Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 996 days ago
Going a bit on side venture here with this comment, but I'd so much prefer this to be well written up instead of a two and half hour video. And it's so ubiquitous, watching videos over people reading, and I can't help but think it's extremely hurtful on a cultural/societal level. And the fact that it's creeping in more and more, even on HN, just shows that I must be more and more of an outlier,... is this what it feels to get old?

Writing > Video, because:

a) I have control over pace. Not just how fast I read, but how long I look at a graphic, or a slide, or I might reread a significant sentence, skip a paragraph where the author dwells on something for too long, stop reading to research something,... this also allows me to skim something to see if I'm interested... this is very hard to do with a 2 1/2 hour video... to the point of where I'm not looking into it for that very fact alone, I'm sad to say. I don't want my attention grabbed by 20 minutes of video watching to find out if it's worth watching...

b) Text automatically engages your critical thinking completely differently.

In text form it's far easier to see argumentative structure, and you are far more critically engaged in a subject matter. This applies to the reader, who can far more accurately scrutinize the arguments and logic applied, but also to the author while writing, who therefore produces by average far more valuable content. If you don't believe me transcribe audio to text (whether most speeches, podcasts, or other), and read it critically as if it was a book and find how (in most cases) horrendously it performs as text. This is by the way something we completely lost. Politicians long gone spoke modeled after written text. Speeches transcribed from Abraham Lincoln and fellow politicians of the era read like formally written up arguments... barely anyone can talk like this anymore (we've lost so much in that department).

c) Writing is in some ways more and in some ways less effort than a video. And I'd argue it benefits the content itself. All that energy going into video production, editing, having a nice background and good sunlight for talking to the camera, would be so much better spent on properly writing, researching, citing sources... I'm in no way saying none of it is done, but priorities are completely different when "producing a video essay" versus "I'll write something proper that can stand scrutiny". And I'd argue the latter produces higher quality content.

d) Text is far more easily accessible. I need a static HTML page to host text, it doesn't need any bandwidth to speak of, I can easily host it on my own site, on a blog hosting service, move hosting services, you could even use a pastebin and tweet the link. It's searchable, it can be fully indexed by search engines, it can be accessed via screen readers, easily auto-translated via any tools of ones choosing, easily copy-pasted into your own notes, can be easily cited, extended, worked on...

God I wish people would write more, read more, and in turn produce less videos, and watch less videos... but I might just be a walking dinosaur, or (since I am not even middle aged) just have grown up differently, so... I don't know...

8 comments

You're right about all of that. But people use different media to convey different things, and to reach different people, and engage different states of mind. Every advantage you list is also a disadvantage from another perspective. Video is not just text poured into a different container - even if it's just a video of a talking head!

For example, it's well-known that video engages empathy in ways that text does not. When you're documenting a kind of widespread tragedy, that could be essential.

So, are you sure the video didn't work on you? If someone had just posted a giant article would you have read it, or wanted to read more with the same interest? And even if that would have worked for you, a popular video like this can create a proven demand for journalists to write more stories and authors to write more books.

This probably isn't what you want, but this summarizer tool can give you a written version of the video.

https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?list=WL&v=5...

Yeah, text is superior for these kinds of topics. But ads and SEO spam have destroyed discoverability for writing. The same hasn't happened for videos yet. They can still be monetized and that justifies the time and effort needed to make a video.
You could probably find a written article about the subject. For many things I prefer a written source. But these videos from Dan Olsen are entertainment. The subject is kind of dry and boring really, I don't care that much. Yet he presents all his videos in an entertaining way.

"Documentary make makes a documentary when I wanted a book" feels like an invalid complaint.

I ended up putting this on my TV and ironed some shirts while watching it. I probably would not have had the patience to read through all of it.
I share your preference for text over video in many cases, although I think Dan Olson makes extremely effective use of his medium in a way many other "video essayists" do not. As far as age goes: before the Internet or even TV, people would go to see lectures and presentations for entertainment. Political speeches and debates were much longer, too. I think there's always been a desire for information delivered verbally in a compelling way. We just have different ways of delivering it now.

I also wouldn't take the transcription of older speeches too literally.

Dan usually publishes transcripts on Patreon (or, at least he has done for 'Line Goes Up' etc.). He even puts them into EPUB format for e-readers which is quite nice.
You can also just rip the captions straight from YouTube (which Dan generally does a good job with), though you miss all the on-screen visuals, which can be quite amusing to pause and read.
I'm with you there. I just look at the transcript when I'm interested in the content and can't find a proper written alternative.

On the other hand, if there's no written alternative, chances are that the content was irrelevant anyway, so maybe it's fine to ignore in the first place.