FocusTube: A Chrome extension that hides YouTube Shorts

This "YouTube shorts are killing our attention" take is just the latest instance of a moral panic that's as old as writing itself. The only reason we're OK with novels or TV is path dependence.

The interesting question isn't "is this new media bad?" (it's almost always shallower), but "what structural change in society created the demand for it?"

My thesis is that the progressive "rationalization" of civilization has automated away the need for most people to have a long attention span. For the median worker, society is "running on autopilot." Your incentives are: Go to work. Do what the boss says. Come home. Consume. Sleep. Repeat.

In that environment, a long attention span isn't just useless, it's a liability. It's a bug that makes you miserable and non-compliant. You're not paid to think deeply; you're paid to execute predefined tasks and be there to report edge cases to your superiors.

"Shallow" media like Shorts are just the market's efficient response. They're a way to "exercise" atrophied cognitive faculties in a way that doesn't threaten the underlying system.

This isn't new. This pattern is a clear regression. Every new layer of media abstraction is met with the exact same complaint.

To wit:

Novels:

> 'Were it not for this consideration, it is an open question whether the novel traffic ought not to be dealt with as stringently as Mr. Bruce proposes to deal with the liquor traffic; whether it would not be well to enable the ratepayers of a district to limit the number of the circulating libraries, or even to close them altogether; and to place the "habitual" novel-reader under some such paternal restraint as that to which Dr. Dalrymple wishes to subject an "habitual drunkard." It is too clear, unfortunately, why it is that so many women thus waste their time and rot their minds. They read novels exactly as some young men smoke and drink bitter beer—for sheer want of something to do.' -- The Sabbath School Magazine, 1872

On the Printing Press:

> "He who gives up copying because of the invention of printing is no genuine friend of holy Scripture... Printed books will never be the equivalent of handwritten codices, especially since printed books are often deficient in spelling and appearance. The simple reason is that copying by hand involves more diligence and industry." -- Jonathan Trithemius, In Praise of Scribes, 1494

On Writing Itself:

> "...this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory... You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant..." -- Plato, the Phaedrus, 370BC

This isn't an argument for YouTube shorts. They're junk.

It's an argument that complaining about them is a waste of time. You're complaining about a symptom, not the disease.

At some point in the dark recesses of time, there was an antediluvian hominid upset that self-awareness and transcendence in the children deprived them of the immanence of being.

They were right.

Self-actualization is a balancing act. Though many may not reach the heights of solace within their own skin, that’s no reason not to wish for better for ourselves and for each other by proxy.

We are what we continually do. Not all who wander are lost, but many are only chasing safety. Any port in a storm, so they say. It’s only good that we want the best for those who can’t do for themselves, and a moral panic is an irrational externalized response to a perceived lack of shared internalized values, but the desire for equanimity is ultimately a rational one borne of a desire for peace, within and without.

Short form content is just the newest expression of cultural touchstones, and like all ways of being seen by seeing, being known by knowing, it is a boon to some, and a millstone to others.

All roads lead to Rome, but you can’t get there from here, if the path you seek leads you to moralize on behalf of others when one doesn’t offer a better way. In as many words, I agree that shame is unlikely to bear fruit.

We have to separate the good from the bad, and many aren’t able to thread that needle on their own, so for those folks, abandoning short form content entirely may be the best avenue to reconnecting with themselves and with each other. Intermediation can only get us so far, and can only bring us so close.

I concur that moral panic is an irrational response and that shame is an ineffective tool.

The point of divergence, however, is in the diagnosis. Abandoning the medium is an individualist solution prescribed for a structural deprivation. And paradoxically, it only works for socially disaffected individuals, who don't need the solution.

You can't treat a systemic nutritional deficiency by moralizing the choice to eat junk. The craving for junk is the operative symptom. The craving only exists because the primary diet is devoid of the necessary nutrients.

In the same way, you can't expect the individual to "reconnect with themselves" by merely removing the novum pabulum. The mental escapism they seek exists precisely because their rationalized role in society has already disconnected them. "Any port in a storm" implies that the storm ends, but the storm is the baseline condition of their life. It never ends.

For the masses, ontological escapism is a necessary compensation for a cognitive function that has been rationalized out of existence but still demands exercise. The "equanimity" you speak of is what the media provides, but in a way to pacify the parts of the brain that are no longer required for survival but still monkey-mind around. It's the difference between scratching an itch and waiting until the urge passes. The former inflames while notionally palliating while the latter abandons agency and thus blows out the inflammation. The latter unbinds. The former is binding.

The desire for "a better way" is itself a form of nostalgic escapism. It is a wish for some point between today and the pre-rationalized state where some dimension of individual cognition and attention were necessary.

This "better way" cannot be offered, because it would require dismantling the very structure that provides the economic and biological security that, while being fundamentally precarious, provides the ontological ruts that the masses fall into. It is asking them to take the path of most resistance and favor two birds in the bush.

Reconnection to immanence is a pre-rational state. It is that very state of being that was lost to self-awareness. The masses cannot regress to it by an act of individual will because what they lack is individual will. That lack is total and reinforcing. Certain socially alienated or schizoid individuals can (and do) reach immanence, but the hegemonic end of transcendence will come when humans have exhausted all possibilities of avoiding it, but not before.