# notes --- - [[{3.1} algorithmic monoculture]] - [[03 - NOTES/01 - PERMANENT/{3.1a} algorithmic monoculture requires memeification and turns users into evangelists]] - [[{5.2b1a} optimization comes at the expense of originality]] # summary --- “Monoculture” can be used to describe a *monolithic culture*, or the range of “artifacts, characters, voices, and stories that a specific demographic… find recognizable and relatable”; it can also be used to describe a *monotonous culture*, or a homogenized space in which “everything is bright, vapid, and family-friendly, and any whimpering of dissent is smoothed over into sameness”. There are two concerns about monoculture: (1) the streaming era has fragmented us into different subcultures, removing our ability to connect with each other over media, and (2) hyper-optimization is driving cultural artifacts to become increasingly similar. Although the two definitions and concerns seem like they’re at odds, but this all seems to be happening simultaneously as we move “toward a monoculture of the algorithm”. We’re experiencing fragmentation as the broadcast era ends in favor of opt-in media where we can watch whatever we want, when- and wherever we choose. Streaming platforms create walled gardens of content; we don’t “tune in” together anymore and have to become “evangelists” if we want to watch the same media as our friend, creating our own individual communities — sometimes these are walled themselves, but can also be found on Twitter, Reddit, or in other [[{2.4a} the public web versus cozyweb|cozy-ish web spaces]]. On the other hand, things are becoming more homogenous as we become more reliant on algorithms. We don’t even have to make decisions about what we consume, as apps like Spotify and Netflix autoplay their algorithmic suggestions. But these algorithms are biased; they reward sameness and prioritize what they already know people like. Chayka writes that the algorithm is “a replacement for our internal monologues and our judgements about what to consume”. True introspection, prioritizing the slow-burn of art, and looking toward *digital permaculture* will help us resist the monoculture. # highlights --- >Monoculture is a [Pleasantville](https://collider.com/pleasantville-movie-explained/#images) image of a lost togetherness that was maybe just an illusion in the first place, or a byproduct of socioeconomic hegemony. It wasn’t that everyone _wanted_ to watch primetime _Seinfeld_, but that’s what was on, and it became universal by default. >We are in the midst of determining if the kind of monoculture that thrived during the broadcast era can exist when many forms of media are opt-in: we can watch whatever we want, when we want. The “digital monoculture” could refer to the array of popular, recognizable reference points that have arisen and are accessed through the on-demand internet. >Businesses turn their own intellectual property into self-reproducing mini-monocultures because monopolies are easiest to monetize. The streaming platforms and their various signature franchises form walled gardens, a metaphor that also recalls the scientific definition of monoculture: nothing else is allowed to grow there; there is no cross-pollination. >We media consumers end up smoothly siloed into how a recommendation algorithm has predefined a particular genre or medium, like the [Plinko game](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKTBv7ZqFcU) in _Price Is Right_: the chip takes a random path down the board, but ends up in one of just a few slots. The algorithm’s definition is often wrong, or at least incomplete. >Maybe the post-internet monoculture is now made up of what is _aesthetically recognizable_ even if it is not _familiar_ — we quickly feel we understand it even if we don’t know the name of the specific actor, musician, show, or director. > A monocultural product reinforces our established range of taste-signifiers rather than challenging them or adding something new. >Optimization comes at the expense of originality. >Relying on algorithms to dictate our culture means evaluating things on the basis of popularity, engagement, scale, and speed. Yet we already know that what is popular is not necessarily good, and what is good is not necessarily popular. >There seems to be more _opportunity_ for diversity (anything can theoretically go viral) and yet the cultural artifacts that do become mainstream appear relentlessly optimized for the digital platforms of the attention economy. >As we grow more accustomed to the algorithmic monoculture, allowing it to occupy our senses, we might lose our understanding of, or our taste for, anything else. >Lofi Monocultural Beats to Exist to >They are turning to human “curators” as a way to break from algorithmic sameness and demonstrate that there’s still a personal (that is to say monocultural) connection when consuming digital content. They are deploying humanity as branding. >We should actively seek out elements of messiness and magic, serendipity that pure data can’t provide. >The algorithm is a replacement for our internal monologues and our judgements about what we want to consume. >In a [2017 interview](https://www.vice.com/en%5Fnz/article/9aem4y/teju-cole-on-trump-god-and-how-twitter-makes-us-stupid), the author, critic, and former Twitter celebrity Teju Cole likewise described social media as “a monster that feeds on noise” that “could not allow for a kind of distance, silence, refocusing of energies.” >In a [recent essay](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/10/24/zadie-smith-in-defense-of-fiction/), Zadie Smith critiqued the “digital maw” that digests our language and spits it back at us, warped and commodified. >For Smith, the excess of data forms a “shadow text” that replaces human culture with its uncanny facsimile. >Instead of taking the place of linear television’s monoculture, the streaming-media internet can, at its best, be more like a digital permaculture: an ecosystem of smaller platforms and bigger; smaller projects and bigger; and artists both famous and not, all sustaining each other. The anxiety comes more from the ways that we find and share the things that we’re interested in.