> In fact, distribution is king That's like saying that sales volume is king. If you're pushing a huge amount of product relative to competitors, you're probab

> In fact, distribution is king That's like saying that sales volume is king. If you're pushing a huge amount of product relative to competitors, you're probably doing fairly well for yourself. It's a tautological assertion. Content is king. What you subjectively deride as "crap content", and is more commonly known as "clickbait", is actually fairly high quality content, when quality means "engineered for the maximum marketability towards the largest possible audience" rather than intellectual or insightful or inherently​ evident of intense, original journalistic effort. Remember that taste is highly subjective and it's quite possible for there to be a very large market with tastes you disagree with. The New York Times is successful because it employs some of the best editors in the business and unifies their curation behind the NYT brand. There is quite a large market that's willing to pay top dollar for the tastes of the NYT editors/curators. If anything, the NYT's continued success is proof that there is still a market for that kind of content. What Medium is really trying to do is to scale the NYT. Which is either a farce on its face, or going to be utterly fascinating.