4 ms·

Nostalgia is one thing, but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) You can't just write it off every time when someone notices the

by romaniv 11y ago

Nostalgia is one thing, but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) You can't just write it off every time when someone notices the decline. Also, centralization is objectively there. Google, Twitter, Facebook. It was obvious where this was going years ago, but instead of warning us, technologist sung odes to Web 2.0. Great. Now, Web 3.0 is shitty phone apps. it also smacks of elitism when you complain endlessly about what the masses want When you don't complain about things simply because masses want them it's groupthink.

benihana 11y ago
>but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) You can't just write it off every time when someone notices the decline. What decline are you talking about? You don't mention anything specific - just saying "look at television" isn't very convincing. There is fantastic content available on television - something for everyone. But it's hard to make a point when you don't provide any examples of the decline.
- romaniv 11y ago
  I haven't watched TV in more than a decade. Nobody I know watches it. It had been almost entirely superseded by cable channels, which are being superseded by streaming now. I though this is self-evident and does not require an elaborate explanation. What does require some explanation in the order of events. At some point television had decent TV programs. People still stream and torrent them. They are classics. Than the overall quality declined. Only then cable sort of "stepped in", became more prominent and got good content. (In the process, however, news programs became what they are right now.) Interestingly, the shift to streaming is quite different.
  - jonathansizz 11y ago
    You have failed to demonstrate that the quality of television shows has declined over time. There are many excellent current television shows, along with lots of bad shows. But this has always been the case. The difference is that the only old shows that people remember are the good ones; all the old dross is forgotten, whereas with current TV it's there for all to see.
    - raarts 11y ago
      He never complained about the quality of television shows, just about television. And I concur. The quality of television has gone down a lot. Too many ads, too many channels filled with rubbish. I stopped watching too, and turned to Netflix instead.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        Yes he did. "At one point TV had decent programs." As far as too many channels, it's not like you have to constantly look at those channels.
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        This seems like an argument that's easily quantifiable. When was television still good? How much quality programming was available to watch then vs now? How much advertising did one sit through to watch ye olde quality shows of yore?
      - Retra 11y ago
        Personally, I wouldn't say television has declined. I'd say my tolerance for crap has.
    - romaniv 11y ago
      I never intended to "demonstrate" what you're demanding. http://www.nbc.com/schedule http://www.nbc.com/schedule This is what over-the-air TV program looks like these days. What percentage of its broadcast time consists of quality TV shows? (Don't forget to factor in all the ads.) How much of it would you watch, honestly?
      - steve-howard 11y ago
        If you watch broadcast TV on a regular basis, you get to know the times when it's going to be decent and the times when you might find nothing remotely interesting. It's all on a schedule, and that schedule puts better and more expensive entertainment at a time when more people will be watching. I would say your complaint about quality shows as a percentage of broadcast time is a valid argument for moving TV to more on-demand media (watching a show on Netflix or Hulu vs being on the couch at 9PM on a Thursday). There's still some decent stuff out there. The only thing this doesn't solve is sports programming, which is practically worthless if it's not live and from which NBC makes a fortune as a "premium" football channel.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "I haven't watched TV in more than a decade." So it seems like you would be the worst possible person to ask if TV has objectively gotten "worse".
coldtea 11y ago
>Nostalgia is one thing, but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) You can't just write it off every time when someone notices the decline. People point to old time complaints about decline as if they prove that decline was never real ("People also complained about the advent of books or the radio, so surely anyone complaining today is wrong"). The forget that there are other, also logically consistent, explanations: 1) Decline is a constant: e.g. people who complained about the radio bring some kind of decline were as correct as people complaining about Twitter now. 2) Decline is always present but not absolute: there's always something missed in sophistication, freedom, etc from previous technologies (e.g. the use of the imagination in radio-theatricals as opposed to being fed images in TV, or the freedom to be the fuck alone for a while as opposed to constantly obligated to be available with mobile phones), but there is also positive change, and what's the total balance depends on what you value. 3) Decline is sometimes true (a thing is totally worse than another it replaces), and othertimes not, and some people in the past were right about claiming decline in some transition, where others were wrong.
- romaniv 11y ago
  All of what you wrote is true. Sometimes decline in mass media is relative. We loose some radio to get some TV. But I think it is sometimes fair to say that we trade something of value for something superficial. Right now, we have unparalleled levels of global surveillance and media centralization plays a key role in it. In the past TV channels and publishers competed with one another. Right now every large website is an unchallenged emperor of its niche. The emperor dies and we get a new one, but it's hardly a free market system. Finally, there are phenomena like Twitter/Reddit hate mobs. The principle is not entirely new, but the scale, pettiness and randomness are unparalleled.
ForHackernews 11y ago
> Nostalgia is one thing, but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) What do you mean? By most accounts, we're living in a golden age of extremely high-quality television programming.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Nostalgia is one thing, but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) You can't just write it off every time when someone notices the decline. "Get worse", especially with entertainment media, is pretty much the definition of subjective. So, yeah, if someone whines that an entertainment media has gotten worse, it generally means nothing but that it fits their taste less. Unless you happen to share their taste, you can easily write it off.
prawn 11y ago
"Web 3.0 is shitty phone apps" I think this is unfair when we're comparing usually-premium, centralised apps with the advertising cruft of major publishing sites. What is central to the concern in this transition isn't so much the quality of the apps but the (important) fringe content that will be frozen out. If anything, the cost of developing a good app to retain control of your publishing/revenue will be the limiting factor.

by romaniv 11y ago

benihana 11y ago

>but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) You can't just write it off every time when someone notices the decline. What decline are you talking about? You don't mention anything specific - just saying "look at television" isn't very convincing. There is fantastic content available on television - something for everyone. But it's hard to make a point when you don't provide any examples of the decline.

romaniv 11y ago
I haven't watched TV in more than a decade. Nobody I know watches it. It had been almost entirely superseded by cable channels, which are being superseded by streaming now. I though this is self-evident and does not require an elaborate explanation. What does require some explanation in the order of events. At some point television had decent TV programs. People still stream and torrent them. They are classics. Than the overall quality declined. Only then cable sort of "stepped in", became more prominent and got good content. (In the process, however, news programs became what they are right now.) Interestingly, the shift to streaming is quite different.
- jonathansizz 11y ago
  You have failed to demonstrate that the quality of television shows has declined over time. There are many excellent current television shows, along with lots of bad shows. But this has always been the case. The difference is that the only old shows that people remember are the good ones; all the old dross is forgotten, whereas with current TV it's there for all to see.
  - raarts 11y ago
    He never complained about the quality of television shows, just about television. And I concur. The quality of television has gone down a lot. Too many ads, too many channels filled with rubbish. I stopped watching too, and turned to Netflix instead.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Yes he did. "At one point TV had decent programs." As far as too many channels, it's not like you have to constantly look at those channels.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      This seems like an argument that's easily quantifiable. When was television still good? How much quality programming was available to watch then vs now? How much advertising did one sit through to watch ye olde quality shows of yore?
    - Retra 11y ago
      Personally, I wouldn't say television has declined. I'd say my tolerance for crap has.
  - romaniv 11y ago
    I never intended to "demonstrate" what you're demanding. http://www.nbc.com/schedule http://www.nbc.com/schedule This is what over-the-air TV program looks like these days. What percentage of its broadcast time consists of quality TV shows? (Don't forget to factor in all the ads.) How much of it would you watch, honestly?
    - steve-howard 11y ago
      If you watch broadcast TV on a regular basis, you get to know the times when it's going to be decent and the times when you might find nothing remotely interesting. It's all on a schedule, and that schedule puts better and more expensive entertainment at a time when more people will be watching. I would say your complaint about quality shows as a percentage of broadcast time is a valid argument for moving TV to more on-demand media (watching a show on Netflix or Hulu vs being on the couch at 9PM on a Thursday). There's still some decent stuff out there. The only thing this doesn't solve is sports programming, which is practically worthless if it's not live and from which NBC makes a fortune as a "premium" football channel.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "I haven't watched TV in more than a decade." So it seems like you would be the worst possible person to ask if TV has objectively gotten "worse".

coldtea 11y ago

>Nostalgia is one thing, but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) You can't just write it off every time when someone notices the decline. People point to old time complaints about decline as if they prove that decline was never real ("People also complained about the advent of books or the radio, so surely anyone complaining today is wrong"). The forget that there are other, also logically consistent, explanations: 1) Decline is a constant: e.g. people who complained about the radio bring some kind of decline were as correct as people complaining about Twitter now. 2) Decline is always present but not absolute: there's always something missed in sophistication, freedom, etc from previous technologies (e.g. the use of the imagination in radio-theatricals as opposed to being fed images in TV, or the freedom to be the fuck alone for a while as opposed to constantly obligated to be available with mobile phones), but there is also positive change, and what's the total balance depends on what you value. 3) Decline is sometimes true (a thing is totally worse than another it replaces), and othertimes not, and some people in the past were right about claiming decline in some transition, where others were wrong.

romaniv 11y ago
All of what you wrote is true. Sometimes decline in mass media is relative. We loose some radio to get some TV. But I think it is sometimes fair to say that we trade something of value for something superficial. Right now, we have unparalleled levels of global surveillance and media centralization plays a key role in it. In the past TV channels and publishers competed with one another. Right now every large website is an unchallenged emperor of its niche. The emperor dies and we get a new one, but it's hardly a free market system. Finally, there are phenomena like Twitter/Reddit hate mobs. The principle is not entirely new, but the scale, pettiness and randomness are unparalleled.

ForHackernews 11y ago

> Nostalgia is one thing, but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) What do you mean? By most accounts, we're living in a golden age of extremely high-quality television programming.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Nostalgia is one thing, but sometimes things just get worse. (Look at television as an example.) You can't just write it off every time when someone notices the decline. "Get worse", especially with entertainment media, is pretty much the definition of subjective. So, yeah, if someone whines that an entertainment media has gotten worse, it generally means nothing but that it fits their taste less. Unless you happen to share their taste, you can easily write it off.

prawn 11y ago

"Web 3.0 is shitty phone apps" I think this is unfair when we're comparing usually-premium, centralised apps with the advertising cruft of major publishing sites. What is central to the concern in this transition isn't so much the quality of the apps but the (important) fringe content that will be frozen out. If anything, the cost of developing a good app to retain control of your publishing/revenue will be the limiting factor.