You write as if the filters you lament are bad. I think, given the overabundance of mischaracterized crap that seems to clutter up 'algorithmically' filtered exchanges (YouTube, Netflix, etc) I will take human curation and filtration any day of the week, biases and all.
Pandora and Spotify still can't build or execute a playlist like a good DJ can. Netflix's recommendations still miss the mark way more than talking about movies/shows with friends.
Spotify's playlists are at least in part human curated, so not sure how you got to that conclusion.
I believe his point is that the algorithms don't generate playlists or dj mixes with the same polish as a professional human and I'm inclined to agree. That said, I do think their recommendation engine produces decent results, but I don't think the composition of the list is something it focuses on. Rather its just a list of unrelated tracks it thinks you'd be inclined to enjoy on their own.
You can similarly ruin a good, curated playlist by hitting shuffle.
How important can i be, though, there's always that laborous swag thing called "responsibilities". Ask the kids how sexy that one is... Or better, ask a so-called Hipster ;-)
..which is filtered much like the used books
... and then later filtered by YOU from the thousands of items in the store.
Editing is a full-time job, why should consumers do that for themselves?
And, if you can't find products from a selection of professionally edited products, then your sense of taste isn't going to work with other people.
We need to trust editors and human filters more, not less, because they know whats better for you than you know yourself, and certainly better than algorithms.
Algorithms have always been terrible at making taste. This is why a real radio station with a human DJ is always better then the algorithmic radio services. Every time I try to listen to an algorithmic station, I have to turn it off, since they're so bad, even when given my existing playlists.
And can you imagine how bad a fashion magazine would be if it were algorithmically determined?
In all seriousness, consider the bit listed under "how to resist the algorithm" (quotes indented):
...which have been filtered by publishers deciding which manuscripts to publish, a past consumer deciding which book to buy, AND a used bookstore deciding which books to purchase for resale ...which are frequently central-planned from a national network, as well as the massive filter that decides which stories should be TV programs ...which is filtered much like the used books Got me on this one, but letters != culture IMO ...which have editors who decide which stories to run, and advertisers those editors want to keep happy ...which is subject to not only the filters applied to fashion when the garments were made, but also filtering at the used clothing store.These processes aren't new - ever wonder why so many pop songs are under 5 minutes (hint: it's not because that's an artistic decision)? In a lot of ways, digital technology demolishes the old barriers; for instance, releasing music doesn't take a significant up-front investment in pressing physical copies & distributing them to stores, so it's easier than ever for that content to get out. Out is key there, IMO - just because it's released doesn't mean anybody ever hears it. Seems like "the algorithm" might actually help in that situation, however: maybe the music only has 200 people that want it, making an old-school marketing push totally impractical.