I don’t think it’s correct to say there are no implications. The only discernable difference between a short and long videos effects is that one of the videos is capped at 3 minutes. There could be plenty of implication and correlation to high intake watching videos of any length.
I don't know if that's the only discernible difference.
While 3 minutes is indeed an arbitrary limit, the difference between short and long form videos is very noticeable. Long form requires another form of attention, focusing more, more commitment, less distraction; there's even a form of "delayed gratification" (a form of attention that only grownups can provide) in that the payoff isn't always immediate and can sometimes be very delayed.
Short form is like junk food, zero friction, instantly addictive and doesn't require you to really pay attention. Surely the immediacy of attention it needs is completely different to long form video.
I also disagree with your other comment that maybe long form can promote similar consumption habits (you call it "overconsumption"); I don't think anyone can get "addicted" to long form video, it's simply too time-demanding, you don't get a "fix" and the "zapping" effect of quickly moving from one video to the next.
I probably spend 1-2 hours per day watching content on youtube (and much of that is at ~1.5-1.75X speed)
I don't know what qualifies as "addiction", but it is typically where I get my news, where a web-series I watch is released, and where I learn about social justice issues important to me, through video essays.
I'm sure my consumption is very different from that of someone who watches 100 1-minute Tiktok videos per day, but I think it's worth at least questioning how this might also contribute to cognitive performance and mental health.
Though I think a big difference with short-form content is the autoplay functionality (as your sibling commenter mentions). I watch videos which are released by channels I subscribe to, and occasionally (maybe once a week) watch something Youtube recommends to me. So I retain some agency over my viewing habits compared to someone whose decisions are dictated by the algorithm, which also has an incentive to keep people watching as long as possible.
Are your habits typical though? Playing long form videos at 1.75 speed? I suppose once you start engaging at hyperspeeds, you're making it closer to short form compulsive consumption. It'd be like speed reading a book instead of letting ideas and thoughts form.
When you consider that people have different speaking cadences and one person might speak twice as fast as another, I'm not sure why you'd assume 1.75X speed necessarily leads to reduced engagement.
Actually, I've encountered the argument that speeding video up when the speaker is too slow for the listener can be useful for staying focused on what they're saying.
I don't think watching a 40 minute video essay on 1.5X speed is comparable to watching 25 1-minute videos
To be clear, I do remember watching long videos at 1.75X: Coursera's. By extension, I see myself watching "instructional" (tech) long-winded videos this way, but to be honest this is not the type of videos I usually watch on YouTube, and I watch them on 1X.
Sure, but that's beside the point. The discussion here is about the unique qualities of SFV and its affects on attention span and thinking. It's about the instant-reward feedback mechanism of swiping quickly and the ability to ingest a larger narrative. It's about the super-short cuts of video and audio that beg for attention, versus longer, more static content that requires patience, doesn't constantly dump dopamine, and stays on one topic longer.
In short: There are a lot of differences in how long and short videos affect a person, in my opinion.
There is a HUGE difference in that the combined short length with the fact that the video starts playing before you even have a chance to make a decision on whether to watch it or not leads you to a "heh! I'm here already, might as well just watch the thing".
This is a response to you and the other Y people that confuse short videos with autoplay and user engagement techniques.
There are people that autoplay long videos, in fact people stream random Simpson’s (or other favorite tv show, podcast, music, books on tape, etc) episodes in the background while they work. Classic TV has autoplay with no opportunity to decide. Autoplay is not an exclusive short form video feature. I can make a short video on my computer and it will not autoplay other content.
There's no confusion here. It's pretty easy to make the argument that the combination of auto play and short form is orders of magnitude more problematic than the sum of their parts.
Yes but then we’re not talking about short form video being addictive but rather the hunt for a good short form video is addictive. This same idea can be applied to long form and any other medium you enjoy, finish, and immediately want more of. Now if you have only 30 mins before your next task to watch a long form video then you may skip starting the video, but that doesn’t mean there is anything inherently bad about short form video but rather the tools for viewing it. So yes you are confusing and you’re intentionally confusing the two so that your point stands about short form video, but it doesn’t because your points are about the viewing tools.
If you continue to push this point, people will only think that short videos under 3 minutes are some how the devil and TikTok et al will continue on making whatever length of video is next in line, more addictive.
Yeah but my DevOps only know Aws or Cloudflare UIs and refuse to consider any other platforms. The leadership sees multiple bills as bad. Back to square one? No one will learn anything because people enjoy the pseudo holiday for problems they set themselves up to do nothing about.
RSS hasn't gone anywhere. Every podcast my podcast player downloads is announced to it either via RSS or Atom feeds. It has just fallen by the wayside as the way people become aware of updates to websites with serial publication of content (in general: because most people get that information from peer-to-peer link sharing, like Facebook, Twitter, Mastodon, Fark, Reddit, Slashdot, or even this website).
They're not even removing the ability for the browser to render XML. They're just removing an in-browser formatter for XML (a feature that can be supported by server-side rendering or client-side polyfill).
Yes while their chosen formats directly aligned with their business get first class citizenship and suffer many larger and well known security issues. Xml will be next just wait.
What would that mean? XML is just text on the wire. If a browser stops supporting it... It's text on the wire. I slurp it in with JavaScript and parse it how I want.
The language in the browser for specifying what should show up and in what format is HTML and CSS. We can't remove them because we don't have anything to substitute; without them, there's just no displayable content.
Is your proposal that we replace those relatively heavyweight standards with something more primitive that we could then build the behavior on top of? I think there's meat on those bones. Quite frankly, the amount of work we do to push intent to fit the constraints of HTML and CSS in web apps is a little absurd relative to the frameworks and languages we have to do that in non-web widget toolkits. I'm not actually convinced that "Tk as an abstraction in the browser that we build HTML and CSS on top of" would be a bad thing (although we probably want to use something better than Tk, with more security guarantees).
... However, if we did that, we would really damage the accessibility story as it currently stands (since accessibility hinting is built on top of the HTML spec) and that's probably a bridge too far. We already have enough site developers who put zero thought into their accessibility; removing even the defaults HTML provides with its structure would be a bad call.
Open wen doesn’t mean WHATWG gets to decide what is and isn’t useful in the browser.
> What’s happening is that Google (along with Mozilla and Safari) are changing the html spec to drop support for xslt. If you want to argue that this is bad because it “breaks the web”, that’s fine,
Not only does it not break the web, they are flat out lying about that being the reason they’re doing it. That is also very dangerous.
You’re doing a lot of sideways handwaving to say killing off this specific technology is not killing the open web, but others are.
XSLT is not a source of security errors and this is your disingenuous argument from last time, (please state if you work for any of these companies). Libxslt has security vulnerabilities not XSLT itself. Futhermore there are replacement processors they could contribute and implement to and a myriad of other solutions, but they have chosen to kill instead.
In the last thread about this, I tried to have a constructive conversation with you, and you jumped to ad hominem attacks multiple times and then when I tried to actually get clarity on what it means to be part of the “open web”, you explicitly said you didn’t want to engage anymore (and then continued your accusations elsewhere in the thread). Now you’ve chimed in here to essentially call me a paid shill and to repeat your baseless “killing the open web” soundbite.
Your definition of “open web“ appears to be “never deprecating a feature ever”. And it’s fine that you want browsers to support features forever. I don’t think that has anything to do with the open web though. Exactly like the author of this blog post, you believe things that were never even part of the “web”, such as gopher, should be supported in the name of an “open web”.
> Not only does it not break the web, they are flat out lying about that being the reason they’re doing it.
The library is known to have multiple security vulnerabilities. They have declared that it is not sustainable to maintain this dependency. And they have also declared that it’s not worth replacing it. I don’t see the lie in that. I don’t think anyone is claiming that they actually cannot support xslt. They are saying that it requires more investment to support, and the ROI is too low.
I also clarified this exact point last time. You are willfully misunderstanding the messaging because acknowledging the engineering trade offs here would force you to consider that this isn’t just an issue of lazy developers or evil PMs as you also claimed.
> please state if you work for any of these companies
I work for Microsoft who I don’t believe has chimed in on this conversation, though if Chromium removes it, Edge presumably will too. I have no visibility into the Edge position on this feature, though.
