you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Right, so no reading comprehension, just lowly digs at a not too bad article; glad I've got a clear view of where you're coming from.

Note to add: I assume anything that's over X amount of words isn't worth your time; patience, and comprehension is above many people's time.

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

What evidence do you have that I couldn't comprehend the article?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

You don't engage in the article other than basically stating,'it sucks'.

I can comprehend not liking how something is written; yet if there's a grain of 'merit' to what they're trying to convey, why do you write it's 'tripe', or then go onto demean it by way of length?

The premise that most media content, or even content producers across the net, do so only for rewards, and gains, has solid merit to myself.

I donno, what's the point in knocking something just because? Do you make a point of 'triping' things just because?

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I can comprehend not liking how something is written; yet if there's a grain of 'merit' to what they're trying to convey, why do you write it's 'tripe', or then go onto demean it by way of length?

For one thing, it says disingenuous content is ubiquitous, and yet it doesn't cite a single example.

The premise that most media content, or even content producers across the net, do so only for rewards, and gains, has solid merit to myself.

"most"? I don't see the case made that "most" content is of that variety. Maybe "a lot" is, but again, not a single concrete example.

I donno, what's the point in knocking something just because? Do you make a point of 'triping' things just because?

Because it's shit and I expect better, especially if it's linked on saidit. The general theme of the word salad is that fluff content, lacking of real substance, is pedled just to get clicks, and that's exactly what this article comes across as.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Wow, okay, you said, ''The general theme of the word salad is that fluff content, lacking of real substance, is pedled just to get clicks, and that's exactly what this article comes across as."

I just didn't get that feeling with the article. I actually see many people on this website demanding 'high quality links'(who determines?), and squabbling over the very thing that I saw outlined in the article. To myself, what was outlined is the idea that the talking point narratives as laid out by the MSM for the day, or week, or time period is regurgitated by most across all media; rather than looking for their own original content..

I guess we each get what we want, or need out of any material subjectively; where one sees lemons, another see's the base for lemonade. Awesomeness!

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I would forgive the lack of structure if they gave at least a few real example, such as linking to some fake blog posts with links to Amazon products, and showing that it is plagiarized from another. To not even cite an example really undercuts the idea that it's ubiquitous. It's like saying unicorns are so common I couldnt even be bothered to take a picture of the last one I saw.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

It amazes me at how every post you make, for the most part, I saw/see something entirely different in the OP, or preceding post. I guess entirely different outlooks in life.

In summary, you state the article is 'lacking', while I think it's alright, and conveyed something. Isn't subjective outlook amazing.

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I dont even understand why you care so much about whether or not I like the article. I'll debate because debate is good, but your investment in my opinion of it is perplexing.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

My fascination in the article, is as I've already stated, I've read many threads here, where I read the 'community', or 'a' community here, concerned with the quality of material. I believe I've read several times people worried about being labeled 'voat', or becoming an 'ideological echo chamber'. I know as a new forum, that the quality of said content, or the ability to differentiate content from elsewhere is important.

I also comprehended what the author of the article was trying to convey. Perhaps it's the vectors of information that I like, which allows me to find resonance with the author; in that people lack originality. Have other authors pointed this out? Sure, but at least for myself, it was once again refreshing to see someone write on the subject.

As to your opinion, my only investment is trying to comprehend you, and converse. In this thread, you wrote a disparaging post, 'the article sucked'(warn others from what you thought sucked). I had already read, and had been contemplating for some time before this, what I wanted to write, as I saw merit(didn't think it sucked). What this thread is showing at least between the 2 of us, is 1 approves, 1 doesn't.

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I respect structure because it makes the content easy to ingest, and it shows a person thought about what they were going to write before they got started. I respect real world examples because it shows research was performed. If an essay reads like a stream of consciousness, it comes across as low effort, or lazy, and that's the underlying problem with the article, and the content on the Internet that is serves to waste people's time. The writing has style, but dont confuse style for substance.