> The reality is that the internet has become decentralized; rather than people staying in one gigantic, unified group with shared trends and moments like they used to, users go their separate ways, with social media algorithms providing hyper- curated content that pushes users toward smaller groups with niche shared interests.

Erm. What's with the optimism at the end here? Isn't this the example of the exact opposite? Despite being promised "curated niche interests" somehow these attention algorithms on huge centralized platforms find a way to turn everyone on the platform into a consumer of a particular trendy item?

I find it so disturbing that a lot of "niche interests" on the Internet these days seem very consumer focused.

I can't help but think of these wild and free (of regulation) markets as a capitalistic jungle of sorts: "These troll farms are the resting place of one of Capitalism's most resourceful predators: the Artificial Scarcity Hype Schemer. These capitalist pack hunters are cunning; they collaborate with the Treacherous Influencer to create what is known as an influencer-driven pump-and-dump trend scam. First, they use sophisticated techniques like algorithms to lead potential victims towards the Influencers who will help the Schemer to isolate, dazzle and confuse their prey. After the Influencer has gained their trust, the Schemer can swoop in and use strategies such as spambots, fake trends and disinformation in order to peer-pressure impressionable minds so they both get a chance at gnawing at the victims pockets. Having gotten their way, the cycle begins anew: the Influencer begins drawing future victims into a false sense of security, and the Schemer starts devising a ne w set of scams."

Indeed, I find it very hard to take the article seriously given that every one of the notionally decentralised trends it's described has propagated on a very small handful of highly centralised platforms. For that matter, it's very difficult for me to imagine how these trends might have spread in the first place without access to large-audience virality directed by algorithmic recommendations precisely enabled by such severe centralisation.

The point the article is trying to make is that Labubus were an abnormally short lived fad, and that’s their attempt at an explanation.

I don’t know if that exactly explains the short life of the Labubu fad, but I find the disappearance of shared culture quite evident these days.