> Did I miss where the author defines what "friction" is actually meaning?

They were responding to a tweet, cited in the second paragraph:

  I want to talk about friction.¹

¹ https://nitter.poast.org/Bonecondor/status/19184554398066568...

  I truly believe this lack of structural friction when it comes to basically every type of dopamine-frying pleasure on earth is a huge part of why gen z is Like That

I'm not sure what your point is to be honest.

The "[structural] friction" is defined by the tweet, not the substack article responding to the tweet.

"I truly believe this lack of structural friction when it comes to basically every type of dopamine-frying pleasure on earth is a huge part of why gen z is Like That"

You consider that a definition?

It's context. A branch of a discussion thread. Not a dictionary.

If you want a faster (less friction?) answer, you could post your question to substack comment thread or twitter.

"Friction" in the author's post refers to intellectual friction. The need to think about what you are doing before you do it; as opposed to being led to your next action by the UX of an app or instruction of another person.

Original X link because that other one does not load for me and perhaps others.

https://x.com/Bonecondor/status/1918455439806656872

I thought it was excellent. Do you have any specific critiques of claims that we could disagree on?

Agree... while there are valuable and interesting notions in the article the final conclusion and the so-called curated friction is just too stretched for me.