3 ms·
OP likely meant that people no longer want the newspaper to be the only organizations capable of deciding what is 'newsworthy', since before the internet, newsp
by judge2020 3y ago
OP likely meant that people no longer want the newspaper to be the only organizations capable of deciding what is 'newsworthy', since before the internet, newspaper and TV news were effectively the only ways anyone found out about the events and happenings going on outside of their daily lives. They're losing because people would rather get more curated news for their interests delivered via algorithm than by going to usatoday.com or buying a paper newspaper and being shown "Sarah Jessica Parker, 'Sex and the City' co-stars 'bummed' about cameo leak" when they couldn't care less.
- lapcat 3y ago> curated news for their interests delivered via algorithm "curated" and "algorithm" are opposites. In any case, the algorithms don't magically write news stories (though maybe they will now with ChatGPT or whatever). The stories are pulled from the very same newspapers that are being criticized here.
- shadowgovt 3y ago> "curated" and "algorithm" are opposites. Not at all. An algorithm is curation at scale. Algorithms are made by humans and encode the biases humans want to apply without having to push the buttons themselves to properly bin new input every time it comes in.
- sleepybrett 3y agoThe problem being that algorithms have a strict set of rules, human curators are generally looser and introduce a certain amount of entropy into a 'feed'. Entropy can be a 'delighter'.