I've been thinking about this, and the more I do, the more it feels like there's some pretty bitter irony in the way things have gone. The internet became popular (at least the way I see it) by offering an alternative to mainstream content sources, and it's gradually become the very thing it seeked to get away from.
So let's say for the purposes of arguing, between the TPP, whois privacy potentially going away, and all the other crazy/terrible ideas out there right now, things get really bad? Are you guys okay with starting over from square one?
The irony goes beyond media content type. To me, the internet promised free speech, a worldwide community, and freedom from oppressive governments. And now it is well on its way to becoming one of the greatest tools for surveillance and oppression that has ever existed.
Agreed on all points, the thing is, what comes after the Internet? The answer seems to be more Internet.
It's not too hard to get away from the social cable TV news like Facebook if you try. The Internet is still as subculture-focused and underground as it always was, you just have to dig a little deeper these days. There are still phreaking groups on IRC. There are still anon remailer nets. Ham radio is still a thing. x86 disassemblers are still useful. Soldering is still a valuable skill.
It's just now, there are a few generations of us out there and the barriers to entry are very low for the Internet at large. Don't give up.
There's a reason why the "News of the World"s of this world stick around. Take a look at the magazine rack at any checkout lane in the US, and you'll see it filled with such trash. Why are these people still around? Because such baity headlines work! It's no secret; they've been doing it for decades. It's not the end of the world; just like newspapers weren't killed by them.
You're commenting on the title ("The dream of the highbrow internet is dead", which is the first sentence of the article), but we only changed it to that because the top title was so bad. The article itself is more interesting than either.
Can anyone suggest a more representative title? Edit: I've taken a crack at it, but we'd be happy to replace it with something better.
> Who dreamed of a highbrow Internet, and how did they get so out of touch with humanity in the first place?
The people who invented it, who wanted a way for scientists to access mainframes using a single network instead of having to use a different network for each different big computer.
Oh, you mean scientists can still do things like that, and that cat GIFs don't prevent it? Shut your mouth!
> Oh, you mean scientists can still do things like that, and that cat GIFs don't prevent it? Shut your mouth!
If, as you indicate yourself, the Internet could still be used for science whether or not it also delivers videos of cats, then why would scientists have fooled themselves into thinking the Internet must be 'highbrow'?
Did they use a 'highbrow' telephone system before that? Did they use 'highbrow paper' while the hoi polloi read their garbage dailies? No, the Internet is a tool just as paper and telecommunications were.
What people do with that tool is up to them, but the tool itself won't raise the nature of discourse just by being, anymore than a really nice socket wrench will magically make the beams and struts of a building stronger.
I'm glad the title was revised again because the previous version was practically a contradiction in terms.
> The $100 million acquisition proves that there is no more bar for ‘quality content.’ Quality content is only a fraction of the equation for illustrating #value in a media brand. Projecting the idea of having ‘quality content’ might even be more important than spending money on the production of quality content. It’s just bad business.
> The funny thing is that Dissolve probably had everything a niche content farm needs to be successful.
> But you can’t really justify a ‘team’ of writers producing long content that doesn’t even #perform by today’s content economy standards.
> A site like ViralNova demonstrates just how a generalist content site ruined the web.
[rant]
Articles like this make me want to scream: "your metrics for 'quality' are defined by your philosophy!" Your standards (metrics) are based on your values. Your values, which are hierarchical, are based on your fundamentals. Your fundamentals = your philosophy.
A crime boss rules his neighborhood by threatening people with violence unless they pay extortion. He grows rich in terms of money. His large influence is based on force. For those who fundamentally value quantity of money or influence, by their standards, he has a quality and successful business. For those who fundamentally value honesty or the non-aggression principle [1] in their hierarchy of values as more important, he has a low quality and unsuccessful business.
No, sites like ViralNova haven't ruined the web and, no, I'm not conflating content farms and extortion. ViralNova is giving people want they want. Just as contemporary art is a reflection of the prevailing philosophy [2], so is ViralNova a reflection of ubiquitous standards that trends, "hotness," and money are morally proper reflections of value in and of themselves. To paraphrase a famous book [3], "lowbrow" content is not the root of all evil killing the Internet. You must ask what is at the root of content. Until people start experiencing and learning alternative philosophies, their values won't change. If you want to change the Web and raise the intellectual "bar," you need to focus on the philosophies behind the metrics that define "successful" - not the metrics themselves.
The highbrow Internet isn't hindered in any way by the chans or the cat GIFs or whatever the current New Media bogeyman is. The great thing about the Internet is that it gives you infinite room to build what you want.
Why do you need VC attention and funding to publish film reviews?
That is, to me, the core problem in the article. It seems to suggest that Dissolve deserved to be given money since other less worthy sites are being acquired for millions.
That's not how the Internet works. The 20th century "highbrow" journalist enjoyed a certain income because he had a monopoly on access to media. A widely read newspaper only needed one film critic. But on the Web, any group of people can start a site like Dissolve.
It's not a special privilege reserved to media elite, and that seems to annoy the author: Dissolve had "Pitchfork credentials", which apparently implies that it would have deserved financial success based on that association.
I agree. This is, unfortunately, the biggest point old media have been delusional about.
We might also add that the way old media tried to stick to old ways of displaying advertising has contributed to fuel the current status quo of Internet Advertising. It was their model that pretended to make every pair of eyeballs equal, now they pretend that they shouldn't be when it comes to content quality...
It's obvious that the current page views based model of Advertising is going towards self annihilation. In the meantime you can still exploit it with explosive growth and cash in on that, like viral nova did in just 2 years.
Yes but I still find it hard to give them any journalistic credibility, because I know where they come from.
I'm aware that I'm part of a minority though
It's mostly not "superficial" versus "meaningful" content, but rather "destination" versus "value-added" content.
The problem with The Dissolve is that you have to decide to go there to engage with it. Most people won't do that.
Value-added content is explicitly designed to be slotted in anywhere on the whole Internet. Nobody decides to engage with that stuff; it just shows up, like a banner ad.
Yeah. I loved The Dissolve every time I remembered to visit it. Sadly, that really wasn't very often. Even as a fan of cinema, and of the sort of cinema that The Dissolve often used to write about, there wasn't much to remind me of the site's existence.
Niche content makes a better hobby than a business? Or at least, such content is best provided for secondary benefits, rather than expecting immediate riches from ad revenue for a few occasional posts.
Well, you gotta remember that the big majority of people are dumber than the remaining (no offense, that's just how it is), plus everyone craves entertainment in a world where everyday life is just boring.
So it's no surprise that a dumb and entertaining website would be so profitable - it appeals to a maximum number of users, most of which don't think twice before clicking an ad or making a purchase, either...
Even if it was intended #irony, the random hashtag inserts eventually made the whole piece come off as clickbaity to me and I actually stopped reading it. I mean, I got that you are totally hip to the ecosystem in the first paragraph, you don't have to keep whacking me in the face with it.
This whole story reminded me of Pratchett's The Truth. The starting up of newspapers and William de word trying to write proper articles only to be defeated by cut-my-own throat dibbler who invented news stories that were much more exciting with crazy headlines but were untrue.
If you want to make some wine, there are plenty of sour grapes for the picking here!
It's actually an enjoyable read, but the idea that a site with some movie reviews on it is so much more high brow than Viralnova is hilarious. It wasn't that long ago movies were considered the lowbrow medium and I imagine some writer was whining about how opera was no longer getting its due.
>it’s also a ‘technology company’ with its own content management system and the analytic tools to find out what is going viral. They have innovative technology that allows them to A/B test their Facebook headlines.
31 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 71.4 ms ] threadSo let's say for the purposes of arguing, between the TPP, whois privacy potentially going away, and all the other crazy/terrible ideas out there right now, things get really bad? Are you guys okay with starting over from square one?
I'm all for a fresh start.
It's not too hard to get away from the social cable TV news like Facebook if you try. The Internet is still as subculture-focused and underground as it always was, you just have to dig a little deeper these days. There are still phreaking groups on IRC. There are still anon remailer nets. Ham radio is still a thing. x86 disassemblers are still useful. Soldering is still a valuable skill.
It's just now, there are a few generations of us out there and the barriers to entry are very low for the Internet at large. Don't give up.
Can anyone suggest a more representative title? Edit: I've taken a crack at it, but we'd be happy to replace it with something better.
The people who invented it, who wanted a way for scientists to access mainframes using a single network instead of having to use a different network for each different big computer.
Oh, you mean scientists can still do things like that, and that cat GIFs don't prevent it? Shut your mouth!
If, as you indicate yourself, the Internet could still be used for science whether or not it also delivers videos of cats, then why would scientists have fooled themselves into thinking the Internet must be 'highbrow'?
Did they use a 'highbrow' telephone system before that? Did they use 'highbrow paper' while the hoi polloi read their garbage dailies? No, the Internet is a tool just as paper and telecommunications were.
What people do with that tool is up to them, but the tool itself won't raise the nature of discourse just by being, anymore than a really nice socket wrench will magically make the beams and struts of a building stronger.
I'm glad the title was revised again because the previous version was practically a contradiction in terms.
> The funny thing is that Dissolve probably had everything a niche content farm needs to be successful.
> But you can’t really justify a ‘team’ of writers producing long content that doesn’t even #perform by today’s content economy standards.
> A site like ViralNova demonstrates just how a generalist content site ruined the web.
[rant]
Articles like this make me want to scream: "your metrics for 'quality' are defined by your philosophy!" Your standards (metrics) are based on your values. Your values, which are hierarchical, are based on your fundamentals. Your fundamentals = your philosophy.
A crime boss rules his neighborhood by threatening people with violence unless they pay extortion. He grows rich in terms of money. His large influence is based on force. For those who fundamentally value quantity of money or influence, by their standards, he has a quality and successful business. For those who fundamentally value honesty or the non-aggression principle [1] in their hierarchy of values as more important, he has a low quality and unsuccessful business.
No, sites like ViralNova haven't ruined the web and, no, I'm not conflating content farms and extortion. ViralNova is giving people want they want. Just as contemporary art is a reflection of the prevailing philosophy [2], so is ViralNova a reflection of ubiquitous standards that trends, "hotness," and money are morally proper reflections of value in and of themselves. To paraphrase a famous book [3], "lowbrow" content is not the root of all evil killing the Internet. You must ask what is at the root of content. Until people start experiencing and learning alternative philosophies, their values won't change. If you want to change the Web and raise the intellectual "bar," you need to focus on the philosophies behind the metrics that define "successful" - not the metrics themselves.
[/rant]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
[3] http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm
That is, to me, the core problem in the article. It seems to suggest that Dissolve deserved to be given money since other less worthy sites are being acquired for millions.
That's not how the Internet works. The 20th century "highbrow" journalist enjoyed a certain income because he had a monopoly on access to media. A widely read newspaper only needed one film critic. But on the Web, any group of people can start a site like Dissolve.
It's not a special privilege reserved to media elite, and that seems to annoy the author: Dissolve had "Pitchfork credentials", which apparently implies that it would have deserved financial success based on that association.
The problem with The Dissolve is that you have to decide to go there to engage with it. Most people won't do that.
Value-added content is explicitly designed to be slotted in anywhere on the whole Internet. Nobody decides to engage with that stuff; it just shows up, like a banner ad.
So it's no surprise that a dumb and entertaining website would be so profitable - it appeals to a maximum number of users, most of which don't think twice before clicking an ad or making a purchase, either...
Same here, I thought it would stop after the first ironic paragraph, but when it went on and on I couldn't stand it any longer
It's actually an enjoyable read, but the idea that a site with some movie reviews on it is so much more high brow than Viralnova is hilarious. It wasn't that long ago movies were considered the lowbrow medium and I imagine some writer was whining about how opera was no longer getting its due.
Such innovation. Many wow.