Why Good Ideas Die Quietly and Bad Ideas Go Viral

Epistemology: Truth, Facts, and “Good/Bad Ideas”

• Long subthread debates whether “good” and “bad” ideas are objective.
• One camp: truth exists independent of belief; some ideas are clearly bad (e.g., “tigers as SF pets,” Heaven’s Gate mass suicide, anti‑vax claims, jumping off a building without a parachute).
• Opposing camp: idea quality is always relative to values and point of view (what’s bad for SF residents could be good for a hostile rival city, or for an attacker exploiting GUID reuse).
• Several people distinguish consensus or “mainstream knowledge” from truth; consensus can be wrong (e.g., historical medical errors).
• Science is praised as “testimony with an invitation to reproduce,” making it more trustworthy than social consensus or anecdote.
• Some argue hard relativism is both boring and dishonest; others say even things like “white lies” are unresolvable value questions.

Human Nature, Cognition, and Blame

• Many comments argue the core problem isn’t the internet but human cognitive “zerodays” and legacy biology; tech and social media just exploit them.
• Suggested response: cultivate rationality, media literacy, and active filtering of “intellectual junk food,” akin to dieting in an obesogenic environment.
• Others are pessimistic: changing human nature is seen as nearly impossible; awareness and self‑regulation are viewed as niche, Sisyphean achievements.

Memetics, Platforms, and Incentives

• Multiple comments tie the article’s theme to engagement‑driven ad platforms: algorithmic feeds reward emotional, tribal, fast‑spreading content regardless of accuracy.
• Some see the internet as highly tribal; others argue it is historically anti‑tribal but distorted by “platform” economics.
• One line of argument: the “marketplace of ideas” has been financialized—narrative‑driven ecosystems (especially on the right) amplify convenient stories first, then hunt for supporting facts.
• Mill’s belief that truth repeatedly resurfaces is revisited; some think it still holds in the long run, others worry current information systems may permanently degrade discourse quality.

Antimemes and Good Ideas That Don’t Spread

• Commenters engage the antimeme concept: important but non‑viral ideas (e.g., extended parental leave) lack constituencies and are easily buried.
• One view: powerful interests exploit these communication asymmetries, sidelining widely supported but low‑memetic policies via corporate capture and agenda control.
• Another view: storytelling and art can convert “antimemes” into contagious memes; memetics itself isn’t inherently bad.
• A highly critical reader of the referenced book argues the author constrains “antimemes” to fit pre‑existing political positions, weakening the concept.

Trust, Parasociality, and Tribal Alignment

• Several comments describe people outsourcing judgment to favored personalities (podcasters, streamers, influencers, politicians) and defending them against contrary evidence.
• Self‑identified “rationalist” communities are cited as especially vulnerable to persuasive prose that flatters their self‑image while smuggling in dubious ideas.

Structural and Synthetic Virality Claims

• Some attribute bad‑idea virality to cheap AI bot farms, network mapping, and capture of editors and institutions; they claim “natural” virality has largely been replaced by paid campaigns.
• Others emphasize structural incentives (adtech, algorithms, media polarization) over explicit conspiracy, but all see current systems as amplifying transmissibility over truth.