On Saturday I wrote a blog criticising the music policies of BBC Radio London. On reflection, I have come to the conclusion that there is a bigger problem, something that I really don't think we fully appreciate. Let me ask you a question. If you have a Facebook account, why did you sign up for it? I don't know about you, I signed up to see content from my friends and people who I'd signed up to follow. As I started writing this blog, I looked at it. The first six posts were either adverts or 'suggestions' (none of which I was interested in). I then looked at a couple of groups I follow. The default sorting was "Most relevant". When I changed this to "most recent post", I got a completely different and far more interesting selection. When I actually look at my friends posts specifically, I see dozens of posts that I never saw, which I'd much rather see than adverts for pies, or the 'Star Trek fan club'. It got me thinking "Who decides what is relevant' to me" because whoever it is, they are clueless. I can select posts in purely time order (apart from ads) if I use this option www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr but I have to save it in my favourites, as it is not easily accessible. When I do this, I actually have a chance to see some of the content I want to see, in between the ads.
Then there is Twitter, that has two options. The "For you" is the default and it is again curated by someone who thinks they know what I am interested in. Like Facebook, they are largely wrong. I can click to see "people I follow" , but often I forget when I want to see stuff and get bombarded with crap that is designed to trigger me. Who are the curators and what are they trying to do?
Now I am not a conspiaracy theorist. I know exactly what the game is. They want to make as much money out of me as possible. They do this by showing me stuff that makes them money. The game is not about serving my interests. There is the old adage "If you want to find the truth, follow the money". It is pretty clear to me that social media has simply morphed into a massive pyramid selling scheme. The Facebooks and Twitters of this world analyse our posts and our views and work out how to make as much cash as possible and serve up crap that they hope will do this. Which leads us to the question "Are they on your side?". I think the answer is pretty obvious.
This tales me back to the BBC Radio London playlist and their policies of employing presenters. I don't know anyone who thinks BBC Radio London is better now than it was two years ago. I also don't know anyone who likes the music that is on their playlist. My kids hate it and laugh at me for persevering with the station. When Robert Elms was six days a week and playing new artists regularly, many people listened for the content. The gatekeepers at BBC Radio London decided that they knew best. Why? What was the brief? Do they really not know their listeners. Given that the BBC is supposedly a public service broadcaster, funded by the taxpayer, does the "follow the money" adage still apply? How do you make any money by ruining a station? Well sadly, when we follow the money here, it is even more disturbing. Because the only people who make money from the demise of the BBC are the massive media moguls and multi national media organisations. The BBC nicks a substancial slice of the media pie. The more they bugger it up, the bigger the slice of the pie for them.
Take the case of Gary Linekar. Widely recognised as the best football presenter in the UK. There has been a massive social media campaign against him lead by an anti woke mob. Linekar leaving Match of the Day weakens the product. Who benefits? Companies like Sky that are commercial.
When Elon Musk took over Twitter, many said "Why would any sane man take over a money pit?". With Donald Trump winning the election and Musk being a major beneficiary when the jobs are dished out, it becomes clear. We live in a world where it's richest man can buy a tech company and reshape an election.
I'll leavbe you with a thought. My band, The False Dots released an album on Spotify last week. Spotify kindly set up a "False Dots Radio" play list for us (Falsedots Spotify Radio Playlist ). Now at first I thought "How kind". Then I looked at it. Of the first 20 tunes, 12 were tracks I wouldn't recommend, don't play and bear little similarity to our music. Why did this appear? Well one can only speculate, but I have to suspect that Spotify make some cash from it. When I figure out how, I will sort it out.
In the meantime, please have a listen to our album. It is one way of supporting a struggling band!
No comments:
Post a Comment