Slashdot Mirror
Medium, Twitter Founder on Media: We Put Junk Food In Front Of Them and They Eat It (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader points us to an interview of Evan Williams, one of the co-founders of Twitter, and founder of publishing platform Medium: Ev Williams is not a fan of the increasingly homogenised media he currently sees, with its emphasis on feeding the great, gaping maw of platforms like Twitter and Facebook too often producing what he describes as tantamount to junk food. "It's understandable why media on the web is like it is today," Williams tells the Guardian. "That's not to say there's not a lot of great stuff out there, but a lot of people are dissatisfied with it. A lot of journalists who want to do great stuff are dissatisfied. Advertisers and brands are dissatisfied. We're still stuck in some very naive thinking, with the idea that people consuming media means that's what they want -- it's like, well, we put junk food in front of them and they ate that, so that must be what they want."
Most people are incredibly stupid. They DO want junk food, both figuratively and literally.
I don't respond to AC's.
Creating yet another outlet for the drivel that passes for journalism today is not the answer. He's just putting that "junk food" in paper wrappers instead of styrofoam boxes. Take some of that $57 million in VC funding and create a news agency that does it old school with outdated ideas like "just the facts" and devoid of spin. Fund it so that investigative journalists spend the months it takes to really pull it all together on the complex stories that face us today - and let them do it without a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit getting in their way. There are great reporters out there (Sharyl Atkisson comes to mind) that don't need ever more half baked outlets for their journalism, they need a organization that will fund their efforts.
Saying that 'Twitter and Facebook must be what all people want' is like saying that so many of these political polls (or Primary election results) are really representative of what all citizens want: It's only really reppresentative of what the people who are showing up (at Twitter or Facebook, or at the polls) want. There are plenty of people who are disaffected of Twitter and Facebook (and so-called 'social media' in general) and therefore they just don't participate; how do you count them, then? Also, as TFA alludes to, if Twitter and Facebook are all there really is, how many people who are participating in those are doing so only because there really isn't anything else? Of course there are those of us for which there is no 'social media' that will satisfy us because we think the whole concept is whack to start with; how are they counting us?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
people who think they know what others really want & need, better than those same others, have an unjustifiably high opinion of themselves and equally unjustifiable low opinion of most of others.
logically, only way such people can even think like that is by reducing others to simplified fixed and limited objects, instead of complex dynamic unlimited individuals they, and all human beings, are.
its always a good rule to distrust people who think what others really want. if they ever get to choose for others, they do it badly, inevitably, as history and all socialistic experiments have demonstrated.
What a lot of people don't realize is that social media and the various ad clickbait sites are becoming a primary form of entertainment, much like TV was a generation ago. Everyone looks at this stuff, not just "computer people" anymore. Try this experiment -- go wait for a train for 5-10 minutes, or go to the DMV or any task that requires sitting still for a few minutes. Every single person who has one and knows how to use it is going to take out their phone and start playing. Advertisers and junk food websites like BuzzFeed or Medium are going to want to capitalize on that. TV is almost 100% reality garbage now because most people who still watch "regular" TV aren't all that swift, so the advertisers give them their junk food.
I like the fact that you can still ignore the Internet's junk food for the most part, but the aggregator portals like Yahoo or MSN are full of it. Seriously, people complain about Slashdot but it's actually not bad compared to some of the alternatives.
Ev Williams is not a fan of the increasingly homogenised media he currently sees
Its his fault. companies like twitter, facebook, and reddit decided long ago their cash crop -- users -- had to be reigned in. certain topics and discissions could never be permitted on boards or by users. they did this ostensibly at the behest of maximizing brand value and appeal to brands and marketing.
A lot of journalists who want to do great stuff are dissatisfied.
because nearly every major news outlet is the brainchild of a media corporation, they are beholden to certain standards and practices designed to maximize brand value and attract marketers. this drives advertising revenue and shareholder value. its why medicine shows like Dr. Oz are successful, while investigative journalism into pharmaceutical corruption arent.
Advertisers and brands are dissatisfied.
by what? how would you know? Advertisers and brands are sated so long as their product or brand is consumed. they are only dissatisfied if a pitch or blitz didnt go as planned, or if an expensive viral campaign had no effect. Brands dont care about content, or topics, so to say they are dissatisfied with media is to say they are dissatisfied with the returns on investment they have made in platforms like Twitter...which has never really had a return at all.
with the idea that people consuming media means that's what they want
because we're driven to want it, you blithering imbecile. You dont think Proctor and Gamble spend two billion dollars a year on marketing campaigns like Terry Crews screaming "odor block" or Nike just conveniently happens to make shoes that 90% of the NBA enjoy do you? Public discourse, the free and open expression you seem to allude to, is all but dead in favour of whatever pseudo-hispanic consumable Taco Bell has excreted this month or how redbull helped an athelete conquer the very fabric of reality. The solution to the existential epiphany youre expounding upon from whatever golden shitter youre perched upon with iphone in hand is paradoxically to destroy or limit the very thing that sustains you. As you float about on your mega-yacht, take for a moment to consider this: the answer to your prayers for something other than internet bullshit already exists. Its called adblock, noscript, and and Tor. but, you want a golden goose. something thats unique, original, and can be monetized through advertising.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I think the Panama papers are a perfect example. In my opinion, this probably ranks in the top political scandals of my lifetime. But most people I know seem to care very little and don't know much about it.
Too many choices is just as bad as too few. It is not just news sources but even places like Amazon. Look for something like a bike light and you will get hundreds of hits and you will not know which one is any good.
With news sources it is worse. People tend to pick the source that will reinforce your world view aka and runaway feedback loop. That is what we are seeing today all too often. If you support Trump and someone posts something negative you dismiss it if they post something positive you eat it up. Same is true with Sanders and Clinton supporters. It is human nature to want to be right so we often flock to those that will tell us what we want to hear.
As far as news in the US I suggest VOAnews.com Yes Voice of America actually does a really good job of just presenting facts. I also think NPR is pretty good but biased to the left. I like that since I am slightly conservative so I will question their reports. CNN is also not terrible. MSNBC and FOX are both junk and score on average below 50% on accuracy.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I agree, but there's a certain refreshing honesty to it as well, not to mention that it's nice when people understand and recognize what it actually is that they're peddling.
I've been referring to quite a bit of the media I consume as "junk food" for the better part of a decade now. Whenever I first came to the realization that that's what it really was, it helped me immediately gain some perspective on how I was consuming entertainment and what that meant in terms of how I value my own time. I realized that a lot of my time was spent consuming empty calories: shows, sites, or games that I really didn't care about at all, but that I consumed simply because they were familiar and happened to be available at the time. That led to a shift in my media diet towards items that were tastier or more substantial.
Practically overnight, I stopped leaving the TV on and allowing myself to be distracted by whatever was on the screen, instead choosing to pursue other activities. The sites I viewed every day were culled, leaving me with just the bite-sized, thought-provoking, or extremely enjoyable ones. I stopped filling my gaming backlog with games that happened to be on sale, instead playing through my existing backlog and only picking up new games if I knew I'd be interested in them years later.
And, suddenly, the way I spent my time started aligning with my priorities better. I had more free time, I was spending more time on projects that mattered to me, and the time I still spent on entertainment was immensely more enjoyable.