Your evidence that reddit is replaceable is you've used similar sites (most of which are basically dead in the water at this point). But in the same paragraph you exempt the new york times from that same reasoning. There are several large high-quality newspapers out there competing with the new york times (washington post, wall street journal, la times, chicago tribune, etc). I love the times, but "it may be less unique than you might think."

If anything, the internet has made the media extremely fungibile. Social networks are the opposite - as they grow the ability to switch between them becomes more difficult.

I guess different strokes for different folks. For me and the vast array of different specialist subreddits I use day-to-day, not only to consume but also to help others and participate in discussion I find the situation as I find it currently unique on the internet and incredibly hard to replicate. Added to that the karma system which consistently promotes good content (it's amazing what people will do to get karma, it works amazingly as an incentive).

To me the NYTimes is "articles with pictures". I can get that on a dozen more sites on the internet. And without a paywall.