I feel it's become increasingly easier to sort of passively consume the internet. Algorithms slowly bring everyone toward the same optima. I feel like these sort of posts(and the others it references) exist outside of that. And the more you are able to stumble upon, the better.
I agree about passive consumption— but I think what’s cool today is how setting up those individualized streams is so unique for each person. There are no so many different content creators and platforms that a person’s customize algorithmic-fed stream is going to be infinitely different from every other person’s.
So I think there is a reverse in the consensus toward an optima. 100 years ago, there were only a handful of important books and movies that everyone was talking about. For example, you could only see what was in theaters or what you really wanted to buy for home video. Now there are a million ways to entertain yourself.
I totally agree in the fact that there are a million more options to entertain yourself in today's world. But I fear in practice that people's behavior in practice is not much different.
Perhaps the distribution of curve has flattened out a bit, but my feeling is that there is still a large winner-take-all effect in terms of eyeballs. My thinking is that there is a sort of dynamic in which people are led to water, but human nature's desire for the path of least resistance makes them, still, widely unwilling to drink.
Now if even 5% more people go off the beaten path than would have 50 or 100 years ago, I think it would be fair to still call that a win, but I'm hesitant to say that a majority of people are charting their own path.
Perhaps people are less active and charting their own path, and letting the algorithms do it for them. Still, I would challenge you to name the top 10 sources that all the eyeballs are going to each medium, YouTube, Substack, Instagram, TikTok. I think you will find it is more like the top 10,000.
"But maybe longform plaintext is going the way of rock music. I think it’ll always be around, but I’m not sure it’ll ever be at the forefront of mainstream culture the way it once was. And maybe that’s fine, actually. Maybe we can work with that." I really felt that, physically. Hopeful nostalgia.
Yea I think there’s a mental reframe possible where we steer away from the widespread default assumption that larger audiences etc are always better, and rather we can seek to attain beautiful outcomes with what we do have
I think "it'll always be around" is a good way of putting it. I was very late to stuff like Scott Alexander, Ribbonfarm, The Last Psychiatrist, etc. I missed the "blogosphere". But eventually, I did find their writing, and it did influence the way I think a whole lot.
And I think that "longform plaintext" has staying power. Similar to books in that sense. There are some "classics" that are revered by almost everyone, but there are also niche staples, and there are some books that most people don't gaf about but that you find them and they hit the spot. But also, different in other ways.
I feel it's become increasingly easier to sort of passively consume the internet. Algorithms slowly bring everyone toward the same optima. I feel like these sort of posts(and the others it references) exist outside of that. And the more you are able to stumble upon, the better.
ha you just hit directly on what my next post is gonna be about
I agree about passive consumption— but I think what’s cool today is how setting up those individualized streams is so unique for each person. There are no so many different content creators and platforms that a person’s customize algorithmic-fed stream is going to be infinitely different from every other person’s.
So I think there is a reverse in the consensus toward an optima. 100 years ago, there were only a handful of important books and movies that everyone was talking about. For example, you could only see what was in theaters or what you really wanted to buy for home video. Now there are a million ways to entertain yourself.
I totally agree in the fact that there are a million more options to entertain yourself in today's world. But I fear in practice that people's behavior in practice is not much different.
Perhaps the distribution of curve has flattened out a bit, but my feeling is that there is still a large winner-take-all effect in terms of eyeballs. My thinking is that there is a sort of dynamic in which people are led to water, but human nature's desire for the path of least resistance makes them, still, widely unwilling to drink.
Now if even 5% more people go off the beaten path than would have 50 or 100 years ago, I think it would be fair to still call that a win, but I'm hesitant to say that a majority of people are charting their own path.
Perhaps people are less active and charting their own path, and letting the algorithms do it for them. Still, I would challenge you to name the top 10 sources that all the eyeballs are going to each medium, YouTube, Substack, Instagram, TikTok. I think you will find it is more like the top 10,000.
"But maybe longform plaintext is going the way of rock music. I think it’ll always be around, but I’m not sure it’ll ever be at the forefront of mainstream culture the way it once was. And maybe that’s fine, actually. Maybe we can work with that." I really felt that, physically. Hopeful nostalgia.
Yea I think there’s a mental reframe possible where we steer away from the widespread default assumption that larger audiences etc are always better, and rather we can seek to attain beautiful outcomes with what we do have
I think "it'll always be around" is a good way of putting it. I was very late to stuff like Scott Alexander, Ribbonfarm, The Last Psychiatrist, etc. I missed the "blogosphere". But eventually, I did find their writing, and it did influence the way I think a whole lot.
And I think that "longform plaintext" has staying power. Similar to books in that sense. There are some "classics" that are revered by almost everyone, but there are also niche staples, and there are some books that most people don't gaf about but that you find them and they hit the spot. But also, different in other ways.