DISQUS

Seamus McCauley · 1 year ago

Nick's examples may tend to the elitist, but I think he makes a reasonable point. Some things are better for being shared. However, some things are quite legitimately spoiled by being overexposed.

Look at Lonely Planet, and its semi-secret policy of never writing up the best places the writers find in case a mass influx of backpackers destroys them. There are bars I go to that are lovely precisely because they're relatively empty: I don't especially want to deny their benefits to anyone else, but at the same time I recognise that if everyone visited those bars then what I like about them would cease to exist.

Sure, in one sense it's elitist for surfers to try and keep other people away from their beaches but there really does come a point at which there's so many people in the water it's essentially impossible to surf (just as there long ago came a point when it was essentially impossible to drive through any of our cities).

Glycolic · 1 year ago

I would spend my time looking for new more interesting places to go, rather than gripeing about the people running over "my spot". Or better yet if you truly care about the area that others are drawn to, through some news medium, then do something about it.

Matt S · 1 year ago

The internet rewards both the charitable and the greedy, because they both have a strong desire and work ethic. It does not reward the lazy, they have no chance to make money online, and that is why they are always searching for the "get rich without doing anything secret".