4 ms·

> The industry does not want you [...] creating Twitter, Instagram and TikTok would like to differ. User created content is still a major thing, even if we sto

> The industry does not want you [...] creating Twitter, Instagram and TikTok would like to differ. User created content is still a major thing, even if we stopped calling it web 2.0. Most of that just happens in other domains than programming (though Roblox exists, so programming does happen too).

arrosenberg 4y ago
Not sure that's true considering all 3 of those platforms make their money through advertising. Like, yeah users are making content, but that's hardly the point.
- hikawaii 4y ago
  They make their money selling ads against product that they are incapable of creating, because aren't CallMeKhris or Linus or whoever.
pdntspa 4y ago
Only because they get to monetize the consumption of your content. In fact it is you who is building their product for them. Way cheaper than hiring writers or a video production team!
hammyhavoc 4y ago
There's a world of difference in the creativity that goes into a photo of lunch or a selfie versus producing something of substance.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
Poor, sweet summer child. Their exploitation of your effort isn't creative freedom. For a poignant dramatization see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits and then when you feel like reading a lot of sad history just start reading books and articles about the recording industry.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Oh, they are absolutely exploitative. But promoting creation and creativity can be done out of exploitative motives. I am sure music execs loved it when everyone started their own band and tried to become a pop star. A large influx of new talent kept the actual pop stars replaceable. Doing what GP suggested, keeping people dumb and keeping them from creating, would have lead to musicians being a much rarer breed and thus in a much more powerful negotiation position. Similarly, Youtube or TikTok wants you to create the most funny, informative and creative videos possible. Not because they love creativity, but because it serves their interest.
rhaway84773 4y ago
I know the term creator has its genesis from the word create. But no, most creators are not doing anything creative. One way to see this is to notice there are movies made a 100 years ago that people will still watch today. There are books written half a millennium ago people read today. There are pieces of music written 100s of years ago people listen to today. There’s almost nothing created on Instagram or TikTok that people will want to watch even a few days after it is created. To be fair Twitter might have some posts of value but that’s because of the idea that almost certainly came independently of Twitter. Twitter is just the avenue by which it’s spread. I think YouTube still does encourage the generation of quality new content to some extent that people may want to watch years and maybe even decades down the line. But that’s pretty much the only “creator” app that does that. And that’s probably a result of the fact that YT was created well before social media and mobile phones came around, so the content standard set on YouTube was fairly high quality. Newer “creator” apps encourage short throwaway content that can go viral. Not quality, creative content that can stand the rest of time.
- MandieD 4y ago
  To be fair, there is quite a bit of survivorship bias at work - how many stories, poems and plays have been written over the past 500 years that never made it into print and disappeared forever within a few years of being written? Until the 19th century, putting things into print was very labor-intensive (and was still quite labor-intensive until the late 19th), so anything that has survived was compelling to at least the person who paid to have it printed. Now that putting creative works out into the world is cheap and easy, yes, the vast majority of the dross will be forgotten almost immediately after it’s uploaded, but a few gems will remain the be passed around for decades or longer.
- melagonster 4y ago
  yes, but we can found people still know what is they want. they just so fast. there are some old song published to tiktok and became popular in one week. p.s. even more than 200 years old: https://youtu.be/qP-7GNoDJ5c https://youtu.be/qP-7GNoDJ5c
bbwbsb 4y ago
These platforms do not want creators qua creators, they want creators as unpaid content producers, dependent on them to such a degree they cannot function as a creator otherwise, so that they may exploit the traditionally sacred relationship between audience and artist in perpetuity. These creators are only as such in the most degenerate sense, as the form, venue, and limits of their art are wrested from them by network effects. Recall that 'the medium is the message'. Smartphones don't encourage programming because programming is power, in so far as it facilitates the ability of the individual to bring about actions manifesting their plans and desires. Apple, Google, et al. want obedient, docile serfs who pay tribute unto Caesar, tempt more serfs into their domain, and maintain their aesthetic preferences and dominion. The productive question is: What can be done about it? How can the user be liberated from subservience and helplessness, which they are taught to desire with such fervor by well-funded and highly sophisticated propaganda/PR machines?
antifa 4y ago
Those platforms are dominated by cookie cutter content.

arrosenberg 4y ago

Not sure that's true considering all 3 of those platforms make their money through advertising. Like, yeah users are making content, but that's hardly the point.

hikawaii 4y ago
They make their money selling ads against product that they are incapable of creating, because aren't CallMeKhris or Linus or whoever.

pdntspa 4y ago

Only because they get to monetize the consumption of your content. In fact it is you who is building their product for them. Way cheaper than hiring writers or a video production team!

hammyhavoc 4y ago

There's a world of difference in the creativity that goes into a photo of lunch or a selfie versus producing something of substance.

throwaway4aday 4y ago

Poor, sweet summer child. Their exploitation of your effort isn't creative freedom. For a poignant dramatization see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits and then when you feel like reading a lot of sad history just start reading books and articles about the recording industry.

wongarsu 4y ago
Oh, they are absolutely exploitative. But promoting creation and creativity can be done out of exploitative motives. I am sure music execs loved it when everyone started their own band and tried to become a pop star. A large influx of new talent kept the actual pop stars replaceable. Doing what GP suggested, keeping people dumb and keeping them from creating, would have lead to musicians being a much rarer breed and thus in a much more powerful negotiation position. Similarly, Youtube or TikTok wants you to create the most funny, informative and creative videos possible. Not because they love creativity, but because it serves their interest.

rhaway84773 4y ago

I know the term creator has its genesis from the word create. But no, most creators are not doing anything creative. One way to see this is to notice there are movies made a 100 years ago that people will still watch today. There are books written half a millennium ago people read today. There are pieces of music written 100s of years ago people listen to today. There’s almost nothing created on Instagram or TikTok that people will want to watch even a few days after it is created. To be fair Twitter might have some posts of value but that’s because of the idea that almost certainly came independently of Twitter. Twitter is just the avenue by which it’s spread. I think YouTube still does encourage the generation of quality new content to some extent that people may want to watch years and maybe even decades down the line. But that’s pretty much the only “creator” app that does that. And that’s probably a result of the fact that YT was created well before social media and mobile phones came around, so the content standard set on YouTube was fairly high quality. Newer “creator” apps encourage short throwaway content that can go viral. Not quality, creative content that can stand the rest of time.

MandieD 4y ago
To be fair, there is quite a bit of survivorship bias at work - how many stories, poems and plays have been written over the past 500 years that never made it into print and disappeared forever within a few years of being written? Until the 19th century, putting things into print was very labor-intensive (and was still quite labor-intensive until the late 19th), so anything that has survived was compelling to at least the person who paid to have it printed. Now that putting creative works out into the world is cheap and easy, yes, the vast majority of the dross will be forgotten almost immediately after it’s uploaded, but a few gems will remain the be passed around for decades or longer.
melagonster 4y ago
yes, but we can found people still know what is they want. they just so fast. there are some old song published to tiktok and became popular in one week. p.s. even more than 200 years old: https://youtu.be/qP-7GNoDJ5c https://youtu.be/qP-7GNoDJ5c

bbwbsb 4y ago

These platforms do not want creators qua creators, they want creators as unpaid content producers, dependent on them to such a degree they cannot function as a creator otherwise, so that they may exploit the traditionally sacred relationship between audience and artist in perpetuity. These creators are only as such in the most degenerate sense, as the form, venue, and limits of their art are wrested from them by network effects. Recall that 'the medium is the message'. Smartphones don't encourage programming because programming is power, in so far as it facilitates the ability of the individual to bring about actions manifesting their plans and desires. Apple, Google, et al. want obedient, docile serfs who pay tribute unto Caesar, tempt more serfs into their domain, and maintain their aesthetic preferences and dominion. The productive question is: What can be done about it? How can the user be liberated from subservience and helplessness, which they are taught to desire with such fervor by well-funded and highly sophisticated propaganda/PR machines?

antifa 4y ago

Those platforms are dominated by cookie cutter content.