The Internet and social networks offer an infinite space for expression, and have stimulated the production of information to an extent that was unimaginable before their advent.
We owe this not so much to the Internet as to its uses and tools, and in particular to social platforms in their various forms, which have exploded since the “Web 2.0” or social web revolution some twenty years ago, insofar as it was this era that saw the average user take control of information production.
It is often said that 90% of the world’s data has been created in the last two years. It’s such a recurrent figure that it’s universally accepted, although I suspect that over time it’s certainly increased. So I’ll take it at face value, because I’ve never heard anyone deny it.
From information to content
This figure is misleading, however: while the mass of information generated has exploded in terms of quantity, this does not take into account the quality or usefulness of this information.
In fact, we no longer speak of information but of content, and this change in terminology is anything but neutral. We don’t create information to inform and be useful, but to occupy infinite ground and capture attention and clicks.
People no longer inform, they seek to exist.
People don’t try to be relevant, they try to be influential.
People no longer seek recognition but money.
People no longer seek to stimulate conversation and start a conversation, being read is enough and generating clicks is enough.
I love reading and it’s my favorite way of learning, just as writing is, in the other direction, my favorite way of communicating and sharing. Yes, I admit that video has taken over, but it will never be as easy to bookmark a video, to highlight the salient points, to be able to read it diagonally as you do a text to find the moment, the precise point that interests you and to which you want to return months later when you need to.
However, if I compare it to what I consider to be a certain golden age, from the early 2000s to the mid-2010s, I can only note a notable impoverishment of what I read , both in form and content.
The scourge of web writing
It was around this time that the concept of web writing emerged, with the underlying idea that the web demanded a different tone and form of writing from conventional writing.
I agree, even if there’s always a readership for longer, deeper stuff, it’s all a question of knowing who you’re talking to and what they’re looking for.
But for people who need to communicate, I understand the relevance of the thing, which has enriched a number of trainers. But I’ve come to think that we’ve gone too far: web writing has led to a standardization of styles, a loss of quality and depth in the content, and in the end it has educated readers to be content with little, to be undemanding in terms of quality, and even to be unable to read or understand a longer text or deeper reflection.
Over the years, we’ve ended up with web readers with lower demands, which justifies the downward pressure on writing quality.
But how did we get here? The idea for this post has been in the back of my mind for over 10 years now, and I’m finally taking the time to dwell on the subject one last time, with no hope of ever going back to the way things were
A loss of stylistic richness
There are still plenty of interesting and enjoyable people to read, of course, but their proportion among so-called content creators is shrinking like a stone.
Writing for the web often emphasizes short sentences, simple vocabulary and structured lists. It’s impossible not to see that this has led to an impoverishment of style, with texts devoid of nuance, metaphor or real narrative construction.
Apart from the fact that it doesn’t educate readers to write well themselves , it makes the author lose his identity. When I read a text by one of the “historic bloggers” I’ve been following for a long time (well, those who haven’t thrown in the towel for precisely the reasons I’ve mentioned, plus the rotting of social networks between X which is becoming anything and Linkedin which is becoming Facebookized), I can guess the author after a few lines.
Elsewhere, I get the impression that it’s the same person writing everywhere, with no style or personality. And the arrival of AI won’t make things any better (Sorry for the absence…but I didn’t want to entrust my audience to just anyone…)
Fragmented ideas
We’re no longer writing for humans, but for algorithms that will bring in humans. The logic is to cast a wide net, not to think we’ll build a readership that will come back.
The emphasis is therefore on the scannability of the text , and on pandering to the desires of robots and algorithms : fragmenting ideas into blocks or lists so that they can be isolated and understood.
The result is a loss of reflection, fluidity and quality in the flow of ideas, but that doesn’t matter: you want the robots to understand and the reader to click. Whether or not they understand what they’re reading, whether or not they get anything out of it, is secondary.
The result is an impression of incoherence and superficiality. But is it an impression?
So much the better for those looking for more complete analyses.
And let’s not forget the SEO dimension, which forces us to fit in a certain density of keywords , even if it means making the style clumsy. But we write for robots, not humans.
The triumph of clickbait over credibility
In keeping with the logic of the “clickbait king”: to attract attention in a dense flow of traffic, web writing favors sensationalist hooks and exaggerated headlines.
Logically, the content doesn’t live up to the promise, and the credibility of the author and the medium is weakened.
Humans level with algorithms
Algorithm constraints favor formats that maximize fast engagement, such as likes and shares, rather than depth. Complex or nuanced ideas are sacrificed in favor of more “popular” content because, once again, the objective is not for the content to learn, inform, nurture, but for it to be easy for the reader to consume, giving a wisp of their attention.
Once they’ve seen the adverts and ideally reposted a meaningless article they haven’t even read in its entirety, readers have done their job.
A bland, standardized tone
I mentioned above the standardization of styles, but it’s no better when it comes to tone.
When it comes to generating engagement, not interest, it’s better to be positive and jovial than serious, especially as the world we’re talking about is quick to consider serious and boring to be synonymous.
The result is a tone that is sometimes artificial, unauthentic and even totally out of tune with the subject at hand.
Whether we’re talking about an individual or a brand, when you’re slick you look like everyone else, so in the end you’re no one, least of all yourself.
A decline in intellectual engagement
Web writing is meant to be immediately and quickly readable – I’d even say consumable! But more often than not, this comes at a price: the reader doesn’t have to make any intellectual effort to read you.
When the reader doesn’t have to engage intellectually with a text (note that I’m not saying content) , that text will leave no lasting impact.
And when a text leaves no impact, is quickly consumed and quickly forgotten, its author follows the same fate.
Bottom line
Impoverishment of content, impoverishment of form, impoverishment of the reader’s intellectual engagement, impoverishment of the ideas conveyed when there are any, web writing has done a great deal of harm to writing.
But since it has succeeded in its mission of filling a form of emptiness with another form of emptiness that nonetheless has the merit of being monetizable, no one will ever reproach it.
Photo by Stockphotos.com