It's a different model of consumption.
Voting systems are based inherently on popularity.
Whether that's direct or whether it's a FoaF operation, such as "those who like x also enjoy y" - it's still a popularity system.
All popularity systems centralize and are extremely hostile to divergences and counterintuitive things.
It'd be like if you asked the bedeviling Monty Hall problem, took a survey of the most common answer and only presented that one while the correct one gets hidden and downvoted. The centralizing feedback loop is because you're now reinforcing the most common wrong answer as the right one and thus the noise becomes the signal.
The failure of these systems is it pushes up those who know how to be popular and not expertise. It regurgitates commonality.
There's other ways. You can for instance, take a movie you like, see what studio made it, the director, the whatever - sound engineer, then browse out from there. It's a version of the Monty Hall problem where you go "let's only look at what most mathematicians say".
My favorite analogy for this is if you went to a beginner's karate/yoga/physical therapy class on the first day and took a survey of a proper punch/movement and considered the instructor's opinion as an equal vote with the 20 other first day people and went with whatever the plurality was. Or you went to the doctor's office and along with the doctor, surveyed the patients in the waiting room what their opinion of your ailment was. Or a foreign language class and had the students guess a translation and assign the fluent instructor's answer equal weight.
No really, that's how we've structured most content curation on the internet. Exactly like that.
Naive equal democracy and systems weighted in popularity are fine for general purposes but completely fail for the narrowband where specialized expertise is desired because it occludes expert knowledge systems and networks and swaps it out for popularity systems and tribes.