There’s a growing assumption online—especially on platforms like Substack—that if you want to share ideas, you should do it on video. Talking heads. Long runtimes. “Just watch.”
I'm not saying all videos are bad, or even that they're bad at all, it's more about the reasoning and accessibility to that information...
I don’t have the time for that. And more importantly, I don’t think it’s respectful of the reader.
This isn’t about hating video. It’s about how information is being delivered, and who that delivery actually serves.
Video flatters the creator, not the audience
Video feels productive. You hit record, talk through your thoughts, upload, and you’re done. There’s no forced discipline. No ruthless editing. No moment where you have to ask, “What is my actual point?”
Text doesn’t allow that escape.
Writing demands clarity. It exposes gaps in thinking. It forces prioritization. And that’s uncomfortable. So many people default to video not because it communicates better, but because it protects them from rigor.
Platforms reward time spent, not insight
Algorithms don’t care whether your point lands in 90 seconds or 12 minutes. They care about retention. Watch time. Engagement curves.
So we end up with long videos where only a fraction is useful, but the platform still treats them as a win. Meanwhile, a tight 800-word essay that delivers the full argument in four minutes is quietly penalized.
That’s not an accident. It’s an incentive structure.
Speaking is easier than writing
Talking is associative. You can circle back, repeat yourself, hedge, and keep moving. Writing is linear. Every sentence sits there, exposed.
Weak thinking survives conversation. It does not survive text.
That’s why so much video content feels like “thinking out loud” instead of making a case. Often, it is.
The parasocial shift
Video also creates presence. Not just information, but connection. Eye contact. Voice. Familiarity.
That’s powerful—but it changes the goal. The focus drifts from “What am I saying?” to “Are they still watching?”
At that point, the medium isn’t about ideas anymore. It’s about maintaining attention.
The accessibility myth
Video is often defended as “more accessible.” In practice, it’s the opposite.
Text:
-
Can be scanned
-
Can be quoted
-
Can be searched
-
Can be translated
-
Works with screen readers
-
Respects variable time and focus levels
Video locks information behind a play button and a time commitment. If there’s no transcript, no summary, no timestamps, the burden is entirely on the audience.
That’s not accessibility. That’s convenience—for the creator.
Why this bothers me
I’m not looking for vibes. I’m looking for signal.
I want arguments I can interrogate, revisit, and reuse. I want ideas that respect my time and attention. Video forces passive consumption. Text enables active thought.
When I see a post that says “just watch,” with no written structure, what I hear is: I didn’t do the work—now you do it.
My personal filter
So here’s how I decide what to read (or skip):
-
Video-only with no transcript? Skip.
-
No clear thesis in a few sentences? Skip.
-
“You’ll have to watch to understand”? Skip.
I prioritize creators who:
-
Lead with text
-
Use video as optional context
-
Provide summaries, structure, and clarity
The bottom line
This isn’t nostalgia or technophobia.
It’s about editorial discipline.
Text respects the reader’s time.
Video often respects the creator’s comfort.
If you want to share ideas, write them down.
If you want to be watched, make a video.
Just don’t pretend they’re the same thing.
Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!
No comments:
Post a Comment