This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Could you clarify how “the algorithm” is contributing to this?
It seems to me that the algorithm is predicting what you want way better than TV execs in the 90s, and if you don’t like what you see then that’s on you.
The problem is in discovering things you might like that’s unlike what is out there now. It effectively keeps the avant- grade new stuff from being easily discovered. So because I llike Star Wars, the algorithm of whatever streaming service I use will show me more stuff like Star Wars and things that other fans of Star Wars like. This is good for people who produce formulaic stuff that fits the mold of “stuff Star Wars fans like.” It’s terrible if you’re making a film or TV show that’s not like Stuff Star Wars Fans Like. If I’m making something like Three Body Problem or X-Files or Stranger Things, unless something like that already has an audience or some hook to a name brand experience, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll find it. Which actively selects for people who can put their stuff into a formula similar to other things.
I think this is why there’s so much franchising of content. A show about a space academy might be interesting, but it’s a lot easier to sell it if you can stick Star Trek logos on it. Joker was mostly a mediation on an ordinary guy driven to madness by circumstances and lack of access to medical care. It had to be about Joker to be worth filming. And thus a shitty version of that story — but within a franchise— will reach a more mainstream audience and thus make money. A good, but independent film won’t.
This isn't a new phenomenon brought on by The Algorithm though. Producers since the dawn of cinema have seen franchises as an easy way to guarantee viewers, right? And perhaps more to the point: all your examples are content that is being decided by human producers in the human world of Hollywood -- these aren't decisions being made in Netflix or YouTube's spheres of influence.
There are maybe specific versions of this argument that are good (e.g. I've heard people complain YouTube penalizes creators if they produce too slowly (though an explicit Google search about this today suggests this is not the case)), but leveraging a brand to get views is a tale as old as viewership.
(Also it a bit tangential, but I really doubt the guy who originally had the idea for "Joker" actually wanted to tell a story about an ordinary guy driven to madness. They wanted to tell a story about the Joker, in the same way that the person who wrote "Wicked" wanted to tell a story about a specific popular villain, not a generic coming-of-age story about a social outcast in a magic school).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link