PanNPR\"Chayka pines for an imaginary past where a \'traditional model of human tastemakers\' prevailed, and real people determined how successful books, movies, and music were. He\'s right that technology has always shaped culture—but he doesn\'t meaningfully engage with the idea that in this \'traditional model,\' what became popular was also shaped by race, gender, class, and power, just as they are in an algorithmic world ... this sort of oversimplified, easy analysis undermines his reporting in the book about influencers, who share with him nuanced reflections about their careers and their relationships to social media ... Chayka\'s arguments about Emily in Paris shallow celebration of consumption, the \'blatant clarity\' of Instagram poets, and even the algorithmic organization of Amazon Books stores may once have seemed new, but they are now the low-hanging fruit of cultural criticism in the Internet Age. Near the end of the book, when Chayka narrates his temporary break from social media and Spotify, his reflections feel trite, not revelatory: Yet another extremely online Twitter user has discovered the value (and limits) of logging off ... Chayka is so successful in documenting this frustrating aspect of modern life that his overarching argument — that readers should depend more on word-of-mouth recommendations and cultivate their sense of personal taste through time and effort — feels unhelpful, like a band-aid on a larger problem ... This is a shame, because many large tech companies and their algorithms do wield power in insidious, often discriminatory ways. There are fruitful discourses about the future of online infrastructure and the regulatory tools available to curb harmful online data collection and break up monopoly power. But by grounding his argument in \'taste\' Chayka\'s contribution feels more based in \'vibes and feelings\' than a critical analysis.\
