Many people are now talking about the “death of the ad-supported internet model,” and I can only say that it can’t come quickly enough.

The main reason why it all switched to ad-supported is the massive costs of storing and streaming all that high-definition video. And for what? So I can see every pore on Joe Rogan’s face while he sits in front of the mic and talks for 3 hours?

Or so that some video game dweeb can read his essay about why an obscure JRPG is the height of postmodern art over 30 minutes of game footage. Or all the channels trying to imitate Kurzgesagt with shitty animation and information they gathered from browsing Wikipedia.

Face it. Most of this video is unnecessary. 99.9% of all possible information can be relayed through text, pictures, and the occasional sound file.

Furthermore, most video content creators are unnecessary too. I can just read about a laptop’s specs and the reviewer’s experience with it. I don’t need LinusTechTips to stare at me with his reptilian eyes while he destroys the inferior product with an oversized novelty mallet.

Most of what’s on YouTube and other video-heavy social sites is not insightful, not creative, not informative, not fun, not sexy, and honestly shouldn’t exist at all.

  • query@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Talk shows and podcasts rarely need video. I often prefer podcasts because they’re made for audio, rather than similar style videos where they seem to want to do something visual just because they can, not because it enhances the experience.

    Work meetings don’t need video either, especially not a video feed of every single participant.