>The article is about improving recommender systems, not replacing them.

But what's a "recommender system"? Are my friends and family who understand my tastes at a deeper level than an algorithm not a "recommender system"? Is your approach to finding comedies via BFI/They Shoot Pictures not a form of a "recommender system" for you?

If recommender systems truly depend on a deeper level of nuance that they likely won't ever be able to get without people giving up even more privacy than they already do, shouldn't we look at alternative forms of recommendations as a form of improvement, rather than sticking to altering what's already there?

I'd argue that using algorithmic recommendations limits exploration and agency and doesn't allow us to develop our taste beyond our taste's current horizons. Without them, serendipity can be genuinely serendipitous if not moreso, our effort can increase attachment/pleasure when it pays off, and we have more opportunities to build knowledge along the way.

I might be digressing just a bit here, but I fundamentally believe that the answer to broken algorithmic feeds, or recommendation systems, or whathaveyou, isn't going to be found in more algorithms.

>But what's a "recommender system"? Are my friends and family who understand my tastes at a deeper level than an algorithm not a "recommender system"?

Not really. "Recommender system" has a pretty narrow technical definition. It's an automated system that takes input from the user (clicks, watch time, ratings, etc.) and produces a list of recommendations.

Maybe what you don't like is the average user's preferences. People seem to like being told what to watch. If there's demand for a streaming service that dispenses with recommendations, then someone should be able to make a lot of money building it.