←back to thread

298 points elorant | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bransonf ◴[] No.21573859[source]
What amazes me is that Tik-Tok fills the void created when Twitter killed vine.

Given the popularity of Vine, and the outrage when Twitter killed it, I have no idea why they thought it was a good move.

I’m bullish on Tik-Tok because I think it’s the next logical evolution of social media (and totally captures the Vine fan base which was pretty big to begin with)

First there was text, both Facebook and Twitter. Then images with instagram. Now people want videos that they can consume in short bits of time en mass.

I think you would be amiss to not see TikTok as a potentially big player in social media in the future.

replies(7): >>21574077 #>>21574184 #>>21574740 #>>21575275 #>>21577523 #>>21578787 #>>21579919 #
JohnJamesRambo ◴[] No.21574184[source]
> First there was text, both Facebook and Twitter. Then images with instagram. Now people want videos that they can consume in short bits of time en mass.

What you are describing is the continued fall to smaller and smaller bits of stimulation and information. I’m worried about the consequences of this on the human mind and humanity in general. Our tech is gradually eroding our ability to focus on anything for more than a few seconds. I don’t want a future that is some weird mix of Idiocracy and getting the Black Shakes from Johnny Mnemonic. We need people that aren’t easily manipulated by ads and disinformation campaigns and that can think long and clearly about something.

replies(11): >>21574236 #>>21574239 #>>21574291 #>>21574361 #>>21574499 #>>21575365 #>>21576073 #>>21577219 #>>21577893 #>>21579557 #>>21579716 #
nbardy ◴[] No.21574291[source]
At the same time we have the rise of long form podcasts. Producing quite the opposite effect.
replies(5): >>21574492 #>>21574506 #>>21574540 #>>21574973 #>>21577643 #
nosianu ◴[] No.21574540[source]
Now weigh (e.g. multiply) the number of each with the number of people actually consuming it. Just look at Youtube: If a serious video that teaches you something interesting has a thousand views it can be called "very popular". The latest useless joke video easily gets a million views.
replies(4): >>21575184 #>>21575589 #>>21575599 #>>21577596 #
1. read_if_gay_ ◴[] No.21575589[source]
The most amazing math textbook in the world may sell maybe 100K copies tops. 50 Shades of Grey sold 125 million. Does this mean books are bad, or does it mean people aren't always exclusively interested in intellectually challenging topics?

The Gutenberg revolution had its critics. I think criticising the Internet as a medium has parallels to that. That's not to say any arguments made are idiotic, just that they may miss the point. I think there are reasons why the view counts are so different that don't imply the Internet is a shitty medium.

Firstly, a 3 hour podcast takes 3 hours to listen to, generating one click per three hours of listenting time for that podcast. TikTok videos take a few seconds to watch, so in 3 hours you're doling out thousands of views.

Secondly, views are distributed differently for those types of content because everyone finds roughly the same things funny, but only few find the same things interesting. If you want to watch something funny, you're probably not gonna spend much time finding suitable content, instead just consuming whatever is popular, so a handful of videos end up with insane amounts of views. But if you want to take up a hobby project you'd pick something that interest you, which is very different from what might interest me, even within the domain of CS and maybe even within subdomains of CS, so views are distributed more evenly for instructional videos.

And now we're here comparing the view counts of popular funny videos to instructional videos. I think it's clear why that might not be a good data point.