Neither the technology nor the team can be objective. Who or what determines that the information is relevant and of high quality? In the case of The Syllabus, that is Morozov. On the other hand: he is honest about his subjectivity, while with parties like Google we are quickly inclined to think that the algorithms are objective. Morozov writes in a response to De Correspondent: “ We make no such concealments: in the end, everything we recommend is something that we personally find interesting or important. We don't blame our algorithms .”
By the way, those algorithms remain secret. It is a black box and in that respect The Syllabus is ironically whatsapp number list no different from Google. We cannot test the algorithms, something that is important and is becoming increasingly important ( see also this article about assessments for artificial intelligence ). Suppose The Syllabus becomes extremely popular, a kind of new Google for unlocking – or even publishing – knowledge and information. Then the authors and creators of that content are once again dependent on the subjectivity of the algorithms and people. Is trusting the good taste of Morozov and his team enough?
The Syllabus contains many academic papers. That is not exactly light reading material… And not everyone can read these kinds of pieces. In that respect, the platform is also somewhat elitist (and to be honest, a statement like ' Newsletters are for amateurs ' also contributes to that). So the question is to what extent The Syllabus will have an impact. It now seems to be made mainly for highly educated people who are already aware that they do not always have the best sources at hand.
Not everyone will jump to subscribe right away, which is understandable. But it is at least interesting to think about how you get relevant information. And how subjective both the information and the distribution of that information is. Who are your gatekeepers of good content?