Why then are so many folks turning their nose up at the seemingly lackluster content that plagues the Internet nowadays and are pining for the days of yesteryear? Well, for one, it's always great to reminisce. Everyone always seems to think that the current era sucks and that the previous decade was fantastic. A child of the 90s will say "Today's cartoons suck! Tiny Toon Adventures and Animaniacs were the best," while a child of the 80s will disagree and insist that Smurfs and He-Man were the greatest. Some people will cling to Motown while others will swear by disco, yet both will agree that "music nowadays ain't what it used to be."
Another reason is that it's easy to point fingers at the seemingly obvious culprit: social media sites. Everyone seems more than willing to kick that mangy dog. After all, if you pull up a site like Digg or reddit and glimpse at the home page, you'll often see silly pictures and inane top 10 lists mixed in with actual "newsworthy" submissions. It's easy for Internet snobs to point at this type of content regularly making popular, sneer and say, "This is why Internet content sucks now."
However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that social media sites are simply the People's Choice Awards of the Internet. If you're unfamiliar with the People's Choice Awards, good. They suck (see, this is why I can relate to folks hating on Internet content quality). The awards are decided not by movie critics, movie industry union members, or by an academy of voters, they're cast by millions of regular Americans who vote on what they like and don't like. And despite the trove of quality films and shows that come out each year, oftentimes the People's Choice Award winners are mainstream, crowd-pleasing fare.
Here's an example: in 2007 some notable dramas were released:
- The Lives of Others
- Away From Her
- Atonement
- Michael Clayton
- There Will Be Blood
- No Country for Old Men
Okay, maybe you love Harry Potter and disagree with my example. No problem, I'll provide you with another one. The masses voted Robin Williams as their "favorite funny male star" of 2007. Robin Williams. In 2007. Not 1987 or even 1997--apparently America thinks he's the funniest person of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN.
You see where I'm going with this? As a somewhat snobbish moviegoer, I think the People's Choice Awards is the absolute worst, most "you've got to be kidding me" awards show. Don't get me wrong, the Oscars and other prestigious shows have their fair share of bullshit wins and snubs, but as a whole they tend to recognize quality films and truly talented actors. Nonetheless, the People's Choice Awards exists and it lets the average Joe vote on his favorites for the year. And wouldn't you know it, not everyone in America is a film snob, a movie critic, or has seen 80+ movies in the theater that year (don't judge me and my disposable income). They vote on what they have seen and what they're familiar with, and they vote on what they like; thus, oftentimes mainstream, crowd-pleasing, familiar, or even downright silly (c'mon, Robin Williams?!) choices are made.
Which brings me back to social media sites. When you're giving the masses the ability to submit, vote on and promote any sort of content from across the entire web, what do you think they'll do? Sure, some people will want to know about the latest news in the Middle East while others are interested in Obama, and lots of people are are paying attention to recent medical advancements, literary thesis papers, search engine patents, the economy, and other "high quality," valuable information. And yeah, niche social media and social news sites will have a focus (Digg leans towards technology, BallHype is sports-oriented). But when you boil it down to a fairly general social media site that allows anyone to participate, you're gonna see a lot of mainstream, general crowd pleasing stuff. Pictures you can easily glance at and laugh about. Bulleted lists that are easy to skim and consist of X Funny Nostalgic Things That You Loved When You Were a Kid. Stupid rants that have no discernible point and won't make any sort of positive impact other than the fact that they made you smile or laugh for five minutes out of your busy, hectic day.
Am I a movie snob? Sure. Do I look at the People's Choice Awards and think that the quality of movies and television have gone down the crapper because "America has voted, so surely this must be an accurate representation of what's being made nowadays"? No, absolutely not. Great films and TV exist, and it's easy for folks like me to find and appreciate them. Similarly, great content still exists on the web just as it's always existed, and it's easy to find it if you know where to look. Don't take a cursory look at social media and reduce a vast, entire Internet's worth of content to the stuff you see being featured on Digg, reddit, Facebook and MySpace profiles, etc.
Just because the "crappy" stuff now has a magnifying glass being held over it doesn't mean it didn't exist before or that the "good" stuff is drastically declining. That's the beauty of the Internet--it's a comprehensive resource created by the people, for the people. For every and all kinds of people--elitists, snobs, dummies, juveniles, women, men, geniuses, liberals, conservatives. And that's the way it should be.
"Why then are so many folks turning their nose up at the seemingly lackluster content that plagues the Internet nowadays and are pining for the days of yesteryear?"
Answer: There was less crap to sift through to get to the good stuff.
If there were 360 million internet users in 2000 and 1.4 billion internet users in 2008 then we have at least four times as much noise polluting the signal intertubes. And if you subscribe to Metcalfe's Law, then holy shit, it's no wonder we're stuck in perpetual photoshopping and ha-ha memes...
"As a somewhat snobbish moviegoer"
Truth. Your ginormous DVD collection is about two movies away from going Skynet on us and attaining sentience!
It's about 2 box sets away from becoming self aware.
It's easy to host a peoples' anything. You avoid scrutiny, you avoid blame, and most of all, you avoid responsibility. I'm not a big movie fan, but I can relate when it comes to the Major League baseball All-Star games. Aside from a few new comers, you can predict who will be voted on the all-star team whether they play great or are past their prime (Jeter). Just goes to show people have sensationalized attachments to people, (and movies) they love no matter the other candidates.
Anytime you have to create content that appeals to the most people, it's going to lose character and authenticity. Yes, the Harry Potter series is pretty unique but definitely has more mass market appeal than There Will Be Blood.
I know many folks want that #1 ranking no matter the category or reason or a gazillion Twitter followers. Me? I happen to believe that it's better to be authentic and real (a.k.a. be yourself). Life is much simpler and less stressful that way. Besides, how can you really develop a meaningful conversation - much less a relationship - with a gazillion people?
Love the analogy between movies people choice awards and Digg---Right on! Couldn't agree more, the crap has always been out there, NOW people get to vote on that crap with sites like Digg etc. Good content certainly isn't lost you just have to know where to look
for instance if you were in the grocery store would you go to the checkout line (where all the tabloids are) to get the latest information on what's going on in the financial world or go over to the magazine/book aisle.
Ohh how I hate that sneaky/evil Gargamel and his shady cat!
Most people can't think for themselves and will like whatever their tv, friends and internet friends tell them to like.
If this doesn't apply to you, congrats, you still have an independently functioning brain and you are a rare animal.
I agree, all the crap as alway been out there. Now the genreal public has all these outlets to view the crap. I still believe that there is more "good" stuff now a days then there every was back then! Good post as always!
Mmm, I think the only difference is that back in the days, it was your annoying web developer geek friend emailing you the hamster dance (after he cleaned the cheeto residue off his mouse hand, and attached a virus to screw with you). Nowadays, it's your grandmother emailing it. Repeatedly. Because she doesn't understand the capacities of the Send button.
The only thing I have to look at to remind myself that content is WAY better than it was is mapping software. Seriously, it's good enough to put to song, oh wait... been there, done that.
I think that in 2009, social media will become even more important then it is. I have started to use the different tools, but I know I am only scratching the surface.
View my post, 2009 - The Year We Get Social, to get a better idea of my stance.
social media will become the future of marketing
It's the end of the day on the east coast, and I now get to go home with the vision of a hamster dancing his way up to a stage to receive an award. Thank you.
I love this post. What we really need then is more of a rottentomatoes of social media. An amalgamation of many critics (many revered, though not all) usually renders a pretty accurate percentage assesment.
Although I guess it would be hard to get a lot of decent critics to write about the stuff usually promoted on digg.
Hilarious, sad, and true. Also the reason why democracy is not always the best solution to all political problems.
Thanks for that. I now have the theme to Freakazoid playing in my head, and an image of Cosgrove looking at the camera and saying "Cut it out".(jump to relevant part)
Hahahaha.... hoo... ha... what? Just me? Well... suit yourself then.
I understand your point of view. While it's true there's a lot of crap on the internet, there's also lots of hidden gems. I wonder if the ratio of good stuff vs. bad stuff has really changed over the years.
There was a debate in the music sphere a few years ago regarding DIY bedroom musicians. With increased access to affordable (read downloadable) technologies, musicians have been able to record full LPs right from their bedrooms, when before you would have needed access to a recording studio to do so. Beirut's first LP was entirely recorded by one man (he plays all instruments, recorded and mixed the pieces himself) at home. He was 19 years old at the time. Basically, what was being said is that those bedroom producers would overflow the music industry with poor and uninteresting recordings. A few years later, the industry definitely has changed, but did not collapsed (I would even say it flourished).
What I'm trying to say is that there's a public for everything on the web, so who are we to decide what's best and what not. The Huffington Post had an article up a few days ago about the emminent death of Digg by Twitter. Digg was supposed to bring up the so-called democratization of information that was announced in the hey days of the internet (remember the technological bubble of the 90's?). Has it really happened? There are so many influencers tricking up Digg's results that I doubt it ever will. Can the people really be blamed for the crap on the internet? I doubt it too ;)
I agree with all your points Rebecca, let's leave the moaners aside to moan and rant about these things while we keep the Internet content goodness for ourselves : ) There is so much good on the web nowdays it is difficult not to bump into it.
Ohh the sad truth: we make content for the masses and the masses generally like things the creators don't.
I'd have to disagree, it's true that there is something elitist when a person says "Content on the internet sucks now". But let's face it, it's not that people get dumber, it's that people in large groups face a considerable drop in IQ levels. Herd mentality takes over and you quickly find yourself in a sea of, well, stupidity.
Social media, especially things like Digg, constantly promote the degradation of content. Note that a person won't even read anything anymore unless it's a list. I can't picture any Digg user wasting their time with your very well thought-out post when they could just look at another post just like yours summed up in 10 key points with pictures of lolcats, emo myspace girls, and scenesters.
That's a gross generalization. This Forbes.com article about the Big 3 bailout made the Digg homepage, and it's a lengthy editorial in non-list form.