TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The troubling age of algorithmic entertainment

54 点作者 dantondwa超过 5 年前

12 条评论

standardUser超过 5 年前
Troubling? The quality of nearly all television in the 80&#x27;s and 90&#x27;s was troubling. The outrageous amount of unskippable commercials was troubling. The fact that people would have to be home at a certain time on certain days to watch a show they liked was troubling. And the fact that all of this was tightly controlled by a small number of gatekeepers was particularly troubling.<p>Media today is better in every way. The delivery methods, the diversity of perspectives, the reduction of advertising, even just the overall quality of content is far beyond what most of us grew up with.<p>There&#x27;s of course nothing wrong with critiquing the many ways content has changed over the last couple decades. But let&#x27;s not pretend for a moment that television before the internet was anything other than anti-consumer garbage.
评论 #21486429 未加载
tenebrisalietum超过 5 年前
We had a preview of what was to come in the early 90&#x27;s right before the Internet went mainstream (though I&#x27;ll argue the Internet was not truly mainstream until a little after 2000 when broadband connections were widely available).<p>At least where I lived at the time, it seemed like the number of channels on cable TV quadrupled, and the number of radio stations catering to different genres also increased. So people&#x27;s attention was already being chopped up and &quot;bubbled&quot;. I feel the &quot;fractioning&quot; effect of streaming whereby everyone is in their own personal bubble is simply a later stage of a trend that was underway in the early 90&#x27;s.<p>Regarding an algorithm picking what is visible to you, it&#x27;s not very much different than a TV or radio broadcaster selecting programs that he&#x2F;she will think will sell advertisements. It&#x27;s simply faster, more efficient, and outside some legal liabilities because it&#x27;s done by software and not human beings.<p>It&#x27;s a shame that so much is going into making the Internet obey the one-direction broadcast-and-corporate-controlled TV model, though. The Internet was supposed to be for end-user freedom and control.<p>But Facebook and Twitter, for example, shows that when you give a bit of that capability to large numbers of people, you don&#x27;t get fantastic results (but the owners will make a lot of money). Most people seem content to take a mostly passive relationship with their screens, participating in their tribes&#x27; regularly scheduled outrages, regardless of the size or technology behind them.<p>I don&#x27;t think things will ever change too much for most people. Same town, pay taxes to a different king. It&#x27;s mostly about companies figuring out how to sidestep existing companies and regulations.
评论 #21486213 未加载
评论 #21485053 未加载
评论 #21485031 未加载
angarg12超过 5 年前
A little bit offtopic, but are people really going ballistic over Netflix speed up feature? Has no one ever noticed Youtube has supported this since forever? Or that most video players have this feature? I also seem to remember plain DVD players having the ability to alter speed.
评论 #21486994 未加载
评论 #21486081 未加载
评论 #21485654 未加载
评论 #21485885 未加载
malvosenior超过 5 年前
When the alternatives to streaming platforms look like Clear Channel, then I think it&#x27;s ridiculous to complain about algorithmic curation of content. Clear Channel and its ilk used the most dumbed down, mass market research driven curation imaginable and the 90s media landscaped suffered accordingly.<p>On a side note, as a consumer I don&#x27;t care at all what the intentions of the creator are. Hence post-modernism. If I want to watch Netflix at 2X speed in reverse while I stand on my head, then so be it.<p>Once you create something, it should be free to use as people see fit. I think there are actually some corollaries to this with the recent conversation around politics and software (c.f. GitHub&#x27;s ICE issue) but that&#x27;s beyond the scope of this comment.
RcouF1uZ4gsC超过 5 年前
&gt; The complaint is pretty straightforward: film and other forms of art and entertainment are made by creators to be experienced in a certain way; technology that allows end users to modify that experience ruins the purity of that vision.<p>It seems like the creators want to have it both ways: the control of being a private artist combined with the money of being a commercial artist. If you want to completely control the art experience, invite people to your home for an in person performance or showing. Otherwise accept, that people have the ability and right to change your art in ways that works for them.
LargoLasskhyfv超过 5 年前
Random past blaster from 1985<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Max_Headroom_(character)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Max_Headroom_(character)</a><p>wherein some artificial news anchor rendered like a showroom dummy does... hrrm can&#x27;t remember anymore...things...
评论 #21485711 未加载
vpmpaul超过 5 年前
The main problem is they don&#x27;t really have algorithms. Its just &quot;hey here is a low budget garbage version of the show you were watching.&quot; That&#x27;s not an algorithm. That is just crappy category matching that companies want to pretend is AI.
zabuni超过 5 年前
&gt;But it also suggests that tech platforms don&#x27;t just deliver content, but that they shape it too<p>The medium is the message. Every medium shapes content. This is the whine of incumbents who want their power back.
musicale超过 5 年前
While algorithms do affect how shows are surfaced, produced, promoted and discovered on streaming platforms, I&#x27;m unconvinced that television is more formulaic, unoriginal, and uninteresting now with dozens of online streaming sources and literally millions of channels (e.g. youtube) vs. cable (local monopoly streamer, hundreds of channels) or broadcast television (local oligopoly, tens of channels dominated by three national broadcasters.)<p>Most importantly, the barriers to creating and distributing video are lower than ever: we carry high-quality video cameras built into our smartphones, we can easily edit those videos using inexpensive (or free) and widely available apps or web services, and we can easily and cheaply make that video available to about half the people who live on the planet.<p>It seems to me that we are in a golden age of television in terms of quality, quantity, and variety. Regarding quality, it seems that many of the best writers and actors are working in television; moreover, streaming supports watching an entire series from the beginning, which can support longer story arcs without necessarily having to recap everything each episode. Compared to a 2 or 3-hour movie, a series watched from beginning to end can potentially tell a longer and possibly more interesting story with a larger main cast and deeper character development. Regarding quantity and variety, streaming supports a larger number of niche shows with smaller audiences, while wider geographic distribution means that we have access to shows that we would never have had the opportunity to view in the cable and broadcast eras.
cirgue超过 5 年前
Netflix&#x27;s nefarious end goal is clear: feature parity with early-2000s VLC Media Player. They must be stopped.
jwcacces超过 5 年前
And there you are, with a chum-box at the bottom of your article...
aszantu超过 5 年前
I find it pretty boring once the pattern becomes obvious.