I'm no big lover of short form video content, but Cal Newport comes across as a bit obtuse in this article. Why is he surprised about these videos being used for consumptive purposes? I find the short, attention grabbing videos ala reels, tiktok, shorts, or vine not much different than modern tv. Have you tried watching TV from your peripheral vision? It's nothing but rapid, jarring cuts and bursts of color.
A few weeks ago, I read a 1300 page fantasy book. A few weeks before that, I read a 400 page nonfiction book on a subject I'm interested in. I've also read philosophy, wrote in a journal, watched tv shows and movies, browsed TikTok for hours, and took many walks around the park. I really can't say I find any of these experiences any more meaningful than the others. Anti-consumptive behavior has its place when a life is out of balance, but we're all going to die, so does it really matter in the end?
TV is very different despite being made to look like short bursts of colors and cuts because unlike short form content, there is a theme or a story that is being played through, our brain is engaged on a much longer arc of a story than short video content which does not give the viewer enough time to think beyond what is shown.
I agree that the medium through which one has pleasurable experiences is very subjective, but at the same time how much of it is consumed, absorbed and captured is what I think matters when talking about a medium being just for consumption purposes. Earlier web and social media was a lot about contributing and having a dialogue now its vastly about consumption or some form of outlet which does not encourage any traditional engagement but a passive viewing.
That being said, all these channels also have content which is good and enriching. But to reach that one has to be familiar with the platform to navigate away from the algorithm and also be looking for it. The idea that TikTok throws in only the entertaining content for selected topics at the get go says a lot of the culture its promoting and encouraging.
Very weird article, so he watched like 10 clips and invested 10 minutes and then proceeds to write "what happened when offline person tried tiktok" - how is this even serious? On the other hand 1st paragraph of the article brags about his anti social media stance and how he turned it into sort of side-hustle so probably this article is carefully crafted to be clickbait and at same time not taint anti-social-media-person image.
I feel much more time and effort was put into arranging words(2290 words per `wc -w`) than collecting data or asking actual addicted users
Also I don't agree with people being more tolerant towards individuals who ditched social media. In my social circle, you either can't convince people not to use facebook to send you messages or convincing them will be short-lived. You will look weird and closer people(i.e. friends) will directly ask what's wrong with you
TLDR:
>I tried crack
>wasn't for me
>asked some crack addicts what they think about crack
>they say they can quit whenever they want
>wow, crack isn't that dangerous after all!
