[skeezyboy]

>something nefariously designed to catch and milk your attention

I noticed you had to add "nefariously" in there. You think its nefarious. You also act like its a mind control ray beam when its not.

- Videos are not a new form of media, even short form videos. They existed before people started calling it "social media"

- People have been "engineering for maxmimum engagement" long before people started calling videos "social media". Books, print media, paintings, sculptures, hell even religions all do this.

- they said the same about.... books, TV and video games - yet I bet the person reading this engages in all 3. And to top it off, theyre on social media right now in order to read this message. So decrying social media whilst happily using social media

[danaris]

...Yep, that's all true. (Except for me acting like it's a "mind control ray beam".)

And none of it refutes what I said.

It's perfectly possible to take a bunch of old things, use them in a new way, and make something new out of them that's more than the sum of its parts.

[skeezyboy]

>And none of it refutes what I said.

if you want to ignore the points im making sure.

>It's perfectly possible to take a bunch of old things, use them in a new way, and make something new out of them that's more than the sum of its parts.

not the case here though is it

[danaris]

So you're just claiming that the "attention economy" that's come into being since ~2010 is exactly the same as the way things have been for the past few hundred years? That nothing new is happening with microtransactions, and social media deliberately engineered to keep you scrolling, and hypertargeted advertising?

It's all exactly the same as print ads in a magazine that are selected because they're reasonably likely to be something the people who read that magazine would be interested in?

Because if that's your contention, then frankly, I'd say it doesn't make a lick of sense.