Internet Archive and Wayback Machine have been facing DDoS cyberattacks for the last few days. The non-profit assured that collections are safe despite the service being inconsistent since Sunday.
why are you coming up with these categories? “print is dead” doesn’t mean “because there’s print 2.0 now”
—radio is dead
—excuse me, but internet radio is nothing compared to am stations
—yeah, obviously people who don’t listen to radio don’t want to listen to radio with extra steps
—what other forms of radio has beaten radio?
I am trying to understand what’s the argument behind your statement. I mean, there are more books being published than ever and there are more readers than ever. So, I fail to imagine how are books dead. That’s why I am asking these questions.
The argument is that no one reads books anymore. Most media consumed today is in modern video and audio formats like YouTube and podcasts. You shouldn’t compare paper books to ebooks, you should compare them to views on YouTube.
YouTube is video, it replaced TV. Podcasts and music streaming replaced the radio. Why should I compare books to another medium? In fact, back in the TV and radio era, more people consumed thant kimd of media instead of books, and that stays true today, yes. More people watch youtube than read books. I bet more people play games than read a book. But it’s comparing different kinds of media. It would be like saying podcasts are dead because more people consume pictures and video on instagram.
you’re wrong. TV replaced the radio, not podcasts. we’re not comparing different kinds of media, we’re saying new media replaces the old, regardless of form. it’s not about numbers; it’s about migration. if people moved on from listening to podcasts to consume pictures and video on Instagram, then you could totally say that, but they didn’t, so we don’t.
i wasn’t speaking in comparison to ebooks. ebooks suck in every way imaginable.
What other long-form text format has beaten print books ?
why are you coming up with these categories? “print is dead” doesn’t mean “because there’s print 2.0 now”
—radio is dead
—excuse me, but internet radio is nothing compared to am stations
—yeah, obviously people who don’t listen to radio don’t want to listen to radio with extra steps
—what other forms of radio has beaten radio?
what are you even
I am trying to understand what’s the argument behind your statement. I mean, there are more books being published than ever and there are more readers than ever. So, I fail to imagine how are books dead. That’s why I am asking these questions.
The argument is that no one reads books anymore. Most media consumed today is in modern video and audio formats like YouTube and podcasts. You shouldn’t compare paper books to ebooks, you should compare them to views on YouTube.
YouTube is video, it replaced TV. Podcasts and music streaming replaced the radio. Why should I compare books to another medium? In fact, back in the TV and radio era, more people consumed thant kimd of media instead of books, and that stays true today, yes. More people watch youtube than read books. I bet more people play games than read a book. But it’s comparing different kinds of media. It would be like saying podcasts are dead because more people consume pictures and video on instagram.
you’re wrong. TV replaced the radio, not podcasts. we’re not comparing different kinds of media, we’re saying new media replaces the old, regardless of form. it’s not about numbers; it’s about migration. if people moved on from listening to podcasts to consume pictures and video on Instagram, then you could totally say that, but they didn’t, so we don’t.