These are some circumlocutious explanations on how and why platform owners have tended to implemen recommendation algorithms that drive content to their preferr

These are some circumlocutious explanations on how and why platform owners have tended to implemen recommendation algorithms that drive content to their preferred creators: > "They’re driven by incentives to earn engagement and amplification on their own platforms. This means they’re unlikely to amplify, reference, or publish your work unless there’s an obvious connection to that goal." Translation: Their revenue is driven largely by advertising revenue, and upsetting advertisers is bad for the bottom line. Issue: how consolidated is the advertising market? They're selling services. So how many buyers are there? If there's just one buyer, that's called monopsony, and the buyer can exercise all kinds of control. > "They have audiences with affinities and preferences of their own, and unless your work resonates with both the amplifier and their audience, you’ll struggle to get the share." As we've seen, a major interested audience is the local authoritarian state power, which wants to amplify state-produced propaganda while censoring a wide variety of content it views as inimical to its interests. This is not just a theme in China, as the current RESTRICT Act push by Congress and the White House demonstrates. Now, if the corporate interests buying advertising are joined at the hip to the government authority pushing propaganda and censorship, well... the only content that will get amplified is the bland neutral drivel that doesn't displease either party. Sure, there's still a market for high-quality content that's driven by popular audience interest - but it's getting to be a bit narrow in scope, isn't it? More and more topics have become tripwires for cancellation bombs.