Passivity is antithetical to whether something is a hobby. I don't think the vast majority of people who participate in the common culture of film, TV, food, social media, and travel consider those things to be their hobbies. And rightfully so, because all they are doing is paying for temporary access to something they aren't actually engaging with. If, on the other hand, a person watches movies in order to analyze and critique them, they are entering hobbydom as they are engaging with the subject rather than turning their brain off.
> Passivity is antithetical to whether something is a hobby.
Maybe it should be, but I don't think that reflects what the broader culture believes. Add to the fact, you can't reliably determine the threshold at which something is active enough.
That's a very complex statement because I think what a reasonable person, when asked in the proper setting, would say is that those things aren't hobbies. But if you were to ask some Joe or Jane in sunglasses and shorts whether they're hobbies, they'll probably respond "sure, why not?" Both groups are aspects of the broader culture, so it's really difficult to truly say what the broader culture believes about this and whose position is actually valid.
> Add to the fact, you can't reliably determine the threshold at which something is active enough.
Yeah, it's ultimately up to the individual to determine whether something is a hobby. There are some standards we can have around the shared utility of that word, though. Pretty much anything can have a capacity for being a hobby, though some can be more dubious than others.
