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

31–40 of 129 posts

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#31

Post by CaptSpify »

ideonexus wrote: post #9

tldr; We've all become patrons of the arts through micro-transactions. Ten years ago, I donated regularly to charities that would enable micro-funding for people living in third-world countries. A $10 donation would buy some chickens for a woman in South America, who could turn a profit on the eggs and eventually pay the loan back. I thought it was a fantastic idea. Today, I find I'm funding everyone's projects. I pa…

I'd say it's a good thing. Nowadays everyone can have content that caters to their niche. It doesn't have to be "dumbed down" to fit a the common taste. When costs are low, the barrier to entry is low, and there's large enough slices of the pie to go to creators, consumers can get content that is more focused on what they want, rather than just what is available.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#32

Post by fluxic »

Call me a pessimist, but as a content creator this piece came off as extremely out of touch. Yes: NYT is booming in subscriptions, and Patreon has carved out a nice little niche for supporting podcasters and YouTubers. But it's nowhere near the level of support artists have had for the last hundred years.

Before, if you were a writer, you could write for the neighbourhood paper or magazine and carve out a decent living (see: Hemingway, DFW, etc.) Now, unless you're a staff writer for the NYT or maybe 10 other 1%er sites, there's no way to make a living off subscription sites. They have killed local markets that have supported writers. Book sales are down. Newspaper sales are down. Literary magazine sales are non-existent. Anecdatum: I wrote a series of Medium posts this month with a Patreon link at the bottom: 70k hits, $0 donations. It's hard for me to imagine reaching 70k people with my writing in 1910 and still being a pauper.

Two things: this isn't necessarily all doom and gloom. There are probably more artists living than at any point in history. And the internet helps us reach more people than ever before.

However, bragging that the world's most popular newspaper is adding subscriptions and that another couple of creators are making $10,000 on Patreon does not a Renaissance make. Patreon's PR team is trying to spin something that—at least for writers—isn't happening. The needle is not moving.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#33

Post by stephancoral »

throwawaycopy wrote: post #30

Ever-lower barriers for creators? There have never been any barriers for creators. Folk art has always been a part of human societies. There were barriers for mass dissemination of artistic works, but not the process of creation. Mass media put the local artists out of business. Before the advent of radio and recorded music there were many more musicians and bands. Now everyone has to compete on a global level. I wou…

>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 more people make a living off their music thanks to the network effects of social media combined with touring. I've watched two of my friend's bands - pretty weirdo stoner pop music - go on national tours supporting major acts (Of Montreal was one) and it most likely would've never happened if not for the exposure and channels of the internet.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#34

Post by CaptSpify »

treehau5 wrote: post #13
muninn_ wrote: post #2

I largely agree. The only thing that will remain constant is that the news today is absolutely terrible since it's trying to become entertainment and not what it should be: news.

I disagree with the whole notion of news itself. Thinking you can condense geopolitical, environmental, or scientific happenings into short, attention grabbing headlines and relay enough of the issues at play is crazy. Now journalism, I agree with. But it requires time and investment.

How do you see them differently? In my mind they are kind of the same thing, but one is just a bit more extreme than the other.

I guess I see value in news as "here are some issues that people are talking about, go find more info if you want to learn more"

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#35

Post by ingucis »

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…

If Facebook allowed you more control over what you want to see in your Feed, i am sure lots of people would be happy to pay for it!

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#36

Post by throwawaycopy »

stephancoral wrote: post #33
throwawaycopy wrote: post #30

Ever-lower barriers for creators? There have never been any barriers for creators. Folk art has always been a part of human societies. There were barriers for mass dissemination of artistic works, but not the process of creation. Mass media put the local artists out of business. Before the advent of radio and recorded music there were many more musicians and bands. Now everyone has to compete on a global level. I wou…

>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 here.

Amendeum:

I assume you live in a media hub like NYC, SF or LA, where there is a concentration of mass media professionals.

If you drive out to a small town you will find a very low number of local musicians. Before mass media there would have been a number of local music groups. Today people living in small towns listen to what the mass media professionals are making for them.

These are the same kind of basic economic principles that lead to any kind of concentrated specialization, and on a global scale, comparative advantage.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#37

Post by TelmoMenezes »

eduren wrote: post #8

The way I've come to view culture is that it is a byproduct of communication. Stick three people in a room and have them talk to each other, eventually they come to share a culture (a small one, but nonetheless significant to them)[1]. If it's indeed a byproduct, it follows that the amount of culture generated is directly proportional to the bandwidth/speed of that communication. In that interpretation, the internet…

> In that interpretation, the internet can only be an accelerating force; driving society forward into greater levels of social consciousness.

Not necessarily. Take evolutionary processes. Diversity arises in part from isolation. This is why the Galapagos are such a crazy local ecosystem. The Internet globalises all communication -- it is easy to see how this can lead to more "bandwidth" as you say, but less actual cultural output.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#38

Post by JoshTriplett »

CaptSpify wrote: post #34
treehau5 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with the whole notion of news itself. Thinking you can condense geopolitical, environmental, or scientific happenings into short, attention grabbing headlines and relay enough of the issues at play is crazy. Now journalism, I agree with. But it requires time and investment.

How do you see them differently? In my mind they are kind of the same thing, but one is just a bit more extreme than the other. I guess I see value in news as "here are some issues that people are talking about, go find more info if you want to learn more"

> I guess I see value in news as "here are some issues that people are talking about, go find more info if you want to learn more"

The problem is that most news falls outside the circle of control for the people reading it: it makes people worry, but in practice they can't or won't do anything about it. There's no point in worrying about something if you don't intend to act on it. But that runs counter to the notion of "get people worried to get more eyeballs watching".

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#39

Post by CaptSpify »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #38
CaptSpify wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you see them differently? In my mind they are kind of the same thing, but one is just a bit more extreme than the other. I guess I see value in news as "here are some issues that people are talking about, go find more info if you want to learn more"

> I guess I see value in news as "here are some issues that people are talking about, go find more info if you want to learn more" The problem is that most news falls outside the circle of control for the people reading it: it makes people worry , but in practice they can't or won't do anything about it. There's no point in worrying about something if you don't intend to act on it. But that runs counter to the notion…

I guess I see it as: People should be worrying. Things are scary, and there's more field of interest than ever to worry about. But people have to focus on what they think is the most important thing, or set of things, to worry about. I see news as a way to give them an introduction to the subject. Though, I agree it doesn't seem to work well in practice. I wonder what could change to make that happen.

Re: The Internet Is Saving Culture, Not Killing It

#40

Post by garysieling »

At the beginning they talk about places that have lost income, but the internet has also preserved a lot of content that was only accessible if you visited a place that owned a copy (library, museum, etc).

For instance, UCLA has a great old lecture series from the '60s they've been digitizing: https://www.findlectures.com/?p=1&collection1=UCLA%20Archive...

There are a ton of other places doing this. Once these types of projects are funded once, they can be available pretty much forever, because they are drop in the bucket for youtube, which seems tremendously cost effective.

Post reply on HN