I do, however, think that there is a difference between TV, HN, YouTube, and Twitter/Snap/Insta. Each gives you more and more control over what you're seeing.

This is particularly stark on Twitter. People keep writing about how divisive and political it is, how social media lead to depression, and I see none of that. My feed is filled with jokes, esoteric memes, and architecture, with a dashing of netsec.

YouTube is similar. I hear how it's supposedly radicalising toddlers or something but my front page and recommendations are just lifting tips, golden retrievers, standup/sketch comedy, and clickbait science stuff.

You get what you want from these new mediums. And many people don't like what they see in the mirror.

No, for most of them there are one or two fundamental differences. TV is complete passive consuming, while gaming and communication is usually something active. Additionally they can have a social component, you have a broader variation of content and more control over consuming time and topics you consum/learn about.

It's only the same in the sense that they are mostly unproductive "waste of time". Though depending on the content you can learn relevant things for your life and job, so this is take with a grain. At the end it depends on every individual what they consider as entertainment.

> But I am unable understand or find fun in the entertainment options of the younger generation, such as spending hours on Instagram or Snapchat. It sucks getting old, haha.

I thought the same for a long time, and one day it kinda clicked and I embrassed the shame of social media for some months. At the end entertainment and engagment-systems are all the same, just different in culture and interface.

The way I see it is, there‘s only so many hours in a day and most of them I spend at work anyway. So, instead of clinging on to shallow forms of connection like commenting on the latest political scandal I try to take the time out of my day and get a good talk in with people I care about about topics that actually matter to both of us in the real world (friends, family, plans, problems, maybe some of the latest office gossip, etc.)

I wish you a happy weekend!

From about the 4th century onward, it was weekly religious services (in Europe, though also, on their respective sabbaths, in the Jewish and Islamic worlds) which served to gather a ... mass ... audience to receive a common message. Some of that was religious in nature, a fair bit was not.

Market days likely played a similar role.

But at least once a week, a community would come together and hear a common message, from a large and centralised authority (the Catholic Church, in Europe), reorient their moral compasses, and catch up on the latest news. As well as, and here is where broadcast media depart strongly, have the opportunity to meet and converse amongst themselves.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of the population were illiterate, and written communications expensive and bespoke, played a strong role. And the fact that service was delivered at least in part in Latin,

In modern contexts, variations on the variety show have played that role. I'd argue that programmes such as Saturday Night Live, and more especially Garrison Keillor's "Prarie Home Companion", something of a secular religious service, complete with sermon (and playing not only on Saturday nights, but the following Sunday morning in many public radio regions) filled in that role.

The unifying role of broadcast media -- radio and television -- is much commented on by media studies researchers. That's had some positive results, and some negative: Father McCoughlin, Adolph Hitler, and Benito Mussolini, notably. Fascism and mass-media co-evolved.

I'll note that I've not had a practice of regular religious attendance or TV viewing, though I may have been known to tune into certain radio programmes ... religiously.

When there are only a few people in a group who do not do as everyone else and it's a frequent conversation topic, they stick out. I have been on the other side with veganism. I'm not vegan. People talk a lot about food. Vegans say they don't eat meat. I would be slightly disheartened that they can't relate to the tasty greasy burger I was taking about.

As a lot of my peers now don't have flow TV and a fair amount is vegan, the default of everybody, my self included, is not to assume that you have a TV or eat meat, but to ask if you don't know. When you don't have a TV program or some types of food in common, the conversation shifts to something else. I see a lot less friction now than a few years ago.

There's also something about many TV-watchers which compels them to comment as you have (though similarly: those who don't are far less visible).

In a complex social context, behaviours and adornments are social signifiers. They indicate tribal affiliations, and status. What you wear, eat, drive, listen to, do recreationally, watch, and other elements, aren't simply goods and activities, they're social signals, and they act as such because the underlying realities are far too complex to express succinctly.

And what others do, or criticise, isn't simply about behaviour, but about tribe and status.

Which is almost certainly why the urge to state one's own preferences, and to comment on the expression of preferences by others, is so ingrained. And so emotionally-laden.

Incidentally, I think this is one of the reasons why markers such as hairstyles, beards (generally for men), tattoos and bodymarkings, and the like, are such culturally-persistent indicators of status or relationship. It's possible to change your clothes in a few moments. A hairstyle is a committment -- of at least a few days or weeks, but potentially of years. Tattoos are as enduring as diamonds, effectively, and cannot be worn or doffed. Complex braiding, dreadlocks, and the like, require hours, or months, of cultivation.

(Or the ability to spend conspicuously on hairdresser services.)

Even within a given religion, different monastic orders will often have subtly (or profoundly) different hairstyles. Some rounded, some squared, some shaved, some long.

(Also notable: shortening hair, rather than lengthening it, is a rapidly-attained style, requiring only a few minutes with shears and a razer. Tan patterns may take a few days to normalise, but also adapt quickly. Which may be why shaved heads and faces are frequently seen as less credible, or are applied to, e.g., prisoners and fresh recruits, as a rapidly-achieved unifying (within the cohort) and distinguishing (from society) mark.)

There's relatively little serious work on the topic of fads and fashions, which extends to other areas, also typified by complex underlying structures: academia, music, literature, technology, law, and business management. Thorstein Veblen is among those who's written on the topic.

1. Grew up in a household which adopted television late, B&W for years then, and tightly restricted viewing.

2. Never owned my own.

3. Uni was the pivotal point for me. Whilst there'd been a TV at home, occasionally watched, I didn't have one at school. And by the time I'd graduated, the habit was all but entirely broken. I didn't relate to the programmes then current, and never got back into the habit.

4. Occasionally lived in households with TV. Have found it increasingly intrusive.

4. Would typically watch only whilst travelling. Some years back I found that even this was simply a timesink and cesspit. Stopped.

I'm rarely inclined to even bother watching. Little programming is of any interest, vast amounts are insulting or worse, discovery is opaque, even the good programming is conspicuously engineered toward addiction. ("Lost" comes especially to mind -- I've ... lost ... several friends to that. One of whom, poor sweet summer child, thought that the finale would offer some sense of closure....)

I'm not going to dispute that there is some good programming available, though when I seek that out, I use on-demand services (typically online videos). HBO especially have put out some excellent programmes, and I've caught small portions of series such as The Sopranos, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, and ... that's about all I can really think of. Exception: The Wire which was excellent (watched the first season on DVD).

I read. I listen to lectures. I watch demos. Occasional puppies and kittens and other floofs. But I don't miss the distraction, ads, manipulation, etc.

Not watching television simply opens up hours every week.

Oh, and yes, it's probably something of a social signifier:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22333879