In Defense of the Best
karrisaarinen.com
karrisaarinen.com
I would counter that people in the past had no choice but to read long form articles, because it was all the content that was available to them. It's not because they were more adept at digging deep into subjects.
All decisions humans make aren't rational, people are often running on autopilot and their interests are fleeting.
Frequently when people browse the web, they are looking to escape reality and relax. Comprehension and learning isn't the always the goal.
I believe people will always have deep interests in certain things and will seek out a greater understanding of it. It's a million times easier to do exactly that today as a result of technology - just as it has become easier to skim media for headlines, sound bites and tweets.
People have greater options of both.
I don't think the fact that people choose the easy option more often - now that its available - is surprising to any of us. Especially given the context of online consumption.
Improving the content doesn't necessarily mean it will change behavior.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0/adaptationexecuters_not_fitnessma...
The big tobacco companies and drug cartels would probably disagree with this statement. I'm not saying it's ethical to make money off of people's addictions, but cigarettes and narcotics sure seem to have been very profitable over the long term, and have even survived massive government action against them.
You'll always get short term success with it but it's not sustainable in the long term.
I think the author is being very subjective about The Best and using it to come to an odd conclusion. The more obvious and less controversial conclusion is that The Best apps are widely used and doing well.