• _number8_@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    yeah exactly, which is why it’s a bullshit buzzword. every piece of media creates parasocial relationships – the point of art is to feel a connection! people had parasocial relationships with the bible and homer and martin luther and walt whitman and orwell and twitter and facebook and podcasts.

    people love to demonize it because the word sort of sounds like ‘parasite’ but everyone has multiple parasocial relationships if the bar is basically ‘you think a person on tv is cool’

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ehm, no, the criticism for parasocial relationships isn’t that you’re a “parasite”, it’s that it can be unhealthy for you if you’re not careful. (Unless the parasite is targeted at the media person, in which case some do exploit this for profit and fame)

      And it’s more than just liking a media person. It’s about feeling as if they are a friend that you personally know, and treat them like that.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The media didn’t use to be interactive, which is really where the relationships turned toxic. Radio might have pitched you cigarettes and slimming drinks, but it didn’t reply to comments, beg for likes, call out donors names mid broadcast, give you cute little pieces of flair to show off, on and on.

        Parasocialability is now part of the intrinsic economy of the celebrity/fan relationship on the internet, and with most things you mix with capitalism, has been amped up to insane levels to maximize profit. It’s unhealthy because unhealthy produces income along with the fanatics.