I think this is a problem inherent to this style of communication, whether massive social media or individual niche forums. People used to talk a lot about groupthink, though I don’t hear that term as often today. It seems to be a fundamental thing for human beings to come to a consensus as a group, and then for some individuals to react to that negatively. When positive this looks like science, accepting consensus as truth to have a foundation to work off of, and individuals rejecting the consensus to build stronger foundations.

Outside of the Internet we have much less ability to change our environments, so there’ll naturally be more diversity within groups of neighbors, coworkers, students, etc. But here, there is so much less friction to movement, similar people tend to group up more quickly.

The solution is probably not to expect opposition within a group, but to be a member of many separate groups. You are definitely in an echo chamber, but at the end of the day what you choose to accept as true is your responsibility.

I’ve been looking to do exactly this, thank you!

The article keeps reiterating the viewpoint that not selling art devalues it. That’s not necessarily wrong, but it’s such a corporate take on the situation, and completely misses the actual issue people had with this. Corporations should not be using their ability to control our personal devices. It’s a violation of trust, and that’s what people were reacting to.

And further, I think it also completely ignores what is truly devaluing art: allowing executives huge cuts of the profit. They don’t do sufficient work to justify the amount they take from the industry, but if they let bands have the money, they’d lose the control that lets them keep it.