And TikTok. It really depends what Tok you end up on, but there's plenty of corners of TikTok that are exactly the same mechanics as Twitter: quick bursts of infuriation that activate you and leave you wanting more. I think it's easier for a video-based content network like this (these are not social networks) to have content where you turn off your brain, like TV, than it would be with text. But they both can and are incentivized to do the same thing: titillate.
> there's plenty of corners of TikTok that are exactly the same mechanics as Twitter: quick bursts of infuriation that activate you and leave you wanting more
If you start following tags or certain people you'll visit the dusty corners, but the FYP is remarkably good at filtering out incendiary stuff, at least in my experience. I get basically all good vibes, nothing like Twitter/Reddit, and I'm never angry or high strung after watching TikTok.
I'd argue that text has an advantage over video: speed of skipping past content you don't want. People don't talk anywhere near as fast as they skim headlines
You're right about turning off your brain. But not everyone wants that thing turned off
I'm not sure that's accurate. I used to be a huge advocate of text, but don't forget the whole "a picture is worth a thousand words" thing.
If I see a random blog with text, I have no idea of anything regarding it without first reading (or skimming) it. But within one second of watching a YouTube video, for example, I can know a lot about the video - how professional it is, the "genre" it's in (e.g. BookTube vs Fitness), etc.
Plus, jumping around a video of an explanation on how to do something with the computer is actually fairly easy. It's easy to jump past the "here's how to install the app" part and straight to the "here's someone with a code editor open editing the thing I care about".
