6 ms·

I share the author's feelings on the old web, but I think this misses a fundamental point about younger people: they don't really read as the default anymore, i

I share the author's feelings on the old web, but I think this misses a fundamental point about younger people: they don't really read as the default anymore, in the sense of reading longform blog posts/articles/newspapers. You could blame this on the impatience of youth, but I think it's actually more of a fundamental shift of media formats. Websites-as-default have gone away because browsing the web (i.e. reading stuff on websites) has largely gone away for most people. It's easy to forget that reading text is in no way "natural" to the human experience, it's just an old, reliable technology. Video, which functions as a proxy to in-person presence and speech, is dramatically more appealing to the average person than the abstract symbol system that is writing and reading. It would not surprise me at all if a century from now, video is the default format, with text-first things like transcripts redesigned to minimize the downsides of video and replicate the benefits of text.

pjc50 3y ago
I'm slightly alarmed by this, not just because of the decline of literacy and the slower speed of transmission, but the stronger charisma effects through voice seem to me to be a driver of problems. That seems to be why there are so many terrible influencer cult leaders.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Part of me has the same concerns, as I love books and think reading is critical. However, I also realize that reading and books are a technology that has developed through history, like anything else, and that a yet-unseen format of the future (that incorporates video, text, audio, etc.) may be more effective than reading. I don't actually think reading is a great way of communication, it's more just evolutionarily fit compared to speech.
  - mym1990 3y ago
    " I don't actually think reading is a great way of communication, it's more just evolutionarily fit compared to speech." This is a very baffling thing to say. Its like saying "I don't think fish gills are an effective form of breathing for fish, but it just happened to evolve like that." Reading and writing is an amazing way to communicate things that need to span time. Street signs, postcards, books, literally everything around you that is man made likely has some form of writing on it. Reading/writing obviously has limitations...like it is difficult to interpret tone in many of these HN comments...but that is hardly a nail in the coffin of the form of communication.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      My point is that the average person doesn’t actually like to read and would rather watch a video or listen to audio. The number of hours spent scrolling TikTok or YouTube absolutely dwarfs the number of hours people spend reading books for pleasure. This is…basic sociological knowledge about contemporary society and really not a controversial thing to say at all. People read much less today than they used to. Writing is more durable than it is desirable, and as its durability is matched by video and digital devices, I expect its presence to lessen.
      - mym1990 3y ago
        Why the strawman? Your claim of the average person not liking to read and what we are actually discussing of reading/writing being a good form of communication are two different things. Plenty of people like lots of bad things because we have monkey brains, stop thinking that just because a group likes something, it is good. I watch the behavior day in and day out...people watch HOURS of content per day, and at the end they have synthesized almost none of it. A majority of social video and audio is just a way for people to entertain themselves and a buffer against being alone with their thoughts. I wholeheartedly agree that audio and video can be great learning and communication tools. To say that is what is happening on a majority of social media is extremely misguided.
        keiferski 3y ago
        I am describing what I see as a societal shift and commenting on it. You are making this (and your other comment) into some moralistic activist argument, which is entirely missing the point and frankly just uninteresting. As I said, it’s not about what is better, it’s what ends up being used by people that drives culture. Adding to that: the critique of writing has a long history going back all the way to Plato. This is not a new topic.
        mym1990 3y ago
        What is uninteresting is your weak spine in succumbing to "societal inertia", without considering what is possibly good or bad, just what is. You clearly don't know what you're describing because you're just flip flopping between 2 things. Just read your comments back in a couple of hours and you'll understand. Like I actually can't understand how your argument is: "people are watching more videos, therefore reading is bad". Did you even think that through?
danielovichdk 3y ago
I don't know where you get that idea from. But humans has been reading for thousands of years. And on a cognitive level reading is superior to video or sound. Tons of evidence has been based on that premise. It has nothing to do with young people and a sudden change in human patience. If your young ones are impatient of they read something is disturbing them, but it's definitely not human evolution.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Reading as a mass culture phenomenon is absolutely not thousands of years old and mass literacy didn't exist in a lot of places a mere century or two ago. Even today, you'd be surprised at how most people have very basic literacy skills. And on a cognitive level reading is superior to video or sound. I'm pretty skeptical of that claim, but even if it's true, it doesn't really matter if reading is better than watching a video if people prefer to watch videos. I also specifically said it's not an issue of impatience, but rather a fundamental shifting of media formats.
  - mym1990 3y ago
    Why would it not matter? You think just because a mass group prefers one thing, it will have good outcomes? Will/are your kids glued to screens 24/7 because others prefer it? Seems like you may be a lost cause already. And maybe mass literacy hasn't been around for millenia, but written form of communication and story telling certainly has.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      It wouldn't matter because society is already orienting itself towards a screen-first world. Parents that force their kids to read books and not use screens are almost certainly a minority. Seems like you may be a lost cause already. Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm describing what I perceive to be a societal shift, not my personal thoughts on whether I think it's good or bad.
      - 3y ago
ImHereToVote 3y ago
Video? How quaint. Why not simply translate the latent representation of concepts.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I'm not really sure what you're trying to communicate here, but: the average person likes watching/listening to other people talk. Maybe the über cyborg AI gods of the future will communicate directly with mental models, but for everyone else, the only thing that is better than video is probably a hologram, which is basically the same thing taken to the next level.
  - ImHereToVote 3y ago
    Just commenting on your timelines. They are a bit on the short side considering the rapid pace of technology.
  - klibertp 3y ago
    As sad as it is, video is already a preferred and main content format for most people. It always was. The closer to reality, the more engaging [EDIT: and easier to digest] the content. We had some text renaissance due to technical limitations, but that's over already. Beginner programmers now routinely shun written content in favor of video - how contradictory is that? But that's how it is right now. Writing as a mode of communication requires effort on both the creator and consumer sides. That effort has many positive side effects, which is why some people still favor it [EDIT: and will favor it for a long time in the future, until something genuinely better shows up]. The problem is that, no matter what, effort is still effort, and people generally don't like to exhaust themselves. Gyms would be chock-full, and we'd have no obesity problem if it weren't so. Your "century from now" estimate is extremely optimistic, to the point of being completely divorced from reality. If I had to bet, I'd say we will lose most textual content from mainstream consumption in the next 5 to 10 years. My guess is that writing will become the equivalent of today's HTML and JavaScript: a source code to be interpreted by the machine to produce a visual representation that people will consume. It'll disappear into the background and will only be touched by professionals.
Ekaros 3y ago
I think it is not that people don't like reading. It is just that video content generate so much more monetization. At least compared to work done. Thus most relevant content is generated as video instead of text. And those generating text are struggling with revenue sources.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I think if you asked people under the age of thirty what they prefer, 90% are going to choose video over books.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Maybe not books. But let's ask would they prefer video to check ingredients in a recipe or a textual article? Or maybe video instead of wikipedia page to verify some facts... Similar things go to many things that would clearly be superior as text, but there simply isn't that much money in something user will quickly skim over. Instead of forced pre-roll adds and sponsorships.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      Definitely I think younger people prefer TikTok cooking videos to bloated recipe websites.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  If you're a new creator and don't have family with good media connections, then YouTube is pretty much the only way that you can actually get paid for what you make. Regardless of medium. Anybody tell me what are the other realistic options?
ben_w 3y ago
> they don't really read as the default anymore, in the sense of reading longform blog posts/articles/newspapers Did they ever? I grew up with newspapers, but adults back then were saying much the same then just with books as their example of "things kids don't read these days"[0], to the extent that my mum decided she ought to bribe me to read more[1]. But I also remember reading some claim that most people back then were reading just the headlines of newspapers, and if they were particularly engaged by that, perhaps the first/last paragraphs too. [0] right before Harry Potter came out. [1] I can't remember exactly how much any more, but I got at least a few week's worth of pocket money from the New Testament.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Yes, they did, even if they were reading pulp novels and not classic literature.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I am the "they" in the case of last generations' "kids these days". What "kids these days" do and don't do has always been a subject of parental concern, but the reality is that people aren't a homogenous group, and being an adult makes you more aware of people who grow up differently than you did. Just as my mum was concerned about my reading habits (she probably saw a headline about it), so too are you concerned about the current generation's. My generation was all over the place, and so is today's. The top readers of my generation read widely, most adults when I was a kid didn't read more than the headline; The top readers of the current generation read widely, most adults today don't read more than the headline… and even here, we get comments where people clearly comment without having read the link.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      There is pretty reliable data that says people read less today. It's not just the "parents complain about their kids" fallacy.
      - 3y ago

pjc50 3y ago

I'm slightly alarmed by this, not just because of the decline of literacy and the slower speed of transmission, but the stronger charisma effects through voice seem to me to be a driver of problems. That seems to be why there are so many terrible influencer cult leaders.

keiferski 3y ago
Part of me has the same concerns, as I love books and think reading is critical. However, I also realize that reading and books are a technology that has developed through history, like anything else, and that a yet-unseen format of the future (that incorporates video, text, audio, etc.) may be more effective than reading. I don't actually think reading is a great way of communication, it's more just evolutionarily fit compared to speech.
- mym1990 3y ago
  " I don't actually think reading is a great way of communication, it's more just evolutionarily fit compared to speech." This is a very baffling thing to say. Its like saying "I don't think fish gills are an effective form of breathing for fish, but it just happened to evolve like that." Reading and writing is an amazing way to communicate things that need to span time. Street signs, postcards, books, literally everything around you that is man made likely has some form of writing on it. Reading/writing obviously has limitations...like it is difficult to interpret tone in many of these HN comments...but that is hardly a nail in the coffin of the form of communication.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    My point is that the average person doesn’t actually like to read and would rather watch a video or listen to audio. The number of hours spent scrolling TikTok or YouTube absolutely dwarfs the number of hours people spend reading books for pleasure. This is…basic sociological knowledge about contemporary society and really not a controversial thing to say at all. People read much less today than they used to. Writing is more durable than it is desirable, and as its durability is matched by video and digital devices, I expect its presence to lessen.
    - mym1990 3y ago
      Why the strawman? Your claim of the average person not liking to read and what we are actually discussing of reading/writing being a good form of communication are two different things. Plenty of people like lots of bad things because we have monkey brains, stop thinking that just because a group likes something, it is good. I watch the behavior day in and day out...people watch HOURS of content per day, and at the end they have synthesized almost none of it. A majority of social video and audio is just a way for people to entertain themselves and a buffer against being alone with their thoughts. I wholeheartedly agree that audio and video can be great learning and communication tools. To say that is what is happening on a majority of social media is extremely misguided.
      - keiferski 3y ago
        I am describing what I see as a societal shift and commenting on it. You are making this (and your other comment) into some moralistic activist argument, which is entirely missing the point and frankly just uninteresting. As I said, it’s not about what is better, it’s what ends up being used by people that drives culture. Adding to that: the critique of writing has a long history going back all the way to Plato. This is not a new topic.
        mym1990 3y ago
        What is uninteresting is your weak spine in succumbing to "societal inertia", without considering what is possibly good or bad, just what is. You clearly don't know what you're describing because you're just flip flopping between 2 things. Just read your comments back in a couple of hours and you'll understand. Like I actually can't understand how your argument is: "people are watching more videos, therefore reading is bad". Did you even think that through?

danielovichdk 3y ago

I don't know where you get that idea from. But humans has been reading for thousands of years. And on a cognitive level reading is superior to video or sound. Tons of evidence has been based on that premise. It has nothing to do with young people and a sudden change in human patience. If your young ones are impatient of they read something is disturbing them, but it's definitely not human evolution.

keiferski 3y ago
Reading as a mass culture phenomenon is absolutely not thousands of years old and mass literacy didn't exist in a lot of places a mere century or two ago. Even today, you'd be surprised at how most people have very basic literacy skills. And on a cognitive level reading is superior to video or sound. I'm pretty skeptical of that claim, but even if it's true, it doesn't really matter if reading is better than watching a video if people prefer to watch videos. I also specifically said it's not an issue of impatience, but rather a fundamental shifting of media formats.
- mym1990 3y ago
  Why would it not matter? You think just because a mass group prefers one thing, it will have good outcomes? Will/are your kids glued to screens 24/7 because others prefer it? Seems like you may be a lost cause already. And maybe mass literacy hasn't been around for millenia, but written form of communication and story telling certainly has.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    It wouldn't matter because society is already orienting itself towards a screen-first world. Parents that force their kids to read books and not use screens are almost certainly a minority. Seems like you may be a lost cause already. Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm describing what I perceive to be a societal shift, not my personal thoughts on whether I think it's good or bad.
    - 3y ago

ImHereToVote 3y ago

Video? How quaint. Why not simply translate the latent representation of concepts.

keiferski 3y ago
I'm not really sure what you're trying to communicate here, but: the average person likes watching/listening to other people talk. Maybe the über cyborg AI gods of the future will communicate directly with mental models, but for everyone else, the only thing that is better than video is probably a hologram, which is basically the same thing taken to the next level.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  Just commenting on your timelines. They are a bit on the short side considering the rapid pace of technology.
- klibertp 3y ago
  As sad as it is, video is already a preferred and main content format for most people. It always was. The closer to reality, the more engaging [EDIT: and easier to digest] the content. We had some text renaissance due to technical limitations, but that's over already. Beginner programmers now routinely shun written content in favor of video - how contradictory is that? But that's how it is right now. Writing as a mode of communication requires effort on both the creator and consumer sides. That effort has many positive side effects, which is why some people still favor it [EDIT: and will favor it for a long time in the future, until something genuinely better shows up]. The problem is that, no matter what, effort is still effort, and people generally don't like to exhaust themselves. Gyms would be chock-full, and we'd have no obesity problem if it weren't so. Your "century from now" estimate is extremely optimistic, to the point of being completely divorced from reality. If I had to bet, I'd say we will lose most textual content from mainstream consumption in the next 5 to 10 years. My guess is that writing will become the equivalent of today's HTML and JavaScript: a source code to be interpreted by the machine to produce a visual representation that people will consume. It'll disappear into the background and will only be touched by professionals.

Ekaros 3y ago

I think it is not that people don't like reading. It is just that video content generate so much more monetization. At least compared to work done. Thus most relevant content is generated as video instead of text. And those generating text are struggling with revenue sources.

keiferski 3y ago
I think if you asked people under the age of thirty what they prefer, 90% are going to choose video over books.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Maybe not books. But let's ask would they prefer video to check ingredients in a recipe or a textual article? Or maybe video instead of wikipedia page to verify some facts... Similar things go to many things that would clearly be superior as text, but there simply isn't that much money in something user will quickly skim over. Instead of forced pre-roll adds and sponsorships.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Definitely I think younger people prefer TikTok cooking videos to bloated recipe websites.
carlosjobim 3y ago
If you're a new creator and don't have family with good media connections, then YouTube is pretty much the only way that you can actually get paid for what you make. Regardless of medium. Anybody tell me what are the other realistic options?

ben_w 3y ago

> they don't really read as the default anymore, in the sense of reading longform blog posts/articles/newspapers Did they ever? I grew up with newspapers, but adults back then were saying much the same then just with books as their example of "things kids don't read these days"[0], to the extent that my mum decided she ought to bribe me to read more[1]. But I also remember reading some claim that most people back then were reading just the headlines of newspapers, and if they were particularly engaged by that, perhaps the first/last paragraphs too. [0] right before Harry Potter came out. [1] I can't remember exactly how much any more, but I got at least a few week's worth of pocket money from the New Testament.

keiferski 3y ago
Yes, they did, even if they were reading pulp novels and not classic literature.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I am the "they" in the case of last generations' "kids these days". What "kids these days" do and don't do has always been a subject of parental concern, but the reality is that people aren't a homogenous group, and being an adult makes you more aware of people who grow up differently than you did. Just as my mum was concerned about my reading habits (she probably saw a headline about it), so too are you concerned about the current generation's. My generation was all over the place, and so is today's. The top readers of my generation read widely, most adults when I was a kid didn't read more than the headline; The top readers of the current generation read widely, most adults today don't read more than the headline… and even here, we get comments where people clearly comment without having read the link.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    There is pretty reliable data that says people read less today. It's not just the "parents complain about their kids" fallacy.
    - 3y ago