You are what you like, share and subscribe to
By Abhinaya Kasagani — akasagani@ucdavis.edu
It has, in all honesty, been 3,652 days since I have had an original thought. This would be perfectly permissible if my reasons for failing to be inventive happened to be a lingering byproduct of artist fatigue and not “the algorithm of taste,” yet the prevalence of this algorithm effectively curates our digital environments and influences our collective behaviors, forbidding us from following our own inclinations. In lesser words, the algorithm both captivates and holds captive.
American sociologist Henry Pratt Fairchild described culture as a set of codified patterns acquired through contagion. The social contagion — the phenomenon wherein ideas, behaviors and emotions spread within a society — has become increasingly mediated by algorithms, distorting how we behave and think. Their curatorial capacity effectively controls modern cultural processes, amplifying certain cultural narratives and suppressing others.
The cognitive foundation of cultural contagion lies in the human mind’s propensity to adopt ideas that are repeated or reinforced. Since algorithms favor sensationalist and polarizing content, they operate with inherent biases, resulting in echo chambers wherein users are exposed predominantly to ideas and opinions that reinforce their preexisting beliefs. Sometimes, it is not divisive and controversial material that thrives within these algorithmic ecosystems but simply digestible media and short-form content. This not only sustains user engagement but simultaneously contributes to the rapid dissemination of ideas that discourage critical thinking and foster ideological homogeneity within groups. Everyone is cut from the same cloth.
Algorithms fracture human thought, homogenizing global culture. An entire generation of people is less inclined and more selective about being exposed to content with which they disagree. Disregarding objectionable content in favor of what one finds pleasurable, however, does a disservice to critical thought. Shortening attention spans have deprioritized in-depth narratives, causing a separation that exacerbates social tensions and limits opportunities for constructive dialogue and understanding. Following continuous exposure to curated content, as such, rewires cognitive processes, making individuals more reactive and less autonomous in their tastes and preferences. The data generated by user interactions is then monetized, further entrenching algorithmic influence.
Sorry to be too gauche, but you are, in fact, your own tastemaker. Mutuality is one thing; the problem lies in blindly following. What is it that you truly like? Trends often emerge in niche communities before becoming mainstream phenomena. By inserting media into the broader cultural consciousness, the algorithm succeeds in diluting its uniqueness in favor of mass appeal.
This claim about algorithms is paradoxical. While they reduce users to a binary of approval or dismissal, they encourage the development of these niche subcultures. This contributes to a “mob mentality” of sorts, both globally and locally, reinforcing collective behaviors at different levels. This dispatch of collective thought renders us passive consumers; all personhood is packaged and out for delivery.
There is nothing more aggravating to those who carefully and cautiously consume media than being eclipsed by someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about or why. Sure, I slip in and out of these roles; my personalities are hats. But do not wear what is rightfully mine simply because your phone told you this is what you should be consuming. Find out what it is that you like.
Kyle Chayka, in his book “Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture,” discussed how this passivity of consumption has discredited masterpieces of art simply because they are not immediately engaging to the consumer.
“We’ll never have the Fellini film that’s so challenging you think about it for the rest of your life or see the painting that’s so strange and discomforting that it really sticks with you,” the text reads.
Algorithms also influence creators of culture, pushing them to distill their work into cheap iterations that align with algorithmic recommendations. This leaves us to engage with things that are not, in any way, challenging or provocative. Taste is no longer cultivated, only curated.
In essence, algorithms shape the cultural contagion by prioritizing specific types of content to augment collective behaviors. Algorithms, despite their pitfalls (and like anything in moderation), can amplify advocacy efforts, raise awareness of critical issues and work to mitigate some of the negative effects of their influence.
When leveraged ethically, as tools that require careful wielding, they can promote the compassion and collaboration we aim to recover. Too much of anything dulls the edge of the sword. The real issue here is less about the dispersion of content itself and more about our collective inability to discern what we find enjoyable and important. When one consumes their content in a grid, they back themself into a corner.
Written by: Abhinaya Kasagani— akasagani@ucdavis.edu
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.
