I often wonder why there isn't a business that resells streaming subscriptions. Such a business could offer, for one price (and, importantly, one bill, one app, one password, and one user interface) access to content from several streaming platforms. The business could renegotiate deals with the underlying platforms based on how popular their content is with viewers.
I know, it sounds like I'm reinventing cable. Still, I think customers would appreciate this convenience. I certainly would. There must be a reason someone hasn't done it already, though. If you know more, let me know! My contact information is available on my website.
Throughout history, every single time something's gotten better, it's become somebody has come along to say, “This is stupid. We can do better.” It's the critics that drive improvement. It's the critics who are the true optimists.
How does social media drive political polarization? Justin Rosenstein explains in The Social Dilemma:
You look over at the other side, and you start to think, “How can those people be so stupid? Look at all of this information that I'm constantly seeing. How are they not seeing that same information?” And the answer is, they're not seeing that same information.
This is by no means the only way social media drives political polarization. It turns out, showing users gradually more extreme content is also a great way to keep them addicted. More addiction means more screen time, more ad impressions, and ultimately more money for these companies. Still, it's a great place to start when describing the problem. The other side is not seeing what you see. In fact, they're getting a constant stream of information about how wrong you are, and you'll hardly ever see a drop of it yourself.
We can all do a better job of communicating that science is valuable because it works. How is it that astronomers correctly predicted, years in advance, exactly when and where Monday's total solar eclipse would occur? That doesn't happen by accident. That's science! I don't know of any other tool, new or old, trendy or not, that can make such a detailed prediction years in advance and be precisely correct.
These days, with entertainment sometimes so blatant in its messaging, about as subtle as a brick to the face, I find the 1982 song Goodnight Saigon by Billy Joel beautifully refreshing. The song describes the experiences of American soldiers in the Vietnam War without making an overtly political statement.
We had no home front
We had no soft soap
They sent us Playboy
They gave us Bob Hope
We dug in deep
And shot on sight
And prayed to Jesus Christ
With all of our might
Rolling Stone music critic Dave Marsh once wrote that the song is “obscene” because it “refuses to take sides.” I dare say he's missing the point. I have an opinion about the Vietnam War, too, but I don't need to hear that opinion parroted back to me. Yes, validation can be immensely gratifying, but no man's land is much more interesting.
This is a slight rewording of something Alex Limi once said during an internal presentation at Mozilla. The point is not about usage, but rather creation. Building something simplistic is easy, but building something simple is hard. The observation stuck with me, and I think it's a great little maxim.
Think about it in product design. Picasa was simplistic, but Instagram is simple. eBay is simplistic, but Facebook Marketplace is simple. IRC is simplistic, but Slack is simple.
To be clear, I'm not saying Picasa, eBay, or IRC are incapable. On the contrary, they're too powerful. I prefer the designs of Instagram, Facebook Marketplace, and Slack for what they can't do. Of course, whether anyone should use Instagram, Facebook, or Slack is another question. Even cigarettes can be thoughtfully designed.
Don't put too much stock in the opinion of someone who's justifying a decision they've already made.
I remember reading something like this many years ago, while comparing two different camera brands. I think it's great advice for much more than shopping, though.