4 ms·

I wonder, where does this assertion come from, that "readers crave brainjunk at the expense of all other quality content"? The surrounding sentences suggest tha

I wonder, where does this assertion come from, that "readers crave brainjunk at the expense of all other quality content"? The surrounding sentences suggest that the author genuinely believes that demand came (and comes) first, and "media companies have been more than happy to oblige". I posit that this is a load of crock. Free "junky" content is popular simply because it's free and plentiful, and has a vastly, unquantifiably lower barrier to entry than paid content -- and not because it's dopamine-releasing junk. It's popular because it's accessible, requires little cognitive load to evaluate ahead of time, and its momentary consumption is noncommittal. If article mills stopped producing throwaway clickbait to fill an Outbrain footer, the corresponding "demand" would plummet. But this content keeps being produced, because business models on the web suck, so every publisher feels they have to put some eggs into advertising. Because reader attention has an upper bound, one publisher's gain is quite often another's loss, and this directly translates into advertising revenue. Given the low appetite for the masses to pay, Apple, Google, Facebook, Medium, and incumbent news publications have all tried to solve this problem in ways that further integrate advertising, analytics, and personalized suggestions, and these efforts continue to face challenges due to the misalignment of incentives.

hathawsh 9y ago
YouTube Red is a nice exception. For $10 per month, I get no ads, and some portion of my fee goes to the creators of the videos I watch. I've already taken the time to subscribe to certain creators, so now my YouTube feed is high quality with little noise. If Google revealed exactly how much of my subscription is going to creators, I think it would be easier to convince more people to sign up. I'd like to see other services try a similar model.
- stryk 9y ago
  A lot, most even, of the channels I subscribe to do not even care about YouTube monetization any more. They get most of their operating revenue from outside sources like Patreon, merchandise sales, affiliate linking to e-commerce sites, etc. The general consenus seems to be, in a nutshell: It's just not worth it -- YouTube/Google's algorithmic approach to monetization and what is and what's not "advertiser friendly" (whatever the hell that means, I don't think Google themselves know at this point) is an absolute schooolbus fire. Also how they handle "strikes" is a hot, hot mess. Google can pull the rug out from under you overnight on a whim for quite literally no good reason and there's nothing you can do about it because there's no one to call, e-mail, or talk to unless you're one of the big channels that have millions and millions of subscribers. I get that the scale of YouTube is far too big to do it by human hands & eyes, but the approach they're taking currently is flat out failing.
  - GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
    >The general consenus seems to be, in a nutshell: It's just not worth it It probably isn't for the creators I follow, and I try to put a few bucks of coffee money into patreon like collections for them. The value for youtube red is in time saved and advertisement avoided for the user. Then again never being interrupted by advertisements I don't go looking for is a personal eccentricity so it's a time money trade-off. How many minutes of video commercials avoided a month is worth $10?
ggg9990 9y ago
The Gutenberg Project had free e-books decades ago, but people did not and do not devour Beowulf the same way they do an Instagram feed, even though Beowulf is even easier and cheaper to access.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Great point. And another example: I would much rather mindlessly browse Reddit or HN on the toilet or in between tasks at work, than to commit my attention to a classic like Beowulf at those times.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Most people couldn’t even read Beowulf if you gave it to them. Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten, mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold, fen ond fæsten; fifelcynnes eard wonsæli wer weardode hwile, siþðan him scyppend forscrifen hæfde in Caines cynne. Many people struggle to read their own language sadly, or comprehend stories with any amount of depth. Old English is probably asking too much of them. I’m not convinced that this is new though, we’re just far more connected to the LCD than ever before. Edit: Translation of excerpt: Grendel this monster grim was called, march-riever mighty, in moorland living, in fen and fastness; fief of the giants the hapless wight a while had kept since the Creator his exile doomed. On kin of Cain was the killing avenged...
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    There are translations also on The Gutenberg Project.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      Yes, I remembered that and included the translation, but I’d say that my overall point stands. How many people would find the translation overly accessible unless they were already of a literary bent, or just well educated?
      - 9y ago
j-c-hewitt 9y ago
Is junky free content really more popular in the grand scheme of things or just the most popular content on the web? The only thing that creeps up on TV consumption in the US is social media use. Billions of books containing hundreds of pages each are sold in the US each year and presumably some large fraction of those are read. Hundreds of millions of magazine subscriptions are sold in the US, mostly of monthlies. The metrics used to measure online success are just sort of muddled. Imagine if we evaluated magazines by how many pages were turned. You would get some very silly magazines very quickly. Instead magazines are evaluated by the demographics of their subscribers, prestige as judged by things like prizes, and the scale of the subscriber base. Unlike websites which just model demographics and are usually not audited, magazines can have their subscriber lists audited and are mostly not modeled. Same thing with cable TV/Netflix/other paid services. The demographics don't really have to be modeled because you have every person's name and address. Each individual or household has to pay so you know they're individuals that exist and not bots. I think one issue with the way media companies have evaluated 'social media' is that they considered it to be another form of professional media. Really what it replaces are phone calls, mail, and in-person chatter or photo album sharing. It does not and has not really replaced traditional media consumption.

hathawsh 9y ago

YouTube Red is a nice exception. For $10 per month, I get no ads, and some portion of my fee goes to the creators of the videos I watch. I've already taken the time to subscribe to certain creators, so now my YouTube feed is high quality with little noise. If Google revealed exactly how much of my subscription is going to creators, I think it would be easier to convince more people to sign up. I'd like to see other services try a similar model.

stryk 9y ago
A lot, most even, of the channels I subscribe to do not even care about YouTube monetization any more. They get most of their operating revenue from outside sources like Patreon, merchandise sales, affiliate linking to e-commerce sites, etc. The general consenus seems to be, in a nutshell: It's just not worth it -- YouTube/Google's algorithmic approach to monetization and what is and what's not "advertiser friendly" (whatever the hell that means, I don't think Google themselves know at this point) is an absolute schooolbus fire. Also how they handle "strikes" is a hot, hot mess. Google can pull the rug out from under you overnight on a whim for quite literally no good reason and there's nothing you can do about it because there's no one to call, e-mail, or talk to unless you're one of the big channels that have millions and millions of subscribers. I get that the scale of YouTube is far too big to do it by human hands & eyes, but the approach they're taking currently is flat out failing.
- GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
  >The general consenus seems to be, in a nutshell: It's just not worth it It probably isn't for the creators I follow, and I try to put a few bucks of coffee money into patreon like collections for them. The value for youtube red is in time saved and advertisement avoided for the user. Then again never being interrupted by advertisements I don't go looking for is a personal eccentricity so it's a time money trade-off. How many minutes of video commercials avoided a month is worth $10?

ggg9990 9y ago

The Gutenberg Project had free e-books decades ago, but people did not and do not devour Beowulf the same way they do an Instagram feed, even though Beowulf is even easier and cheaper to access.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Great point. And another example: I would much rather mindlessly browse Reddit or HN on the toilet or in between tasks at work, than to commit my attention to a classic like Beowulf at those times.
IntronExon 9y ago
Most people couldn’t even read Beowulf if you gave it to them. Wæs se grimma gæst Grendel haten, mære mearcstapa, se þe moras heold, fen ond fæsten; fifelcynnes eard wonsæli wer weardode hwile, siþðan him scyppend forscrifen hæfde in Caines cynne. Many people struggle to read their own language sadly, or comprehend stories with any amount of depth. Old English is probably asking too much of them. I’m not convinced that this is new though, we’re just far more connected to the LCD than ever before. Edit: Translation of excerpt: Grendel this monster grim was called, march-riever mighty, in moorland living, in fen and fastness; fief of the giants the hapless wight a while had kept since the Creator his exile doomed. On kin of Cain was the killing avenged...
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  There are translations also on The Gutenberg Project.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    Yes, I remembered that and included the translation, but I’d say that my overall point stands. How many people would find the translation overly accessible unless they were already of a literary bent, or just well educated?
    - 9y ago

j-c-hewitt 9y ago

Is junky free content really more popular in the grand scheme of things or just the most popular content on the web? The only thing that creeps up on TV consumption in the US is social media use. Billions of books containing hundreds of pages each are sold in the US each year and presumably some large fraction of those are read. Hundreds of millions of magazine subscriptions are sold in the US, mostly of monthlies. The metrics used to measure online success are just sort of muddled. Imagine if we evaluated magazines by how many pages were turned. You would get some very silly magazines very quickly. Instead magazines are evaluated by the demographics of their subscribers, prestige as judged by things like prizes, and the scale of the subscriber base. Unlike websites which just model demographics and are usually not audited, magazines can have their subscriber lists audited and are mostly not modeled. Same thing with cable TV/Netflix/other paid services. The demographics don't really have to be modeled because you have every person's name and address. Each individual or household has to pay so you know they're individuals that exist and not bots. I think one issue with the way media companies have evaluated 'social media' is that they considered it to be another form of professional media. Really what it replaces are phone calls, mail, and in-person chatter or photo album sharing. It does not and has not really replaced traditional media consumption.