https://www.statista.com/statistics/454772/number-social-med...
I would also think, that trying to keep up is the overloading thing. It's like walking into t a library and thinking you have to read all the books.
And for those who haven’t heard of the Dawkinsian memes? Well I guess it wasn’t that succesfull of a meme after all.
The word "culture" always had two meanings, a. what people in some collective do and b. "high culture", the stuff that is somehow supposed to reflect on human condition.
Of course it does but not literally and seen from a certain perspective. I'm thinking of the shallow aspect of fame and the meaninglessness that comes with it and the desperation to keep the spotlight pointing at them. Celebrities behaviors are an aspect of the human nature after all.
"High culture" is first and foremost about marketing. Many people care more about things that are marketed as too good for the average man, and products marketed for that group is called "high culture", the name is a part of the marketing.
It is similar to the difference between cheap wine and fine wine, people don't notice a difference until you tell them one is more expensive than the other and then suddenly people start noticing a huge difference.
In my country, where the same phenomenon happened ('divertissement' is now labelled 'culture'), I would say it was less than 10 years ago, perhaps closer to 5 years ago for a systematisation of the use.
During Covid-related lockdowns and other limitations, it reached new highs: how dared we limit access to the vital need which 'culture' is, how dared we forbid 'culture' people ('culture' producers (!)) to work for some time, and so on.
The same thing happened in France, using the exact same wording.
Modern "culture" is almost entirely based on entertainment and pass time. How many times have I recommended a book and a movie to be told it's "too hard", "too serious", "not entertaining"... There is a reason why Marvel movies are always in the top of the charts, unplug your brain, grab you favorite sugary snacks and teleport yourself 3 hours in the future.
We call it "content" for a reason, shapeless and tasteless content to fill up the mere containers we became.
"High culture" is narrower, and of course there's the inevitable discussion of whether or not it is better. I'll note that one era's low or broad culture can become another's high (simple distance in space and time contributes heavily to this, with Shakespeare being a notable case). One of the strong functions of high culture is as a strong signaling / credible signaling device --- if you appreciate or participate in high culture, you're demonstrating that you've put in the time required to learn its nuances and backstory. This serves as an accessible indicator of attributes which are otherwise difficult to assess.
(This shows up in all kinds of cultural, faddish, or in-group behaviour, even in the name they go by, Shibboleths.)
Mass media has become a delivery system for advertising and propaganda (the latter has long been a function). Mass appeal means mass advertising markets, and explains much of the push for it. That said, "high culture" affords a cultural segmentation potentially identifying a more selective, and affluent, market segment --- one with stronger appeal to at least some advertisers.
The practice of adtech and interactively-targeted advertising ... somewhat subverts this relationship.
In the western society "entertainment" is "culture". It is very hard to find real culture. In some countries bookstores are full with thrash. On radio and tv you get the same selection of mediocre till thrash offers. It is like free speach. You are "free" to speak but your voice is lost in 1000000 more voices. And if you finally are able to be heard, police comes at your door.