• warmaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I am trying to understand what’s the argument behind your statement. I mean, there are more books being published than ever and there are more readers than ever. So, I fail to imagine how are books dead. That’s why I am asking these questions.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The argument is that no one reads books anymore. Most media consumed today is in modern video and audio formats like YouTube and podcasts. You shouldn’t compare paper books to ebooks, you should compare them to views on YouTube.

      • warmaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        YouTube is video, it replaced TV. Podcasts and music streaming replaced the radio. Why should I compare books to another medium? In fact, back in the TV and radio era, more people consumed thant kimd of media instead of books, and that stays true today, yes. More people watch youtube than read books. I bet more people play games than read a book. But it’s comparing different kinds of media. It would be like saying podcasts are dead because more people consume pictures and video on instagram.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          you’re wrong. TV replaced the radio, not podcasts. we’re not comparing different kinds of media, we’re saying new media replaces the old, regardless of form. it’s not about numbers; it’s about migration. if people moved on from listening to podcasts to consume pictures and video on Instagram, then you could totally say that, but they didn’t, so we don’t.