But total money and total quality writing talent are fixed. (There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)
The talent out there is way underutilized. It's the money that's the problem. Nobody investing in TV/movies wants to risk that money on something that isn't a sure thing. So we get more and more of the same focus-tested crap. That is why British TV had a lot more depth and took more risks - they didn't have to make their money back.
Go ahead and watch the rest of CSI: Cyber and Cavemen. I'll wait. It took less than one episode. I didn't even have to watch them, but I did watch one of each anyway.
This is true on Metacritic at least: check out critic reviews for any given weekly-broadcast TV show, and invariably you'll find that the review covers the first 1 or 2 episodes
I think a quick take is usually still pretty accurate. A good show has great cast chemistry from the start. And most of my favorite shows have taken less than 5 minutes to make up my mind. There are exceptions. For some reason, I really enjoyed Buffy and the acting was beyond terrible for the entire first season (possibly longer). By all accounts, it was terrible and I shouldn't have liked it.
Maybe it takes longer to decide to love a show if it gets the casting and characters right but the plot meanders too much. It depends on how episodic you like your TV in the first place.
To get a Netflix-style release on broadcast TV, I have to start recording before the first episode airs. If anything what we need is more reviews or unbiased overviews before the first episode even airs. I'll record an entire season before watching even one episode. Until then, I have last year's recorded shows and Netflix. Falling a year behind on broadcast TV was a great move. And if a show gets canceled mid-season I can decide to never start watching.
I still haven't made it to the second episode yet. It's nice to know it at least got better. But I hadn't written it off or given up yet - just wasn't ready yet.
I'm only slightly above a casual viewer. Any movie that directly attacks its canon is only using the name as a ratings ploy and nothing else. Most of the hatred is due to using the name just because of sales and not because they want to actually continue that story. And the writer/director of that particular movie went out of their way to actually challenge the previous movies and threw several of the characters in directions they never would have gone.
Is it because I care about the characters or story? Not so much. Is it because I feel tricked/lied to as a cheap trick to sell a ticket? Yes, absolutely.
If you look at the individual ratings, they're not zero. The overall rating is based on # of positive reviews vs. # of negative reviews. A score of 2 still counts as 0% while a score of 4 still averages toward 100%.
It's my business as a customer. You may be happy with however many degrees of separation it takes for you to sleep at night, but there are other choices out there. And if I can choose to buy from a more humane employer, that's my right as a consumer.
The whole point of being underwater is to not reveal your position. A buoy that's directly above you is an absolute giveaway. But these signals could probably not be detected without already knowing their position.
It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side
Well yes, that's how you define a neutral platform
You're still being pushed to one side - it's just that each user may be pushed in a different direction.
it's the danger of shielding them from what they might not want to see or hear. It doesn't make the platform any less neutral, though.
Except that's exactly what it does. It's neutral only in aggregate. Every single user has an extremely non-neutral experience on the platform. Also, extremism itself isn't exactly neutral.
Yes. There are plenty of other ways to work out differences than hatred and violence. But you're already using charged words like "invading" so you probably aren't interested in a nuanced discussion.
Was it factual? If so, how is that deceptive? It would be deceptive to NOT reqport, which is what MSM does.
There are something like 15,000 murders in a given year in the US. You don't see 41 distinct murder stories in the national news each day. Not even close. But if out of 40+ murders in a single day, the national media reports on one that happens to be committed by an illegal immigrant, then that is inherently deceptive. Statistically, it's practically an anomaly but that's the one that gets reported on because it fits a narrative. It's not deceptive to NOT report because you CAN'T report on all of it.
Evidence is Piling Up That Mark Zuckerberg doesn't realise that he's now wielding, badly, the same power that Rupert Murdoch once enjoyed playing King Maker with.
This is totally a joke, but does this mean that Facebook is bigger than MySpace now?
It's more like the ability to find like-minded individuals and groups.
It goes beyond that, though. Facebook tilts the scale when manipulating your news feed. You tend not to see as many posts by people you disagree with, but more and more from those you do. Their goal might be to increase engagement and keep you on for longer, but the side effect is that you start believing that everyone you know agrees with you on some pretty extreme views.
I think the whole point is that Facebook is not a neutral platform. They're a polarizing platform. It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side, but it's hard to call it neutral if everyone is pushed toward an extreme and their own personalized echo chamber.
Society has become so used to the "But it's a company so it's ok that they only care about money." argument that we accept this as a natural fact. But it's not.
The rise of publicly traded companies along with shareholders that only care about short-term gain more or less forces this. If a company doesn't do every last thing for a quick buck (who cares about long term growth or stability), the shareholders supposedly have standing to sue.
Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood is incapable of producing a light, fun show anymore.
Go watch the first season of Trial & Error. I haven't seen the second yet, but it's about as light and funny as you can get on broadcast TV.
But total money and total quality writing talent are fixed. (There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)
The talent out there is way underutilized. It's the money that's the problem. Nobody investing in TV/movies wants to risk that money on something that isn't a sure thing. So we get more and more of the same focus-tested crap. That is why British TV had a lot more depth and took more risks - they didn't have to make their money back.
You have time to watch everything? Must be nice.
Go ahead and watch the rest of CSI: Cyber and Cavemen. I'll wait. It took less than one episode. I didn't even have to watch them, but I did watch one of each anyway.
Books take even longer - I really have to be sure before I commit to a book. I still find plenty to read.
Firefly.
This is true on Metacritic at least: check out critic reviews for any given weekly-broadcast TV show, and invariably you'll find that the review covers the first 1 or 2 episodes
I think a quick take is usually still pretty accurate. A good show has great cast chemistry from the start. And most of my favorite shows have taken less than 5 minutes to make up my mind. There are exceptions. For some reason, I really enjoyed Buffy and the acting was beyond terrible for the entire first season (possibly longer). By all accounts, it was terrible and I shouldn't have liked it.
Maybe it takes longer to decide to love a show if it gets the casting and characters right but the plot meanders too much. It depends on how episodic you like your TV in the first place.
To get a Netflix-style release on broadcast TV, I have to start recording before the first episode airs. If anything what we need is more reviews or unbiased overviews before the first episode even airs. I'll record an entire season before watching even one episode. Until then, I have last year's recorded shows and Netflix. Falling a year behind on broadcast TV was a great move. And if a show gets canceled mid-season I can decide to never start watching.
I still haven't made it to the second episode yet. It's nice to know it at least got better. But I hadn't written it off or given up yet - just wasn't ready yet.
I'm only slightly above a casual viewer. Any movie that directly attacks its canon is only using the name as a ratings ploy and nothing else. Most of the hatred is due to using the name just because of sales and not because they want to actually continue that story. And the writer/director of that particular movie went out of their way to actually challenge the previous movies and threw several of the characters in directions they never would have gone.
Is it because I care about the characters or story? Not so much. Is it because I feel tricked/lied to as a cheap trick to sell a ticket? Yes, absolutely.
If you look at the individual ratings, they're not zero. The overall rating is based on # of positive reviews vs. # of negative reviews. A score of 2 still counts as 0% while a score of 4 still averages toward 100%.
And I shouldn't own a tractor either. I'm only licensing the right to use it.
You're just cherry-picking the simplest example on a slippery slope to hell.
Age limit?
You sure you got that right? Why can't a 90-year old have a beer?
Like a urethra? Who doesn't have one?
It's my business as a customer. You may be happy with however many degrees of separation it takes for you to sleep at night, but there are other choices out there. And if I can choose to buy from a more humane employer, that's my right as a consumer.
The whole point of being underwater is to not reveal your position. A buoy that's directly above you is an absolute giveaway. But these signals could probably not be detected without already knowing their position.
It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side
Well yes, that's how you define a neutral platform
You're still being pushed to one side - it's just that each user may be pushed in a different direction.
it's the danger of shielding them from what they might not want to see or hear. It doesn't make the platform any less neutral, though.
Except that's exactly what it does. It's neutral only in aggregate. Every single user has an extremely non-neutral experience on the platform. Also, extremism itself isn't exactly neutral.
Without outside influence and censorship, people endorse right-wing ideas
People who isolate themselves are xenophobic? No kidding?
Also, if the outside influencers are people, wouldn't they endorse right-wing ideas too? Or are you just confused?
Yes. There are plenty of other ways to work out differences than hatred and violence. But you're already using charged words like "invading" so you probably aren't interested in a nuanced discussion.
Was it factual? If so, how is that deceptive? It would be deceptive to NOT reqport, which is what MSM does.
There are something like 15,000 murders in a given year in the US. You don't see 41 distinct murder stories in the national news each day. Not even close. But if out of 40+ murders in a single day, the national media reports on one that happens to be committed by an illegal immigrant, then that is inherently deceptive. Statistically, it's practically an anomaly but that's the one that gets reported on because it fits a narrative. It's not deceptive to NOT report because you CAN'T report on all of it.
Evidence is Piling Up That Mark Zuckerberg doesn't realise that he's now wielding, badly, the same power that Rupert Murdoch once enjoyed playing King Maker with.
This is totally a joke, but does this mean that Facebook is bigger than MySpace now?
It's more like the ability to find like-minded individuals and groups.
It goes beyond that, though. Facebook tilts the scale when manipulating your news feed. You tend not to see as many posts by people you disagree with, but more and more from those you do. Their goal might be to increase engagement and keep you on for longer, but the side effect is that you start believing that everyone you know agrees with you on some pretty extreme views.
I think the whole point is that Facebook is not a neutral platform. They're a polarizing platform. It may be neutral in that they don't push you to one specific side, but it's hard to call it neutral if everyone is pushed toward an extreme and their own personalized echo chamber.
Society has become so used to the "But it's a company so it's ok that they only care about money." argument that we accept this as a natural fact. But it's not.
The rise of publicly traded companies along with shareholders that only care about short-term gain more or less forces this. If a company doesn't do every last thing for a quick buck (who cares about long term growth or stability), the shareholders supposedly have standing to sue.
It's not just semantically true. It functions in much the same way as news articles shared on Facebook.
Even if a web site is your own personal blog? How is that different than a social media page?