3 ms·

Although this ruffles sensibilities, isn't it kind of expected from an entertainment platform? Any traditional teen magazine from 20 years ago (seventeen, tige

Although this ruffles sensibilities, isn't it kind of expected from an entertainment platform? Any traditional teen magazine from 20 years ago (seventeen, tigerbeat) wouldn't be scolded for heavily policing what photos go in the pages. Not only that, they heavily post processed everything. There's superficial and arbitrary gatekeepers for what is called news, what is played on the radio, basically everything. Even some of the talent shows have strict, rather low, age cutoffs. 29 is too old for American Idol (it used to be 25). Even more apparently egalitarian entertainment, such as contestants on the Price is Right aren't "truly random" and get shortlisted into energetic people who come in larger crowds in order to make better television. Most people think that's probably also fine. Some guy just standing and shrugging after being revealed a "brand new car" wouldn't really be right. So for a digital social entertainment platform to do the same kind of pruning, it's kind of expected. Content is filtered to create better entertainment for the target demographic, one that I'm not in. Maybe you think it's not the right filter system but now we're doing a target marketing debate and not one of ethics.

stainforth 7y ago
We're moving past allowing this kind of manipulation and distortion of reality.
- billfruit 7y ago
  Yes there is a sentiment against TV shows and magazines doing such things, but many shows and magazines continue the practises today.
- mistermann 7y ago
  In some ways we are, in others not. I think there is great value discussing such things abstractly, in no small part because it can minimize personal biases and rivalries.
- kristopolous 7y ago
  It's more a question of "proper" filtering, not "no" filtering. For instance, if a PhD program only accepted white male applicants, we'd find that unacceptable. If instead, they only accepted people with proper credentials, scores, and recommendations, we'd find that fine. It's not no filter, just the right one. Similarly, if we were making a movie about Jim Crow segregation and needed actors to play white racist men then our same unacceptable filter all of a sudden looks reasonable. So it's not about removing filters, it's about making them justifiable and relevant. That's why we say "there's no reason that a qualified X can't be a Y", that part, the reason part, is important.
- leftyted 7y ago
  So...does that mean ugly people are going to be star actors too?

stainforth 7y ago

We're moving past allowing this kind of manipulation and distortion of reality.

billfruit 7y ago
Yes there is a sentiment against TV shows and magazines doing such things, but many shows and magazines continue the practises today.
mistermann 7y ago
In some ways we are, in others not. I think there is great value discussing such things abstractly, in no small part because it can minimize personal biases and rivalries.
kristopolous 7y ago
It's more a question of "proper" filtering, not "no" filtering. For instance, if a PhD program only accepted white male applicants, we'd find that unacceptable. If instead, they only accepted people with proper credentials, scores, and recommendations, we'd find that fine. It's not no filter, just the right one. Similarly, if we were making a movie about Jim Crow segregation and needed actors to play white racist men then our same unacceptable filter all of a sudden looks reasonable. So it's not about removing filters, it's about making them justifiable and relevant. That's why we say "there's no reason that a qualified X can't be a Y", that part, the reason part, is important.
leftyted 7y ago
So...does that mean ugly people are going to be star actors too?