I read an article about Spotify and peoplethe music tastes of their music ter baste in general.

The author points out that the for example the algorithms are quite unable to show us new music, that could broaden our tasthorizons, for example.

But instead of saying that the algorithms are wrong, he leaddirects the reader's attention to the thesis,ory that we are overwhelmed with so much music that we do not care about the musicsongs themselves, as "we" did years ago.

He is leadingguides the reader in's attention to this thesisory through several steps.

At first, he started with the hype ofsurrounding Kate Bush's song "Running up that hill", which was only possible and only through the Netflix series "Stranger Things".

"hype surrounding something"

Alsot the time, Kate Bush was totally overwhelmed with her new lead atsingle, which was ranked highly in world music charts and streaming statistics.

For the author, this unbelievable success of Kate Bush is more. (?)

More what?

So tThe next question to give arguments about ishe answers is the question "wWhat is the prescurrent way of consuming music?"

At this point the author mentions, that we are greatly over-saturatso overwhelmed, because there isy so much music, so that we aren't able to listen to all of it.

We have, e.g. atFor example, with Spotify People we can follow, AI-generated music-lists, Genre-Lists, and Mood-based-lists, wellhich use a diverse set of methods to givintroduce us to new music, and discover the mountain of possibilities.abundance of songs that exist within the application.

At this point of his argumentation, he com, he arrives ato the following question, w: "Why do we have such great success of some artists, though we have so much more artists and music we could listen to and be more divers in our tastes?" ( I don't understand.)

I don't understand.

He concluded this argument with the thesisory:

A thesis is something that you write in university.

We are narrowed down in our taste through the unbelievable number of possibilities of songs at streaming services for music, like Spotify.

I don't understand.

For me and for my profession comes the question: When the author's assumption is true; that we are narrowed down through the sheer amount of music can we say it about other stuff that is now, in the modern age of the internet, present in such sheer amount?

I don't understand.

What does it mean for "information" in general, e.g. on the internet, and that we are not able to see all perspectives to a topic or all sources of a specific issue?

I don't understand.

Do "humans" switching off theires being overwhelmed cause humans to become less individualismtic and brain caused by being overwhelmedswitch off their brain?

I read an article about Spotify, and people their's music tastes in general.

The author points out, that the for example the algorithms are quite unn't capable tof showing us new music, to broaden our taste.

But instead of saying the algorithms are wrong, he leads the reader to the thesis,his point that we are overwhelmed with so much music, that we do not care about the music, as " like we" did in previous years ago.

At first, he started with the hype of Kate Bush's song "Running uUp tThat hHill", which was only possible and only throughpopularised by the Netflix serieshow "Stranger Things".

Also, Kate Bush was totally overwhelmed with her new lead atposition on world music charts and in streaming statistics.

For the author, this unbelievable success of Kate Bush irepresents more.

For him, this is a symbol of how "we" consume music.

SoFor the next question to give arguments about i, he answers "what is the present way of consuming music?"

At this point the author mentions, that we are greatly over-saturated, because there is so much music, so we aren't able to listen to all of it.

We have, e.g. atFor example, on Spotify People we can follow, AI-generated music- playlists, Genre-L playlists, Mood-based- playlists, welland there are a diverse set of methods to give us new music, and to discover the mountain of possibilities.

At this point of his argumentation, he comes to the question, why do wesome artists have such great success of some artists,, even though we have so muchany more artists and music we could listen to and be more diverse in our tastes?

Wwe are narrowed down in our taste through the unbelievable number of possibilities of songs aton music streaming services for music, like Spotify.

For me and for my profession comes the question: When the author's assumption is true; that weif his argument that our tastes are narrowed down throughue to the sheer amount of music available, can we say it about other stuff that is nowthings? For example, in the modern age of the internet, present in such sheereverything is available in high amount?s.

What does it mean for "information" in general, e.g. on the internet, and that ware are unot able to seelearn all perspectives ton a topic, or all sources ofn a specific issue?

Do "humans" switching off their individualism and brain , becaused by being they are overwhelmed by choice?