The argument around ad-blockers and anti-addiction tech is an interesting one. While I agree that they make it more difficult for sophisticated people to be affected by the provocation and click-bait, I’m not sure that this automatically makes the unsophisticated audience that remains more lucrative. One of the hopeful things that Ryan mentions in the 2017 edition of this book is that the rise of paywalls is a sign that “serious” media outlets are beginning to realize that the pageview game is a game for suckers. They can’t hope to compete with blogs who specialize in outrage, so instead of doing that they’re differentiating themselves as “upmarket” publications who charge an up-front fee, in exchange for not showering you with clickbait.
My personal prediction is that we’ll end up with a two-tier media market, where relatively affluent and more sophisticated readers continue to read things like the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, or The Economist, while less affluent or less sophisticated readers read Huffington Post and… whatever ends up taking Gawker’s place. In a sense, it’ll be like the old split between broadsheets and tabloids, only online instead of in print.
With regards to Twitter, I wonder how important it is that the handle be a throwaway one, with no prior history. I know that, for example, gwern has tried engaging with vocal skeptics of things like GWAS studies on IQ, and it doesn’t really seem to have made a difference in their viewpoint. I wonder how much of that has to do with gwern’s prior posting history putting him firmly on the “other side”, causing people to dismiss his claims on the basis of who he is, rather than what the claims are.
The argument around ad-blockers and anti-addiction tech is an interesting one. While I agree that they make it more difficult for sophisticated people to be affected by the provocation and click-bait, I’m not sure that this automatically makes the unsophisticated audience that remains more lucrative. One of the hopeful things that Ryan mentions in the 2017 edition of this book is that the rise of paywalls is a sign that “serious” media outlets are beginning to realize that the pageview game is a game for suckers. They can’t hope to compete with blogs who specialize in outrage, so instead of doing that they’re differentiating themselves as “upmarket” publications who charge an up-front fee, in exchange for not showering you with clickbait.
My personal prediction is that we’ll end up with a two-tier media market, where relatively affluent and more sophisticated readers continue to read things like the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, or The Economist, while less affluent or less sophisticated readers read Huffington Post and… whatever ends up taking Gawker’s place. In a sense, it’ll be like the old split between broadsheets and tabloids, only online instead of in print.
With regards to Twitter, I wonder how important it is that the handle be a throwaway one, with no prior history. I know that, for example, gwern has tried engaging with vocal skeptics of things like GWAS studies on IQ, and it doesn’t really seem to have made a difference in their viewpoint. I wonder how much of that has to do with gwern’s prior posting history putting him firmly on the “other side”, causing people to dismiss his claims on the basis of who he is, rather than what the claims are.