4 ms·

No, Spooning Isn’t Sexist. The Internet Is Just Broken

53 points by de_Selby 11y ago

tzs 11y ago
Comments from earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10514599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10514599
codinghorror 11y ago
I do not feel this belongs on Hacker News?
- de_Selby 11y ago
  Well I thought it might generate some interesting discussion on what alternative revenue models might work.
  - Puts 11y ago
    The interesting question then is why do we have to find another model? Why are people so hell bent on creating content online? If the business apparently does not work, why not trying to make and sell flowerpots instead?
    - Angostura 11y ago
      Because the opportunity is there to develop a business that scales hugely - if model is sustainable. How many flower pots can you make? How many people might view your Youtube video?
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      Well, the business works. Like a polluting industry, it still makes money (and will therefore attract investment).
    - stevetrewick 11y ago
      The business - using click bait headlines and outrage porn to generate ad revenue - does (or can, at least) work. TFA is complaining that this business model incentivises shitty content that makes people cross. Incidentally, this is not a new or unexpected phenomenon, 'traditional' media marketing bods have understood the principle for decades - the noisier a channel gets the louder/shriller you have to shout to get people's attention.
- zamalek 11y ago
  I've been involved in some discussion about these sort of topics (overzealous egalitarianism) on HN. It seems as though there is an audience for it. Nowadays HN seems to discuss "the weather of the internet" as much as it discusses startups.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  I think the author made somewhat of a mistake in picking the article to point at that he did, if his goal was to start a real conversation. Bringing sexism into the fold will make people assume that this article is based on refuting sexism, which is going to create controversy that none of the actual points he made in the article need. That said, I feel at least the latter 90% of the article is on-topic for HN.
- Mandatum 11y ago
  I agree. The fact we're even discussing this is kind of ridiculous.
- colinbartlett 11y ago
  Does not belong because you find it offensive? Or simply not relevant? If the latter then I must remind you the Hacker News is not news about hackers but rather news hackers would find interesting. If the article doesn't gratify your intellectual curiosity then simply don't upvote it.
- gamesbrainiac 11y ago
  Me neither Jeff. Lately, I find myself at a loss as to why I visit this place at all anymore.
- mcphage 11y ago
  It's an article about the monetization of web content, negative consequences of that system, and possible better alternatives. This is the bread and butter of Hacker News.
de_Selby 11y ago
The next evolution from clickbait lists is intentionally provocative stories like the one discussed here. What alternative model can work aside from measuring pure clicks though? Even "the time on site" solution they mention here (if it were even workable) has problems, just because I spend a few minutes reading something doesn't mean it's high quality. Equally high quality content need not necessarily take a long time to consume.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > just because I spend a few minutes reading something doesn't mean it's high quality Precisely. Attraction to spectacle results in not only clicks on that "Outrageous Statement X", but also so one can firmly applaud/smugly disdain it. And I'm not just pretending its only other people who do this; I'm not proud but I've fallen into that hole myself.
JimmyM 11y ago
Other articles trending on The Daily Beast: > "The Alabama Granny Murder-For-Hire Plot" > "Attack Of The Kate Upton Clones" > "The Internet Is Just Broken" ...oh wait, that last one... It's not an issue with the internet, Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster style intriguing/bizarre stories have always been popular. Hyperbole brings people in, and it's not just about clicks – people will read stupid stories in The Sun or The Mirror depending on their political leanings, and feel entertained. Because they're fun, silly stories. I'd hate to write one myself but that's a personality trait I have, and not necessarily a positive one. Also: > Advertisers have wised up a little bit. There are now party tricks like branded content—wherein advertisers pay for stories that are sort of about their product, but are also about, say, travel or sports—and advertisers sometimes take into account unique visitors within specific demographics, based on age, race, and location. > Tony Haile, the CEO of Chartbeat—the kings of metrics on the Web—tried to warn us about this last year. I'm inclined to think this is a Daily Beast writer and Chartbeat being a bit cheeky! Hiding in plain sight. Not that I would begrudge them at all. It was a fun read. Although I disagree with the central premise behind writing it, most of the actual ideas seemed fine. Time on site is hardly a new concept though, and engagement in general has been somewhere on the priority list for (for example) Google for quite a while now.
im3w1l 11y ago
There is a (probably not entirely legal) consumer solution: http://unvis.it http://unvis.it "What the tool does is to try to capture the content of an article or blog post without passing on your visit as a pageview. Effectively this means that you're not paying with your attention, so you can read and share the idiocy that it contains."
- romseb 11y ago
  Isn't this just pushing the problem away from us? The problem being: Why do I still click on an article even if I know it will not be worth my time, attention and energy in any way. "Effectively this means that you're not paying with your attention". I don't see how this is true. The owner of the website might just think I don't pay with my attention. But I did.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  > probably not entirely legal Everything can be made either legal or illegal.
mschuster91 11y ago
Other way to read the first part: no matter how ridiculous the point, chances are high that a huge number of people will read and believe it. Just look at Donald Trump.
luckycharms810 11y ago
Ironic that a story about clickbait is clickbait. As you get to the third or fourth paragraph it turns in to a plug for Chartbeat and simultaneously a hit piece for Vox.
- nailer 11y ago
  Vox don't need hit pieces, they do it themselves.
organsnyder 11y ago
This is hardly new. Slate's entire brand is built on these sort of contrarian, antagonistic viewpoints. A large portion of their content can simply be boiled down to "you're doing it wrong" or "something you like is terrible." They've followed this model for most of their 20-year existence. This goes back well before Slate, though: The term "yellow journalism" was coined in the late 1800's.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  And for a more modern take, just look at the magazines in the supermarket checkout line at any time in the past several decades. You've got the more "classic" tabloids with the equivalent of clickbait headlines about actors and entertainers. You've got the women's and men's mags telling you why you're not screwing enough or dressing/exercising/eating the right way. Then you have the more self-aware stuff like Weekly World News and The Enquirer with their UFOs and CIA abductions and Elvis sightings. I find these "clickbait" stories to be the natural evolution of the same type of sensationalism that's been used to sell papers and magazines or get you to stick around for the full story at 11.
- xlm1717 11y ago
  "Spooning is the worst." No, Slate, you are the worst.

53 points by de_Selby 11y ago

tzs 11y ago

Comments from earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10514599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10514599

codinghorror 11y ago

I do not feel this belongs on Hacker News?

de_Selby 11y ago
Well I thought it might generate some interesting discussion on what alternative revenue models might work.
- Puts 11y ago
  The interesting question then is why do we have to find another model? Why are people so hell bent on creating content online? If the business apparently does not work, why not trying to make and sell flowerpots instead?
  - Angostura 11y ago
    Because the opportunity is there to develop a business that scales hugely - if model is sustainable. How many flower pots can you make? How many people might view your Youtube video?
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    Well, the business works. Like a polluting industry, it still makes money (and will therefore attract investment).
  - stevetrewick 11y ago
    The business - using click bait headlines and outrage porn to generate ad revenue - does (or can, at least) work. TFA is complaining that this business model incentivises shitty content that makes people cross. Incidentally, this is not a new or unexpected phenomenon, 'traditional' media marketing bods have understood the principle for decades - the noisier a channel gets the louder/shriller you have to shout to get people's attention.
zamalek 11y ago
I've been involved in some discussion about these sort of topics (overzealous egalitarianism) on HN. It seems as though there is an audience for it. Nowadays HN seems to discuss "the weather of the internet" as much as it discusses startups.
johncolanduoni 11y ago
I think the author made somewhat of a mistake in picking the article to point at that he did, if his goal was to start a real conversation. Bringing sexism into the fold will make people assume that this article is based on refuting sexism, which is going to create controversy that none of the actual points he made in the article need. That said, I feel at least the latter 90% of the article is on-topic for HN.
Mandatum 11y ago
I agree. The fact we're even discussing this is kind of ridiculous.
colinbartlett 11y ago
Does not belong because you find it offensive? Or simply not relevant? If the latter then I must remind you the Hacker News is not news about hackers but rather news hackers would find interesting. If the article doesn't gratify your intellectual curiosity then simply don't upvote it.
gamesbrainiac 11y ago
Me neither Jeff. Lately, I find myself at a loss as to why I visit this place at all anymore.
mcphage 11y ago
It's an article about the monetization of web content, negative consequences of that system, and possible better alternatives. This is the bread and butter of Hacker News.

de_Selby 11y ago

The next evolution from clickbait lists is intentionally provocative stories like the one discussed here. What alternative model can work aside from measuring pure clicks though? Even "the time on site" solution they mention here (if it were even workable) has problems, just because I spend a few minutes reading something doesn't mean it's high quality. Equally high quality content need not necessarily take a long time to consume.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
> just because I spend a few minutes reading something doesn't mean it's high quality Precisely. Attraction to spectacle results in not only clicks on that "Outrageous Statement X", but also so one can firmly applaud/smugly disdain it. And I'm not just pretending its only other people who do this; I'm not proud but I've fallen into that hole myself.

JimmyM 11y ago

Other articles trending on The Daily Beast: > "The Alabama Granny Murder-For-Hire Plot" > "Attack Of The Kate Upton Clones" > "The Internet Is Just Broken" ...oh wait, that last one... It's not an issue with the internet, Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster style intriguing/bizarre stories have always been popular. Hyperbole brings people in, and it's not just about clicks – people will read stupid stories in The Sun or The Mirror depending on their political leanings, and feel entertained. Because they're fun, silly stories. I'd hate to write one myself but that's a personality trait I have, and not necessarily a positive one. Also: > Advertisers have wised up a little bit. There are now party tricks like branded content—wherein advertisers pay for stories that are sort of about their product, but are also about, say, travel or sports—and advertisers sometimes take into account unique visitors within specific demographics, based on age, race, and location. > Tony Haile, the CEO of Chartbeat—the kings of metrics on the Web—tried to warn us about this last year. I'm inclined to think this is a Daily Beast writer and Chartbeat being a bit cheeky! Hiding in plain sight. Not that I would begrudge them at all. It was a fun read. Although I disagree with the central premise behind writing it, most of the actual ideas seemed fine. Time on site is hardly a new concept though, and engagement in general has been somewhere on the priority list for (for example) Google for quite a while now.

im3w1l 11y ago

There is a (probably not entirely legal) consumer solution: http://unvis.it http://unvis.it "What the tool does is to try to capture the content of an article or blog post without passing on your visit as a pageview. Effectively this means that you're not paying with your attention, so you can read and share the idiocy that it contains."

romseb 11y ago
Isn't this just pushing the problem away from us? The problem being: Why do I still click on an article even if I know it will not be worth my time, attention and energy in any way. "Effectively this means that you're not paying with your attention". I don't see how this is true. The owner of the website might just think I don't pay with my attention. But I did.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
> probably not entirely legal Everything can be made either legal or illegal.

mschuster91 11y ago

Other way to read the first part: no matter how ridiculous the point, chances are high that a huge number of people will read and believe it. Just look at Donald Trump.

luckycharms810 11y ago

Ironic that a story about clickbait is clickbait. As you get to the third or fourth paragraph it turns in to a plug for Chartbeat and simultaneously a hit piece for Vox.

nailer 11y ago
Vox don't need hit pieces, they do it themselves.

organsnyder 11y ago

This is hardly new. Slate's entire brand is built on these sort of contrarian, antagonistic viewpoints. A large portion of their content can simply be boiled down to "you're doing it wrong" or "something you like is terrible." They've followed this model for most of their 20-year existence. This goes back well before Slate, though: The term "yellow journalism" was coined in the late 1800's.

soylentcola 11y ago
And for a more modern take, just look at the magazines in the supermarket checkout line at any time in the past several decades. You've got the more "classic" tabloids with the equivalent of clickbait headlines about actors and entertainers. You've got the women's and men's mags telling you why you're not screwing enough or dressing/exercising/eating the right way. Then you have the more self-aware stuff like Weekly World News and The Enquirer with their UFOs and CIA abductions and Elvis sightings. I find these "clickbait" stories to be the natural evolution of the same type of sensationalism that's been used to sell papers and magazines or get you to stick around for the full story at 11.
xlm1717 11y ago
"Spooning is the worst." No, Slate, you are the worst.