TwilightVulpine

Algorithms are incredibly bad for organic relationships, you should see the thoughts and events around the people you know when they happen, not when some corporation thinks you should be more receptive. Direct feeds and chatrooms are much better at being social environments.

That said, there is an inevitable parasocial aspect to media and that is not necessarily bad. I don't want to build a relationship with actors, even thinking that is a possibility is unhealthy. I just want to see their work for entertainment, and the same applies for many artists and influencers for social media. For that purpose, it wouldn't be too bad to have algorithms, as long as users could tweak them to their own liking. That would help a lot with discoverability.

The problem is that these algorithms are 100% obscured and driven by company interests, such as getting people to scroll forever (and see more ads) by shoving posts which elicit outrage at their face. Even though there are issues I care deeply about, in algorithm driven social media I got into the habit of just skipping and muting whatever is too revolting, because if I so much as browse it too much, they start to show solely that sort of misery, all the time. It's just bad for people's sanity and it doesn't even help anyone at the end of the day.

Putting the connotation aside for a moment, is it even accurate to call people who are interested on niche secondary gaming devices as "normies"? Whatever may be their backgrounds, seems to me like they are dedicated gaming enthusiasts.

Putting the connotation aside for a moment, is it even accurate to call people who are interested on niche secondary gaming devices as "normies"? Whatever may be their backgrounds, seems to me like they are dedicated gaming enthusiasts.

This was great when Celeste did it, I hope more games embrace it.

This was great when Celeste did it, I hope more games embrace it.

Not at all. The number of movies in Netflix has shrunk over the years. You could technically argue that it's trending up again, but it's not even close to how many they had in the early 2010s, and it's not even debatable that many movies and series were taken away so that studios would put it in their own streaming services. There was a lot of Disney and Marvel stuff on Netflix that was taken away, as an example.

Oh my fucking god!

The difference is that in cable TV you are beholden to their schedule. You might subscribe to a channel that has exactly what you want and still be unable to watch it because you are not free at that time.

How many times are you going to try to bring it back around the same thing that I already responded to.

Streaming services are a worse deal by losing shows and movies that they already had and splitting off into several services. They didn't use to be like cable, and having a lot of stuff was their advantage, because there is no schedule limitations. A service that had everything has a bunch of stuff each person won't care about, and it still would have everything everyone would ever want. Priced reasonably, it wouldn't be an issue specifically as streaming.

I dunno what's your deal with cable that you want to insist in calling out hypocrisy that doesn't even apply? If you love cable, keep your cable.

I literally just responded to this. The comment you are responding to is about what's the difference and why this is not the issue with streaming.

The difference is that in cable TV you are beholden to their schedule. You might subscribe to a channel that has exactly what you want and still be unable to watch it because you are not free at that time.

Netflix used to be priced affordably and have nearly everything. We are seeing now with services being split and prices rising that it doesn't cost more because it has more shows, just on the contrary. It costs more because they think they can charge more and get us to subscribe to multiple services that offer less.

It's like you picked the single sentence that doesn't address that exact point to quote.

I literally just responded to this.

The difference is that in cable TV you are beholden to their schedule. You might subscribe to a channel that has exactly what you want and still be unable to watch it because you are not free at that time.

If stream had everything in one single service, who cares that it also has stuff that you don't have any interest in? You could spend every moment watching just the thngs that you want to, there was no downside to having things you don't care about. It's such an archaic mindset to assume the price is bound to potential availability on an on-demand service.

Netflix used to be priced affordably and have nearly everything. We are seeing now with services being split and prices rising that it doesn't cost more because it has more shows, just on the contrary. It costs more because they think they can charge more and get us to subscribe to multiple services that offer less.

Nah, Netflix used to have nearly everything, and then it got split into like a dozen different services.

I used to like YouTube, but between the constant increase in number and length of ads, as well as how they keep stifling creators by restricting the language they can use and the topics they can cover, it seems like anything good there exists in spite of the company rather than because of it.