Overall of course I agree with you that posting isn't the best activism but even in your telling, there is a role for the online discourse. The Minneapolis YIMBYs made memes, and published them, where?
Online is where people find new communities. I'm online now writing this note, online is where you and I met each other. It would be better for you to just attack a certain kind of shit posting without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The existence of the internet is what allows people who experience diffuse benefits to organize in the first place. YIMBYism is a social phenomenon that did not exist before the internet and imo could not have existed. Social scientists in the previous generation assumed it would never be possible for the potential future residents of proposed housing developments to organize and enter the political process in a way that could effectively counter the political effects of the people who experience the concentrated harm of new building. Well, we did, in the 2010s because of the internet.
I agree with you that the internet is the cornerstone for a lot of these movements. I didn't do a good job making clear I'm only critiquing a vocal minority of the online community, not the movement as a whole - but that minority gives critics like Freddie ammunition to use against us. I actually did an interview with fema, the guy who organized the urbanist community on BlueSky (Urbanism+), talking about exactly this role (I think you might like it!): https://www.governance.fyi/p/building-urbanism-on-bluesky
That said, "Very Online" discourse has become increasingly toxic and often ignores the real-world successes of their own movements, justifying this weird contrarianism. The distinction I'm trying to make isn't "online bad, offline good." It's about how the heavily "Very Online" seem to ignore or even undermine the actual successes of their own movements - celebrating ugliness when YIMBYism enables beautiful buildings, or dismissing the importance of coalition-building that produces real policy wins.
I have to believe you about how the discourse has gone. I'm never online anymore lol, besides on substack. Maybe the most reasonable participants have been exiting.
It's pretty bad on Twitter - Urbanism Reddit and BlueSky are more chill (though they're self-contained), but Twitter discourse still has more reach than both platforms combined. (NIMBYs are still worse on all aspects all around, but they are the winning team and we are fighting an uphill battle)
On the pronatalism side, it's far worse across all platforms, which may be giving me a darker impression overall, if it wasn't for (the few) real world successes all around I would be a far more depressed person
Important point that real-world YIMBYism is often distinct than a certain strain of the internet poaster. A couple thoughts:
1. There may be a tradeoff between combative online personalities generating engagement that leads to recruitment vs alienating people like Freddie (who doesn’t seem that amenable to YIMBYism anyway…). It’s hard to quantify how much engagement leads to real-world recruitment but apps like Twitter certainly reward combativeness with reach. I personally prefer staying positive and often find the combativeness distasteful, but I’m not sure it’s as bad a strategy as the YIMBY critics say
2. re Specific critiques of online YIMBYs being annoying about design, Freddie’s critiques could be stronger by providing some examples. Freddie might just be setting up a straw man. I have seen, time and time again, somebody post a photo of some old building with the approximate quote “why can’t all new buildings look like this?” And YIMBYs rightfully make the point that mandating all new buildings look a certain way prevents future innovation, is often cover for NIMBYism, and, as you eloquently point out here also, doesn’t actually work to make buildings more beautiful. I’m sure some poasters just blow off the concept of appealing design entirely in an obnoxious way, but I’m not convinced the specific problem Freddie is griping about is as widespread as he thinks. He famously ignores any context or additional information that conflicts with his preconceived notions
Overall of course I agree with you that posting isn't the best activism but even in your telling, there is a role for the online discourse. The Minneapolis YIMBYs made memes, and published them, where?
Online is where people find new communities. I'm online now writing this note, online is where you and I met each other. It would be better for you to just attack a certain kind of shit posting without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The existence of the internet is what allows people who experience diffuse benefits to organize in the first place. YIMBYism is a social phenomenon that did not exist before the internet and imo could not have existed. Social scientists in the previous generation assumed it would never be possible for the potential future residents of proposed housing developments to organize and enter the political process in a way that could effectively counter the political effects of the people who experience the concentrated harm of new building. Well, we did, in the 2010s because of the internet.
I agree with you that the internet is the cornerstone for a lot of these movements. I didn't do a good job making clear I'm only critiquing a vocal minority of the online community, not the movement as a whole - but that minority gives critics like Freddie ammunition to use against us. I actually did an interview with fema, the guy who organized the urbanist community on BlueSky (Urbanism+), talking about exactly this role (I think you might like it!): https://www.governance.fyi/p/building-urbanism-on-bluesky
That said, "Very Online" discourse has become increasingly toxic and often ignores the real-world successes of their own movements, justifying this weird contrarianism. The distinction I'm trying to make isn't "online bad, offline good." It's about how the heavily "Very Online" seem to ignore or even undermine the actual successes of their own movements - celebrating ugliness when YIMBYism enables beautiful buildings, or dismissing the importance of coalition-building that produces real policy wins.
I have to believe you about how the discourse has gone. I'm never online anymore lol, besides on substack. Maybe the most reasonable participants have been exiting.
It's pretty bad on Twitter - Urbanism Reddit and BlueSky are more chill (though they're self-contained), but Twitter discourse still has more reach than both platforms combined. (NIMBYs are still worse on all aspects all around, but they are the winning team and we are fighting an uphill battle)
On the pronatalism side, it's far worse across all platforms, which may be giving me a darker impression overall, if it wasn't for (the few) real world successes all around I would be a far more depressed person
Important point that real-world YIMBYism is often distinct than a certain strain of the internet poaster. A couple thoughts:
1. There may be a tradeoff between combative online personalities generating engagement that leads to recruitment vs alienating people like Freddie (who doesn’t seem that amenable to YIMBYism anyway…). It’s hard to quantify how much engagement leads to real-world recruitment but apps like Twitter certainly reward combativeness with reach. I personally prefer staying positive and often find the combativeness distasteful, but I’m not sure it’s as bad a strategy as the YIMBY critics say
2. re Specific critiques of online YIMBYs being annoying about design, Freddie’s critiques could be stronger by providing some examples. Freddie might just be setting up a straw man. I have seen, time and time again, somebody post a photo of some old building with the approximate quote “why can’t all new buildings look like this?” And YIMBYs rightfully make the point that mandating all new buildings look a certain way prevents future innovation, is often cover for NIMBYism, and, as you eloquently point out here also, doesn’t actually work to make buildings more beautiful. I’m sure some poasters just blow off the concept of appealing design entirely in an obnoxious way, but I’m not convinced the specific problem Freddie is griping about is as widespread as he thinks. He famously ignores any context or additional information that conflicts with his preconceived notions
Separately, I’d be interested to read more about the impact of design on support for new homes. My impression is the jury is still out (see my recap of recent research here https://substack.com/@theonetruejeremy/note/c-183061815?r=74nn5&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action) but you presented several pieces of evidence I haven’t seen before on the “design matters” side of things