If nothing is curated, how do we find things
tadaima.bearblog.dev
tadaima.bearblog.dev
I even wrote a program to scrape the websites of my favorite radio stations (well the stations of my favorite music directors) and add the songs to a Spotify playlist.
Whenever I meet a teenager today, one of the first things I ask them is "what apps do you use most", but the next thing I ask is "how do you find new music".
The answer is usually something like "I don't know, I just sort of find stuff I guess?". Some have said they follow influencer's playlists on YouTube or Spotify, which I guess is the new version of the music director? Or they just get it from Spotify playlists.
But what's missing is a shared cultural experience. In the 90s, everyone at my school knew those 40 songs that the local stations played. They might know other stuff too, but you couldn't avoid those top songs. It's not the same today. And it's the same problem for visual media. We all knew the top movies at the theater, because it was the only place to see new movies. And we all knew the top TV shows because they were only on four major networks.
Kids don't have a shared cultural experience like I did.
> expert curation. Someone who spends their whole life studying these things
For a long time I followed the Peel sessions (1967 - 2004) which was BBC DJ / Commonwealth new music and industry audience sized level of shared curation experience.
That was richer in information and breadth and more niche an experience than the larger broader scale appeal of the UK's Top of the Pops, Australia's Countdown, the USofA's later MTV curated new music offerings.
Curated or not, now or in the 1960's, 70's, later there is and has always been a sizable amount of industry capture and strong influence in bringing artist's to audiences / markets.
I've had some luck finding some TikTok creators who curate specific "vibes" and publish Spotify playlists. I think that's just how it's done now.
We’re old wine poured into new wineskins.
As someone who is still listening to today’s pop acts and whatnot, there are still tons of people you can talk to in person who probably listen to similar music, concerts are well-attended, etc. If anything the definition of popular has broadened to include new stuff like KPop, Latin pop, Afrobeats, etc. and I don’t have an issue finding people who like that music in person.
Talk to people, ask them about it, introduce them to new music and movies, listen to these songs together, or watch the movie together. That is what I do with my girlfriend. She does not have the same taste in music at all as I do. There is an overlap, since I like songs from classical to rock, but yeah.
He thought well and deeply about the challenges of the growing net.
I do check out mit radios list from time to time. It’s somewhat useful to know the names of the shows that play music you like..
This is my problem with the proliferation of streaming platforms when it comes to movies and TV. We’ve arguably got more and better content than we’ve ever had. But I find myself far less motivated to watch it. I used to watch content anticipating the conversations I’d have with friends and colleagues. Now, whenever we try to talk about it, it’s 30 seconds of, “Have you seen …?” “No, have you seen …?” “No.” Until we give up and talk about something else.
It’s made me realize that the sharing it with others part was always my favorite part of listening/watching and, without that, I can’t really become emotionally invested it the experience.
Never seen it. Not even sure what it's about.
This might be pedantic, but the sequel was remastered and was released for Windows in the first week of April 2025.
In the context of the PC versions of the original game, it has been remastered and remade, in that the PC version development started after the release of the original remaster of the console version for PS5, which was itself a remake of the PS4 remastered version of the original PS3 version.
I think the original comparison to Oblivion was fair and accurate.
This isn't an attack on you - just a further point towards a split world. Something can be huge with one group and barely heard about elsewhere.
> The last of us
The zombies are just a backdrop, the real story is focused on just two people, and it’s really heavily centred on their relationship and personal choices.
But that leads to a different problem -- When Netflix drops an entire season of something, I feel like I have to have time to watch the whole thing, or I don't watch at all. Because I don't want participate in the online discussion having seen less than everyone else.
I end up watching the shows that drop one episode a week far more often than whole seasons at once.
I didn't mind what Andor did as much though for season 2 releasing 3 episodes at a time. If it had just been 1 episode at a time I probably wouldn't have seen it until a year or two from now after all discussion was dead.
Internet improved this but it won't last. Communities are temporary, they all die at some point. I just got used to enjoying things alone.
Perhaps this is a factor in the rise of reaction videos where people consume the content with you and react to it. A somewhat shallow experience, but someone pretending to genuinely like the same music video as I do is - in the vastness of the internet - slightly better than consuming completely alone.
But I wonder if this is missing something that you've touched on, the function of cultural artefacts as a means of connection (and perhaps trust building) through a known shared experience. Whether it's watching a TV show, reading a book, listening to music, playing a game, all of these activities essentially have two functions. The first is the thing itself (I'm enjoying this book, song, game, etc.) but the second is the opportunity to _connect with others_ around that, which only really works when some majority of the thing is known by everyone.
This doesn't say that there isn't value in unique experiences, except that these unique experiences are always unique _in the context_ of a shared and known thing.
Roguelikes are perhaps a good example of this. Every run is unique to a player and essentially unique across all players (seeded runs aside), but you can always talk with others about the specific events that happened in any single run because everyone understands them in the context of the game as a whole. The 'crazy thing that happened in my last run' still works because other people know how rare the event or combination of events might be, so it's still a valid shared experience but also unique.
Another more lightweight example might be the amount of NPC dialogue in Supergiant Game' Hades. I believe there's something like 80,000 unique lines of dialogue in the game, so players can go a long time without hearing the same thing again, and unless you play for a long time you might never hear certain lines that other people will have heard.
As for your example about conversations going nowhere when there's no shared experience, perhaps there's even an argument that the connection aspect of the experiences is actually the primary function even if we think it's a secondary function.
Tangential point related to generative models, but perhaps there's even a third function at play, which is that the the _process_ of creating the work may have been its own value for the creator, but this is more about the value of spending time and energy making a thing for yourself or others to experience (to connect over).
When people say "literally 1984" they don't mean an amorphous story about an inescapable dystopia, they mean very specific ideas Orwell packaged in a story. A large part of what makes Breaking Bad compelling is the endless stream of ethical choices and their consequences in the eyes of the authors. These things are thought-provoking when consuming the story, and can be further digested by discussing them with others who experienced the same story.
Outside of dedicated assignments for book clubs and schooling, this has always been the case for literature discussions.
When streaming became the norm, that dynamic was destroyed. We lurched back to private media consumption (for better or worse). There is no shared cultural narrative to tune into at 8:00 each night. There's millions of disparate voices, screaming into the void 24/7. More freedom and diversity for sure, but nothing coherent you can point to as a culture.
I feel like social media trough its amplification has lead to a global sync in topics and experiences.
I’d argue a kid growing up India or China shares much more culturally today with a western Kid than 30 years ago.
Take the news for example. Last weeks it was tariffs. The entire world was talking about the same thing.
To the contrary I feel like we are living more and more in the same global reality going from one headline to the next every week.
Sure the shared cultural experience of being limited to a handful of TV channels is gone, but it's been replaced by a handful of streaming services. The world has shared the Marvel Cinematic Universe and 800lb sisters and Taylor Swift.
First time I hear of these. I now wish I had not looked them up (I did not think it would be so literal).
(I also now realise that I cannot even remember how Taylor Swift sounds like, despite hearing about her quite frequently...)
When I was young you couldn't NOT know the song "semi-charmed life" by third eye blind, or 50 other songs. Nowadays idk if that's the case. Then again, I'm not sure how much would be lost if my whole middle school didn't know the song "shake that Laffy taffy".
The whole world was talking about tariffs? Nope. They were talking whatever they saw on their personalised feed.
But everyone knows Britney Spears, even if you were never in her target demographic. This sort of global fame now requires so much more to reach because of how many are really locked into hyper personalized online experiences. I used to be able to reference the latest big movie or show and people would know, now that’s mostly turned into an explanation that the movie or show even came out and exists.
There's still enormously mainstream culture. Even more enormous in the fat tail than before.
There's just also a shocking depth in the mid tail now too.
The problem with movies is that Hollywood killed itself and tech helped. Movies and TV just suck now, for the most part.
Music, fashion, and visual culture are still alive and well.
Taylor Swift has relatively niche popularity in India.
Chinese are blocked from accessing any western social media, and no access to YouTube, Netflix, Spotify, etc. Taylor Swift is popular there but the Chinese have their own version of the internet separate from ours.
Not just the Internet. Before cable and satellite TV, even. Similar to Muhammad Ali in that sense - a globally renowned icon, regardless of cultural or languge barriers. In the west, there is the idea of a rivalry between Michael Jackson and Prince, but globally, there was only one King of Pop.
Taylor Swift has mind-boggling levels of fandom in the Anglosphere (even if it is largely limited to women), but her music is pretty straightforward, there are other artists like her who would be considered interchangeable with her given enough publicity. But the full package of Michael Jackson was groundbreaking and inimitable: the musical production, the dance moves, the songwriting and the music videos.
I challenge anyone from the '80s not to know of a few songs by Madonna or Michael Jackson.
Taylor is huge with some fans and completely unknown to her not-fans and there seem to be a steel transition between the two states.
This is unheard of for children to say this. If you mean adults, there were plenty of adults in the 80s that didn’t know Madonna songs, and even Michael Jackson
You probably think this because you were a child or young adult at the height of her fame.
My parents, who were middle aged at the time, certainly don't know who Brittney Spears is. They may have heard of her, but they couldn't recognize her or name any of her songs.
What you’re describing is an echo chamber. Which is what most sites optimize to produce (when optimizing for engagement and). I switch between bsky where it frequently feels that way “everyone is talking about Y” and mastodon where the chronological timeline makes it clear that a lot of people might be talking about it, but they’re also talking about other things.
I feel that one of the most broken things about our current reality (with so many social sites) is that it feels so singular and shared, but turns out that’s not the case at all. My partner and I have started to use the phrase “my internet” to refer to the general vibe we are taking in as in “is your internet talking about scandal Z?” I’m frequently surprised stuff that totally flys under their radar (and vice versa).
Consider this thought experiment. Imagine you're going to get coffee with either a random person in your neighborhood, or a random HN user. Which conversation will have more shared topics of interest?
This is the "global village" which was prophesied in the 1960s. It won't go away until interstellar colonization creates communication delays and a new era of cultural fragmentation.
... I mean, that's because it's a global economic crisis. In the early 70s, the entire world was talking about the oil crisis, another induced economic shock. Late noughties? The Great Financial Crisis. That sort of thing is _always_ going to be news everywhere.
Maybe they can't (or don't want to, out of fear of being embarrassed or feeling uncool/uncertain perhaps) explain to you how they find things, but when they are hanging out with their friends and are talking about similar interests, discovering they know about similar things, and sharing things they know about that their friends don't yet/learning similar things from their friends, that's where the magic happens.
they did, they just have different algos for that. I found italian brainrot meme and what surprising it was so popular for kids, like tens of millions of views
seems like Trends are more personalize now, what popular song that adult like is different with younger audience like
its like having different Trends that live on bubble
Every kid having their own tailored algorithm means there is no shared cultural experience by design.
A shared cultural experience means there are people in it who don't like it or don't engage with it, even though they are aware of it, and they can engage with their peers about it.
Tailored algorithms means maximal enjoyment and engagement at all times, but it's engagement with the software, not engagement with peers.
You just disagreed with yourself, the kids on america can relate to kids that live on middle east and asia
if this not shared cultural experience, then idk what else is because original post mention that most people on his hometown aware of song that got played, not every hometown on america have same experience
> the kids on america can relate to kids that live on middle east and asia ... if this not shared cultural experience, then idk what else is
This sounds like parasocial connection standing in for shared cultural experience to me, but I don't really know because I'm quite distant from that kind of connection anyway.
no no no, you are not understand, this is the new normal
gone long time a way for you to meet and socialize in your local community. this is the new way
You just miss old times
We opine the enshittification of social media platforms, but seem to largely ignore the enshittification of our in-person social norms and culture by those same platforms.
One of the reasons you have to get people in young (to any product) is so that they forget or just don't even realise/consider what life is could be like without it.
EDIT: There are definitely cultural norms and situations that the current norm improves upon too - perhaps regression to the mean is a better descriptor than enshittification depending on the incoming perspective.
they can stick to old way but we know its not going to happen since its inconvenience
it is what it is
It's already been pointed out in the comments on this article that we went from individual disconnected experiences, to mostly a shared collective experience via radio and TV and lately we went back to individual connected experiences.
He says how there used to be a number of nationally known comedians who could make jokes that appealed to everyone's shared cultural experience, but now that's effectively impossible because a) culture isn't tied to geography / location, and b) niches are much more prevalent. I loved the example that huge venues can now often be sold out for artists you've never heard of.
On one hand it's not neccessarily a bad thing since individuals are getting more of what truly appeals to them, but I also think that the result could be increasing the barrier to connect with others because it decreases the chances that you'll have interests in common.
That's "O Superman" by Laurie Anderson. It's 8:21 and quotes both the Tao Te Ching and the US Postal Service. It peaked at number two on the UK Singles Chart in 1981. Why? Because John Peel curated a radio show on BBC Radio 1 and happened to like it. That's the advantage of human curation: Every so often you get a John Peel in the booth and hear something so off-the-wall no well-written algorithm would ever mix it in with everything else you listen to.
They haven't. A nearest neighbor pseudo random walk from one viral song to the next doesn't replace a music director who could give you thematically, aesthetically or conceptually coherent selections of music.
There's an interesting observation about this at the individual album level, the death of the concept album. Albums that tell coherent two hour long narratives are effectively dead because the almighty algorithm favors the exact opposite. Disjointed, catchy , viral, hook centric music that's short enough to fit over a TikTok clip.
The medium is the message, thinking the Spotify algorithm replaces a music director is like thinking the Youtube short algorithm replaces a film director.
No fancy algorithm or AI tool will replace human curation with good tastes (or what you think is good taste)
I dig this for music curation: https://ghostly.com/
If anyone has other similar links I'd love to see them.
I tend to think that humans historically have had very isolated, independent experiences. It is only recently with mass media that we all share a collective experience.
I take your point that kids today are not having a shared one-directional (tv to person) experience. However, they are sharing apps, with that data being intermediated. It is uni-directional too, so more immersive.
I tend to see technology, and the direction of travel, as highly collectivising rather less of a shared cultural experience. Everyone is endlessly exposed to exciting ideas and content that are not self-generated.
So, collectivised thinking UP, independent thinking DOWN.
Those Top 40 singles were spoon-fed to you by Clear Channel within a very limited selection from the Top 5 major record labels.
That doesn’t change the shared cultural experience. Decades had “sounds”, disco was a thing in the 70s because everyone heard it. Today there’s no shared cultural zeitgeist. You might find communities on reddit etc, but they aren’t local.
A hundred years ago, everyone used the King James Version of the Bible.¹ Poorly though it reflected the common language², it was a shared experience, and things like memorisation and making and recognising scriptural allusions were straightforward, because everyone used the same words. Now, a wide variety of Bible translations are in common use, some more accurate than the KJV, some more loose paraphrases, all more understandable. There are some big advantages in this variety and modernity—but we have lost something. The shared experience had a virtue of its own, quite a significant one.
—⁂—
¹ OK, by a hundred years ago the RV and ASV were used in some areas, but it was mostly as a distant extra to the KJV, not replacing it.
² I understand that some of it was already becoming archaic, or at least overly formal, when it was published, such as thee/thou (singular you). The fact is, it was “appointed to be read in Churches”, and they wanted it to sound impressive. Compare it with Tyndale’s translation almost a hundred years earlier, and Tyndale’s generally reads much more easily—because Tyndale wanted uneducated people to be able to understand the Bible.³
³ “And sone after Maister Tyndall happened to be in the companie of a learned man, and in communing and disputing with him, drove him to that issue that the learned manne sayde, we were better be without Gods lawe, then the Popes: Maister Tyndall hearing that, answered hym, I defie the Pope and all his lawes, and sayde, if God spare my lyfe ere many yeares, I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough, shall knowe more of the scripture then thou doest.” — John Foxe, Actes and Monuments (1563), page 570.
Even more recent translations seem to retain significant similarity in a lot of "famous" texts (e.g., the Beatitudes — people also seem to use the archaic pronunciation of "blessed" as two syllables), presumably to ease acceptance of the change. This hints that some commonality is preserved. (Some words are also jargon, so not modernizing the word is more reasonable.)
Story outlines and concepts can also be preserved even though the "poetry" of earlier versions is lost in translation. Yet as contexts change even concepts may be less understandable and shared; "go to the ant thou sluggard" may be unclear not merely from language but from unfamiliarity with concepts. Aesop's "The Ant and the Grasshopper" has lasted thousands of years, but is not a fundamentally human metaphor and even the human concepts diligence and foresight can have different cultural tones.
"A sluggard is someone who does not work hard." "Oh, you mean someone who works smarter not harder?" "No. It means someone who does not accomplish much." "Oh, you mean someone who is burnt out?" "No. It means someone who chooses not to do things that are profitable." "Oh, you mean someone who has recognized the futility of striving for accomplishments and has learned to be content with a simple life?" "No!"
Probably the best example of that is John 3:16, the best-known verse in the entire Bible: almost everyone understands it incorrectly, and the significant majority of current translations have knowingly rendered it incorrectly. KJV: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, &c.”. Trouble is, you can read that English word “so” in two main and quite different senses:
1. Thus, in this way. “For this is how God loved the world: he gave⸺” This is the sense the KJV meant. The “, that” would become just “: ” in modern English.
2. To a significant extent, of high magnitude. “For because of God’s exceeding love, he gave⸺” This is how modern readers will almost always read the sentence, even if the comma before the word “that” then doesn’t really fit.
The first sense is unambiguously the correct meaning of the Greek word Οὕτως, by itself and in that context, and I imagine it is how people read the KJV four hundred years ago. But the English language has shifted.
As far as I can tell, newer translations don’t tend to want to invite trouble (look at all the kerfuffle over the RSV’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14!) and so decide to keep the traditional English interpretation. Sure, it’s not quite what the text actually says, but what it means isn’t wrong, and there’s not a huge gap between “this is how God showed his love⸺” and “God’s love was so extreme that⸺” in reality.
And so they end up mostly going for something like “For God so loved the world that he gave⸺” (a mite worse in my opinion: the removal of the comma precludes the first sense). Some go all in on being wrong with “For God loved the world so much that he gave⸺”.
I’m genuinely surprised at how few have insisted on translating it correctly, given how widely I understand the problem is understood among translators. In <https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/jn3.16>: CSB, GW, HCSB, ISV, LEB, MOUNCE, NOG, NET, NLT, VOICE. MSG is perhaps the most interesting, artfully blending the two senses.
I suppose you didn't have the same cultural experience as your parents. That's how culture works - it changes over time.
Heh, I told my kid this today on the way to dropping him off with a friend. We were listening to The Rest is History, about the Rolling Stones. They made the point that this common cultural experience started to become a thing roughly in the 60s.
When I was a kid, there were things that you just could not avoid. It was the same in many places: there was a national broadcaster, and maybe a second and third TV station. There were only so many things you could watch. Whatever TV series, music, or sports were on, you could be sure everyone else was also watching it.
It started changing in the 1990s where I grew up, completely changing from the start to the end. You got a bunch of channels. You could watch news from America and other places, which maybe deserves a footnote about immigrants being able to watch something from faraway for the first time. More options everywhere, but there was still momentum. You still watched the national news on the main stations, and sports was still there too. They also tended to curate the "best" foreign shows, so you didn't have to wait to get your dose of America.
Now that's finished. Everything is private now, you can watch whatever you want on your own screen (TVs got really cheap. When I was a kid, people would congratulate you when you bought a new one, like it was a car. Now I have more TVs than I can use.) You don't have to watch things at the scheduled time anymore, and you don't have to arrange your life around when the episodes come out.
The kids now watch a wider variety of content. There's still "local" fads that are maybe restricted to friendship groups, instead of being national phenomena. For instance my kid and his friends ended up watching One Piece, a Japanese production. But I never ran into other kids who were into it.
I also dare to say that the kids now watch lower quality content. This was already a thing when we got flooded with channels in the 1990s. There was a heck of a lot of mediocre crap on those 100 extra channels. But now it's a whole new world of terrible. Yes, I'm an old man. But it does seem like having curation would mostly bubble the good things to the top, and so when the curation went away, you got more stuff, but worse stuff. Similar to consumer products, the items at your department store tended to be reasonable, but when there's a webshop where you can buy anything at all, you have to sort through a pile of low quality stuff yourself.
And, I do think even for me personally that mediocre content today is much better than the mediocre content of the past. The average is higher even if the peaks are not (and those peaks are probably overestimated due to survivorship bias).
Tldr, there used to be a lot of crap and we forgot about it.
I don't think there's any comparison. The parents could point at some mass production and decide it wasn't to their taste, but ultimately they lived in the same world. Our kids are watching amateur productions they find on YouTube. You can tell the production quality is lower from things like what the images look like, terrible planning, bad sound, and so on.
I hear what you're saying. If you are sure there's no parallel here, that is your right to feel that way.
Schools don't have bullies?
That's the extent of my shared cultural experience as a kid.
You observe correctly but the conclusion is incorrect. You fail to take into account that year-, location- and interest-based cohorts of kids tend to follow the same influencers, and thereby consume the same content.
The problem for outside observers is that without the platform's data we cannot identify the cohorts and thereby cannot distinguish between the groups.
This logic follows a set-based approach to social media analytics called social set analysis pioneered by a research group at which I later did my PhD.
What conclusions did your research find?
I mean, there's certainly greater diversity (particularly for music, stuff outside of the mainstream always existed, of course, but the barrier to entry was far higher then than now), but there's still a large shared _core_ of content.
I think this is two claims -- AFAICT kids do have a shared cultural experience, but it is true it's not like yours, or mine. The Spotify playlists are one way they find new music, TikTok being another, movies/TV shows, or word of mouth.
What some folks may have found useful about radio playing gatekeeper and music directors choosing 40 songs per week (they didn't) others of us found stifling.
I grew up in the 70s and 80s in a small town on outskirts of St. Louis. We could get a few classic rock/AOR stations (KSHE, KSD) and starting in the early 80s there was "hit radio" KHTR which almost quite literally followed the 40 songs per week model...
There's tons of music I didn't* discover in the early 80s, such as The Smiths, that I only happened on later because of strong gatekeeping via radio.
In the 90s we got KPNT ("the point") which was alternative rock and more adventurous than KHTR, and by then I also had a car and access to the good record stores in St. Louis. I amassed a large CD collection and stopped listening to the radio almost entirely excepting some college radio, and kept up with new music via Rolling Stone, Spin, etc. Even bought some albums based entirely on their reviews without having heard them at all.
All of that long and rambly comment to say... I like music discovery today far more than I did in my youth, 20s, and early 30s. I skim Bandcamp regularly for new music, watch questions about music on Ask Metafilter, and have found YouTube Music's algorithm to be decent. (e.g., pick a song, make it a "radio" station and add songs I haven't heard before but like to my library.)
It is true that I rarely find folks to discuss music with because I am not listening to mainstream music much. That part sucks -- but few people my age seem to care about music deeply.
* Almost certainly the music director for your local station was subscribed to a service that provided a weekly list of songs to program, rather than choosing them themselves. I worked part-time in radio while in college, taking weekend and evening/midnight-6 a.m. shifts, in Washington MO and Kirksville MO. KSLQ (adult contemporary), KRXL (classic rock/AOR), KTUF (country) and KIRX (talk, sports) were all largely getting program direction from national syndicated programming. The local music director might have used some discretion in choosing / filtering out some songs, but they were likely getting the direction from a service.
Of course they do. The music director is now the recommendation algorithm of each platform (as mentioned), and so what you'll find is that like-minded people have very similar recommendations in their feeds. There are also meta profiles on these platforms who instead of making their own content, "curate" and reshare content within (or from out of) the platform. And what disparities do arise, people undo them organically by sharing content with each other in different channels anyways. This is how things go "viral".
It's actually kind of scary how people can convince themselves into ideas like yours here. One would think you live in a different world or something. This is the same world where memes and viral social media posts are everyday news topics. It's where blockbuster movies and TV shows continue to exist, where GTA6's release will cause a billion dollar revenue loss to the economy in lost workhours, and so on.
Needless to say you get none of that with algorithms. Spotify does recommend some good songs for me regularly and I often add them to “liked” but it’s much lonelier now. Music used to connect me with other people and now it’s just me and my Spotify.
1. The amount of "culture" being created has to be like a magnitude of order greater than 25 years ago. Of course you can't watch all those shows and movies't now. There are too many and it's too much.
2. The algorithms were developed to help with this problem. They are just a poor match for the problem.
1. The "new" of today is no match for the "new" of back then: Breaking Bad is as good for a first binge today as it was 2008. I'm currently watching Mad Men for the first time and can't see how anything could've been made differently 18 years(!) ago. That's 7 seasons of a well-made show and I couldn't care less for any Netflix production that gets cancelled after its 2nd season. The change in quality from Star Trek: TNG to Breaking Bad seems like a huge leap, do these leaps exist anymore?
2. There is no discussion about any current Zeitgeist, everything feels intermixed and nothing is ever finished. Leaving politics aside here, consumers are beta testers without any way to provide direct feedback to producers (one that isn't public outrage of some kind) - every other usual customer interaction is just a waste of your time. Big studios are busy milking "universes" that have been created pre-social media.
3. Algorithms are part of the creation for these problems, not their solution. Big tech just doesn't like this take, creative work is risky, businesses need to scale up quickly and efficiently.
Breaking Bad is almost certainly one of the best series of all time that started strong and ended strong. There were a TON of shows in that period that were weak or that, at a minimum, sort of petered out. Yes, a lot of shows probably get canceled too quickly. Then there's Grey's Anatomy because it still apparently has lazy viewers who will tune in each week.
I find myself encountering bits of culture (tv/movies/music/books) that could be from today, or from 10 years ago, and little way to determine from when. And there's so much of it now.
Also we have probably reached almost the top of what is possible for a TV show, especially in what matters the most (writing, acting).
Some either you don’t know about any of these which is the fault of the algo I guess, or you’re stuck in a bubble of 15 years ago, in which the algo failed.
Thanks for the recommendations, didn't know about The Rehearsal, Shogun, and Reservation Dogs (you wrote "Resevoir Dogs"?). Our tastes may wary, but I think For All Mankind fell back to some 90s formula after season 2.
although, i will say, it is a lot better of an experience watching old, well reviewed shows / movies, than it is to watch whatever comes out now. but again thats mainly because i can choose from some of the best productions ever.
For music, I'm not even sure the cultural creation has increased.
A few decades ago, there were scores of indie bands. In high school I knew a few friends that were playing in amateur rock bands. Later on, when I traveled in foreign lands, most people I met listened to local music, e.g. Turkish songs which were a mix of tradition and modern influence. In my latest travel, everyone was listening to the same globbish junk.
I don't have any stats, but I suspect the music production is more homogeneous and less creative. There is less geographic variation. At least one source of creation has disappeared: musical bands are dead, except for the industrial kind, à la K-pop. Overall, I don't think the creation level is higher than 25 years ago.
> 2. The algorithms were developed to help with this problem. They are just a poor match for the problem.
I disagree with the OP that the algorithms are necessarily bad. For instance, once in a while, they could suggest a very different style to help broaden your tastes. Some already do that.
But algorithms can't compare with recommendations by friends. There were music that I would have instantly rejected if the CD hadn't been given by a friend. And sometimes you have to persevere and learn to like a music. When the curator is a human I like, I try harder.
I'm personally ambivalent about the argument. I'm old enough to have lived in a time before the rise of the web and social media. However, my youthful tastes were much more mainstream than my current tastes. Thus, I never really needed to find obscure content without the web. Nowadays I'm not a big fan of popular culture, but on the other hand my taste doesn't seem to match well with professional critics either. So how do I find stuff? My "process" is very hit-and-miss. I sample a bunch of stuff that sounds interesting to me, and if I don't actually find it interesting, I bail out ASAP. Streaming media sites are good for this kind of scattershot approach. I also go the public library, browse the shelves, and just randomly check out several books that I might like. Perhaps the majority turn out to be duds, but I've found a number of diamonds in the rough that way, books that I never would have read otherwise. (Incidentally, the library also provides access to sites such as https://www.kanopy.com/)
I don't feel the need to stay current on culture. The books, films, and TV shows that I find might be recent, or they might be quite old. There's plenty of good stuff from the past that for whatever reason I never encountered until now. If you're following the professional critics, you'll likely only be learning about new content; it's not that the critics didn't talk about old stuff before, but it's just as difficult to find old critical discussions about old content as it is to find the old content itself. How else but randomly will you find reviews of obscure stuff from 20 years ago?
[EDIT:] Thinking back to my preteen years, the public library was also crucial for me then. I remember discovering influential works such as Frank Herbert's Dune and Plato's Apology there, just browsing the shelves.
I was very deep into non-mainstream music when I was in my teenage years (90ies) and magazines and (the little access I had to) the web were not very useful. Even outside the mainstream, a lot of magazines were mostly into the big alternative acts and mostly fed by leads by music companies.
The best way to discover music was to go to small alternative music shops. I would hang there for hours and would listen as many records as the owners tolerated. And since they were music buffs themselves and pretty much knew every obscure record they were selling, they could often point you to interesting records.
I don't think much has changed for my peers, back then they would listen what the top-40, MTV, and TMF would give them, and now they listen what record companies are pushing or astroturfing. (I don't mean this in a denigrating way, there are other media where I am more into mainstream stuff, like TV shows.)
I don't go to record shops anymore, but I still find music based on 'browsing' and word of mouth mostly. The good thing of 2025 is that I can get my hands on every bit of obscure music, whereas in 1995, some albums would have to be imported by a record store and it was way out of my budget as a teen.
There was a very famous case in my country of a preppy kid who took the whole rap world by storm getting stupid numbers in a niche site, and only after he had gotten big contracts with multinational labels it came out that he had just set a bot to download the music and inflate numbers, that’s how trust based the system was.
If you were someone living in a provincial town you were SoL on alternative music.
Not so much of a tangent as just the relevant argument not being made clearly. The Bjork example demonstrates the value of a central, canonical source for information in overcoming the costs of friction from direct messaging, which creates a chaotic cacophony of tiny bite-sized messages which are difficult and exhausting to piece together into a final meaningful message, and result in the interested Bjork fans living in their own little information-universes: in one universe, it's a film+documentary, in another, it's a film. So they can't even manage to agree on the most basic facts. (Which has downstream effects: a Bjork fan may not know they have access to the documentary or that they can assume most of the film-watchers saw the documentary and they can invoke it without confusion or spoilers.) The 'advantage' of social media and disintermediation proved to be illusory as they came with too much overhead and destruction of any canon or commons.
In what way is that a tangent? In both cases, the author argues that a centralized authoritative source of information is better than scattershot posts on social media.
But the timing is really funny here, given the massive success Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is currently experiencing. People have found this game - and it's not by curation. It's by massive word of mouth, as people who try the game tend to tell all their friends about it. In the case where something is really good, people find out about it without curators.
Curators are good for finding some stuff. But the ones so good that everyone talks about? You'll find them anyway.
But these, as well as word of mouth, are the least needed for something so popular.
Exactly contrary to your point, both Clair Obscur and Blue Prince (#1) got excellent reviews in the days leading up to release leading to people on e.g. Reddit saying "this game came out of nowhere and it has amazing reviews, I'm excited".
https://www.metacritic.com/browse/game/pc/all/all-time/metas...
I think you're confusing cause and effect. If you look at steam's concurrent player counts, you see that the number of concurrent players kept increasing for the first 10 days after the game's release. That's not consistent with curators instructing people to buy a game at release. That's consistent with massive word-of-mouth spread. Everyone is talking about it and rating it highly because it's good, not because they were told to.
Players counts kept increasing because a people came across the game on social media - upvoted reddit posts, high number of retweets, streamer sponsorships, etc. And a lot of that got rolling only because of initial positive reviews and PR. But isn't upvoting/downvoting something on reddit or other social media a form of curation? Is there even such a thing as pure word of mouth on the internet?
When I first signed on to Netflix it worked me out and suggested a bunch of stuff that I love to this day.
But then it ran out of stuff, or they borked the algorithm and now it sucks. And all its competitors suck.
One thing I have noticed is that if you ask a human for a specific recommendation like "Suggest me a novel like The Martian" if they dont have a specific recommendation, you just get their favourite instead. Which makes reddit threads and similar completely useless. The signal to noise ratio is awful.
I assume there's a small sliver of budget available for actually interesting productions, kind of similar to Google's moonshots, but the vast majority of Netflix' catalog is just algorithmic crap by now, so the recommendations are probably solid, there's just nothing good to recommend.
Trends, tastes, and language evolve in real time, driven by social signaling, novelty bias, and the human instinct for signaling to preserve individuality and status within a group and against the algorithm. One need only rabbit hole down various corners of the internet to see this, but its even more pronounced in personal fashion, indie bookstores and art galleries, and even inside people's homes.
It is immensely gratifying to me because it means humans will always need humans, no matter how hard tech tries.
In trying to financialize, map, or otherwise algorithmically diagnose taste, effort impeaches itself.
Infinite context models will understand everything about your life. Combined with real-time lookup of all content ever created alongside the ability to generate new content on demand, curation seems destined to be solved.
In a music DJ context: even if an AI was able to mimic the dopest turntablist moves and factor in layers of depth and groove and create unique mixes, it would still be an artificial mix made by AI, and so not as valuable or worthwhile as a human DJ. That doesn't mean that AI DJs or musicians won't be successful, they just won't be human and can never be human, and that means something.
Humans will simply opt out and create their own islands of ideology or taste, and have been doing exactly that for millennia.
Just to confirm, this is sarcasm, right? It's hard to tell, and it's terrifying to me that so many people don't comprehend this as a basic fact at least by grade school.
Also, is it still gratifying if humans won't have other humans? Curation is harder to come by than ever before because it's less profitable. What is gratifying about that???
My comment is a reaction to this idea that a ChatGPT-generated image has the same value as one done by a Picasso. It's still art and it still can have artistic value, but it'll never possess the intangibles carried by, say, Guernica.
I think curation, in the age of procedurally-generated content, will be one of the most gratifying or at least profitable jobs to have. It already is, if you think about it; film studio heads, music producers like Rick Rubin, Anna Wintour/Vogue, and the MoMA... all wield curatorial power (for better or for worse).
Aggregate profit and income from curation (both) have dropped off a cliff, so I'm not sure what your point is. Of course a select few will always be rewarded by the wealthy for hand-made delicacies, including curation, and the demand will correlate with wealth accumulation but remain scarce. There is nothing new or novel about it either way.
For them, the lack of authenticity is not a bug, but a feature.
Nowadays it's all smoke and mirrors; marketing, branding and lies. In general I find even the more expensive versions of consumer products are still garbage quality which end up in a landfill all to quickly. It's hard to buy something good even if you're willing to spend the money. Our current capitalism doesn't care about providing value for the money, no it's all about how much money to can squeeze out of people and how low you can make your production costs.
Every influencer or algo is some one/corp curating content (ultimately for their own profit motive, not for their followes)
The only place to get lost is wikipedia or tvtropes, there is no sense that you can discover things and this is tied to profit motives.
We need open source platforms more than ever, not closed platforms behind logins but with open source codebases, but open platforms, where data is free, where the focus is on having all the data from all the sources and surfacing it in any way a person can imagine.
We used to have tools curators could use, powerful search functionality, there was a sense that with infinite things to do some people wanted the wiki and some people wanted to create articles from the wiki and some people liked the article or the broadcast and didn't care to look at the wiki.
But now we have only curation and all the data itself is hidden behind walled gardens.
So now we look at jpgs posted on instagram to figure out what might be fun to do this weekend and that's just dumb.
We have curation to our specific tastes and we grow less and less tolerant of the shocking and surprising because even when we radically change our views it's because an algorithm has slowly steared us that way, and so nothing is new or surprising and there is no discovery anymore.
I would give an example: find a weekend hike.
Before (20-30 years ago): you need to have a book (for profit, curated) or a map (for profit, less info). You needed to rely on other people or on previous experience. Hard to know what changed since the info was collected.
Now: multiple websites both hike focused and more generic that give you reviews, photos, comments. Generic websites (openstreetmap, google maps) that allow you to check further details if you wish so, some with open data.
I think people should take more responsibility and stop blaming so much "the algorithm" and "the profit". It's the same as with smoking. Even if most people agree it is bad for health, 1 in 5 people still smoke.
Counterargument: the hiking app was good 10-12 years ago when it was used by the overlap of tech enthusiasts and hiking enthusiasts, which provided good routes made by expert people (just like the books and maps before). Now you have a cacophony of tracks recorded by anyone, with lot of back and forths because they got lost as well while recording it. Oh and you need a monthly subscription to properly follow the hike!
(Yes, I know you can still find books and maps)
And then, if you were "different" than the average preference, you had to put the effort to select the stuff good for you. Not that different to "fighting" an algorithm.
The difference might be now that more people have a "chance" to find what they want, and "before" there was just a "specific group" that was happy. I get that "the specific group" might feel "is worse" in such a case.
Regarding the quality, I hate "following the hike" (I mean people complain about "algorithms" but then following a hike is fine ...?) - I just have some markers and look each 15 minutes on the map (which also means back and forths are not an issue).
What I would love to see more often (and maybe would fit with the use-cases described here of curation) would be finding "favorite" people and getting their "content" across applications. Like, now I can't check the google maps reviews of people that I follow on strava or on Instagram or of editors of openstreetmap... Everybody does their own little walled garden (which I am fine with) but I need to find again and again the reasonable people.
No. Not really, no. We have like 20 open source platforms already. Nobody uses most of them. The ones that people do use are extremely boring compared to any closed platform because they were created for the worst possible use of social media: letting people post their opinions online. For the average user they often lack highly requested features like making profiles private because the open source platforms decided to be decentralized as well adding enormous complexity to them. That also comes with privacy issues like making all your likes public.
People could just use Tumblr if they wanted. Text posts of any length, add as many images as you want anywhere in the post you want, share music, videos, reblog other's posts. But people don't go to Tumblr.
You could create the perfect platform but people still wouldn't use it because they are too addicted to drama, arguing online, and doomscrolling to calmly scroll through a curated catalog of music that someone spend 3 years publishing on their blog.
Actual businesspeople are pretty ruthless in getting people to using their product. Open source people aren't, by nature (except for Lennart Poettering).
Also open source people tend to make software instead of services. Mastodon isn't a Twitter clone - it's software you can install on a server to make your own Twitter clone. Mastodon is software and Twitter is a service. mastodon.social is a Twitter clone. The only exceptions to this are highly P2P softwares like Bitcoin, where the software and the service merge into one.
I watched that PewDiePie video[1] of him using Linux and I found it extremely funny that this guy was like "Linux is awesome! Freedom! (literal USA flag in the background) You are a god now!" and then every Linux-focused channel reacting to that video was like "yeah, you can play games, but not all of them. Yeah, it works, except... Yeah, you can customize but he will grow out of it when he needs to get work done..."
Linux people are downers. It's like I was watching the second coming of Stallman selling to everyone the idea that you get to control what your computer does, unlike on Windows. You can customize it, you can optimize it yourself, you can remove everything and add anything. And that he had been having so much fun doing it. The man literally told his audience that everyone should use Linux so Linux gets better. While the people who should be promoting it the most insist that "Linux is not for everyone."
It really feels like I peered into some sort of alternative reality in that video and it was really refreshing.
And I think that's the problem with FLOSS, what FLOSS truly lacks.
FLOSS tends to be merely "an alternative." It should be more than that. It should be freedom. It's absolutely ridiculous to me that I can change the font and color of the text of my post on Tumblr, a proprietary closed source social media, but I can't do that on Mastodon, on Bluesky, on Lemmy, and I bet not even on Pixelfed or Peertube although I never really used them. Where is the freedom? I don't have the freedom to change my text color? I don't have the freedom to opt into an algorithmic feed in Mastodon because the developers have opinions about that? I don't have the freedom to follow someone from Threads because my instance's administrator wants to LARP as Internet police? Richard Stallman would be spinning in his grave if he had one.
The web has become a cesspool of AI slop, SEO trash, walled gardens, and of course, bots of all kinds seeking entry points to everything. The dead internet theory seems more real every day.
I think humanity will ultimately abandon the web. The day cannot come soon enough for me.
For curation to work, you have to trust the currator.
If we fill the void indicated in the article - that is, we post and host useful information, how do we get it noticed by the audience that's looking for it?
As far as we believe we can't rise above the noise, we're unlikely to assemble info and make it available.
I would agree that information is now more scattered (like bread for ducks as the author notes) than ever before -- but we now have the unprecedented ability to wrangle it ourselves.
But, it is notable for being a pretty old site, from back before the algorithmic feeds really exploded and took control of everything… I often wonder if we actually don’t like algorithmic (non)curation, or if we just don’t like the shitty version of it has developed.
—
What’s the story behind the Bjork thing? I’ve always found celebrities that just sort of stay hidden between releases endearing. I mean isn’t that what the rest of us would do?
Enya, obviously, has it all figured out.
This section contains two types of curation that have to be separated: college radio is good curation, it is nonprofit, done by people for the love of the medium and will help you broaden your horizon. Rolling Stone et. al. is bad curation, a form of gatekeeping really, very commercial, requiring lots of connections and resources to get featured in.
In the 90s I "found" PC games by reading magazines and borrowing a un-labeled CD from a classmate who owns every Japanese gaming consoles from NES to Saturn.
In my experience the algorithmic recommendation systems don't do this, I mean they might throw you a wildcard in here or there but I tend to find they overfit on some niche and it just becomes tiresome, and you don't get the commentary from the DJ who might add something like describing who the artist is, what the song's name is and maybe some flavour on the DJs interactions with the artist over time.
They also have a world music channel, which I couldn't find any parallel anywhere else. They have wonderful music there when I'm in my "world music" mood. All in all, it's a gem, highly recommended for any music lovers who prefer curated over algorithmic.
We keep a Sirius subscription even though it occurred to me 10 years ago that Apple Music has largely everything I need. I want, however, to hear stuff I don't like that forces me to change the channel to another station or to be exposed to something new that's not like the last thing the algorithm already knows I like.
Infinite choice is horrible.
I do agree with the sentiment expressed in comments here that human>human curation is something AI can't replace. It doesn't understand the relation (or lack of relation) between songs, shows or movies for any one user. The choices we make for these things are usually underpinned by many factors specific to us, and don't represent valid or meaningful 'trends' to be discerned and applied to others.
Even Google search stopped helping you find things and started pushing to keep looking https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/
This playlist has hundreds of channels: https://iptv-org.github.io/iptv/index.m3u
Github page: https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv
Another source could be following respected critics who have similar tastes to you, like the film critic Roger Ebert:
https://www.wwoz.org/listen/player/
I also used to listen to McMurdo Station's radio (AFAN) but it seems offline now
KLAP from Gerlach NV is also good if Jeff has it up and running (lol). https://streema.com/radios/KLAP
This inspired me to create The Gaming Pub [2] which is a similar kind of curated newsletter but for gaming content.
I believe newsletters like that are a great way to find interesting stuff.
Seems to be the case, that someone hasn't made the latent fact manifest to themselves, that they are actually on the way to become what they are missing.
For music I intentionally listen to local independent radio and also somafm, where I'm not "picking" the exact music.
I read the NYTimes and the Economist and both of them do movie reviews and the Economist has good book reviews.
I am a bit of a snob (a huge one if I’m being honest) about media I consume. Naturally I guide the content my kids watch quite closely, much closer than my peers. I am their curator.
But I can’t help but feel I am isolating my kids when I do this. The things they watch and listen and play and read at home are vastly different than other kids their age.
https://theonion.com/cool-dad-raising-daughter-on-media-that...
And try to serve that.
Or try to serve it's agenda despite those likes.
And they're doing a fine job of it too, even if they remove the shared cultural experience. (Which is a big loss, to be sure. I grew up listening to Casey Kasem cover the American Top 40 on the radio...)
Because clickable links are nicer…
It is more important that there is possibility of unrestricted discoverability and exploration than having curation.
Have you considered that that might be the goal of releasing trickles of information about the film prior to its official release? It makes collected information feel more exclusive to super fans and encourages fans to interact with each other on social media providing fuel for Bjork focused communities. If collecting this information feels exhausting instead of exciting to you... why are you trying so hard to collect it? Just wait for the actual release.
> We need critics who devote their lives to browsing through the pile and telling us what is worth our time and what isn't.
I don't understand how you expect a critic to tell you whether its worth your time based on a collection of pre-release rumors and interviews. For deciding if its worth my time, I mainly want to hear from critics who have seen the upcoming media and I want to hear their opinion on what they saw. Why would I care to hear Ebert and Roeper's opinion on what the actors said in their press release tour? Unless it was something especially newsworthy and they wouldn't need to go digging for that. I just don't see how a critic's review would be enhanced by "devoting their lives to browsing through the piles".
Hardcore wasn't on the radio, it wasn't on TV (OK, "TV Party" and "Institutionalized" were on MTV, both of which were "joke" hardcore songs), you couldn't buy the records in the record stores in my town until the mid-80s, you couldn't buy the zines in my town.
There was a tiny amount of it played on college radio, but it would be something like one show a week from 2 AM to 3 AM on Sunday morning. Kids would drive from where I lived to the "city" and drive around in their cars taping that show from the car radio to a boombox and then pass those tapes around to get copied. It was samizdat. And most hardcore they couldn't even play on those radio shows anyway. "We don't care what you say, fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you! FUCK YOU!!!" Great song, can't hear it on the radio. Can't hear it anywhere you go.
We found things. You had to really dig, but we found things. No one curated it for us. I hate the very idea of it. I mean my friend Joe "curated" music for me when he made me a tape of the Circle Jerks, Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, and DOA in 6th grade in 1981, but I don't think that is the meaning of curation that the title is referring to. If a kid got a record, it got passed around and taped. Then those tapes got passed around and taped. Etc.
No one tells me what music I should listen to, we told the musicians what kind of music we wanted to hear when we were in the pit. Many of them noped out from that. They were artists, not enablers of the violent tendencies of poorly parented 14 year olds. Fair enough. But we were finding things out.
> We found things. ... No one curated it for us.
I think you're getting to the essence of good curation.
That college radio show is exactly curation. The record label that put out the hardcore 7"s is curation. The record store is curation. The kid who bought a record and made copies for friends is a curator.
Word of mouth is the strongest curation.
What's missing today is the human. The college radio DJ is a human curator, and is much more idiosyncratic and humanely engaging than an optimized-for-content-or-cost algorithmic curator.
Algorithms might work for very mainstream (or nonspecific) tastes -- and actually it is self-reinforcing on that level. But it fails badly for nichier stuff. And it is in direct opposition to those of us for whom "different" is/was part of our personal or group identity. :)
This is not true at all, algorithms can predict things you haven't seen before, and can take you well outside your bubble. A lot of the existing recommendation algorithms on social media etc. do keep you in a bubble, but that's a very specific choice 'cause apparently that's where the money is at. There's enough work in multi-armed-bandit explore/exploit systems that we definitely could have excellent algorithms that do exactly the kind of curation the author would like. The issue is not algorithms, but rather incentives on media recommendation and consumption. People say they would like something new, but they keep going back to the places that feed them more of the comfortable same.
If that is not hyperbole and the author is not taking steps to distance themselves from those feelings, that is extremely unhealthy. Like an addiction or something.
The only thing that should feel like that is laundry.
Perhaps the author should rebalance their leisure activities portfolio to include more things that aren't pop culture media.
This all the author writes about is called collapse of context. And people been waking up to noticing it, writing about it, eventually becoming victims. Everyone who previously had a natural sect of some subculture is failing victing the moment they move the member base into faang social media. It kills the opportunity to mold your community around itself - it gets molded for monetization.
I dream the day when using social media would be considered as bad as a smoking or drinking habit, the endless scroll of mostly irrelevant content. Because even curated accounts are bombarded with advertised noised.
In recent years I wake up to the fact that I keep meeting people who are totally supposed to be in my bubble, very similar, lived in the same city, not a big one, 2m, but we have not found each other because of media noise, and technological alienation. Its amazing as if living in the black mirror already and for a while.
I keep investing massive efforts to get any public events gathering people spending hundreds of euros for promotion, prominent artists, in a time when delivery of information is supposed to be immediate. The audience, which includes all of us, fail to notice the information as there is so much of it. faang is milking everyone like crazy for the right to get to people supposed to be subscribed to our own content, which we don't own. it totally makes sense to have vanilla html at this point as i did with my event yesterday (tickets.dubigxbi.com), but then again - i need to submit a bribe to techbros to even let me emerge in the information sphere. like, I started considering running a bot farm, because this is what they deserve. 500$ of ads gets me mostly bot traffic, it is insane, paid advertising has never been so ineffective.
Besides, the way many grow to behave, and not only the young generation, is that they get addicted to endless scrollers in tiktok/insta/x and it is not us/them anymore searching the information. It is algorithms packing it for everyone, which is amazing way to put tubes in everyone's eyes and minds and feed it hallucinations of all sorts. But it is the world we woke into.
we are back to selling culture at bazaars.
And, for a while, this worked pretty well. The breaking point for me was when Google bought pompous-restaurant-ranker Zagat and proceeded to disappear their curated reviews into something that would nowadays best be described as "an AI blackhole". And that was in 2011, mind you.
Of course, Zagat going away was an entirely elitist event with no consequence to the Internet-or-society-as-a-whole whatsoever, but for me, it was the moment I realized that democratized data-ranking would never provide any real value.
And the whole "AI" story is pretty much history repeating: unless actual-humans-with-distinguisable options feed "the algorithm", the output will be... well, slop.
TL;DR: curation by actual living, thinking and critical humans (which automatically excludes most "best of" repositories on Github, BTW) is still the way forward.
For example...
> And algorithms can only predict content that you've seen before. It'll never surprise you with something different.
... this is both nonsensical (recommendation algorithms don't predict content, but that you'll want to engage and will remain engaged by a given content), and to the extent it isn't, is just blatantly and demonstrably false, since there's at least one counterexample available, and that is my own anecdotal one.
Or...
> It makes it feel vast and exhausting, like an endless list of things that you'll never get to the end of.
... because it is. The sheer notion that back in the day you could have enumerated and gone through "all the local and foreign music releases" borders on comical. What you exhausted back then I'm pretty sure were the curated lists you were provided. Nothing less, nothing more.
The only "area" I follow with this much determination is anime, and one season (the year is split into four seasons that the entire industry aligns with) I decided to try and watch every show that releases, just to see what I've been missing out on, and if I had misjudged anything like people would often tell me. It's actually possible there, as it is very centralized and localized. Turns out that no, I was perfectly right on the money with my watch decisions, the people who were loudly gloating and hating indeed were loudly (and mindlessly) just gloating and hating, and that while it was technically viable to follow every release next to a full time job, it would suck me and all my free time completely dry, rendering the experience borderline tortureous. And this is still a relatively niche area of entertainment. Imagine "following the entirety of film and music". Ridiculous.
Sure there was always PR dealmaking & money behinds the scenes previously I'm sure, but there were actual magazines/websites/etc in every genre publishing numerical reviews for cars/cameras/games/movies/shows/albums/etc. If you paid attention you could figure out which curators scoring aligned with what you tended to like.
Now every reviewer is a YouTube influencer who loves every product put in front of them, no product is every bad, no scores are assigned because then you can cross compare, etc.
The acquisition, death, resurrection and mundane ongoing existence of dpreview is a good example of this.
What we had before wasn't perfect, but what has followed is worse.
No thanks. The last time this happened we ended up with opinionated articles, hidden promotions, and censorship in news, media, newspapers, etc.
A good example:
try searching for "fluoride residue in brain" on Google vs Yandex and see how they tell totally opposite stories.
At least when there were 2, 3, or 10 curated sides to a story, with sources and expertise to draw on, a somewhat literate person could draw some conclusions on which parts of each were valid.
So no, it’s not the mediatization of the opposite point of view that gives it an audience, but the sheer lack of truthfulness of the dominating class.
It sucks because theres a group local to me that does free information sessions and bbq meet ups in front of the local family court house.
But online MRA's have given them such a bad name with terrible behaviour.
What I'm saying is that what has replaced the traditional media system - tiktok, youtube and reddit - is way, way worse in terms of breeding a population of crazy and paranoid people who can't get a handle on anything at all that's happening in the world.
In your instance, for every person who's been redpilled about men's rights there's two people who hear that phrase and have a nearly hysterical response that it's toxic and evil. So all that has been accomplished is that everyone's fucking nuts now.
If you started with enough historical understanding and grounding to be able to tell when the media was lying, you didn't need social media to explain it to you. If you didn't start with that, and went straight to social media, you are going to become a sociopath with a completely disoriented understanding of the world, guided only by what other random sociopaths online tell you is true in your feed.
This is infinitely worse than having your information gate-kept by people who you can judge are sometimes lying to you, and having to work hard and put in some research to seek your own answers. This is dumbasses with bullhorns telling you whatever lies they just came up with, to sell you vitamin supplements. Who will take both sides of every issue just for clicks and likes.
Movies roles are based on your followers. Music gigs, based on your followers. Any creative event, based on your followers. So known named artists like Bjork have to build a following for an event for promoters to green light it.
It sucks, but that’s the nature of the business. Sell tickets, upsell merchandise, sell records, repeat.
Unless you are going to read every book, watch every movie, listen to every song you are going to consult others about their own experiences, or have an algorithm or radio station feed it to you in their own curated order.
You didnt defeat trust, you just trust different people now.
Which means people who choose to trust different sources will get different cultural experiences.
Congratulations, you have invented curation.