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.
What is the difference between a text file and a video file in the digital space? You’re argument seems invalid at it’s core.
The difference is a 1000 word article requires maybe 500kbs to be stored and the size of a video of someone reading that article in glorious 4k60fps even with the best compression algorithms in the world would be still be several orders of magnitude larger.
That data has to be stored somewhere. Those datacenters require energy and maintenance which is neither cheap nor very good for the climate.
But there’s two points I’m trying to make and I may have conflated then somewhat.