This Is Phil Fish

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 with those gatekeepers if you wanted to be "on tv" or whatever, and because you had to choose to participate, people often see the decision to become famous as also accepting some amount of responsibility to "act like famous people are supposed to act". This internet fundamentally changed the mechanics of fame, because the internet IS media access . Now it is possible to become famous - to become a "celebrity" with a "responsibility" to act in a certain way - simply by being yourself in your normal everyday life. [1] ▶ this video

> 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. On the internet fame became something that happens to you , because the internet IS media access. We're used to seeing fame as something that was chosen ; if you didn't want to be famous, you could walk away from the media infrastructure and go back to your "normal life". The famous band could quit touring. Now that everyone has media access, that "normal life" can become famous directly. When that happens, walking away from fame means walking away from your normal life . [1] ▶ this video

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 your normal life . Being famous was a job you could (usually) leave. However, a lot of people that have become famous through the internet cannot leave. It was their normal life that became famous. Tight coupling between fame and personal life causes or amplifies a lot of these problems. For a much better explanation, I highly recommend watching Innuendo Studios' video essay "This is Phil Fish"[1]. In spite of the name, it isn't really about Phil Fish. It's about everybody who isn't Phil Fish and how they (miss-)handle internet celebrity. [1] ▶ this video

> 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 else with their life. The problem with the new situation is that their "normal life" is the source of fame. To walk away from fame now requires people to walk away from their normal life . I don't know what the solution is - perhaps some new sort of 'etiquette' is needed - but a very good analysis of the problem is the video essay "This Is Phil Fish"[1]. May HN readers will recognize that name as the author of "Fez", but as the essay mentions at the beginning, "This is about everybody in the world who isn't Phil Fish". I encourage everyone to watch [1], so we at lest have a clear understanding of the problem. [1] ▶ this video

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. What used to require significant investment of time and/or money now happens to people regularly when they post something casually on the internet: they can become famous . Unfortunately, our social norms are still adapting to this change. As this article shows, trivial posts are incorrectly interpreted and the author ends up wading through flames and insults. This is because what started as a casual post is now addressing an audience . For a very good explanation of this type of change-in-relationship, I suggest watching "This is Phil Fish"[4]. As this is HN, many of you probably know the drama involving Phil Fish and his game "Fez", but tht doesn't matter because this video is about everybody who is not Phil Fish: the audience that supplies the projection, tokenism, and hatred that fuels

I have been following him, and I think a lot of the claims about him have been exaggerated. He stopped being so edgy on twitter after watching the "this is phil fish" video. It is an interesting watch and applicable to notch. ▶ this video He is developing a new voxel-like game called "levers and chests", and before that he has shown us a few cool webgl demos I find interesting. link

That video is part of a larger series on Gamergate. If you liked that one, it’s worth it to see everything. link I also recommend these two earlier videos, on unrelated matters. ▶ this video link

This type of problematic parasocial relationship is amplified by the internet, because the internet changed the mechanics of fame . In the past, becoming famous required infrastructure . Media access was scarce; you had to actively work with various gatekeepers if you wanted the opportunity to become famous. This often required putting on the mask the audience wanted to see. Removing the mask and retreating back to your "normal life" was easy: without regular upkeep, access to the media infrastructure moved to someone else. On the internet, anybody can become famous at any time, because the internet is media access . People now become famous without the mask that differentiated their famous persona from their normal life. Giving up fame now requires giving up the part of your normal life that made you famous. For a much better explanation, see this[1] short video essay. [1] ▶ this video

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 away form. You simply quit participating; being some type of celebrity was a job that required maintenance. When you become accidentally famous on Twitter/etc it is often your normal life that happened to become famous. Walking away form that means walking away from your normal life. For a very good explanation of this topic, I recommend this[1] video. [1] ▶ this video

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 transitioning is hard enough, but transitioning in front of a studio audience of anonymous gamers would be next level. And so the same seems to be with Sean Murray and No Man's Sky. Inexperience plus overpromising and really high expectations created the current situation. I don't think any of these people are malicious and I don't really know how I would have advised them to do things differently. Edmund McMillen, the creator of Super Meat Boy and other indie games once said in a podcast interview that he hates showing people what he's making before it is done for this very reason. Edit: I know the circumstances of these people are not identical, I'm just calling for more understanding and empathy instead of assuming the worst in everyone.

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.

I think you've got cause and effect reversed—GamerGate worked because gamers were already prone to this sort of behavior. See "This is Phil Fish," [1] a video (by the same person who did the GamerGate video) about Phil Fish, the creator of the acclaimed indie game "Fez." He was driven off the Internet (or at least out of public participation) by similar toxic behavior. Phil Fish is a white male. I don't know how long this has been going on, and it does seem to be getting steadily worse, but I don't think GamerGate was a turning point. Just a particularly visible example of how bad things have gotten. [1] ▶ this video