1/ Consider: Armchair index = median num of curation layers between you and raw news. Twitter=0, new media=1, Google=2, old media=3, FB=4
Conversation
Replying to
2/ Though depth is not well-posed concept for diffusion networks, Armchair Index is close. But it's not quite graph hops as in naive models
1
1
Replying to
3/ On a news diffusion graph, there's still a meaningful dynamic notion of "boundary" (set of source nodes at time T)
1
1
Replying to
4/ There is also notion of uphill (curation that adds context intelligence) and downhill (adds context noise, think Taboola, Outbrain)
1
1
Replying to
5/ Armchair index measures "altitude" above ground-level info, using a set of relevance+importance values that define an "up"
2
Replying to
6/ This is an uphill, stochastic diffusion process on a graph with a defined boundary and interior (peak by a set of curation values)
1
Replying to
7/ By definition, there isn't just one. Any news diffusion graph admits an arbitrary number of "curation landscapes)
1
Replying to
8/ In fact you at a given time represent an instantaneous peak defined by your importance/relevance values at t=now.
1
Replying to
9/ Point is that the deterministic Industrial Age mental model of a "distribution platform" is misleading. There are no dumb pipes here.
1
1
2
Replying to
11/ We think of advertising as "noise tolls" on deterministic distribution pathways serving some illusory mass-audience curation peak.
2
2
Replying to
12/ This is road to content farming and a race to the bottom. A single "taste monoculture" model destroys curatorial diversity.
1
2
Show replies
