Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#11

Post by pjc50 »

wildduck wrote: post #10
pjc50 wrote: post #6

As the article itself points out, monoculture itself was a technological phenomenon; mass broadcast of TV and radio with only a few channels. Even then it was only monoculture within a country, and we're globalized now. Returning to a monoculture will require both propaganda and suppression.

> Returning to a monoculture will require both propaganda and suppression Great firewall of China seems to be doing that.

You can see China trying to create a hegemonic Han monoculture: that's what the suppression of Tibet and Uighurs is directed towards.

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#12

Post by huffmsa »

pjc50 wrote: post #11
wildduck wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Returning to a monoculture will require both propaganda and suppression Great firewall of China seems to be doing that.

You can see China trying to create a hegemonic Han monoculture: that's what the suppression of Tibet and Uighurs is directed towards.

It's what they've always done.

> Mastery of 1 set of texts

> Dogmatic adherence to a single school

> Promotion of those who regurgitate the above the best

It's yet to work for more than a few hundred years.

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#13

Post by C1sc0cat »

stereolambda wrote: post #8
quotemstr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine how alienating it must be to have no common cultural touchstones to share with other people. We're already there when it comes to music. We have a lot of virtuoso musicianship today. You want top-tier jazz? You can find it. Bossa Nova? Yep. Orchestral arrangements? Those too. Blues and old-school rock? Still being made. But we no longer have music as a common cultural touchstone: everything's been atomized to…

I'm not convinced that we need huge proprietary time-wasters to have conversations with each other. There are circumstances in life when long TV shows may be fun and entertaining, but watching them shouldn't be expected. With my family, and random people met in places, I talk about real life that we have in common or wider societal trends. This can be instructive (about what people think) even if very light. I rememb…

Common cultural touch stones are more thigs like the St James Bible" the Classics etc.

In the Uk it might be Last night of the Proms, Dr Who , Queens Speech, Test Cricket on the Radio, world service weather reports etc

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#14

Post by imgabe »

They briefly mention literature and I think that provides a good counterexample. Books are highly individual, and always have been long before streaming existing. Yet, there still manage to be runaway hits that everyone reads and talks about. The same could be true of streaming shows. Stranger Things managed it in the streaming era.

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#15

Post by aaron695 »

Normal drivel from Vox.

Friends had a black version, Living Single (which came first) that rated huge for African Americans but non existent for whites, and vice versa.

Game of Thrones is a HBO flagship as they have always done. Marvel on the other hand is designed for the Chinese audience.

But I have no idea what that means in their markov chain of conflicting thought.

I'll go back to watching Netfix's The Witcher, based on a 2008 English novel translated from the 90's Polish novels because of a 2007 computer game and be happy whether Vox media critics are to good for it or not.

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#16

Post by indigochill »

quotemstr wrote: post #4
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #2

I hope it does not. Imagine how isolating it might feel to be the one person who does not like watching Game of Thrones.

Imagine how alienating it must be to have no common cultural touchstones to share with other people. We're already there when it comes to music. We have a lot of virtuoso musicianship today. You want top-tier jazz? You can find it. Bossa Nova? Yep. Orchestral arrangements? Those too. Blues and old-school rock? Still being made. But we no longer have music as a common cultural touchstone: everything's been atomized to…

>People no longer use music to connect to each other. It's more about individual hedonic enjoyment.

I find this line of thought interesting because sharing music is a significant part of how I connect with my best friend. We each keep managing to find new music the other likes but hasn't heard yet.

I also use it to connect with my family. My dad, brother, and I have lots of overlap. My mom, not so much, but I still wrack my brain looking for something in my list that fits with her preferences so we can both enjoy the music.

Ultimately, rather than it being one circle of "good music", we each have our own circle of what we like and connecting then becomes about finding the overlap of our circles. Like figuring out food for a group of people, or basically any other situation that requires compromise.

Although yeah, music services now are tailoring to individuals, I think you could decompose an individual's preferences into weighted tags, essentially (likes distorted guitars, loves complex melodic lines, etc), and then to generate a playlist for a group of people you just find the most common overlaps of their tags and generate a playlist from that. Maybe my mom also likes complex melodies, but prefers pianos. So we arrive at a compromise on jazz piano.

Pandora is ideally positioned for this with their Music Genome Project, but in my view they've largely squandered the opportunity and ceded their advantage to Spotify.

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#17

Post by ithkuil »

imgabe wrote: post #14

They briefly mention literature and I think that provides a good counterexample. Books are highly individual, and always have been long before streaming existing. Yet, there still manage to be runaway hits that everyone reads and talks about. The same could be true of streaming shows. Stranger Things managed it in the streaming era.

One could say that Stranger Things piggy-backed on a feeling of nostalgia for the shared monoculture of the '80s

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#18

Post by guscost »

TL;DR (from a skim, as I couldn’t stick with this rambling mess for long):

The front page of Reddit and the water cooler at Vox HQ are both depressing, boring places, especially since Game of Thrones ended and there’s nothing mainstream enough to fill that void.

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#19

Post by swiley »

guscost wrote: post #18

TL;DR (from a skim, as I couldn’t stick with this rambling mess for long): The front page of Reddit and the water cooler at Vox HQ are both depressing, boring places, especially since Game of Thrones ended and there’s nothing mainstream enough to fill that void.

There’s other stuff to talk about! Try listening to your coworkers about their personal interests!

I always felt like talking about television was terribly boring.

Re: Can monoculture survive the algorithm?

#20

Post by jacobush »

ithkuil wrote: post #17
imgabe wrote: post #14

They briefly mention literature and I think that provides a good counterexample. Books are highly individual, and always have been long before streaming existing. Yet, there still manage to be runaway hits that everyone reads and talks about. The same could be true of streaming shows. Stranger Things managed it in the streaming era.

One could say that Stranger Things piggy-backed on a feeling of nostalgia for the shared monoculture of the '80s

The 80s is an interesting funnel for shared monoculture. Modern enough to be relatable today, distant enough to serve as a canvas to project all sorts of personal bias onto.

Personally I love the 80s lore and I think I loved the 80s as it happened as much as anyone can love something while still being inside it. It was just so palpably on the verge of so many things, the Cold War ending, (violently or peacefully, it was obvious it was going to end!), technology promising so much without the downsides being a reality to deal with, and the downsides projected in dystopia sci-fi were still cool downsides, not the mindnumbingly dreary, boring dystopia we create for ourselves now with FB, China and its ilk.

Post reply on HN