This Is Phil Fish

What Hacker News said

Strong rec pdkl95 · 2015-11 · on “Things the media does to manufacture outrage”

TL;DR - just watch [4] The internet has a serious problem with fame . Before the internet, fame was usually something that required an investment in media access . Everybody knows about the big Hollywood movie because they paid for a lot of advertising/etc. A low-budget film could potentially be more popular if people knew about it, but the meager (or nonexistent) advertising budget usually guaranteed it would never[1] become famous . This is what the internet changed. It's fundamental power is that anybody can publish because the network doesn't differentiate between "publishing" hosts and "consumer" hosts. All peers are supposed[2] to be equal in capability. The internet is media access. W

Strong rec pdkl95 · 2016-06 · on “Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out”

> if a person has any level of social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk an internet mob being turned against them. One of the most important properties of the internet is that the internet is media access. The concept of "fame" used to be something you bought into . Now, fame happens to you . You may be writing for the group of peers that you informally "hang out" with, but they can spontaneously transform into "an audience" that has (sometimes inconsistent) expectations. We're used top fame being something you can walk away from. If you bought into it, you can always go back to your "normal life". The rockstar can give up the record deals and do something

Strong rec pdkl95 · 2017-03 · on “Reasons YouTubers keep imploding, from a YouTuber”

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

Strong rec pdkl95 · 2020-01 · on “A Sad Day for Rust”

> 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.

Strong rec pdkl95 · 2022-01 · on “Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube”

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

Recommends ZeroGravitas · 2014-10 · on “"Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"”

This reminded me of the "This is Phil Fish: A case study in internet celebrity" video: [this video] Phil Fish is an indie game developer, internet-famous for the game Fez. And "everybody" hates him. Though as the video explains, it's more complicated than that. The video is notably also as being referenced by Notch (creator of Minecraft) as part of the reason why he decided to go into semi-retirement after the sale of Mojang.

Recommends dcolgan · 2017-09 · on “No Man’s Sky One Year Later”

As a former amateur Twitch.tv streamer, I've always been fascinated by the rise and fall of internet personalities, and some of the biggest personalities seem to be game developers that found themselves in the spotlight. Someone made this very in-depth video about the fall from grace of Phil Fish, the creator of Fez: [this video] It seems to me that the combo of high pressure and a guy with a combative personality combined with internet anonymity to create a really messy situation that drove him out of the business. I've also followed Narscissa (formerly Cosmo) Wright's fallout in the speedrun community after coming out as transgender. Once one of the most popular streamers on Twitch, I'd imagine

Recommends pdkl95 · 2018-07 · on “Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman’s Statement Confirms the Worst”

Fame used to be something you had to ask for, because being famous required access to limited infrastructure. Media access was scarce , and so you had to work to be noticed by the gatekeepers of that infrastructure. Digital communication an internetworking fundamentally changed that; the cost to publish dropped to approximately zero. Basic media access is de facto no longer scarce. You no longer need to appeal to a gatekeeper when you can e.g. post a tweet for free. This means it it now possible to accidentally reach a much larger audience than the most of the pre-internet media. Fame is now something that can happen to you. Worse, the traditional idea of fame was something you could walk aw