I don't understand the logic behind this. Yes, if the history is turned off, they can't tailor recommendations for you. Doesn't that give them carte blanche to just serve up whatever they want, like some kind of default profile of trends/propaganda? Haven't they already been doing that?
I lost track of what it would mean to “win.” When this started, the media assured me that if Putin didn’t conquer all of Ukraine within a couple of days it would be a unmitigated disaster for him and prove how meaningless he and his army were. So how can he win when he apparently already lost? The media wasn’t feeding me bullshit, were they? :o
This is is mindblowing. Nobody expected the Marvels to do as well as Captain Marvel, but I doubt anyone anticipated it flopping so hard. This isn't superhero fatigue; GotG3 and Spider-Verse performed solidly. I expect Aquaman 2 will succeed. A lot of people enjoyed the first movie, so as long as this one isn't terrible I think it will enjoy good word of mouth and perform. If it does, it proves that superhero fatigue isn't a factor. It's shitty movie fatigue. People have endured so many mediocre Marvel movies that this was them collectively saying "enough." It's not a Marvels thing; if Thor 4, Doctor Strange 2, or Black Panther 2, or AntMan 3 had swapped places with it, they'd have shared the same fate. They were all really mediocre movies that survived purely on the Marvel branding, and that branding has finally lost its appeal. That's purely on Disney for making so many shitty movies and shows in such rapid succession.
I know the video games one is due to nobody paying attention to the actual products that different demographics use. Ten or so years ago there were lots of "well ACTUALLY more than half of video game players are women" (of course, these days, "woman" is almost undefinable). Which was true, but women were generally playing mobile phone stuff, while guys were still sticking to consoles, and everybody played Minecraft. But that lead to a lot of ill-informed articles (you know, from Kotaku) bitching about how Assassin's Creed was ignoring half its audience by not having a playable woman. "Generally" is the key word there. Of course there were exceptions. Marketing and demographics are never about absolutes, but they are about targeting and effective use of resources. If 80% of your dildo business is going to women, and sure gay men buy 10%, and the other 10% is smattering of other groups with varied uses, you don't blow half your marketing and R&D budget on the .001% of your customers who use dildos for art supplies. Sure, they exist, but they're not worth going after.
It’s weird to see an article like this where they pretend thar demographics don’t exist and that marketing isn’t driven by the concept. I’ll wager Forbes has ads catering to a particular clientele based on their own research into who generally reads their articles. Or maybe they practice what they preach, and figure a five year old girl is just as likely to be an avid Forbes reader as a male MBA and so charge the same rate for a Bluey advert as a Lexus one.
What’s funny is that everybody sees this coming a mile away. We all know they’re just going to use diversity as a shield against criticism, as they inevitably do (when it sucks), but then they just gaslight and insist we’re being silly or paranoid.
I don’t believe any of it. I don’t doubt life exists elsewhere in the universe, and probably intelligent life, but it’s not visiting here and conspiring with the government. Ghosts, demons, and that supernatural stuff likely isn’t real, either. But I wish it was.
Don’t forget the gay bestiality!