[[Aaron Renn]] is a Reformed Protestant (and Hoosier) whose [[What are Portfolio Ideas|portfolio ideas]] include cataloguing  "positive world" and "[negative world](https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/joe-rogan-christianity)" heuristics vis a vis American cultural Christianity. Renn's basic thesis: Up until around the turn of the 21st century, elite American culture viewed self-identifying with public Christian practice as a positive, and when people thought of American civic religion, they more or less still thought of Protestant Christianity as the dominant form. Then, sometime into the 21st century, overt Christian practice, sexual mores, and metaphysical orientations tipped into a net negative in terms of cultural cachet and overall popularity. So, when bakers got sued for sitting out gay wedding cakes, the culture at large changed to view them more as bigots than as martyrs. Or an athlete might thank Jesus Christ after winning a big game - that might feel more like a cultural anachronism than a normative thing for a young American to do. &c. &c.  That’s all impossible to prove and hard to quantify, but it’s an interesting way to think about any big sociological question. ### The same might be said of the internet in our lives in 2025.  Are we entering a "negative world" for the internet in our lives?  Is the middle part of the 2020's going to be looked upon as the time of backlash from the now 30+ year old [digital revolution](https://courses.minnalearn.com/en/courses/digital-revolution/the-digital-revolution/what-is-the-digital-revolution/). If the current tone of media is to be ingested and believed; yes. We are.  Readers of a certain age: Think of the optimism attached to the dot-com boom of the aughts, to high speed internet, to the iPhone. Feel any of that for Grok? Doubt it. [AI is Forcing the Return of the In person job interview. ](https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/ai-job-interview-virtual-in-person-305f9fd0?st=x1QtZq&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink) and the Blue book exam. Schools are banning phones, and everyone loves it.  [Some smart authors are lamenting digital culture altogether.](https://thedispatch.com/article/social-media-children-dating-neurotic/?utm_source=iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mounk_teaser_a&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_14565520) Perhaps most frustratingly, [it's getting really hard to watch sports](https://www.wsj.com/business/media/new-espn-fox-streaming-services-join-a-baffling-landscape-for-fans-7e430b4e?st=b1JFBc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink). And - anecdata alert- Ryan's 20 year old daughter just quit TikTok. She's not alone. That was unimaginable a few years ago. But the epidemic of teen anxiety, depression and suicide is speaking for itself within that rising cohort.  ### iOS 26 and the assault of the senses [Apple is about to sort text messages like emails.](https://www.apple.com/os/ios/ |i) This was bad news for digital fundraising when Gmail and others did it. It'll probably be bad for digital fundraising now, (and pollsters too, which is truly bad). But who could blame Apple? They want users hooked on their products. And text messaging was the last private-ish inbox, until maybe five years ago. If we're living within a cultural shift toward the 'negative world' in media; as devices take over our lives and our attention, the market will start adjusting. People will be less willing to "sell" their attention for free. But they might pay to protect it. #### What does that mean for practitioners? Probably it’s meet the new boss, same as your old boss.  Social Media as we know it today probably isn’t the future. It just doesn’t have enough utility - a mountain of evidence is emerging that users imbibe it like [junk food](https://calnewport.com/on-ultra-processed-content/). Giving it up is hard, but you feel better when you do. Another view of the future of digital deployments leans heavily towards direct-to-user, direct-to-device. Think video text messaging. Immediately delivered into discrete, individual eyeballs through a device, with as many iterations as we (or, rather, AI) can edit and deploy.  Apple seems to be putting a foot down against this model. It's a future contingent on consumers accepting hyper-personalized advertising. Always-on, all-the-time ads creepily tailored to individual internet history might be a line consumers won't cross. Or, more likely, it’s a line they'll pay to stay the other side of. If you don't pay for email, the top of your box is full of ads now. Thought experiment: [[The Digital Attention Economy|What's a clean text message feed worth to you?]] Much like in airport lounges, if you can buy your way into the quiet and away from the speaker blaring CNN above you - what about buying privacy from (political) advertisers? For now, most people with means to try will still fail. Hey, rich lady with seven streaming subscriptions to consume premium content – good luck watching the Olympics without ads.  Or the housewives on Bravo. If you want to know what’s going on in the world, you still need to see ads to do it.  No news there. The majority of advertising has been attached to entertainment since time immemorial. Talk about a 'negative world' for Christians - Roman generals used to sponsor their slaughter to garner favor in the coliseum.  Predictions of a break in that link come up with every new communication technology. In modern times, that’s at least a century of failed predictions of the demise of entertainment advertising. From Spotify: > The [first radio ad](https://www.britannica.com/topic/radio/The-Golden-Age-of-American-radio#ref1123771) aired on August 22, 1922.. At the time it was referred to as “toll broadcasting”). The ad was 15 minutes long and promoted apartments in Jackson Heights, Queens. Notably, that didn't take. But sticking shorter ads in between 'Barn Dance' (from the Grand Ole Opry) or plays in college football games quickly caught on. When cable TV was new; The Home Shopping Network was going to kill retail. (Now, Amazon is doing it's best, but [big boxes aren't going away](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/01/amazons-long-journey-to-get-rid-of-its-signature-brown-boxes.html).) Subscription-based HBO would replace ad-based TV entertainment, circa 1984.  And again in ‘97 with the Sopranos. Sound familiar?  HBO has since died, and now is back.  Twitter banned political ads. X is bringing them back.  Netflix just booked one of the biggest advertising upfront orders in history.  Amazon won't take political advertising at the moment - but now that they're [in bed with Roku](https://newsroom.roku.com/news/2025/06/amazon-ads-and-roku-announce-partnership-creating-the-largest-authenticated/qa0kuo8a-1749822791). How long do we think they can resist swimming in the river of money floating around them?  Those same high-income consumers with seven streaming services are whom advertisers covet the most. ### Income Segment Budgeting?  Up till now, we've never separated "likely voters," "very likely voters," and "unlikely voters" into pricing tiers. That may be our future – and something we will be watching for closely. And with higher income levels correlating with [higher turnout levels](https://econofact.org/voting-and-income) - might the most active voters live largely beyond the reach of political advertising? We doubt it. But, we're pretty confident the price will go up. So let's just keep sending snail mail and buying billboards. Over a century old and still going strong.  That is: let's keep going where eyes (and ears) are going. Entertainment advertising is now delivered without wires, across hundreds of different platforms, producers, streamers and operating systems. If that sounds complicated, it is. (PS, [we’ll handle it for you](https://slides.bullhorncomms.com/leave-behind)) ![[JosephGordonLeavitt.gif]] --- ![[On Likely voters]]