8 ms·

This is a very interesting point. Tech-media companies (Google, Meta, Tik Tok) increasingly serve a similar gatekeeper function for public discourse that TV net

This is a very interesting point. Tech-media companies (Google, Meta, Tik Tok) increasingly serve a similar gatekeeper function for public discourse that TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) did 50 years ago. This... actually is a hopeful insight to me.

iamacyborg 3y ago
The difference is that YT and similar tech platforms have access to much more data which allows them to optimise (or not) for these outcomes. I wrote a thing a few years ago after reading one of the case studies in John Doerr’s OKR book that used YT as an example, I think the point I was trying to make likely still stands https://www.jacquescorbytuech.com/writing/okr-youtube-unintended-consequences/ https://www.jacquescorbytuech.com/writing/okr-youtube-uninte...
tatrajim 3y ago
You would really enjoy the Chinese internet world, where legions of "gatekeepers" at Bytedance et al. bravely patrol the cyber world and rapidly eliminate any undesirable utterance. It's very clean and reassuring.
arp242 3y ago
I think the main difference is that traditionally, this gatekeeper function was "decentralized". That is, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, The Atlantic, Baltimore Sun, etc. etc. etc. all made their own editorial decisions, and there were dozens – if not hundreds – of decisions being made, rather than just a small handful of them. This is still true to some extent, but the distribution of stories relies a lot more on a small handful of companies. Previously the distribution (newspaper stands and the like) might also refuse to carry some issues they found particularly objectionably, but again, these decisions were "distributed" much more than it is today, and it didn't affect subscribers of the newspaper or magazine. Not that the previous system was perfect either or always worked well, or didn't have their downsides, but it's not really the same, IMHO.
- philistine 3y ago
  Isn't it a bit ridiculous that a guy like that *has to* make his money through YouTube? Make a podcast! Tour! I'm not going to go. I'm trying to spend my money on people who bring value to the world. Yet, the dystopic future you describe is not 100% there yet.

iamacyborg 3y ago

The difference is that YT and similar tech platforms have access to much more data which allows them to optimise (or not) for these outcomes. I wrote a thing a few years ago after reading one of the case studies in John Doerr’s OKR book that used YT as an example, I think the point I was trying to make likely still stands https://www.jacquescorbytuech.com/writing/okr-youtube-unintended-consequences/ https://www.jacquescorbytuech.com/writing/okr-youtube-uninte...

tatrajim 3y ago

You would really enjoy the Chinese internet world, where legions of "gatekeepers" at Bytedance et al. bravely patrol the cyber world and rapidly eliminate any undesirable utterance. It's very clean and reassuring.

arp242 3y ago

I think the main difference is that traditionally, this gatekeeper function was "decentralized". That is, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, The Atlantic, Baltimore Sun, etc. etc. etc. all made their own editorial decisions, and there were dozens – if not hundreds – of decisions being made, rather than just a small handful of them. This is still true to some extent, but the distribution of stories relies a lot more on a small handful of companies. Previously the distribution (newspaper stands and the like) might also refuse to carry some issues they found particularly objectionably, but again, these decisions were "distributed" much more than it is today, and it didn't affect subscribers of the newspaper or magazine. Not that the previous system was perfect either or always worked well, or didn't have their downsides, but it's not really the same, IMHO.

philistine 3y ago
Isn't it a bit ridiculous that a guy like that *has to* make his money through YouTube? Make a podcast! Tour! I'm not going to go. I'm trying to spend my money on people who bring value to the world. Yet, the dystopic future you describe is not 100% there yet.