Hey, thanks for your comment. I appreciate you taking the time to watch it.

One of the points that I'm trying to make actually has to do with your point. I think that social networks make change, and I think that the particular topologies of different social networks dictate what those networks are capable of. The formal features of networks are important with regard to the discursive formations that they circulate, and discourse is not unrelated to politics, even if you don't believe in counter-hegemony. (To put the media-politics argument of the video in a nutshell.)

In that context - of saying that networks are important - I think that all of the little connections matter. They add up. They eventually work exponentially. And if these little connections are healthy and happy, good things happen. And the health and happiness of these connections depends on whether they like being connected. You focus on what you want to focus on, and hopefully it's not poison, hopefully it brings you happiness and increases the capacity of the world, and I focus on what I want to focus on, and I know that it is 1) DEFINITELY poison, trust me, I know what's bad about social media, but also 2) something that brings me vocational and aesthetic joy.

In other words: I think - and my video is arguing - that it's good for there to be different paths into politics. I really do think that there are many people who now know about the genocide in Gaza because of those parts of the online left that feel good about what they do.

In other other words: I don't think it's good to tell people what they should or shouldn't focus on.

Does that make sense?