Doesn’t look like it. Poster differentiates tourists going in to enjoy places and people who fly in to use places as backdrops for something else.
In other words the new tourists isn’t going in to enjoy a place for themselves but does it to amuse people elsewhere and couldn’t care much about actually taking in the places they visit.
He or she preferred a time when the world was less connected, and one’s ability to travel was dictated more by wealth, status, and education. Think of a time when to pull off a trip to Japan you had to use a travel agent ($) to assist you in even figuring out what hotel to go to and how to get there. You’d rely on print magazines and books to even first decide where to go, and those only had so many pages to print. Rick Steve can only write so much.
Now thanks to the internet and other technology advances, travel is more accessible (Google Maps), cheaper (flight and hotel comparison tools), and more people are doing it. You also have entire nations that are traveling now in ways they didn’t 20 years ago (e.g. China).
Yes, this all means more crowding and it is less pleasant. But social media is just one small input in all of this. The only way it returns to “how it was” is a return to a more exclusionary travel world.
(I expect someone will make a comment about hostels and backpacking. I’m not refuting there were means of travel that were more affordable and accessible. But we’re talking about mass accessibility and availability across all markets.)
There was a time when you didn't need a travel agent, but before the rise of social media and camera phones. Budget airlines like Easyjet and online travel agencies like Expedia were around a decade before the iPhone.
The raw availability of something existing in 1996 (when Expedia launched, a decade before the iPhone) does not mean it was accessible or widespread. How many homes had the internet in 1996? How expensive were the personal computers necessary to access those travel portals? I feel your example only emphasizes the thesis.
By that time you could easily buy second hand PCs for a couple hundred or build your own pretty affordably —even on part-time going to college. For the most part you could use the PCs at work as well.
> The raw availability of something existing in 1996 (when Expedia launched, a decade before the iPhone) does not mean it was accessible or widespread.
Sure, but the same is true for the iPhone.
After all, iphone sales in 2007 were <2 million, not like today when they're >200 million. And that was for a product with no 3G and no app store. So I doubt tourist sites were clogged with Instagram influencers in 2007.
I acknowledged that social media plays some part; read again.
You tell me what’s more impactful. Literal data that says the number of international tourists growing 350% over 30 years (from 400 million global international arrivals in 1990 to 1.4 billion in 2018), or some dataless notion that “actually it’s because of selfies”.
You can’t build more ancient collisseums and temples. See also why aged whiskey prices have soared.
> I personally blame social media and camera phones for this. [...] people taking the same photo 100 times with slightly different poses. Wannabe influencers using their boyfriends as personal photographers. Youtubers being loud
I think my interpretation, that teerak is complaining about social media and camera phones, is better supported by data - namely, the text of the post - than your rather uncharitable interpretation that he or she preferred a time when the world was less connected, and one’s ability to travel was dictated more by wealth, status, and education
> He or she preferred a time when the world was less connected, and one’s ability to travel was dictated more by wealth, status, and education.
No, I started travelling frequently around 20 years ago and was by no means wealthy. Just single with a normal job and willing to spend all my money on it. I've also always been able to plan my own travel and never used agencies.
> But social media is just one small input in all of this.
I really don't think it's small. For example just yesterday I visited an island nearby with a very nice beach. It was mostly unusable, all the good areas were occupied by people taking photos and videos, with others queueing to take that spot and do the same. A constant stream of activity and noise, the opposite of relaxing. I left. I get that's a rant and people have every right to do that, but I stand by my point that social media has very noticeably made things worse.
Is it not still dictated by the same things? Tourist heavy areas still optimize for people who have more money than sense, and it's not like it doesn't still cost thousands to get anywhere different. Even the hostel experience you mention isn't cheap bt any stretch. It's going to probably cost thousands, whether it's train tickets or accomodation or food or plane tickets.
Maybe before the internet it might have required the equivalent of tens of thousands instead of single digit thousands, but you still need to put some cash down.
In other words the new tourists isn’t going in to enjoy a place for themselves but does it to amuse people elsewhere and couldn’t care much about actually taking in the places they visit.