Scan barcode
blankpagealex's review against another edition
4.0
The subjects of Anti-Social are trolls whose power is derived from their ability to gain attention. They care little about truth, fact-checking, or journalism - their only goal is to gather outrage clicks by being as loud as possible. So why dedicate an entire book to examining their "movement?"
Marantz does an excellent job of explaining why we should know about these individuals. They are smart and organized and they understand that the mainstream wants to categorize them as singular bad guys. Call them nazis, and they'll put forward their Jewish members to defend the movement. Call them hateful and their gay and minority voices will get louder. Marantz understands that there is more nuance to the alt-right, alt-light, and new right than the mainstream political parties and news outlets fully understand. Also, everyone is underestimating the power they have and are ready to wield to ensure white nationalist arguments remain in the national discourse. They've moved "the overton window" and they want to keep on pushing.
I'd encourage people to read this book. It's an informative and often times infuriating read, but it's enlightening to see what common decency is up against.
Marantz does an excellent job of explaining why we should know about these individuals. They are smart and organized and they understand that the mainstream wants to categorize them as singular bad guys. Call them nazis, and they'll put forward their Jewish members to defend the movement. Call them hateful and their gay and minority voices will get louder. Marantz understands that there is more nuance to the alt-right, alt-light, and new right than the mainstream political parties and news outlets fully understand. Also, everyone is underestimating the power they have and are ready to wield to ensure white nationalist arguments remain in the national discourse. They've moved "the overton window" and they want to keep on pushing.
I'd encourage people to read this book. It's an informative and often times infuriating read, but it's enlightening to see what common decency is up against.
futuredocmartin's review against another edition
dark
informative
slow-paced
4.25
Content Warnings
Moderate: Homophobia, Mental illness, Misogyny, Racial slurs, Racism, Sexism, Toxic relationship, Islamophobia, and Religious bigotry
Minor: Emotional abuse, Hate crime, and Injury/Injury detail
thedarkfields's review against another edition
5.0
Ow, my soul.
This book is not written as an objective analysis of the subject, nor does it ever purport to be. To me, it felt like a series of stories, of interviews and events, written as they were experienced and later used as threads to weave together a narrative timeline which helps understand the larger cultural shift. I felt the author did a good job of selecting relevant pieces to include, adding context to help the reader understand the importance and role of each piece, and interjecting analyses and commentary (including lots of objective information: data, direct quotes with context, etc). There were some stories/people that I think could have been cut without hurting the book, but I understand the commentary/point they added (that is, in my ideal version of this book, I would have cut some, but I get why the author included).
I think I love this book so much because it feels like the author is coming from an extremely sincere place of curiosity. He addresses how easy it is to be dismissive of certain people and topics, and why that refusal to engage (or even to try to understand) may be damaging to our society and the discourse in the long-term. He recognizes and challenges his own biases. He's honest about the complex humanity of these people who are often portrayed as evil and villainous stereotypes while simultaneously extremely cognizant of his responsibility as a journalist to not allow that complexity to overshadow or excuse their often hateful and/or violent rhetoric and behaviors.
Love the audiobook's inclusion of emphasis and voices (when appropriate), which feels more natural or conversational. I wish more audiobooks did that (when being read by the writer).
The writing itself flows extremely well, making reading easy without tipping into being overly simplistic. Fairly even and consistent pacing helps with this. Although I found some bits less interesting, none of the book felt like a slog to get through. Writing quality was-- well, I didn't really notice it. That's a good thing to me (in nonfiction); it means it couldn't have been bad, dense, full of $5 words, or beautifully (but unnecessarily) prosaic. I appreciated the overall balance he struck between painting a vivid scene and providing the essentials, though there were a couple times I would have liked more ambiance or feel for personality/vibe.
Lastly, my personal catnip.. the author spends some time philosophizing with ethical, moral, social, and technological quandaries as they organically arise within the narrative. He includes evidence and arguments for both sides, presents his own thoughts and conclusions (if any), and then circles it back to the concept's role within the larger issue. Examples of these include things like: is the existence of journalistic gatekeepers ultimately more harmful or beneficial; what do we do (as a society) when what people say they want and what they put their money/attention/clicks toward don't align, especially if we have robust evidence that the latter is harmful to the society's health; etc.
Sidebar: Love these discussions. Hate when authors ask the questions and then don't attempt to answer or explain them in any meaningful way. Just because there's not one "right" answer doesn't mean there are no answers. And if you really don't want to answer it, fine, but at least provide different perspectives. If you're not bringing something new(ish), personal, or fruitful to the table, don't bother making the trip. /sidebar
This is already way longer than I meant for it to be, oops. fin.
This book is not written as an objective analysis of the subject, nor does it ever purport to be. To me, it felt like a series of stories, of interviews and events, written as they were experienced and later used as threads to weave together a narrative timeline which helps understand the larger cultural shift. I felt the author did a good job of selecting relevant pieces to include, adding context to help the reader understand the importance and role of each piece, and interjecting analyses and commentary (including lots of objective information: data, direct quotes with context, etc). There were some stories/people that I think could have been cut without hurting the book, but I understand the commentary/point they added (that is, in my ideal version of this book, I would have cut some, but I get why the author included).
I think I love this book so much because it feels like the author is coming from an extremely sincere place of curiosity. He addresses how easy it is to be dismissive of certain people and topics, and why that refusal to engage (or even to try to understand) may be damaging to our society and the discourse in the long-term. He recognizes and challenges his own biases. He's honest about the complex humanity of these people who are often portrayed as evil and villainous stereotypes while simultaneously extremely cognizant of his responsibility as a journalist to not allow that complexity to overshadow or excuse their often hateful and/or violent rhetoric and behaviors.
Love the audiobook's inclusion of emphasis and voices (when appropriate), which feels more natural or conversational. I wish more audiobooks did that (when being read by the writer).
The writing itself flows extremely well, making reading easy without tipping into being overly simplistic. Fairly even and consistent pacing helps with this. Although I found some bits less interesting, none of the book felt like a slog to get through. Writing quality was-- well, I didn't really notice it. That's a good thing to me (in nonfiction); it means it couldn't have been bad, dense, full of $5 words, or beautifully (but unnecessarily) prosaic. I appreciated the overall balance he struck between painting a vivid scene and providing the essentials, though there were a couple times I would have liked more ambiance or feel for personality/vibe.
Lastly, my personal catnip.. the author spends some time philosophizing with ethical, moral, social, and technological quandaries as they organically arise within the narrative. He includes evidence and arguments for both sides, presents his own thoughts and conclusions (if any), and then circles it back to the concept's role within the larger issue. Examples of these include things like: is the existence of journalistic gatekeepers ultimately more harmful or beneficial; what do we do (as a society) when what people say they want and what they put their money/attention/clicks toward don't align, especially if we have robust evidence that the latter is harmful to the society's health; etc.
Sidebar: Love these discussions. Hate when authors ask the questions and then don't attempt to answer or explain them in any meaningful way. Just because there's not one "right" answer doesn't mean there are no answers. And if you really don't want to answer it, fine, but at least provide different perspectives. If you're not bringing something new(ish), personal, or fruitful to the table, don't bother making the trip. /sidebar
This is already way longer than I meant for it to be, oops. fin.
chorizoslut's review against another edition
5.0
my very first introduction to my deep interest in understanding online extremism. a perfect primer.
avasisx's review against another edition
5.0
LOVED this book!!!! So interesting to delve into the logic and principles behind such a stigmatized movement. It really hit home with how powerful social media really is and how careful we should be with what we consume. It made me pledge to get my news from relatable truthful sources instead of clicking on whatever pops up on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit
anovelobsession's review against another edition
5.0
Reading this book right now could not have been more timely. In the last few days, the president has been banned from Twitter and Facebook and the self proclaimed free speech site Parler has been kicked off its servers. The big tech companies are finally realizing that they actually don't have to let their users post anything they want, especially when they are propagating lies that actually incite violence. Andrew Marantz went down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, white supremacy and online trolls (he deserves our deepest gratitude as that must have been revolting) and explains how we got to where we are now. It’s absolutely rage inducing and horrifying how easy it is to make up lies that eventually are repeated, shared, tweeted, so often that most people don’t even question the information. From content producers who just want clicks and hashtags to actual neo-Nazis, as well as alt-right groups and alt-light groups, Marantz spends time with all of them. I highly recommend for anyone interested in trying to understand the effects of social media on our country and how our culture and politics has been forever changed.