3 ms·
"There's just obscenely more high quality new-to-you content" Are you sure about this? How are you measuring quality? For me, if something resembles advertisi
by cess11 2y ago
"There's just obscenely more high quality new-to-you content"
Are you sure about this? How are you measuring quality?
For me, if something resembles advertising I consider it to be of very low quality. There are some exceptions, for example some of the movie work by Roy Andersson, but they are very few.
As far as I can tell, ad-discourse and ad-style permeates pretty much everything in contemporary "content". Every time I go to my library and open something older than me the language is like a fresh air, it's clear that someone put some intellectual work into it and there is a distinct character to the text, personality imbued by the typographers, authors and editors. This is very rare on the Internet, and whenever I come across it the typography is usually ad-adjacent anyway.
- jl6 2y agoEven if a super-Sturgeon's-Law holds at a 10000:1 crap:quality ratio, there's still overwhelmingly so much stuff out there, produced over so many generations of talented writers, artists, musicians and directors, that you'd have to be unreasonably picky not to be able to fill a whole lifetime of consumption with enjoyable content. It's only our predilection for novelty that keeps the content mills going, and I wonder how long that can last against the ever-growing accumulation of culture.
- cess11 2y agoSeems to me you're conflating the excretions of the entertainment industry with culture.