They're not outright happy, upbeat songs, nor are they sad songs. They tend to convey a mix of feelings. If It Makes You Happy is a great case in point, as the chorus literally contains the words sad and happy in the chorus.

"If it makes you happy, then why the hell are you so sad?"

Of course, in life things are often like this. We feel a mix of things at the same time. Things can be bittersweet, or just complex and confounding. Your love for someone might be uplifting, but you're sad because you can't be with that person. Or you're remembering a happy memory, but there's a current sadness that it's now gone. Truly great songs often capture some sense of this.

I'll list a few that spring to mind.

Losing My Religion - R.E.M.

It's hard to analyse this one, (I'm not even entirely sure what it's about), but it definitely has that mix of feeling melancholy, but upbeat.

Wonderwall - Oasis

Another that's upbeat, but not upbeat. In fact, I think Noel Gallagher has an especial knack for capturing feelings of ambivalence in his music. It may be partly the reason for the huge success of Oasis. There's lots of definitely and maybe. "Maybe, you're gonna be the one that saves me.." There's this positive sense of, "Yes, we're going to conquer the world," in his music, but its also tinged with memory and whimsy.

Help - The Beatles

This has that feel too to me. I'm not fully sure why, though I suppose it could just be that the song is so upbeat in feel, yet the topic is one of needing help. Though even in the lyrics there's the juxtaposition of, "When I was younger.." I didn't need help, but now I do. And once again we have memories of feelings from before juxtaposed with feelings of today.

Incidentally, the other big song from What's The Story? was Don't Look Back in Anger. Another song about memories and looking back. However, it's don't look back in anger - the anger being an emotion of the here and now as we look back. So it intertwines these different senses. There's no anger or rage in the feel of the song, but it's there in the very title.

No doubt this list could be endless. Another that springs to mind is Beetlebum by Blur, which has that upbeat melancholy thing going on. Also, as I'm writing the words 'no doubt,' No Doubt's Don't Speak comes to mind. That's uplifting to listen to, but it's sad in feel. I'm not sure why.

I'm tempted to wander off into some philosophical musings about how love is transcendent, and that memories or thoughts of people we love transcend the particular moment of misery/loneliness/dissatisfaction that we find ourselves in. And that great music captures and expresses this.

But I probably shouldn't. Though I kind of just have.

Lowe Point

I don't normally post just after I've finished work, (I'm thinking twice about it even now), but the events of the last few days need recounting. Let's be quick, I need to speak in bullet points.

Basically, the MP Rupert Lowe has been kicked out of Reform. (There are various allegations/investigations going on, which, in the round, are irrelevant to me, so I'll forgo them.)

The wider business all started a few months ago, when Elon Musk tweeted out that Nigel Farage needed replacing as leader of Reform. This happened in a broader context of the online right criticising Farage for not wanting to hang out with Tommy Robinson. Amidst that flurry there were polls and questions about who should replace Farage (of course, the people wanting him gone had no idea what would come next). Rupert Lowe tended to top these polls. So, since then, we've had this endless online nudging and campaigning for Lowe to become leader, alongside the unrelenting criticism of Farage.

One thing they've been pushing Farage to do is use the term, "Mass Deportations." The term is vague (perhaps deliberately so). On initial hearing it implies that huge numbers of settled people will be sent back, but it can be reconstrued to just mean those here illegally. So it's imprecise and incendiary. I'm trying to play things with a straight bat these days, but obviously these attempts to push Reform into extreme positions and language feel like sabotage.

Anyway, now Lowe has been ejected - and it's come as something of a shock to all the troublemakers.

I think these people thought that with Lowe being an MP and with Reform having just five MPs there was zero chance they'd push him out. Big mistake. They just don't understand that Farage has spent the last twenty years dealing with people trying to misdirect or sabotage his political vehicles. He literally ditched an entire party he'd created (UKIP), because it was so full of troublemakers, and started a new one from scratch. So, yes, it's not ideal booting Lowe out, but it's better to deal with the problem now than to allow it to linger on for months and years.

It's been fun to watch. The agitators are now completely outside the party. (Whether Rupert Lowe himself is a deliberate agitator or not I don't know - he could just be someone with genuine views who's been a useful crowbar for people wanting to undermine Farage.) Either way, the people criticising Farage are now really throwing their toys out of the pram. We've had some right little tantrums.

What happens now will be interesting. They can kick him out of the party, but they can't kick him out of parliament. Personally, I don't think they'll let him back in the party. I suspect the explosive nature of the spat is deliberate to make sure the bridges are fully burnt. I think the people on the other side (when they've calmed down) might want a burying of the hatchet - to get a toe hold once again. However, I think they've been snookered, and all their crying and online outrage will ebb away like all the other online dramas.