> arbitrators of truth and taste and moral purity
I have not once looked at TV network executives, publishing house editors, museum curators, retail inventory buyers, librarians, gallerists, or magazine editors as any of those things. Why would somebody do so for video curation?
You don’t need some complicated top down bottom up crowdsourced ML blah blah blah. You just need to be able to contextualize content to the curator. Which is what people naturally do when there is an accountable curator.
Perhaps people who grew up recently only know content as endless troves of machine-curated feeds with no accountability or attributability, but that’s actually just a very ahistorical side effect of Section 230.
Every other way of experiencing media has always been through some curated context, with a specific entity you can point at as the responsible curator, and through which you color your experience of the content.
That’s not to say people couldn’t be misled in that model as well, but this whole “curators are the arbiter of truth” thing has no real or historical ground. Explicit curation actually offers the very opposite thing: recognizable, accountable, obvious context.