3 ms·
For people from generations preceding ubiquitous web access TV is the most common/only low effort & cost entertainment. If you counted stuff like browsing HN/R
by ido 7y ago
For people from generations preceding ubiquitous web access TV is the most common/only low effort & cost entertainment.
If you counted stuff like browsing HN/Reddit/social media in addition to TV/streaming I'm sure most everyone would average more than 4h daily (maybe more on weekends, less on week days).
- thundergolfer 7y agoI wouldn’t be surprised. I myself use HN a lot, daily. It’s all reading on HN though, not TV. By Neil Postman’s thesis in Amusing Ourselves To Death, audio-visual content consumption on social media is actually worse than TV. He would be aghast at say, TV being replaced by TikTok.
- bloak 7y agoThere's radio. Here in the UK, some older people have Radio 4 on all the time at home. It's solid talking, some spontaneous (experts discussing some topic, ...), some scripted (plays, documentaries, ...).
- bloak 7y agoWhy was this voted down? I'm fairly certain that radio is just as low-effort and low-cost as TV, and it's been around for longer. If you have poor eyesight, as a lot of old people do, radio could be a lot less effort than TV, particularly if you choose a station in which professional speakers speak standard English (you may also have poor hearing). I think a comparison with radio would be instructive.