Unintended consequences

Posted May 29, 2025 17:23 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
In reply to: Unintended consequences by excors
Parent article: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

For the same reason that Sinclair Broadcast Group used to put out quirky, niche radio shows, and for the same reason that you used to get quirky local TV - the Internet didn't exist back then.

The difference I'm calling out is that with radio and TV, the degree of investment needed to do it yourself, bypassing corporate gatekeepers, was huge, and thus when the corporate gatekeepers took control of local stations, you were pushed out, because you couldn't afford to keep your quirky niche going as a sideline.

In contrast, with print media, it's been possible for an enthusiast to bankroll a "fanzine" or similar since at least the 1960s, spending the sort of money that a hobbyist can afford to spend from disposable income (and that another person would spend on wrenching on cars, following their favourite team, or other hobbies).

I expect that, even if there was no advertising money at all (for artists or platforms) that Internet video, podcasts, blogs etc are closer to print media than to broadcast radio stations; yes, the big names have huge advantages over you (just as the official Star Trek magazine had huge advantages over fanzines in the 1960s), but $50/month gets you a lot of video, podcast, or blog hosting platform for your hobby content, and $50/month feels like it's in the "disposable income" category, not the "unaffordable for a hobby" category.