Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#81

Post by patrickaljord »

randomgyatwork wrote: post #21
padobson wrote: post #4

You only have to spend a little time consuming digital media to understand that products that rely on advertisements for income suck. As soon as subscription services started offering ad-free versions of their product, I started buying them. I'm not saying it's the best way forward, but would it kill Twitter and Facebook and Snap to experiment with some of these models? It's working for content creators, why should s…

Facebook, Twitter, Snap should be co-operatives of some sort, the users are creating the value, at least the popular ones, so they should be rewarded within the system for their continued support and audience development.

Why do you think users of these services create value for free? Maybe it's because the value created for free is less than the value they get out of using these services they create free value for. It is true that these services get money thanks to the aggregated value that is created by all their users but let's take facebook for example, they only make $48.76 per user per year as of 2015 [1]. If they were to pay their users, they could not pay them more than that per year. Not such an interesting deal for anyone involved, even if Facebook was turned into a cooperative with 0 profit. Users would only get $48.76 at best per year and as a non profit, Facebook would probably be way less efficient and therefor only offer half or maybe less than that.

Now Facebook could turn into a paid service and pay its users more but then it would have much fewer users and then way less money to offer and now we're back to paying users little.

Seems like the current deal isn't such a bad one, Facebook connects a massive amount of people around the world including poor immigrants with their family (I know a few) and in exchange these users create value for Facebook. It's a voluntary win-win situation for both parties. Adults entering mutually beneficial deals with each others and enjoying it, what's wrong with that?

1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/11891353/How-...

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#82

Post by jdietrich »

throwawaycopy wrote: post #36
stephancoral wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Before the advent of radio and recorded music there were many more musicians and bands. That's just incorrect due to the sheer exponential increase of humans alive, not to mention the many cultural factors you are ignoring. Thousands of bands were started because kids heard old blues music over the radio and became inspired. I'd wager there's more bands and venues than ever now and if anything, I'm seeing more and m…

You're wrong. In the 19th century there was a much higher percentage of people who could play rudimentary musical forms. The quality of music and choice available to consumers has increased steadily. People would rather hear the best musicians in the world than the best musicians in their household or neighborhood. There is plenty of historical research on this topic beyond the common sense explanation I'm offering h…

Before the widespread adoption of radio, pianos were an essential part of any household that could afford one. Pianos were a common sight in pubs, village halls, workplace canteens and practically anywhere that people would gather. Nearly everyone participated in social singing to some extent. The streets were filled with buskers, most pubs had a pianist or accordionist, most families had at least one person who could play an instrument. Music was as omnipresent as it is today, but it was performed live by whoever happened to be around.

The decline in music-making over the past century has been astonishing, in small ways and large. Whistling used to be a common sound on the street, but is now almost extinct. Social singing is now a rarity and would be difficult to revive, because there is no longer a shared repertoire of song to draw from. A vast chasm has opened up between "musicians" and "non-musicians".

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#83

Post by throwaway91111 »

PeterisP wrote: post #78
throwaway91111 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why pay for a book when you're entertaining yourself with streaming music and zombie shows? It is killing culture; just not the culture you care about.

Bet really, why pay for a book when people are choosing streaming music and zombie shows as their preferred medium of culture? If anything, that's an illustration of how culture in total is growing, even if it's killing parts of the culture that you care about.

Who cares if culture is growing if you can't connect to your neighbor over it?

Culture is more than just hobbies. It's about identity.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#84

Post by l33tbro »

PeterisP wrote: post #77
vtange wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the economy as a whole has been hit by this pattern. Call it "disruption","creative destruction", or whatever, but the general pattern has been that supply has gone up (it's never been easier to create content) while demand has remained constant (only so many eyeballs and so much time). Back then you could grow smoothly since there were always new people to reach, and only so much content for them to read…

This is the whole point of the article - while artists likely had it better in the old situation, from an outside perspective, increased supply == more creation == cultural boom in quantity; ever-increasing standards + larger pool of candidates competing for attention == cultural boom in quality. Saying that this is killing culture is like saying "nobody ever goes there, it's too crowded". Yes, the growth in supply i…

This what I find frightening about the landscape we're moving into. When the emphasis becomes on the volume of your content and how fast it can be produced, the overall artistic output of a culture suffers because there's no system to support artists doing 'deep work'.

So it's difficult to agree with your point that increasing standards and a larger pool of candidates create more quality. In my experience, quality artistic output is a time sink that arises from repeatedly generating and refining concepts and the media itself.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#85

Post by throwawaycopy »

jdietrich wrote: post #82
throwawaycopy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong. In the 19th century there was a much higher percentage of people who could play rudimentary musical forms. The quality of music and choice available to consumers has increased steadily. People would rather hear the best musicians in the world than the best musicians in their household or neighborhood. There is plenty of historical research on this topic beyond the common sense explanation I'm offering h…

Before the widespread adoption of radio, pianos were an essential part of any household that could afford one. Pianos were a common sight in pubs, village halls, workplace canteens and practically anywhere that people would gather. Nearly everyone participated in social singing to some extent. The streets were filled with buskers, most pubs had a pianist or accordionist, most families had at least one person who coul…

I'm very fortunate to live in a musical household and have a lot of musicians in my life. My wife and I both write and sing songs together. I've got a crew of people who get together to play covers and jam.

It is incredibly rewarding and gives me a very real sense of participating and contributing to my culture and community.

When I was a social media addict living my life through a screen while theoretically living in San Francisco I was frequently pulled down by bouts of depression.

Ever since I quit social media, got rid of my smartphone, discovered bluegrass and country music and moved to a place where these musical cultures are a fundamental part of society my life has gotten so much more rich and satisfying.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#86

Post by PeterisP »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #83
PeterisP wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bet really, why pay for a book when people are choosing streaming music and zombie shows as their preferred medium of culture? If anything, that's an illustration of how culture in total is growing, even if it's killing parts of the culture that you care about.

Who cares if culture is growing if you can't connect to your neighbor over it? Culture is more than just hobbies. It's about identity.

This growth allows me to connect to distant people who share my culture and identity, instead to my physical neighbor with conflicting values.

It opens up cultural niches that aren't viable in smaller communities or weren't viable before - something that won't have a critical mass to grow or even exist in a city of 100,000 people can have a thriving culture worldwide nowadays.

Yes, we're losing the notion of a shared monolithic identity kept together by mass media keeping "everyone" (or 3-4 major groups/demographics each) in a nation on the same page culturally. While it does mean that the society is becoming less united, this is increasing diversity and bringing the culture towards the individual differences in taste; I believe that in the end this trend is a good thing, both for the individual people and culture at large.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#88

Post by PeterisP »

l33tbro wrote: post #84
PeterisP wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the whole point of the article - while artists likely had it better in the old situation, from an outside perspective, increased supply == more creation == cultural boom in quantity; ever-increasing standards + larger pool of candidates competing for attention == cultural boom in quality. Saying that this is killing culture is like saying "nobody ever goes there, it's too crowded". Yes, the growth in supply i…

This what I find frightening about the landscape we're moving into. When the emphasis becomes on the volume of your content and how fast it can be produced, the overall artistic output of a culture suffers because there's no system to support artists doing 'deep work'. So it's difficult to agree with your point that increasing standards and a larger pool of candidates create more quality. In my experience, quality ar…

Volume of your content is an emphasis only while the revenue is low but still reasonable to work for, which is at best a phase of transition. As the revenue goes to zero and becomes insignificant (which is already the case for many art forms), or even becomes negative (i.e. authors paying in effort or money to attract attention to a free product), there is no emphasis on the volume of your content - the emphasis is on building something that's good enough to get attention despite an overwhelming supply of free alternatives, and that barrier is getting higher and higher. The people that break above that standard do invest quality deep work and a time sink, even despite a lack of system to fund most of them. Yes, funding them would likely help - but as current reality shows, it's not strictly necessary, the supply of good art anyway outstrips the availability of attention.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#89

Post by mantas »

throwawaycopy wrote: post #75
stephancoral wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small towns are where music happens. I live in Western, MA - I can see music every night. If I drive out to a small town in upstate New York, I guarantee you there will be a bar with live music. Even a run down shithole like Poughkeepsie or Catskill has plenty of local bands. Some huge names in music have come from small towns in Georgia or in Ohio or in Michigan. One of the biggest indie record labels is based out o…

I'm a professional musician living in Austin, TX. We are very lucky here to be living in a city that actively subsidizes live music, but this place is exceptional. At one time there was live music in every single pub in the country, if only just some drunk playing sing-a-longs on one of the ubiquitous pianos of the era. Nowadays the vast majority of restaurants, bars and private gatherings utilize recorded music inst…

OP may be overestimating importance of "national tour" too. I know for a fact that some supporting bands not only do not get any money fro ticket sales. They pay the main acts just to share stage with them. Some people go on expensive vacation to XYZ island, other people tour as a band...
Post reply on HN