Comment by reactordev

Comment by reactordev a day ago

The argument for curation goes against the argument for democratization. We collectively said “enough” with Hollywood gatekeeping which means you must bring your own audience.

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.

layer8 a day ago

Curation is more like representative democracy. You elect the curators you trust the most.

Reply View 0 replies

h2zizzle a day ago

Democratization is micro-curation. What we have now is not that. We have monolithic platforms - the richest companies in the world, or companies owned by the richest people in the world - serving content as they see fit, with a veneer of what your friends, family, and favorite celebrities want to to show you. We are back to, "Brought to you by GE!", for all intents and purposes. Right down to them telling us who to vote for.

Reply View 0 replies

protocolture 17 hours ago

>The argument for curation goes against the argument for democratization.

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.

Reply View 1 reply

immibis 9 hours ago

No, they're right. If you have "democratization", you don't necessarily read every book yourself, but there are lots of competent or incompetent people you can choose to trust to review them for you and suggest which ones to read.
Which means people who choose to trust different sources will get different cultural experiences.

Reply View | 0 replies