Slight tangent; but arguments such as "if indie content creation moves to TikTok that's because it's what the next generation wants" are almost universally invalid. The reasons a trend emerges are complex and definitely not only down to an average preference nor simply a generational shift, though those factors might play a small role. There are at least 2 other major factors that outweigh those, and probably more.
People routinely make choices that have long term outcomes they don't agree with; and we all know they do and thus the information industry quite explicitly exploits this - the difference between what we "really" want and short term impulses has never been larger due to such intentional exploitation.
Secondly, network effects. The way intellectual property happens to work allows platforms to effectively own networks their user's create. A group of entirely rational users might well each individually choose to join a network since for them doing so is extremely valuable, even in the knowledge that it'd be better for everyone to choose a different alternative if they could manage to do so collectively, especially since IP laws mean it's quite unlikely for any such alternative not to eventually develop similar weaknesses. Business plans work when profiting off content involves controlling it simply because that's how the law pretty much defines it - IP doesn't support creativity directly, it supports monopolies and leaves the support to exploiting that monopoly.
The implied argument sort of infers a cause by default - people are choosing the proverbial tiktok (or whatever other new thing), people are rational, therefore there must be a reason, therefore tiktok is better for people (and we don't need to know why). But each of those steps is quite weak; the overall link is tenuous at best.
People routinely make choices that have long term outcomes they don't agree with; and we all know they do and thus the information industry quite explicitly exploits this - the difference between what we "really" want and short term impulses has never been larger due to such intentional exploitation.
Secondly, network effects. The way intellectual property happens to work allows platforms to effectively own networks their user's create. A group of entirely rational users might well each individually choose to join a network since for them doing so is extremely valuable, even in the knowledge that it'd be better for everyone to choose a different alternative if they could manage to do so collectively, especially since IP laws mean it's quite unlikely for any such alternative not to eventually develop similar weaknesses. Business plans work when profiting off content involves controlling it simply because that's how the law pretty much defines it - IP doesn't support creativity directly, it supports monopolies and leaves the support to exploiting that monopoly.
The implied argument sort of infers a cause by default - people are choosing the proverbial tiktok (or whatever other new thing), people are rational, therefore there must be a reason, therefore tiktok is better for people (and we don't need to know why). But each of those steps is quite weak; the overall link is tenuous at best.