Your last comment for me would be the one thing that could make it appealing. If they included a handful of the pricey things I read--like NYT and the Economist--and maybe a couple of the specialized items, I'd probably do it for the cost savings and convenience as you did. Unfortunately they have none of those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomsem
There are risks to self-curation: you may miss out on things that you would value, enjoy, or which are otherwise ‘good for you to know’ even if you don’t necessarily enjoy what you learn.
|
Yes there are risks, I'd say all curation has risks. It's like writing history, it's inherently selective not comprehensive. One risk is creating your own echo chamber. Only selecting sources that agree with you, and never reading anything that challenges you to think and consider other points of view, or that helps build empathy and understanding toward people that hold different views.
Two thoughts on that. One, I'd hope that people would be objective enough to include a cross-section of sources in your reading. I do, and I know many do. But if someone is unwilling to consider alternate points of view that are already freely available online, I'm not certain subscribing to a service will change their mind. Because they can still curate within the curation, again creating a private echo chamber. Second, if I did want to pay someone to create a balanced, cross-sectional curation of reading material for me, it definitely wouldn't be one of the big US tech companies. All of them are of a single narrow and monolithic political perspective, and this definitely affects their curation.