3 ms·

Thanks for being the one person disagreeing so far that does so in a way that's actually engaging. I disagree that "show" being too broad is relevant. How spe

by cxr 3y ago

Thanks for being the one person disagreeing so far that does so in a way that's actually engaging. I disagree that "show" being too broad is relevant. How specific is "podcast" in the way that people are advocating for? It's so unspecific at this point that it doesn't mean anything. (It perhaps shouldn't even be called a "show", anyway. It's not a show. It's audio. If someone wanted to make that argument, I'd actually take their argument seriously.) (It can't mean the thing that many techies say podcasts are, i.e. that it has to be delivered over RSS, because podcasts predate the use of RSS for podcasts—so it would preclude all sorts of podcasts that e.g. wrapped up before RSS for podcasts became common or that just never decided to go the RSS route for whatever reason. It can't mean the thing that dictionary writers say it means because they all insist it has to involve the Internet. Both the Internet and RSS are good ideas for a podcast, but they're not strictly required.) I'm not under any particular pressure to come up with an alternative. I can say, "it's not a podcast" the same as I can say, "it's not a goose". Call it a "streaming audio show" for all I care. NB: this comment was written before the edit about Wikipedia and dictionaries, which I don't care to address here, but it's a paradoxical argument and a less serious one.

pcdoodle 3y ago
I agree with you 100%. Podcast is an XML feed period.
- cxr 3y ago
  You might think we agree, but we don't. See elsewhere. Neither "XML" (nor "RSS") belong in any definition of "podcast" (unless it's to say something like "[...] often delivered via RSS", but at that point you're not really talking about the defining characteristic of it if it's optional).
latexr 3y ago
> I disagree that "show" being too broad is relevant. I believe it’s relevant if you want to convince others of your point. I have the feeling people will generally prefer a more precise and clear term (even if it is slightly wrong in the grand scheme of objectivity) than an overly broad one. And if enough people use a “wrong” term for long enough, then it becomes correct by being added to the language (see “literally”). > I can say, "it's not a podcast" the same as I can say, "it's not a goose". Correct. But you also said (twice) “call it what it is”, so I think it was a reasonable expectation that you’d have an idea of what to call it. At the very least, by providing a fitting name you could get more people to agree to your point.
- cxr 3y ago
  > I believe it’s relevant if you want to convince others You didn't address my point. Anyone who believes being broad is a bad thing is making my own case for me, to me. You can either believe that it's okay for "podcast" to be a broad term, or you can believe that whether or not "show" is too broad is irrelevant. You can't have both. > But you also said (twice) “call it what it is” That was an error in editing. I said it's fine to call it streaming. And which is something that people already say, except people refuse to label themselves that way when trying to present themselves as being serious, because "podcast" has cachet and "stream" invites people to laugh at you and say "OK, zoomer". All podcasters are streamers. Not all streams are podcasts. Spotify's, for example, are not.

by cxr 3y ago

pcdoodle 3y ago

I agree with you 100%. Podcast is an XML feed period.

cxr 3y ago
You might think we agree, but we don't. See elsewhere. Neither "XML" (nor "RSS") belong in any definition of "podcast" (unless it's to say something like "[...] often delivered via RSS", but at that point you're not really talking about the defining characteristic of it if it's optional).

latexr 3y ago

> I disagree that "show" being too broad is relevant. I believe it’s relevant if you want to convince others of your point. I have the feeling people will generally prefer a more precise and clear term (even if it is slightly wrong in the grand scheme of objectivity) than an overly broad one. And if enough people use a “wrong” term for long enough, then it becomes correct by being added to the language (see “literally”). > I can say, "it's not a podcast" the same as I can say, "it's not a goose". Correct. But you also said (twice) “call it what it is”, so I think it was a reasonable expectation that you’d have an idea of what to call it. At the very least, by providing a fitting name you could get more people to agree to your point.

cxr 3y ago
> I believe it’s relevant if you want to convince others You didn't address my point. Anyone who believes being broad is a bad thing is making my own case for me, to me. You can either believe that it's okay for "podcast" to be a broad term, or you can believe that whether or not "show" is too broad is irrelevant. You can't have both. > But you also said (twice) “call it what it is” That was an error in editing. I said it's fine to call it streaming. And which is something that people already say, except people refuse to label themselves that way when trying to present themselves as being serious, because "podcast" has cachet and "stream" invites people to laugh at you and say "OK, zoomer". All podcasters are streamers. Not all streams are podcasts. Spotify's, for example, are not.