Hacker News Reader

Comment by pcthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

The paper is specifically studying short-form videos like on TikTok or Youtube Shorts, so there would be no implication for videos longer than 3 minutes (the maximum for YT shorts)

View on HN

I don’t think it’s correct to say there are no implications. The only discernable difference between a short and long videos effects is that one of the videos is capped at 3 minutes. There could be plenty of implication and correlation to high intake watching videos of any length.

I don't know if that's the only discernible difference.

While 3 minutes is indeed an arbitrary limit, the difference between short and long form videos is very noticeable. Long form requires another form of attention, focusing more, more commitment, less distraction; there's even a form of "delayed gratification" (a form of attention that only grownups can provide) in that the payoff isn't always immediate and can sometimes be very delayed.

Short form is like junk food, zero friction, instantly addictive and doesn't require you to really pay attention. Surely the immediacy of attention it needs is completely different to long form video.

I also disagree with your other comment that maybe long form can promote similar consumption habits (you call it "overconsumption"); I don't think anyone can get "addicted" to long form video, it's simply too time-demanding, you don't get a "fix" and the "zapping" effect of quickly moving from one video to the next.

I probably spend 1-2 hours per day watching content on youtube (and much of that is at ~1.5-1.75X speed)

I don't know what qualifies as "addiction", but it is typically where I get my news, where a web-series I watch is released, and where I learn about social justice issues important to me, through video essays.

I'm sure my consumption is very different from that of someone who watches 100 1-minute Tiktok videos per day, but I think it's worth at least questioning how this might also contribute to cognitive performance and mental health.

Though I think a big difference with short-form content is the autoplay functionality (as your sibling commenter mentions). I watch videos which are released by channels I subscribe to, and occasionally (maybe once a week) watch something Youtube recommends to me. So I retain some agency over my viewing habits compared to someone whose decisions are dictated by the algorithm, which also has an incentive to keep people watching as long as possible.

Are your habits typical though? Playing long form videos at 1.75 speed? I suppose once you start engaging at hyperspeeds, you're making it closer to short form compulsive consumption. It'd be like speed reading a book instead of letting ideas and thoughts form.

When you consider that people have different speaking cadences and one person might speak twice as fast as another, I'm not sure why you'd assume 1.75X speed necessarily leads to reduced engagement.

Actually, I've encountered the argument that speeding video up when the speaker is too slow for the listener can be useful for staying focused on what they're saying.

I don't think watching a 40 minute video essay on 1.5X speed is comparable to watching 25 1-minute videos

Fair enough.

To be clear, I do remember watching long videos at 1.75X: Coursera's. By extension, I see myself watching "instructional" (tech) long-winded videos this way, but to be honest this is not the type of videos I usually watch on YouTube, and I watch them on 1X.

Sure, but that's beside the point. The discussion here is about the unique qualities of SFV and its affects on attention span and thinking. It's about the instant-reward feedback mechanism of swiping quickly and the ability to ingest a larger narrative. It's about the super-short cuts of video and audio that beg for attention, versus longer, more static content that requires patience, doesn't constantly dump dopamine, and stays on one topic longer.

In short: There are a lot of differences in how long and short videos affect a person, in my opinion.

There is a HUGE difference in that the combined short length with the fact that the video starts playing before you even have a chance to make a decision on whether to watch it or not leads you to a "heh! I'm here already, might as well just watch the thing".

This is a response to you and the other Y people that confuse short videos with autoplay and user engagement techniques.

There are people that autoplay long videos, in fact people stream random Simpson’s (or other favorite tv show, podcast, music, books on tape, etc) episodes in the background while they work. Classic TV has autoplay with no opportunity to decide. Autoplay is not an exclusive short form video feature. I can make a short video on my computer and it will not autoplay other content.

There's no confusion here. It's pretty easy to make the argument that the combination of auto play and short form is orders of magnitude more problematic than the sum of their parts.

Yes but then we’re not talking about short form video being addictive but rather the hunt for a good short form video is addictive. This same idea can be applied to long form and any other medium you enjoy, finish, and immediately want more of. Now if you have only 30 mins before your next task to watch a long form video then you may skip starting the video, but that doesn’t mean there is anything inherently bad about short form video but rather the tools for viewing it. So yes you are confusing and you’re intentionally confusing the two so that your point stands about short form video, but it doesn’t because your points are about the viewing tools.

If you continue to push this point, people will only think that short videos under 3 minutes are some how the devil and TikTok et al will continue on making whatever length of video is next in line, more addictive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com