[gboss]

I don’t think that’s what the GP is saying. It’s more like beverages exist but certain ones are worse for you (like alcoholic ones) than others. It’s what’s being consumed that is important not its medium.

I don’t know if I agree with that just that you’re characterization is off. I think the medium is the message.

[smaudet]

Alcohol is a bad comparison, due to the medium/carrier problem. Its both the medium and the carrier.

But to stretch the analogy, drinks are still an issue "because its the people hawking them have the wrong incentives". It could be sugary drinks, alcoholic ones, etc, they are all bad (even water). However this doesn't say much about why these drinks are all bad, which has nothing to do with incentives.

Its a similar argument for TV/social media. Sure bad people exist, uninteresting argument. That ignrores the real question of why they are bad.

[lazide]

TV shows follow a predictable formula, because of the media. Movies too, if they want to be successful.

A common saying for Movie and TV adaptations for books is 'we needed to change it to adapt it to the big screen'. Which is true.

It would be really silly to directly transcribe a reading of LOTR to a movie - despite the week long running time.

The media is the message, and the message is the media - if we want it to work/be effective.

The marketing and type of drinks for alcohol are not the same as for sodas - for a reason.

So saying some fundamental properties of the media won't impact the type of message or impact of the message seems a bit unlikely.

[smaudet]

> So saying some fundamental properties of the media won't impact the type of message or impact of the message seems a bit unlikely.

Exactly. Some properties of the medium are inherent. No amount of "bad actor" excuses change that, and possibly even affect the usage.