7 ms·
If video content would be so "hostile", it would have failed on its own already. People would flock to other places where they can read instead. I don't buy th
by DeusExMachina 9y ago
If video content would be so "hostile", it would have failed on its own already. People would flock to other places where they can read instead.
I don't buy this idea where everything is always imposed on us by evil corporations.
More and more websites using video to me seems more like a proof that people prefer videos over written content. That's why videos usually autoplay, also on YouTube and Facebook: if a person starts watching and listening, it's much more likely that they will stay instead of closing the page.
We have taught things to each other by talking for as long as hundreds of thousands of years, probably more. By contrast, reading has been common among a large percentage of the population only for a couple of centuries.
We evolved using verbal communication, not written one. Written form has, of course, its advantages, but it does not mean that it's the preferred medium for most people.
Videos and audio are also easier to watch/listen to while you are doing something else like cooking, gardening or commuting. There are a ton of contexts where you cant read, but you can at least listen.
That's why even books are converted into audio formats nowadays.
The fact that a small crowd on HN prefers reading is not the proof that video is "user-hostile". HN is rarely the reflection of the general public.
Although I keep reading a lot of online content or books, lately I have consumed a lot more valuable information in a podcast/video lecture format than in a written one.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- blunte 9y agoThe videos that I speak of are ones that have replaced basic informational articles -- information that might only take a few paragraphs to disseminate, and which allow the reader to quickly glean the content. When given as video, they impose a time and data penalty just for the viewer to either get the nugget of information or to realize there's nothing of value for them. +Edit autocorrect
- sergiosgc 9y ago> If video content would be so "hostile", it would have failed on its own already. People would flock to other places where they can read instead. Video ads pay a lot better than ordinary display ads. 15$ CPM vs 30¢ CPM on my media sites. It's not a 1-1 comparison on UX (you may lose half your reader base and still come out ahead).
- lotsofpulp 9y agoIt's easier to make money from videos than from text, and that's why websites would prefer that. There's not much else to it.
- yellowapple 9y agoIt's also harder to block the ads if they're woven into the video itself (in the form of endorsements / product placement, or in the form of commercial breaks in traditional TV broadcasts). Same with audio. Text-based media can emulate that somewhat, but (IMO) with nowhere near the same effectiveness.
- DeusExMachina 9y agoMaybe it’s easier to make money from videos because they people actually like them?
- gowld 9y agoNo, the videos are distracting and seize the user's attention for ad delivery. Imagine that I followed you around all day bumping into you, waiting for you to drop some money and then walk away without noticing, so I could pick it up. That's annoying and hostile to you, but profitable to be with sufficient automation. That's the modern commercial web.
- Semaphor 9y agoWe need to discern between unrelated videos for an article or the content being in the video. Because I know that many, many people prefer content in video form (I absolutely hate it and only watch them as a last resort).
- s73ver_ 9y agosigh No, no it isn't. Not even close. The fact of the matter is, people want to be paid for the stuff they create. That's how they're enabled to create more of that stuff. We learned a long, long time ago that people didn't want to outright pay for things. That doesn't leave many options.
- edgarvaldes 9y agoIMHO how-to's of manual activities are better in video form. Other than that, text form is way better.
- walterstucco 9y agorecipes are absolutely a lot better in video to get an idea but when you have to actually cook something, having something in writing with some illustration is much easier you don't have to start/pause/skip/rewind the video with your greasy hands, you can just skim with your eyes that's why in a lot of cooking books from the past the recipes take one or at maximum two pages that can be read side by side
- pera 9y agoI do agree that not everything is imposed by evil corps, but hostile products don't necessarily fail by their own: cigarettes and junk foods are just one example of this. In general I'm not against video content in a web page, as it actually can be a good source of raw data that we can use to understand something in great details, but I would argue that in many cases video is objectively inferior to text: texts are much easier to parse (both for computers and humans) and also some irrelevant information included in the audiovisual format can reduce the entropy of a content (e.g. how a reporter looks like physically).
- DeusExMachina 9y agoCigarettes and junk food are not hostile in this context. We are talking about things that people don’t like but are forced to get anyway. Cigarettes and junk food are definitely unhealthy, but people love them. So much that it’s hard to take them away from them.
- walterstucco 9y ago> We are talking about things that people don’t like but are forced to get anyway. - Driving: a lot of people drive, very few of them like it or they would learn how to do it properly - Public transport: 99,99% of people using public transport hate it - Going to the dentist - eating vegetables - taking kids to the pool and so on… all of this things are incredibly annoying to many, yet they have not failed
- akoncius 9y agoso watching ads is a job?
- walterstucco 9y agoIn a way, it is. But I don't understand the connection. The core of the issue is the proverbial "worse is better" All the walled garden on the web are optimising one particular feature - engagement - leaving behind many others that are equally important if not more, like user's freedom or privacy. It's no wonder that investing so much money in getting users to subscribe and use the platform results in an increase of time spent by the users on the platform. It is orthogonal to the problem highlighted in the original post. The net effect is so strong that any other platform that tries to enter the market either has to waste a lot of money (if they have them) or use the same techniques that are already in place to sustain their businness The choice is on the users, but for the majority of them it's not worth it until it's too late.
- ryandrake 9y agoIs this the media consumption version of the efficient market hypothesis? The argument sounds like, "If Comcast was such a bad company it would have failed on its own already." Could there other forces at play that would explain how video as a format might succeeding despite not being preferred by users?
- x0x0 9y agoComcast has a monopoly, or, at worst, a duopoly in huge swaths of the country. How is anyone being forced to watch web videos online? There are dozens of alternate entertainment sources, and several high quality news sources that don't use much video.
- 1_2__4 9y ago> If video content would be so "hostile", it would have failed on its own already. People would flock to other places where they can read instead. That is not the slightest bit true and is in fact the entire basis for the conversation we’re having.
- Alex3917 9y ago> That is not the slightest bit true and is in fact the entire basis for the conversation we’re having. Is it? The original article is talking about web tracking, the entire point of which is to give you more of whatever you like. Facebook just gives you more of whatever you click on, so if you're disappointed with the stuff you get on Facebook then probably you're just in denial about your own tastes or identity.
- K0SM0S 9y agoAgreed. Anecdotal, but I recently managed to reorient my Facebook feed into a more "positive" light. - I systematically un-followed sources of "negative" content (e.g. stupid, demeaning, cynical, deceptive/disingenuous, etc.) One strike, max two. This included some friends (repeated offenders - lol). No engagement whatsoever with these posts (no 'angry'/'sad' reaction, no display of comments). - I liked/followed many "positive" pages/communities (notably authors, non-fiction books, self-help or growth-mindset). - I made a point to like/comment/share "positive" posts and comments (e.g. clever, beautiful, grateful, fair, virtuous, etc.) My main criteria was quality, above topic. E.g. bye-bye "petty" content even if it's "science" (which I like). I was quite selective, as it's easy to re-sub later. I stayed unusually long on the site over a few days, to extensively clean/curate my feed. Within a week, everything changed to suit my newfound tastes: basic feed is great, ads/sponsored content more relevant; it even seems there's been a positive shift in post sentiment selected from my contacts. My Facebook feed is actually somewhat pleasant now. It fits my mindset of choice (away from the overly critical/cynical/negative individual I used to be in previous years). All it took is a little self-discipline and some manual curating (I've always refrained from liking too many sources, so there wasn't much to deal with).
- bloaf 9y agoI think people don't want to admit that the reading experience on mobile is mediocre-at-best.
- hehheh 9y agoThere are a lot of folks here on HN and around the web that are upset at Google's AMP cache system, and somewhat rightly so. But at least it is an attempt to make mobile internet less hostile -- at least less in-your-face hostile.
- jakevn 9y agoIf that’s true, doesn’t that mean that dark patterns would not exist?