Monkey brain. Monkey likes to search new stuff, brain rewards monkey for new info discovered.

As >>81422 said, it's an evolutionary thing. Sites like TikTok take advantage of it, but they don't create it.

Your brain is wired to help you survive in the short term, not thrive in the long term. Your natural instinct is to prioritize tasks based on how long they take and how confident you are you can finish them. Your brain feels more comfortable watching a ten second video than a two hour movie because you're more likely to finish the former than the latter. And even if you end up collectively spending more time watching short videos than the comparatively long movie, your brain registers each of them as a separate task and so puts them further ahead in the queue.

I remember watching so many infomercials late at night when I was a kid because there was nothing on. Personally, I got sick of changing channels and would settle with something mediocre instead of searching for something that probably wasn't there. But, we also had like 50 channels and not 500 million tiktok accounts to go through so maybe I was just being rational.
Yeah, the "related video" and "autoplay" thing of modern sites is definitely geared towards keeping people satisfied, but I wonder why. I don't think the site itself suffers from people searching themselves, does it? Or maybe attention spans mean they go to a different site?

In the mainstream, music finds you
In the underground, you have to dig for the music
>t. zappa or some shit, probably

Been noticing a lot of TV simulators out there complete with annoying ads that people like for some reason, wonder if this is why.

>>88717
I would guess because they break up the shows and give transitions from one thing to the next, people like getting small breaks where they can zone out. I wouldn't use something with the feature but I get it because it gives you this break without stopping anything, you don't stop for a quick break and then get sidetracked by something else and get back to what you were doing in an hour or two.

>>81867
Who are you quoting?