Coming off of the last ¶, is this about class? The essay (especially in its enthusiastic quoting and framing of Ze Frank) participates in the assumption that writing is practiced more by people of privilege, than other media. (Dunno how I think about that). At the same time, it says, that association is not causation, privelidge isn't worth, the writing isn't making the people better, and the “sophisticated” people writing aren't intrinsically better than their less textually literate, more gif-y, YouTube-y, (4-chan-y?) counterparts. Feels like there are many separate variables about people here all being lumped together under the categories "text" and "image" in ways that could maybe use a little teasing apart. Many image-based forms of expression on the internet are super elietist/privelidged/“classy”! Vimeo videos of artisanal crafts. The-Big-Picture-style, professional photojournalism. At the same time, a lot of writing is of course low-class and amature. Facebook posts from your aunt. Less so now, but blogs. As she mentions, SMS/Twitter. At the same time, the first time I read this essay, I bought her categorization, the lumping rang somewhat true? That mental image of flashing garish myspace for and of the people is pretty powerful. So I dunno.