During the last seminar, Ian and Terry started the brainstorm of Mr.Beast and Mona Lisa and everyone was arguing about whether Mr. Beast’s content are his own expression or just what the readers like to watch. I personally think that this is just a way to attract audience because nobody will actually like to spend all of his money on smashing expensive cars. This is why he is successful because his content are all depended on his audience. During the end of the discussion, the ppt had a blog posted on instagram with a big photo of a mountain and a big chunk of words as the text. The leaders asked us if we think the blog was interesting or not. In the instagram format, it usually only shows the first sentence and the rest of the text is hidden unless you press the “show more” button. Even if the blogger didn’t write that much, the comparison between one sentence and a whole passage makes the blog less engaging. Another detail is that the difference between the likes and the comments are also very different: it got 20k likes with only 500 comments. This is probably because the pattern of social media is that likes are easy to post with only a point of fingers but comments are more deep in. The people who comment are the ones that actually read the passage. However the text in that blog is very boring so that might be the reason of why it got so little comments.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The seminar’s opening discourse juxtaposed MrBeast’s viral spectacle content with the Mona Lisa, framing a debate over artistic autonomy versus audience commodification of creative output. Eric’s perspective correctly identifies MrBeast’s lavish, hyper-expensive stunts—such as the destruction of luxury vehicles—not as genuine personal inclination, but as calculated content engineered to cater to mass audience cravings. His success is predicated on algorithmic and audience alignment rather than unfiltered self-expression, exemplifying how modern digital creators prioritize viewership appeal over individual artistic impulse to sustain platform relevance.
Subsequently, the discussion pivoted to analyzing a lengthy Instagram blog post anchored by mountain imagery and dense textual copy. Eric perceptively notes how Instagram’s interface inherently disincentivizes long-form reading: the platform truncates extended text to a single preview line, relegating the full passage behind a “show more” prompt. This structural constraint creates a jarring visual-textual disconnect, diminishing immediate intrigue and lowering user willingness to engage with the full written work.
His observation of the stark engagement imbalance—20 thousand likes versus a mere 500 comments—highlights a foundational behavioral hierarchy in social media interaction. Likes function as low-effort, passive one-click affirmation requiring little cognitive investment, while comments demand active consumption of full content, critical reflection, and intentional articulation. Commenters thus represent a small, deeply engaged subset of the audience, whereas likes reflect superficial, passive scrolling behavior. The disproportionately low comment count is further attributable to the blog’s uninspired prose, demonstrating how textual dullness compounded by platform formatting barriers suppresses meaningful audience participation.
In sum, Eric’s reflection offers a sharp lay analysis of creator commercialization, platform design determinism, and the stratified nature of social media engagement metrics.