[javajosh]

The screen is the thing. Broadcast TV to CRT displays was never important; the human eye and ear glued to a glowing rectangle of changing light and sound, that was the thing. Now, the screens are everywhere, on the wall, in our pockets, and can show us anything anytime. It has revolutionized entertainment to the point where each individual can mine his or her own seem of addictive content that shuts off the critical mind, to provide respite from an unfriendly world occupied by humans zombified as they descend into the mindless void of the screenhole.

So, yes, the economics of it is fascinating, and horrifying, as billion dollar companies exist to create the artificial scarcity information requires to monetize. But the side effect should always take center stage: we relegate each other and ourselves to staring into the glowing abyss in our pockets, each compulsive viewing rightly characterized as a suicide in miniature.

[Swizec]

Broadcast vs on-demand is crucial. There’s a huge difference between having a captive audience that has no choice and producing content people choose to consume.

[baddox]

I think that's less of a huge difference when a small number of platforms dominate online media and aggressively use algorithms to determine or strongly influence what content people see. Yes, you can still absolutely find beautiful niche content on YouTube, and I value that a ton, but YouTube still has immense control over people's viewing in aggregate. It's a little bit like traditional broadcast TV if there were a billion channels but after every 3 minutes of viewing the TV chose which channel to flip you to unless you were constantly diligent about manually choosing what you want to watch.

[javajosh]

Crucial to what? To making content "better", meaning more potent, more addictive, more alluring than real life?

I'd argue that broadcast TV was an okay middle ground, because if you were addicted you were a couch potato. Now, we are all couch potatoes but without the couch, and without the social opprobrium, or even the opposite!, the world is a generally worse place. I mean, I love 3blue1brown, but is he worth the societal cost?

[Swizec]

I mean, Plato did always complain that writing makes people stupid and kids these days are ruining society because they can’t speak well or remember anything.

And I think books were ruining kids these days in the 1600’s

In 1800’s it was populist flashy newspapers with clickbait headlines

1900’s was radio

1950’s was TV

Now it’s social media

There’s always something. People who want to escape their lives will find a way. The solution is to make the world better, not to gripe about coping strategies.

[javajosh]

You're right. But I don't think it means what you think it means. Consider the problem of gluttony, which has always been a human problem, but which has grown far worse with the advent of industrialized food processing. The feedback loop is very similar, in fact, to the entertainment/information feedback loop that began with the invention of writing. Plato wasn't wrong in kind, only in degree.

[TeMPOraL]

You can sort-of achieve a poor man's "on-demand" by providing bazillion cable channels, but real on-demand delivers a qualitative difference: you no longer schedule your life around your TV, but watch at your convenience.