3 ms·
I think stating the article is unoriginal is a valid critique. The article is saying digital distraction is affecting society. We know that. Telling people they
by vernvandamn 7y ago
I think stating the article is unoriginal is a valid critique. The article is saying digital distraction is affecting society. We know that. Telling people they shouldn't be so distracted isn't a original thought and therefore reading the article is a waste of time. Despite the authenticity of a publication I wouldn't want to read 10 articles saying the same thing. There is some expectation of originality. Right?
- wool_gather 7y agoAgree, although [there's no telling what's new to someone else][0], so if a message is important enough there can be value in its being repeated in different times and places. Just because I've read a hundred and one articles about e.g., strong passwords, doesn't mean my friends have the first clue. [0]:https://www.xkcd.com/1053/ https://www.xkcd.com/1053/
- marmaduke 7y ago> Despite the authenticity of a publication I wouldn't want to read 10 articles saying the same thing I agree in a mundane sense, repetition is not exciting, but the sorts of large scale messages such as this one, need to be repeated across many sources of information (has Sci Am ever run an article in this before? Not the same as if Huff Post does) before it's taken seriously enough, by enough people, for something to change.