JrFb's Reviews > Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture

Have you ever read a book that was so frustrating that it finally convinced you after 5 years to get a goodreads account? That was my experience with Filterworld.

Failing to resolve the tension inherent in algorithmic culture
Let's start with the fact that there is a lot of contradiction in this book over whether the algorithm induces cultural flattening or diversification - the book's main thesis statement is the former, but there are quite a handful of observations about how two people on the same platform can have completely different experiences thanks to algorithmic personalisation and that can produce dissonance, isolation and a feeling of living in an echo chamber. So which is it? The author never successfully resolves the contraditions inherent in his arguments (he doesnt even bother trying). These arguments are just listed side by side, often in the same chapter and even within the same couple of pages as if they connect perfectly with one another when theres such a clear tension that needs to be resolved. Not saying algorithms cant be both flattening and silo-ing - I firmly believe they can do both, but EXPLICATE, where is your elaboration?? Where is the analysis?? These were the parts of the book that really had me flipping to the back to read the author's bio, and then I would shake my head like "yeah ok this guy is a journalist by training and it shows, he cant handle nuanced arguments".

Lack of critical analysis of tastemaking
Tastemaking in general is traditionally so deeply embedded in whiteness, heteronormativity and anglocentrism and its truly shocking that the author doesnt bother to interrogate any of these underlying assumptions while waxing lyrical about the importance of curation. WHO has historically had the resources and authority to curate?? WHO decides that subcultures that originally arose from the labour, experiences and innovation of majority-POC communities can go from being crass and banal to trendy and hot topic???

so many of these traditional institutions, museums, galleries, publishing houses, recording studios - are (1) deeply flawed, exclusionary and colonialist and (2) have been receiving less and less funding thanks to neoliberalism that has severely weakened their ability to act effectively as regulators and gatekeepers of culture in the first place. You can't blame that directly on the rise of algorithms and silicon valley. So where is the analysis of how hierarchical, elitist and exclusionary these traditional institutions are??? Is there possibly a reason why creators might be turning more and more towards algorithmic content creation? Maybe, oh idk, because of its lower barrier of entry?

I know that this book's focus is on culture, not politics, and I don't expect a full run-down of neoliberalism, colonialism and surveillance capitalism, but it's also simply not possible to extricate an analysis of culture from politics, and a total exclusion of the latter is a huge detriment to the former.

The method of critique known as "running my mouth about things I didn't do rigorous research on"
Most of the areas of culture that this book commented on -- such as the impacts of algos on tourism or interior design of coffeeshops -- I don't have any industry knowledge on, so I took the critique at face value even if I didn't find it fully convincing. However, where I DID happen to know more than the author based on my experiences, I found the criticisms did not hold any water.

For example, the jibe about how algorithms and booktok/booktube have affected the publishing industry was totally off base. Yes, algorithmic promotion of authors is problematic too but at least it gives authors more options now. Before algorithms and self-publishing, traditional publication was heavily gated behind MFA programme (masters in creative writing). Do you have any idea how white and upper middle class MFA programmes are? The book bregrudgingly admits that these creative writing programmes are "somewhat elitist" and that's all it has to say on the matter, and that felt so utterly lacking that it was laughable. People in publishing are PAINFULLY aware of how the MFA industry is riddled with so many flaws, and the book does not demonstrate ANY awareness of why people are opting one model of publication over the other, even if they are both flawed in different ways.

And then towards the end of the book, completely unnecessarily, this man took potshots at Taylor Swift and complained about Folklore and Evermore sounding similar. Again, COMPLETELY missing the point. Folklore and Evermore were acoustic, indie-inspired and alternative-rock projects promoted by Swift as sister albums that sprung from her collaboration with Aaron Dessner. They were INTENTIONALLY meant to sound similar to one another; they were products of the same period of creative experimentation during lockdown.

Many PROFESSIONAL music critics in their review of Folklore/Evermore observed that the sounds of these two albums depart significantly from the pop synths of her previous projects like Lover and Reputation, so again, the entire argument falls totally flat when considered in the wider context of Swift's discography. In the words of my friend, "you can talk about how artists feel the pressure or conform to this endless barrage of content without insulting the quality of the work. Or if you’re going to do this please offer some insight from actual music critics on why they think streaming models are reducing the quality of music."

These are small segments that don't detract from the broader argument even if they don't work, but its precisely because I was more familiar than the author on these specific fronts that the credibility of ALL the other points started eroding -- because if he could play fast and loose with these arguments, who's to say he hasn't been running his mouth this entire book? I started becoming less and less convinced and more and more annoyed when I realised this man does not know how to stay in his lane and instead just writes hot takes about things he hasn't bothered to do actual proper research on. Your snarky two-sentence QOTDs might catch some engagement on twitter/x, or even on a podcast as a sound bite, but putting these remarks in a long-form book was a serious tactical error and just made the entire thesis of the book that much less convincing.

Man shakes fist at tiktok
The whole tiktok segment was a mess. This man does not know how to use tiktok and it shows.

He just went on and on about how tiktok only values or emphasises one style of making content. There are SO many niche subcultures that are absolutely thriving on tiktok and its precisely becs of the algorithm that i can rely on these pieces filtering their way into my fyp! Tiktok even has a collections feature that i actively use to catalogue pieces of content i encounter becs they are memorable, and the algo takes note and serves me more content from that category! The algo is a tool, you can either use it or let it use you and auth seems blithely ignorant of the possibility of the former so he literally just comes across as an ageing white millennial whingeing about new tech, sorry.

Granted, he did mention a whole three chapters later about how we can break filterworld by taking responsibility in what we are consuming and be intentional so we can explore subcultures and less mainstream stuff. I was screaming at him that this is exactly what the tiktok algo is for!!

And also - author did not address how, since its inception, the social aspects of the internet have been so vital in connecting people from marginalised communities. Algorithmic personalisation does this really well too!! The popular joke on tiktok is that when you first join, you only need to interact with 10 tiktoks on your fyp and the algorithm can decide already whether youre straight or gay and serve you pieces of culture that align with your sensibilities. Like come on, thats huge! Especially for queer kids living in small conservative towns, this sense of joy and community that technology facilitates by bringing people of similar backgrounds tgt is so vital! Queer communities used to lurk in the shadows of the internet when it first started, and queer people had to actively seek out these pages, or know someone who knows someone! Accessibility is SO important! Algorithmic personalisation has facilitated such a diverse expansion of subcultural internet memes and communities, to the point where queer content even breaks into the mainstream REGULARLY.

But no, there was no such nuance to be found in this book's analysis of tiktok. It really was just "tiktok is bad because it go brr". What a total disservice to the experiences of people who actually know how to use clock app.

Whingeing! A lot of boring white millenial whingeing!
This book really grated on my nerves with how most of it was just whingeing and complaining disguised as criticism, with no critical understanding of the material and political realities that inflluence culture.

The whole airspace coffeeshop segment was sus asf. The author complaining abt generic coffeeshops that have been reproduced worldwide that are lacking in local flavour, but then he also says he purposely seeks them out for the familiarity when hes working abroad becs these spaces are most conducive for remote working professionals like himself - its self contradictory, and auth doesnt recognise that its precisely becs of people like him - affluent western PMETs that get to fly around - that drives demand for such spaces in the first place. Much later in the book he admits that his tastes / habits have been poisoned by the algo but doesnt really connect it back to these moments. He shouldve started the book exactly at the point where he went on the algo cleanse and then crafting his observations from there. The insights came too late in the book and were really too superficial and obvious for anyone who is used to living in algo culture, felt like an "uhmm duh" moment.

The tourism section was another disaster. Yes, i definitely agree that the uneven ways algorithms promote some aesthetic and instagrammable destinations more than others can cause a lot of destructive impacts on local economies, cultures and ecologies, but MISTER that is the ENTIRE LEGACY of the tourist industry, algorithms are just speedrunning through that logic. If you didnt want a hyper-touristy, inauthentic experience of another country do you not realise that you can use the google search bar to find other kinds of experiences? Homestays and village stays? Use instagram/social media to get directly in touch with small local tourist businesses for a more authentic experience? Do your research and put in the work if you want a meaningful and memorable visit? Instead you lazily opt for the first thing thats suggested to you on a google homepage, and then gripe abt the fact that its oversaturated??? Uhmmm?????

Skill issue.
Look, this isn't the worst book I've read. But it is the most frustrating, because it engaged with an aspect of society that deeply resonated with my lived experience, an aspect that I was so curious to learn more about and understand in greater depth, and totally and utterly flopped. There were good things here as well, but ultimately when I closed the book the only thing I could feel was relief that the entire ordeal was finally over. Most of the arguments that this book was trying to make I'm already familiar with in one form or another, and have been floating around the collective brain cell of social media for a while, so there truly was nothing original here.

The Social Dilemma, a documentary available on Netflix that came out 4 years before this book, engaged with the same issue but focused a lot more on the in-depth mechanisms of how algorithms hijack our psychological mechanisms. I was hoping for something like that -- well-researched insights from experts of specific subject fields that looked at how their expertise intersected with something that's relevant to all of us. This was not that.

All I can say is that for a book that was published in 2024, what it has to say feels instantly dated.