[zw123456]

I am old enough to remember when people said TV was a passing fad. And the radio. And the printing press. And the telegraph. And the written word. I mean come on you lazy shlubs, memorize Beowulf like we had to back in my day. OK, I am not actually that old. My point is, that with every technology that has been invented to improve, or expand the ability of humans to communicate, there have been the detractors and naysayers predicting the inevitable doom of said technology. I am still waiting for that whole writing things down instead of memorizing them thing to finally go out of style.

[Etheryte]

I'm not sure if the examples you bring make the point you're trying to make. For most practical intents and purposes, printed press is but a small shadow of its former self. Pretty much all outlets focus on the digital and many have stopped printing altogether. Radio is the same, as a fraction of the population, the numbers are hitting record lows. Most people listen to Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, podcasts, etc, not radio. I doubt I need to even mention classical TV. Point being, all of these technologies exist and people do consume them, yes, but compared to their former glory they're all practically dead.

[zw123456]

And yet they persist. And continue to evolve. And TV, now streaming over the internet. The way humans communicate evolves. And so will the internet, and social media and all the rest to come.

Think of it like this...

Radio didn't die, it evolved, into streaming music.

TV didn't die, it evolved to streaming TV>

The printed medium did not die, it evolved into HTML and web pages, a fancier form of type setting.

The telegraph didn't die, it evolved into digital communications.

See, it's not that things die and go away, it is a process of improving how humans interact.

Some may find it difficult, or maybe the isolation is a problem, then there is an evolution.

It will not stop, it will evolve to the next step.

What that is, will be fun to watch.

I hope I am still here to see it.

I wait in anticipation, not negativity.

[Karrot_Kream]

These aren't the laments of a dying internet. They're the laments of a person mourning a time and place that will never come back but without the social awareness to realize that. That's the trouble with most of these kinds of laments.

New media exploration is new, fresh, and chaotic. The kids on Discord channels and those watching streamers and VTubers have this same energy. The old guys looking for mailing lists are sneaking a peek in between looking at their kids, doing their household chores, and finishing work. The vibes are off cause of the audience.

[fuzzfactor]

>people said TV was a passing fad.

It survived, hypnotic ads are an amazing thing.

Think of all the billions over the decades it took to finally get video ads on the internet that were deemed as engaging as old analog color TV.

You've got to pay for it somehow.

>The internet is already over

Nah, just a multi-year commercial break . . . Well, maybe I don't know how easy it would be to tell the difference any more.

[tialaramex]

And bad for kids. Go back and you can read about how dreadful it is that some people are letting their children read novels. What sort of person would do that?

But the article isn't really about that, to the extent it's really about anything except the author's need to feel very, very smart. It's a vague gesture at how "over" it they are, for any value of "it". Best to pat them on the head condescendingly and then move on.

[zw123456]

The person who wrote the article used the internet for all the sub-references. Had it not been for the internet, this person most likely would not have known all the things they mentioned. I don't know if they are listening, but it would be an interesting question.

[asdff]

All these technologies have something in common however. They get coopted for misinformation. I think a lot of fear about "new media" whatever form it might be is simply reactionary from a media literacy perspective. The adult of the radio age might understand that one can have some media literacy with the radio, not believe everything they say, waste their time on it, etc. But their kids who are watching TV all day didn't get that lesson in school, clearly the case from watching TV all day and not playing like a normal kid over the last millenia, and since they are kids they don't understand nuance so its simpler to put the foot down, and say "shut that damn TV off."

I think better lessons in media literacy would help a lot of situations like this, however there is very strong incentive in our world to prevent a high degree of media literacy from taking root, as it would obviate a lot of methods used for controlling subsets of the population.

[samatman]

Ah yes. Argumentum ad Ecclesiastes. A classic.

Maybe this time it will be different, eh?