I find a lot of these articles that compare worries about social media to worries about TV, or worries about comic books, or in this case worried about trashy novels on mass market paperbacks incredibly frustrating.
They miss the fundamental issue with social media that was never true before.
The answer is data. No other media before ever had so much information about every individual that consumed it. No media before could tailor their content at an individual level. About the most you could tailor your content to was a zip code.
This is the problem with TikTok. It’s not that the quality of content is low. It’s that TikTok knows exactly what you like and when you like it, and can give you the exact content to scratch that itch at the time.
There are several problems with this.
- It sucks up all your time.
- You’re never uncomfortable and/or consuming content that isn’t what you already want at the time. That means you are rarely exposed to anything that isn’t releasing dopamine all the time and it means you’re rarely challenged.
Even more fundamental than data collection is advertising.
Books, and to some extent film, are the only media which aren't absolutely flooded with advertising. Print serial media are (though it's rapidly vanishing), music is (through both broadcast and streaming services, though not via direct media purchases), serial video (television, cable, streaming services, YouTube, and of course social media, are all absolutely saturated with advertising. Which is what the data are feeding, of course.
That Newport fails to make this distinction, and that the goal of TikTok et al are to absolutely engross your attention and time, is a critical failure of this piece.
> you are rarely exposed to anything that isn’t releasing dopamine all the time and it means you’re rarely challenged
This makes me question whether you've tried to use TikTok for an extended period of time - say, 30 minutes a day for a month or so.
I liken it more to a skinner box. It will constantly show you low dopamine videos (+ ads) in between "hits" of content that are actually relevant to your interests to keep you hooked. You keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling past what is basically garbage to find the next "good" video. Sometimes you get many "good" videos in a row!
As far as not being challenged, I'm not sure about that. TikTok is always trying to learn more about you and your interests and hobbies and what videos keep you watching for longer. This means that it also frequently shows you videos outside of your "bubble" as a test to see if you're also interested in other topics. Over the past ~3 years, I have had a ton of engaging conversations with others and discovered SO MANY books, games, TV shows, movies, and hobbies because of what is basically an "everything recommendation engine". Most of the books I read this year (well over 100) were recommended by people on TikTok and were novels that I otherwise would have never even given a second glance.
I have very mixed feelings about TikTok. On one hand, it has led me to so many things I wouldn't have found otherwise (in a way that Reddit, HN, Bluesky, and other communities have failed). But it is also a depressing time suck that can get you to waste hours of your time on garbage and nonsense. Like most things in life, you get out what you put in.
I don't think the medium of short form video is redeemable. Its occasional positives are the delivery vehicle for the many negatives, the sugar coating around the poison. It's rotten by just about any measure: properties of the medium, what types of business it attracts, messages that thrive, how well it reflects reality, aggregate effects on people across a variety of outcomes, the aftertaste of using it, etc.
I think the best question to assess it is does this make us better people or not, and to what degree? From what I have seen, the answer is it seems to be pretty significantly de-skilling us in attention, agency, nuance, psychological wellbeing, etc. It makes us more vulnerable to influence and manipulation. The businesses that benefit the most from deploying it are advertising-based, which naturally leads to surveillance and algorithms and pace of consumption that maximizes addiction. The messages that perform best are emotional and attention seeking. There is no information quality control. The consumption pattern it suggests leaves no room for thinking, processing emotion, or nuance.
The personal crusade I'm on is to build a competing product at the quality level of TikTok/Insta that diverts interest & attention toward books, which as a medium is both a lot more of a known quantity and whose consumption naturally results in longer attention spans, greater literacy, and all the nth order consequences of written culture. It's great that things like BookTok exist but ultimately that energy & activity needs to find its way over to a healthier home.
“But it is also a depressing time suck that can get you to waste hours of your time on garbage and nonsense. Like most things in life, you get out what you put in.”
This is enough of a downside to say all the other positives are irrelevant. You could call this “brain rot” for the masses.
It makes sense, if I were trying to construct an algorithm to make sure I gave people their hits I would also have to push in things they hadn't shown any interest in or even actively disliked, considering that people get inputs from the reality around them outside my service and as such they may change their behaviors and inclinations, I would need a way to note that is the case and respond.
right, but I was commenting on why the idea that TikTok and other social media platforms will not challenge you is wrong, because even as poor a programmer as myself can see I would need to put some things in that challenge people so as to map and respond to changes in people's preferences over time.
It doesn’t sound like you were challenged. The alg probing you with stuff it thinks you might like based on things people with similar interests liked it quite the opposite of challenging.
Filter bubbles have become so standardized that people have forgotten what being challenged is like.
If you compare the viewership of Game of Thrones with the readership of the original novels, the gap is enormous — not because one is “better,” but because different media win different kinds of attention.
Most people are never choosing between Being and Time and an HN thread.
But if they were forced to choose, we already know which one would dominate sheer engagement.
That doesn’t mean HN replaces philosophy — it just means that attention has its own economics.
And any medium that captures attention will inevitably show qualities (good and bad) that heavyweight works simply can’t compete with.
>If you compare the viewership of Game of Thrones with the readership of the original novels
The novels are unfinished though and I hardly believe they will be completed by him seeing how the penultimate novel has taken him over a decade to do about 75% of it and him being 77 already. I would never start a series I know it is unlikely to be completed.
I'll point out that I read Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series, which started in 1983, is projected to run to 19 books with 17 done. Brust is 70, but he appears to be in reasonable shape, and the books have been pretty regular of late, so it looks like he'll finish.
I also read the War Against the Chtorr series by David Gerrold. That also started in 1983, but the last published book, the 4th of 7, came out in 1993. Gerrold being 81, despite his claims for almost a decade that books 5 and 6 are near completion, I am confident I will not see the end of the series written by him :-(
Last I read was early 2025, Brust was saying that he had over half of the next-to-last book written, and as I said, he's been on a pretty regular schedule. Plus, he's not (only) telling a single story that has to come to some earth-shattering conclusion (as GRRM is). It would be nice if he pulled that off, but there is a lot going on in the background of his Dragaera that I expect he won't fully resolve: there are multiple types of death, multiple types of magic, Vlad is the reincarnation of an ancient Dragaeran, he's going to/has killed a god, the Jenoine are a mystery to resolve, and the whole planet has a science fictional foundation despite very clearly being fantasy in general.
But maybe he will; I'm actually several books behind at this point -- I'm pretty much waiting for him to finish so I can (re) read the whole thing from start to finish.
I wish george martin took care of his health. Surprised to see Gerrold mentioned here! I read The Man Who Folded Himself a long time and it is the first fiction book I ever had the pleasure to read where all characters were the same person
I started A Game of Thrones in 1996, when I walked into a bookstore out of the cold in Toronto, and asked for a recommendation (I will always remember that day for several reasons, not just A Song of Fire and Ice!)
30 years later (give or take a week), I don't expect to ever see the end; I have a feeling GRRM has kind of lost interest/passion in the Song of Fire and Ice series, since he's started churning out other stuff like Dunk, but you know what, its ok.
Finish what you start — When starting a work that has readers or viewers, complete it if it is financially rewarding to do so. You have unfortunately made an aesthetic promise to your readers in exchange for money. Suck it up.
Keep Your Customers Informed — If you will not be able to do the first, inform people as soon as possible.
I'm with Gaiman on this. No author has any obligation, ethical or otherwise, to provide further books in a series to the readers unless those readers are paying hard cash upfront for the missing books.
from the phrase I would expect that "aesthetic promise" is similar to a monetary promise, except as applied to aesthetics instead of money. A promise that something will be given.
from reading the article "aesthetic promise" seems to be "that particular bit of aesthetic satisfaction that you counted on when starting out on the series", in other words, one of the aesthetic promises of a continuing series of books is that there is a conclusion, so you read one book and the next, expecting that at some point they will all be put together into a whole.
Rather like how readers of Dickens day started reading his serialized novels in their papers expecting that the novel would in fact have an ending.
> I would never start a series I know it is unlikely to be completed.
As someone who can relate, I advise revisiting that stance. I discovered there is a lot of value to be gained from some unfinished works, and there are some finished works which would had best be left unfinished.
One really appreciates the “pocket” label of this format if one wears suits, sport coats, or blazer jackets, or almost any of several styles of coat that fall under the category of “overcoat”: these books really were pocket size! For those pockets, that is. The thicker ones are pushing it, but the ones closer to 250 pages fit neatly in a blazer pocket. Thicker ones are fine in the cavernous pockets of many overcoats (though, hell, so are trade-size books)
(Phones work better in a jacket, too—I think we made a mistake running away from that clothing style, they’re like wearable purses that also make you look nicer. Sure suits are kinda wasteful with the way the jackets get downgraded if the pants are destroyed, but odd jackets we should have held on to!)
They also fit nicely in the back pocket of jeans, and leveled-out sitting on your wallet. I pretty much always had a book there from middle school until sometime after I was married.
Yeah suits are kinda ass. Again, the need to have trousers so closely matched they can pretty much only come from the same batch as the cloth in the jacket. Sucks. Looks nice, but man that blows.
Jackets are dope, though. Get some summer-weight ones and even in that season you don’t have to use trouser/jeans pockets. So nice.
Yeah, a matter of preference I’m sure. I prefer not having to scrunch a little at the waist to reach e.g. “cargo” pockets, and there’s nothing like interior breast pockets on jackets, for pants (various sorts of hidden pants pocket exist, yes, but they’re hard to get at). No extra weight pulling pants downward, requiring a tighter belt (or suspenders—which, that part I’m on board with as long as the pants have actual suspender buttons!). Can take the jacket off and remove all burden, put it back on and be ready to go again. No sitting on things, having things pinch or poke your leg or hip when you sit.
It’s basically a looser way of wearing your stuff on you, than pants pockets. Less welded-to you. At some point I realized I disliked summer starting because coats and front-pocket/pouch hoodies went away and I had to start carrying things in my pants again. Later, I came to like the standard pocket systems on blazers & friends way more than hoodies and (modern casual) coats, and discovered that with the right fabric and (lack of) lining choices I could wear them in almost any weather if I wanted to (I don’t, every day, but weather’s no longer a major reason not to)
(I am not saying I’m right, just explaining what I get out of it over extra pants pockets)
What's confusing to me is that even most of the the print-on-demand services I've seen for self-published writers don't go below trade paperback trim sizes (5x8 inches).
There's a huge amount of indie fiction that really wants to be in pocket-size mass-market print format (for those buyers who prefer paper to ereaders), for ergonomics and some of the pulp aesthetic, but it's forced to trade paperback trim.
What? This is terrible news. I've always loved the mass market paperback format, it's perfect for reading. Trade paperbacks are annoying to shelve, annoying to carry, and less comfortable to read.
There is a big difference between paperbacks and TikTokification:
Paperbacks required authors to spend the same amount of time/effort to create content with a vastly expanded market and distribution mechanism.
TikTok and Insta created N creators to M consumers where N is nearly the same as M. Making the distribution channels bigger but effortless to create content doesn’t magically equate quality paperbacks with short form hummingbird-attention videos.
I don't use TikTok but spend some time on Instagram. Despite the format, I enjoy a lot of intellectually stimulating content (and, sometimes, conversations) on the platform.
Sometimes a friend would show me their feed and I'd be shocked at how different the content they are presented by their version of the algorithm.
There are a lot of people putting a lot of effort to create very interesting content and we should not belittle their work just to fein intellectual superiority.
There's really nothing inherently wrong about the format.
> There's really nothing inherently wrong about the format.
"Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot. For the 'content' of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind...The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance. The serious artist is the only person able to encounter technology with impunity, just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception." — Marshal McLuhan, Understanding Media
I feel like McLuhan is so thoroughly accepted as gospel now that it’s refreshing to see someone casually dismiss the idea out of hand like OC. I would love to see a serious exploration of the argument against McLuhan in 2025, just for fun.
You mean aside from the fact that his quasi-mystical, self-important proclamations have no factual basis? I personally dislike how his ideas cast a cynical veneer over truly transformative changes without actually contributing anything useful to the conversation.
Who takes this stuff as gospel? Academics who study critical theory?
There is 100% some egotistic intellectual superiority as someone who consumes long form written content and long form video content. But its hard not to look down on short form video as a format and the culture of the medium. It seems clear to me that shorter form content is forced to "simplify" topics and sweeten narratives to retain the viewers attention. I've seen a ton of short form videos where I came away thinking wow what a great little video i really feel like i've learnt something. But then I double check to see if its actually true and its simplified to the point of being misleading. My sister shows me these videos all the time and its misleading or completely untrue majority of the time.
I don't think the article wants to belittle their work. The format isn't wrong, but the way the content is structured is troubling; it is to cater to the algorithm by tapping into the parts of our brain that are not meant to be stimulated all the time.
Any form of media isn't bad as long as it's analytical, i.e., one that forces you not just to be an observer all the time. Most content on such platforms is designed to keep your brain constantly stimulated so you never shift your attention to think. The stimulation and the dopamine hits just keep you hooked to it. They give little time for contemplation, encouraging passive consumption.
When consuming long‑form content in any format, you get bored or drift just enough to think your own thoughts as you consume. But when consuming short‑form content, you are forced not to think unless you choose to pause; if you get distracted, you might think you missed something, which you don't want to do.
Information‑dense content is not good in any way, whether academic or entertainment. It doesn't leave you with any time to think on your own, discuss with yourself or the creator, dismiss some faulty thoughts, and eventually form an opinion of your own that you want to discuss with someone, somewhere.
That being said, not everything has to be long form content. Short content can provide concise information where needed, also serve as a gateway to deeper exploration, if the viewer follows up. I am not sure how that can be encouraged as most do not choose to do, as they are drowned with it and never get time to explore deeper into topics they want to.
> Over one billion TikTok videos will be viewed today, and yet, you’re still here, reading a speculative essay about media economics. I don’t take that for granted.
Well said. Articles like these bring a sort of relief to me from the constant chaos of short-form media and the like. Very refreshing.
I found this article interesting but I'm not sure I understood the point.
I think the main concern with short form video isn't taste or appetite, but just the ability to digest.[0]
Though the effects on attention might be more acute than we think. A friend of mine found that he's able to read books just fine, if he just switches off his electronics first. Suddenly his brain comes back online...
[0] See also: The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance [even when switched off]
I like Cal Newport and own all of his books, but this sort of commentary is ultimately just pretentious. Aristocrats back in the day had similar thoughts about peasants even being literate.
I assure you, by sheer virtue of quantity, no matter what criteria you use YouTube/TikTok/Shorts/etc has a [set of videos] which demonstrates quality similar to any novel or literary work.
It's true there's more garbage out there than ever before, but this is an artifact of democratization of creation and this is good imho. I also reject the premise that time to creation is an indication of quality.
Nothing prevents the video medium from matching literature - full-length films, for example, are on that level. I think there are two drawbacks to short video: First, the amount of content - their length - limits what they can accomplish, like short stories are limited. Second, the medium hasn't had time to mature as an artform; novels and film, for example, were both around for a long time before there was much great art.
That reasoning doesn’t make any sense. Half a billion litres of Coca Cola are produced every single day, but the chance of a bottle of Coca Cola being made whose quality is similar to that of a good imperial stout is exactly zero, even though they’re both brown carbonated beverages. No amount of quantity can overcome a process intended to standardise for something other than quality. If the algorithm aggressively selects for mediocrity, mediocrity is what will be produced.
The quality of Coca Cola can only be compared to other colas. Comparing a soft drink to an imperial stout makes no sense. In my book, the imperial stout always has zero quality, because I would never see a reason to voluntarily drink it, whereas I might indulge in a diet coke every now and then.
But that’s why comparing subjective qualities of different things is a waste of time.
YouTube has many highly educational videos that are better than most professional production tv, especially for the hard sciences.
But GP said their reasoning worked regardless of what standards for quality were being used. It was a much stronger statement than the one you’re defending.
Comparing one billion exact copies of the exact same thing to a different thing that shares some superficial qualities doesn’t make any sense whatsoever when the GP is simply saying that among the huge quantity of content on TikTok and YouTube some short form videos are are as artistically valuable as the best examples of any other more traditional media forms.
Edit: to phrase it differently, GP stated that among the huge quantity of content on TikTok and YouTube some short form videos are are as artistically valuable as the best examples of any other more traditional media forms. The short form
content on both platforms isn’t all good, but there is so much variety that some of it is. You responded that Coca Cola isn’t an Imperial Stout. It isn’t, but that has absolutely nothing to do with GP’s point.
I'm not sure I understand your analogy. YouTube has both diversity and quantity at levels tens of orders of magnitude higher than any high-quality-low-quantity good. Given the subjectivity of quality and amounts considered it's simply statistical fact that YouTube will always have things at the highest ends of subjective quality for any category.
The algorithm doesn't select for mediocrity - it selects for viewership, but regardless there are millions of creators at there that aren't optimizing for views anyway. It's the same reason some set of random blog posts or comments on sites such as this one will have quality similar to snippets of the highest quality technical documentation. Sheer diversity and quantity will always win.
YouTube I'd grant you, not Shorts/Reels/TikTok - the format of the media simply isn't amenable to output matching longer-form work, no matter how much gets produced. To me that reads akin to "there are so many tweets that for any criteria a [set of tweets] demonstrate quality similar to any long-form written piece."
> the format of the media simply isn't amenable to output matching longer-form work, no matter how much gets produced
why not? seems like a tautology. what's a robust set of criteria we can use the evaluate this objectively. I bet you TikTok will win. mind you I am not saying the average TikTok is good, just that there's probably some set of videos that that are of comparable quality than something put together over a longer period of time like a novel.
I understand what you're saying and that you're not talking about the average. The problem is specifically that short form things are short. It's like the monkeys on typewriters - you'll get some beautifully crafted sentences, but you're never going to get a number of sentences that add up to an actual work of Shakespeare - they're aren't enough atoms in the universe for the number of monkeys and typewriters you'd need.
But that’s more of a theoretical truth than a practical one, isn’t it? High quality novels are easily found. TikTok videos of equally high quality and depth? Perhaps not so, or exceedingly rarely.
Infinite monkeys with infinite time could surely also produce something spectacular and eye-opening, statistically speaking. But umm, you’d have to wait infinite time for it to be done, so it’s not really efficient when time is a finite resource.
Even movies won’t capture the nuances of a somewhat decent novels. I have no hope to see something really complex like “The Malazan Book of the Fallen” in any other form.
I don’t see how it’s is a statistical fact. There’s nothing I’ve seen on YouTube that compares even slightly to a high quality movie or TV series (unless it’s an unauthorised copy of a movie or TV series…).
that's a funny example, because something like Cobra Kai literally began on YouTube, there are others like Hazbin Hotel.
anyway, as for the statistics, for the case of YouTube since there are is no forced directive to which all videos must follow (creatively), you can treat all videos as random attempts. then it's just stats to show that such a distribution will have outliers that match or exceed in subjective quality the gate kept works (traditional tvs or literature).
Well, you’ll never see an erotic film on YouTube, or a war documentary using real combat footage for example, so there are many categories where it’s simply not capable of competing. And even without straight-up banned content, ‘advertiser-unfriendly’ content is aggressively buried by the algorithm, which discourages people from making it, so the ‘quantity’ part might not be true. Some content might be so heavily punished by the algorithm that almost nobody thinks to make it. This is a problem for your position, as it’s not enough for YouTube to win in some categories; it has to win in every category.
sure, but my point wasn't exclusive to them (hence the etc in the first comment). it was just related to any mass media platform, all of them collectively will win. you are right about YouTube in particular though, good point.
As someone who has a hard time putting down tiktok, I have to say: Yes, the platform and algorithm is addictive and predatory, but some of the content is really good. Lots of very funny sketches, in particular. I don't like dances and whatever, so I get none of that.
It has sort of surprised me how few teasers/trailers there are in short-form video. Seems like an obvious fit. I'd prefer it over the mediocre mobile games and dick pill ads they sling at me now.
I don't know. There's definitely fewer serious novels of a certain kind being published, and movies that aren't special effect spectacles tend to flop or go straight to streaming (for now).
Films got dramatically cheaper to produce and streaming gave them a platform to be easily distributed outside of the very exclusive cinema market.
Now the problem is quality and production. Studios don't have to be very selective at all any more so median quality has gone way down. Streaming platforms have a ton of content and terrible discovery which means there are huge volumes of mid content and a few gems that unless they are popular are impossible to find.
Publishing had a huge demographic change and is suffering from a different kind of bias than in decades past which has the same kind of diversity-limiting effect, just substituting different groups being promoted and left behind.
Culturally all over media production there's also a problem with a difficult to make distinction – "trying to be diverse" vs "actual diversity" and the imbalance is pushing people into silos: politically, culturally, and in every other way.
Attention like other objects of value is bound by laws. Quality <-> Quantity axis
High quality -> You can attend to a few things with high degree of complexity.
Low quality -> You can attend to a lot of easy stuff.
EOD - Dopamine regulation now is based on how you train your attention.
So the problem is more sinister than the "time sink". What you don't use, you lose. So once we spend enough time in low quality, it takes a lot of effort to get back to higher levels.
There is a fundamental difference in consuming short form content, and reading a book- no matter how trashy the book is.
When reading for long hours, or for a short time over days and weeks- it teaches you to concentrate, to have some kind of discipline. It helps you focus and develop empathy. Reading is fundamentally different for the reader, and it makes them do other things well. Reading trash trains you to graduate to serious books- this is true for many.
But consuming TikTok readies you for more TikTok. More Shorts and Reels and Snaps. Wathing short form stuff damages one's ability to do other things as well.
And from the creators' perspective, I think trying to keep up with short form media for engagement's sake actually impedes their ability to create more serious stuff.
I don't totally miss his point, though. When smartphones and "internet places" spread as media, those already ready for serious stuff will graduate to those. And yes, these places will have a small role to play.
But they are definitely more negative than positive.
I don't see how TikTok readies you for more TikTok. You can safely combine it with YouTube longs and movies/documentaries.
I set a limit to avoid too much TikTok. And also TikTok often shows me 3-10 minute educational content, which I consider pretty well made. Dan McClellan talks about bible, form example. Or Jason Pargin on different topics. Brittney Hartley on nihilism and atheism.
> A closer look reveals that by vastly increasing the market for the published word, paperbacks also vastly increased the opportunities to make a living writing serious books
We can grant that this is true and yet it doesn't seem to provide encouragement. The equivalent today would be slop TikTok demand vastly increasing the opportunity for "serious" TikToks, whatever those may be.
A 'serious TikTok' is not a film. To think a film and a TikTok are alike is to make an elementary mistake in media analysis.
I can buy that we're going to get an explosion in fantastic short-form content. I'd say that the _Almost Friday TV_ group, who started a few years ago, are an example.
But this remains terrible news for predecessor mediums, who will suffer diminished demand and a general decline in the competency of audiences to enjoy those mediums ("great writers need great readers").
Genuine classics never disappear, whether it's been 1,000 or 2,000 years (like the Greek philosophers we still read). If something vanishes because of a technological shift, it suggests its value was likely fleeting to begin with. What truly matters tends to survive.
That headline resonates with me, echoed even. Then I saw it was by Cal Newport. Then I thought, when I have adequate attention I’ll read the article through, but I’m on the last 30 pages of a book and on my phone too.
I appreciate the optimism, and it's definitely worth noting that this isn't the first or last time that the intellectual elite had freaked out about the lowering of standards for the garbage the proles are imbibing. But the hinge of this article is that cheaper access to mass popular fiction opened up a new market for great unknown writers. This was true because the medium in paperback encouraged, rather than undermined, the reader's interest in reading. You pick up a paperback in the train station before heading home... your attention span at least stays the same, or maybe gets longer as you learn to enjoy long form fiction. The paperback business model is still based on keeping your attention fixed on a something for a long time (you know, like "Stranger Things"). Media like TikTok are designed to turn you into a vegetable with an attention span approaching zero. So I don't think these are equivalent.
The paperback vs hardback is more like Netflix vs cinema. Tiktok / short form video is like newsreels in Roger Rabbit, where the 'toons make the content.
And yet, penny dreadful editions and pulp magazines that existed before pocket books... did they have the same effect? Or did they only produce pocket book writers?
I find a lot of these articles that compare worries about social media to worries about TV, or worries about comic books, or in this case worried about trashy novels on mass market paperbacks incredibly frustrating.
They miss the fundamental issue with social media that was never true before.
The answer is data. No other media before ever had so much information about every individual that consumed it. No media before could tailor their content at an individual level. About the most you could tailor your content to was a zip code.
This is the problem with TikTok. It’s not that the quality of content is low. It’s that TikTok knows exactly what you like and when you like it, and can give you the exact content to scratch that itch at the time.
There are several problems with this.
- It sucks up all your time. - You’re never uncomfortable and/or consuming content that isn’t what you already want at the time. That means you are rarely exposed to anything that isn’t releasing dopamine all the time and it means you’re rarely challenged.
Even more fundamental than data collection is advertising.
Books, and to some extent film, are the only media which aren't absolutely flooded with advertising. Print serial media are (though it's rapidly vanishing), music is (through both broadcast and streaming services, though not via direct media purchases), serial video (television, cable, streaming services, YouTube, and of course social media, are all absolutely saturated with advertising. Which is what the data are feeding, of course.
That Newport fails to make this distinction, and that the goal of TikTok et al are to absolutely engross your attention and time, is a critical failure of this piece.
> you are rarely exposed to anything that isn’t releasing dopamine all the time and it means you’re rarely challenged
This makes me question whether you've tried to use TikTok for an extended period of time - say, 30 minutes a day for a month or so.
I liken it more to a skinner box. It will constantly show you low dopamine videos (+ ads) in between "hits" of content that are actually relevant to your interests to keep you hooked. You keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling past what is basically garbage to find the next "good" video. Sometimes you get many "good" videos in a row!
As far as not being challenged, I'm not sure about that. TikTok is always trying to learn more about you and your interests and hobbies and what videos keep you watching for longer. This means that it also frequently shows you videos outside of your "bubble" as a test to see if you're also interested in other topics. Over the past ~3 years, I have had a ton of engaging conversations with others and discovered SO MANY books, games, TV shows, movies, and hobbies because of what is basically an "everything recommendation engine". Most of the books I read this year (well over 100) were recommended by people on TikTok and were novels that I otherwise would have never even given a second glance.
I have very mixed feelings about TikTok. On one hand, it has led me to so many things I wouldn't have found otherwise (in a way that Reddit, HN, Bluesky, and other communities have failed). But it is also a depressing time suck that can get you to waste hours of your time on garbage and nonsense. Like most things in life, you get out what you put in.
I don't think the medium of short form video is redeemable. Its occasional positives are the delivery vehicle for the many negatives, the sugar coating around the poison. It's rotten by just about any measure: properties of the medium, what types of business it attracts, messages that thrive, how well it reflects reality, aggregate effects on people across a variety of outcomes, the aftertaste of using it, etc.
I think the best question to assess it is does this make us better people or not, and to what degree? From what I have seen, the answer is it seems to be pretty significantly de-skilling us in attention, agency, nuance, psychological wellbeing, etc. It makes us more vulnerable to influence and manipulation. The businesses that benefit the most from deploying it are advertising-based, which naturally leads to surveillance and algorithms and pace of consumption that maximizes addiction. The messages that perform best are emotional and attention seeking. There is no information quality control. The consumption pattern it suggests leaves no room for thinking, processing emotion, or nuance.
The personal crusade I'm on is to build a competing product at the quality level of TikTok/Insta that diverts interest & attention toward books, which as a medium is both a lot more of a known quantity and whose consumption naturally results in longer attention spans, greater literacy, and all the nth order consequences of written culture. It's great that things like BookTok exist but ultimately that energy & activity needs to find its way over to a healthier home.
“But it is also a depressing time suck that can get you to waste hours of your time on garbage and nonsense. Like most things in life, you get out what you put in.”
This is enough of a downside to say all the other positives are irrelevant. You could call this “brain rot” for the masses.
It makes sense, if I were trying to construct an algorithm to make sure I gave people their hits I would also have to push in things they hadn't shown any interest in or even actively disliked, considering that people get inputs from the reality around them outside my service and as such they may change their behaviors and inclinations, I would need a way to note that is the case and respond.
You're describing the multi-armed bandit problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit
right, but I was commenting on why the idea that TikTok and other social media platforms will not challenge you is wrong, because even as poor a programmer as myself can see I would need to put some things in that challenge people so as to map and respond to changes in people's preferences over time.
> Most of the books I read this year (well over 100)
That's one book ever third day. Are you really challenging yourself and expanding your mind, or are these just time wasters?
How far can a mind expand? Like is there really anything new?
> This means that it also frequently shows you videos outside of your "bubble" as a test to see if you're also interested in other topics.
Namely far-right, xenophobic content, mixed with subversive propaganda pushed by state actors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right_pipeline
It doesn’t sound like you were challenged. The alg probing you with stuff it thinks you might like based on things people with similar interests liked it quite the opposite of challenging.
Filter bubbles have become so standardized that people have forgotten what being challenged is like.
> It’s not that the quality of content is low.
It absolutely is. Ticktock is the bottom of the barrel.
If you compare the viewership of Game of Thrones with the readership of the original novels, the gap is enormous — not because one is “better,” but because different media win different kinds of attention.
Most people are never choosing between Being and Time and an HN thread. But if they were forced to choose, we already know which one would dominate sheer engagement.
That doesn’t mean HN replaces philosophy — it just means that attention has its own economics. And any medium that captures attention will inevitably show qualities (good and bad) that heavyweight works simply can’t compete with.
"soon, this whole structure will stop existing..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE68aF538e0
>If you compare the viewership of Game of Thrones with the readership of the original novels
The novels are unfinished though and I hardly believe they will be completed by him seeing how the penultimate novel has taken him over a decade to do about 75% of it and him being 77 already. I would never start a series I know it is unlikely to be completed.
I'll point out that I read Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series, which started in 1983, is projected to run to 19 books with 17 done. Brust is 70, but he appears to be in reasonable shape, and the books have been pretty regular of late, so it looks like he'll finish.
I also read the War Against the Chtorr series by David Gerrold. That also started in 1983, but the last published book, the 4th of 7, came out in 1993. Gerrold being 81, despite his claims for almost a decade that books 5 and 6 are near completion, I am confident I will not see the end of the series written by him :-(
> the books have been pretty regular of late, so it looks like he'll finish.
That was true for GRRM twenty years ago, but not today.
Last I read was early 2025, Brust was saying that he had over half of the next-to-last book written, and as I said, he's been on a pretty regular schedule. Plus, he's not (only) telling a single story that has to come to some earth-shattering conclusion (as GRRM is). It would be nice if he pulled that off, but there is a lot going on in the background of his Dragaera that I expect he won't fully resolve: there are multiple types of death, multiple types of magic, Vlad is the reincarnation of an ancient Dragaeran, he's going to/has killed a god, the Jenoine are a mystery to resolve, and the whole planet has a science fictional foundation despite very clearly being fantasy in general.
But maybe he will; I'm actually several books behind at this point -- I'm pretty much waiting for him to finish so I can (re) read the whole thing from start to finish.
I wish george martin took care of his health. Surprised to see Gerrold mentioned here! I read The Man Who Folded Himself a long time and it is the first fiction book I ever had the pleasure to read where all characters were the same person
I haven't read that, I'll look it up! <spoiler> Have you read By His Bootstraps and All You Zombies by Heinlein?
I started A Game of Thrones in 1996, when I walked into a bookstore out of the cold in Toronto, and asked for a recommendation (I will always remember that day for several reasons, not just A Song of Fire and Ice!)
30 years later (give or take a week), I don't expect to ever see the end; I have a feeling GRRM has kind of lost interest/passion in the Song of Fire and Ice series, since he's started churning out other stuff like Dunk, but you know what, its ok.
I think GRRM is failing the first two obligations of the author: https://medium.com/luminasticity/obligations-of-the-author-0...
Finish what you start — When starting a work that has readers or viewers, complete it if it is financially rewarding to do so. You have unfortunately made an aesthetic promise to your readers in exchange for money. Suck it up.
Keep Your Customers Informed — If you will not be able to do the first, inform people as soon as possible.
I'm with Gaiman on this. No author has any obligation, ethical or otherwise, to provide further books in a series to the readers unless those readers are paying hard cash upfront for the missing books.
And what on earth is is an 'aesthetic promise'?
from the phrase I would expect that "aesthetic promise" is similar to a monetary promise, except as applied to aesthetics instead of money. A promise that something will be given.
from reading the article "aesthetic promise" seems to be "that particular bit of aesthetic satisfaction that you counted on when starting out on the series", in other words, one of the aesthetic promises of a continuing series of books is that there is a conclusion, so you read one book and the next, expecting that at some point they will all be put together into a whole.
Rather like how readers of Dickens day started reading his serialized novels in their papers expecting that the novel would in fact have an ending.
>unless those readers are paying hard cash upfront for the missing books.
Back a few years ago plenty of people would have done this if it had been offered. Maybe that would've helped his writer's block.
> I would never start a series I know it is unlikely to be completed.
As someone who can relate, I advise revisiting that stance. I discovered there is a lot of value to be gained from some unfinished works, and there are some finished works which would had best be left unfinished.
At this rate, GRRM's novels will be finished by AI whether he likes it or not.
Slap Brandon Sanderson in there and they'll be done in 2 years.
Give him The Kingkiller Chronicle to finish first please!
While Sanderson might be able to do Kingkiller, he wouldn't work for Game of Thrones. Steven Erikson, on the other hand...
Unfortunately, the mass market paperback, the format that began with Pocket Books that Newport references, has seen its last:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p...
Paperbacks will now only be sold in the larger trade paperback format.
One really appreciates the “pocket” label of this format if one wears suits, sport coats, or blazer jackets, or almost any of several styles of coat that fall under the category of “overcoat”: these books really were pocket size! For those pockets, that is. The thicker ones are pushing it, but the ones closer to 250 pages fit neatly in a blazer pocket. Thicker ones are fine in the cavernous pockets of many overcoats (though, hell, so are trade-size books)
(Phones work better in a jacket, too—I think we made a mistake running away from that clothing style, they’re like wearable purses that also make you look nicer. Sure suits are kinda wasteful with the way the jackets get downgraded if the pants are destroyed, but odd jackets we should have held on to!)
They also fit nicely in the back pocket of jeans, and leveled-out sitting on your wallet. I pretty much always had a book there from middle school until sometime after I was married.
Very much ready for the east coast in particular to move away from the suit nonsense.
Yeah suits are kinda ass. Again, the need to have trousers so closely matched they can pretty much only come from the same batch as the cloth in the jacket. Sucks. Looks nice, but man that blows.
Jackets are dope, though. Get some summer-weight ones and even in that season you don’t have to use trouser/jeans pockets. So nice.
You want to use your pants pockets less. I want more pants pockets :)
Yeah, a matter of preference I’m sure. I prefer not having to scrunch a little at the waist to reach e.g. “cargo” pockets, and there’s nothing like interior breast pockets on jackets, for pants (various sorts of hidden pants pocket exist, yes, but they’re hard to get at). No extra weight pulling pants downward, requiring a tighter belt (or suspenders—which, that part I’m on board with as long as the pants have actual suspender buttons!). Can take the jacket off and remove all burden, put it back on and be ready to go again. No sitting on things, having things pinch or poke your leg or hip when you sit.
It’s basically a looser way of wearing your stuff on you, than pants pockets. Less welded-to you. At some point I realized I disliked summer starting because coats and front-pocket/pouch hoodies went away and I had to start carrying things in my pants again. Later, I came to like the standard pocket systems on blazers & friends way more than hoodies and (modern casual) coats, and discovered that with the right fabric and (lack of) lining choices I could wear them in almost any weather if I wanted to (I don’t, every day, but weather’s no longer a major reason not to)
(I am not saying I’m right, just explaining what I get out of it over extra pants pockets)
What's confusing to me is that even most of the the print-on-demand services I've seen for self-published writers don't go below trade paperback trim sizes (5x8 inches).
There's a huge amount of indie fiction that really wants to be in pocket-size mass-market print format (for those buyers who prefer paper to ereaders), for ergonomics and some of the pulp aesthetic, but it's forced to trade paperback trim.
The format is going strong in Japan.
What? This is terrible news. I've always loved the mass market paperback format, it's perfect for reading. Trade paperbacks are annoying to shelve, annoying to carry, and less comfortable to read.
There is a big difference between paperbacks and TikTokification:
Paperbacks required authors to spend the same amount of time/effort to create content with a vastly expanded market and distribution mechanism.
TikTok and Insta created N creators to M consumers where N is nearly the same as M. Making the distribution channels bigger but effortless to create content doesn’t magically equate quality paperbacks with short form hummingbird-attention videos.
Not sure about your N = M
TikTok isn’t much bigger than open mics?
This is… not even remotely true or even descriptive of the nature of TikTok.
I don't use TikTok but spend some time on Instagram. Despite the format, I enjoy a lot of intellectually stimulating content (and, sometimes, conversations) on the platform.
Sometimes a friend would show me their feed and I'd be shocked at how different the content they are presented by their version of the algorithm.
There are a lot of people putting a lot of effort to create very interesting content and we should not belittle their work just to fein intellectual superiority.
There's really nothing inherently wrong about the format.
> There's really nothing inherently wrong about the format.
"Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot. For the 'content' of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind...The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance. The serious artist is the only person able to encounter technology with impunity, just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception." — Marshal McLuhan, Understanding Media
I feel like McLuhan is so thoroughly accepted as gospel now that it’s refreshing to see someone casually dismiss the idea out of hand like OC. I would love to see a serious exploration of the argument against McLuhan in 2025, just for fun.
You mean aside from the fact that his quasi-mystical, self-important proclamations have no factual basis? I personally dislike how his ideas cast a cynical veneer over truly transformative changes without actually contributing anything useful to the conversation.
Who takes this stuff as gospel? Academics who study critical theory?
McLuhan is anything but a cynic. It sounds like you haven’t read him.
I suspect he got right more than he got wrong.
Who is OC?
"Original Commenter"
I have not seen that particular jargon before but it rhymes with OP (Original Poster) that I was able to figure it out from context.
There is 100% some egotistic intellectual superiority as someone who consumes long form written content and long form video content. But its hard not to look down on short form video as a format and the culture of the medium. It seems clear to me that shorter form content is forced to "simplify" topics and sweeten narratives to retain the viewers attention. I've seen a ton of short form videos where I came away thinking wow what a great little video i really feel like i've learnt something. But then I double check to see if its actually true and its simplified to the point of being misleading. My sister shows me these videos all the time and its misleading or completely untrue majority of the time.
I don't think the article wants to belittle their work. The format isn't wrong, but the way the content is structured is troubling; it is to cater to the algorithm by tapping into the parts of our brain that are not meant to be stimulated all the time.
Any form of media isn't bad as long as it's analytical, i.e., one that forces you not just to be an observer all the time. Most content on such platforms is designed to keep your brain constantly stimulated so you never shift your attention to think. The stimulation and the dopamine hits just keep you hooked to it. They give little time for contemplation, encouraging passive consumption.
When consuming long‑form content in any format, you get bored or drift just enough to think your own thoughts as you consume. But when consuming short‑form content, you are forced not to think unless you choose to pause; if you get distracted, you might think you missed something, which you don't want to do.
Information‑dense content is not good in any way, whether academic or entertainment. It doesn't leave you with any time to think on your own, discuss with yourself or the creator, dismiss some faulty thoughts, and eventually form an opinion of your own that you want to discuss with someone, somewhere.
That being said, not everything has to be long form content. Short content can provide concise information where needed, also serve as a gateway to deeper exploration, if the viewer follows up. I am not sure how that can be encouraged as most do not choose to do, as they are drowned with it and never get time to explore deeper into topics they want to.
> Over one billion TikTok videos will be viewed today, and yet, you’re still here, reading a speculative essay about media economics. I don’t take that for granted.
Well said. Articles like these bring a sort of relief to me from the constant chaos of short-form media and the like. Very refreshing.
I found this article interesting but I'm not sure I understood the point.
I think the main concern with short form video isn't taste or appetite, but just the ability to digest.[0]
Though the effects on attention might be more acute than we think. A friend of mine found that he's able to read books just fine, if he just switches off his electronics first. Suddenly his brain comes back online...
[0] See also: The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance [even when switched off]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-36256-4
I like Cal Newport and own all of his books, but this sort of commentary is ultimately just pretentious. Aristocrats back in the day had similar thoughts about peasants even being literate.
I assure you, by sheer virtue of quantity, no matter what criteria you use YouTube/TikTok/Shorts/etc has a [set of videos] which demonstrates quality similar to any novel or literary work.
It's true there's more garbage out there than ever before, but this is an artifact of democratization of creation and this is good imho. I also reject the premise that time to creation is an indication of quality.
> no matter what criteria you use YouTube/TikTok/Shorts/etc has a [set of videos] which demonstrates quality similar to any novel or literary work.
Could you provide some examples that match the best literary works? I'd love to see them. Edit: Here are some proposed examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46388246
Nothing prevents the video medium from matching literature - full-length films, for example, are on that level. I think there are two drawbacks to short video: First, the amount of content - their length - limits what they can accomplish, like short stories are limited. Second, the medium hasn't had time to mature as an artform; novels and film, for example, were both around for a long time before there was much great art.
That reasoning doesn’t make any sense. Half a billion litres of Coca Cola are produced every single day, but the chance of a bottle of Coca Cola being made whose quality is similar to that of a good imperial stout is exactly zero, even though they’re both brown carbonated beverages. No amount of quantity can overcome a process intended to standardise for something other than quality. If the algorithm aggressively selects for mediocrity, mediocrity is what will be produced.
The quality of Coca Cola can only be compared to other colas. Comparing a soft drink to an imperial stout makes no sense. In my book, the imperial stout always has zero quality, because I would never see a reason to voluntarily drink it, whereas I might indulge in a diet coke every now and then.
But that’s why comparing subjective qualities of different things is a waste of time.
YouTube has many highly educational videos that are better than most professional production tv, especially for the hard sciences.
But GP said their reasoning worked regardless of what standards for quality were being used. It was a much stronger statement than the one you’re defending.
Comparing one billion exact copies of the exact same thing to a different thing that shares some superficial qualities doesn’t make any sense whatsoever when the GP is simply saying that among the huge quantity of content on TikTok and YouTube some short form videos are are as artistically valuable as the best examples of any other more traditional media forms.
Edit: to phrase it differently, GP stated that among the huge quantity of content on TikTok and YouTube some short form videos are are as artistically valuable as the best examples of any other more traditional media forms. The short form content on both platforms isn’t all good, but there is so much variety that some of it is. You responded that Coca Cola isn’t an Imperial Stout. It isn’t, but that has absolutely nothing to do with GP’s point.
I'm not sure I understand your analogy. YouTube has both diversity and quantity at levels tens of orders of magnitude higher than any high-quality-low-quantity good. Given the subjectivity of quality and amounts considered it's simply statistical fact that YouTube will always have things at the highest ends of subjective quality for any category.
The algorithm doesn't select for mediocrity - it selects for viewership, but regardless there are millions of creators at there that aren't optimizing for views anyway. It's the same reason some set of random blog posts or comments on sites such as this one will have quality similar to snippets of the highest quality technical documentation. Sheer diversity and quantity will always win.
YouTube I'd grant you, not Shorts/Reels/TikTok - the format of the media simply isn't amenable to output matching longer-form work, no matter how much gets produced. To me that reads akin to "there are so many tweets that for any criteria a [set of tweets] demonstrate quality similar to any long-form written piece."
> the format of the media simply isn't amenable to output matching longer-form work, no matter how much gets produced
why not? seems like a tautology. what's a robust set of criteria we can use the evaluate this objectively. I bet you TikTok will win. mind you I am not saying the average TikTok is good, just that there's probably some set of videos that that are of comparable quality than something put together over a longer period of time like a novel.
I understand what you're saying and that you're not talking about the average. The problem is specifically that short form things are short. It's like the monkeys on typewriters - you'll get some beautifully crafted sentences, but you're never going to get a number of sentences that add up to an actual work of Shakespeare - they're aren't enough atoms in the universe for the number of monkeys and typewriters you'd need.
But that’s more of a theoretical truth than a practical one, isn’t it? High quality novels are easily found. TikTok videos of equally high quality and depth? Perhaps not so, or exceedingly rarely.
Infinite monkeys with infinite time could surely also produce something spectacular and eye-opening, statistically speaking. But umm, you’d have to wait infinite time for it to be done, so it’s not really efficient when time is a finite resource.
Even movies won’t capture the nuances of a somewhat decent novels. I have no hope to see something really complex like “The Malazan Book of the Fallen” in any other form.
If a quote can be profound, so can a short.
Nobody's making the claim that a quote or a short can't be profound. Simply that longer-form works have emergent properties.
That's fair. I misinterpreted your comment, perhaps because I skimmed it too lightly because shorts have taught me to skim through information.
I don’t see how it’s is a statistical fact. There’s nothing I’ve seen on YouTube that compares even slightly to a high quality movie or TV series (unless it’s an unauthorised copy of a movie or TV series…).
that's a funny example, because something like Cobra Kai literally began on YouTube, there are others like Hazbin Hotel.
anyway, as for the statistics, for the case of YouTube since there are is no forced directive to which all videos must follow (creatively), you can treat all videos as random attempts. then it's just stats to show that such a distribution will have outliers that match or exceed in subjective quality the gate kept works (traditional tvs or literature).
Well, you’ll never see an erotic film on YouTube, or a war documentary using real combat footage for example, so there are many categories where it’s simply not capable of competing. And even without straight-up banned content, ‘advertiser-unfriendly’ content is aggressively buried by the algorithm, which discourages people from making it, so the ‘quantity’ part might not be true. Some content might be so heavily punished by the algorithm that almost nobody thinks to make it. This is a problem for your position, as it’s not enough for YouTube to win in some categories; it has to win in every category.
sure, but my point wasn't exclusive to them (hence the etc in the first comment). it was just related to any mass media platform, all of them collectively will win. you are right about YouTube in particular though, good point.
That logic only works if you take a “1000 monkeys at 1000 typewriters” approach to thinking about creativity.
If you want to argue that art is created by pure randomness that’s fine, but I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement.
3Blue1Brown. Veratasium. Contrapoints. Tom Nicholas. They have all made extremely high quality, and often profound videos.
Why is stout a higher quality than coca cola? Are they not just different? Its not like stout is an objectively superior product or something
Time alone doesn't equate to quality, but you can't deny that creating something really good doesn't take a long while.
I think you mean "creating something really good doesn't take a short time"
As someone who has a hard time putting down tiktok, I have to say: Yes, the platform and algorithm is addictive and predatory, but some of the content is really good. Lots of very funny sketches, in particular. I don't like dances and whatever, so I get none of that.
It has sort of surprised me how few teasers/trailers there are in short-form video. Seems like an obvious fit. I'd prefer it over the mediocre mobile games and dick pill ads they sling at me now.
I don't know. There's definitely fewer serious novels of a certain kind being published, and movies that aren't special effect spectacles tend to flop or go straight to streaming (for now).
Films got dramatically cheaper to produce and streaming gave them a platform to be easily distributed outside of the very exclusive cinema market.
Now the problem is quality and production. Studios don't have to be very selective at all any more so median quality has gone way down. Streaming platforms have a ton of content and terrible discovery which means there are huge volumes of mid content and a few gems that unless they are popular are impossible to find.
Publishing had a huge demographic change and is suffering from a different kind of bias than in decades past which has the same kind of diversity-limiting effect, just substituting different groups being promoted and left behind.
Culturally all over media production there's also a problem with a difficult to make distinction – "trying to be diverse" vs "actual diversity" and the imbalance is pushing people into silos: politically, culturally, and in every other way.
Attention like other objects of value is bound by laws. Quality <-> Quantity axis
High quality -> You can attend to a few things with high degree of complexity. Low quality -> You can attend to a lot of easy stuff.
EOD - Dopamine regulation now is based on how you train your attention.
So the problem is more sinister than the "time sink". What you don't use, you lose. So once we spend enough time in low quality, it takes a lot of effort to get back to higher levels.
There is a fundamental difference in consuming short form content, and reading a book- no matter how trashy the book is.
When reading for long hours, or for a short time over days and weeks- it teaches you to concentrate, to have some kind of discipline. It helps you focus and develop empathy. Reading is fundamentally different for the reader, and it makes them do other things well. Reading trash trains you to graduate to serious books- this is true for many.
But consuming TikTok readies you for more TikTok. More Shorts and Reels and Snaps. Wathing short form stuff damages one's ability to do other things as well.
And from the creators' perspective, I think trying to keep up with short form media for engagement's sake actually impedes their ability to create more serious stuff.
I don't totally miss his point, though. When smartphones and "internet places" spread as media, those already ready for serious stuff will graduate to those. And yes, these places will have a small role to play.
But they are definitely more negative than positive.
I don't see how TikTok readies you for more TikTok. You can safely combine it with YouTube longs and movies/documentaries.
I set a limit to avoid too much TikTok. And also TikTok often shows me 3-10 minute educational content, which I consider pretty well made. Dan McClellan talks about bible, form example. Or Jason Pargin on different topics. Brittney Hartley on nihilism and atheism.
The crux of the post is this:
> A closer look reveals that by vastly increasing the market for the published word, paperbacks also vastly increased the opportunities to make a living writing serious books
We can grant that this is true and yet it doesn't seem to provide encouragement. The equivalent today would be slop TikTok demand vastly increasing the opportunity for "serious" TikToks, whatever those may be.
A 'serious TikTok' is not a film. To think a film and a TikTok are alike is to make an elementary mistake in media analysis.
I can buy that we're going to get an explosion in fantastic short-form content. I'd say that the _Almost Friday TV_ group, who started a few years ago, are an example.
But this remains terrible news for predecessor mediums, who will suffer diminished demand and a general decline in the competency of audiences to enjoy those mediums ("great writers need great readers").
TikTok in China has videos on the for-you page exceeding 20, 30 minutes. In the US they've been promoting 1-4 minute long videos for a while already
Genuine classics never disappear, whether it's been 1,000 or 2,000 years (like the Greek philosophers we still read). If something vanishes because of a technological shift, it suggests its value was likely fleeting to begin with. What truly matters tends to survive.
So good to see someone communicate his thoughts in a way that is clearly not AI generated.
That headline resonates with me, echoed even. Then I saw it was by Cal Newport. Then I thought, when I have adequate attention I’ll read the article through, but I’m on the last 30 pages of a book and on my phone too.
The whole blogpost could be condensed to a single paragraph pointing out the analogy, and that's it.
I appreciate the optimism, and it's definitely worth noting that this isn't the first or last time that the intellectual elite had freaked out about the lowering of standards for the garbage the proles are imbibing. But the hinge of this article is that cheaper access to mass popular fiction opened up a new market for great unknown writers. This was true because the medium in paperback encouraged, rather than undermined, the reader's interest in reading. You pick up a paperback in the train station before heading home... your attention span at least stays the same, or maybe gets longer as you learn to enjoy long form fiction. The paperback business model is still based on keeping your attention fixed on a something for a long time (you know, like "Stranger Things"). Media like TikTok are designed to turn you into a vegetable with an attention span approaching zero. So I don't think these are equivalent.
The paperback vs hardback is more like Netflix vs cinema. Tiktok / short form video is like newsreels in Roger Rabbit, where the 'toons make the content.
And yet, penny dreadful editions and pulp magazines that existed before pocket books... did they have the same effect? Or did they only produce pocket book writers?
yeah, the story felt fishy without mentioning those.
ok this is a pretty stupid take from an otherwise smart guy.
tikok/YT shorts/IG reels is many orders of magnitude higher supply of slop than Simon Schuster paperbacks
[dead]