This is a joules/bit/mile way of thinking about information and communication. Industrial age media models were very... energy intensive reach. "New media" is really "low wattage" media, properly understood. CFLs/LEDs instead of incandescent.
-
Show this thread
-
Let's say that you have an idea that, in a perfect information market, would have highest impact if it reached a set of 5 people randomly distributed across the world. Everybody else would be better off with 2nd or higher order reception. The 1st order bits would be noise to them
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
The *ideal* distribution/reach pattern for that idea is the one that reaches those 5, and only those 5 people, at the lowest joules/bit/mile cost. Anything more is waste. That's a sort of thermodynamic efficiency limit model for media. Kinda like Carnot cycle for engines.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
It's amazing the sheer amount of energy that went into information distribution and reach a century ago. An offset press producing a run of newspapers to be distributed even at a city scale... it's a HUGE cost of joules/bit/mile... only justifiable for very high-value bits
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Even the worst of yellow journalism and penny-dreadful bits were, I think, on average higher value than stuff we put up on the internet simply because the cost is so low. Jevon's paradox. We're almost at the thermodynamic limit, putting pure noise into distribution.
2 replies 2 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
In fact, even the very ideas of reach and distribution smack of industrial age thinking. They evoke metaphors of dumb pipes connecting static producer brains to static consumer brains. There is no room in "reach" and "distribution" for context-awareness, relevance/salience etc
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
Really what we want is ideas that are produced just in time, and intruding on the attention of the right people, juxtaposed against just the right context at just the right time to produce maximum "aha!". Max redpilling per joule or something.
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
In a way, though we like to hate on modern targeted advertising, that's really the cutting edge. Unlike other bits, advertising bits MUST seek out the lowest redpilling (=buy decision/conversion) costs.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Ironically, the way to get past the trap of ad-supported models might be for "real" content to become more energy/targeting efficient than ads themselves. Today "real" content at scale rides advertising rather than the other way around because it is dumber. It has to.
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
Hence the rise of online communities with participation membranes. Raising a barrier to consumption of content actually increases the ability of its producer to build shared context and coherence where content is “targeted” by default. Self-selection into consumption categories.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yep. Escaped realities. But money is the worst participation membrane. That’s why I’ve usually relied on things like length of posts or obscure jargon to do the job. Many people criticize me for inaccessibility not realizing it’s a design feature, not an accidental bug.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Exactly. Money can work, but definitely carries risks, especially if it’s the only criteria for access.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.