TL;DR: Recommendations systems cannot be indifferent to truth.<p>This article highlights pretty much precisely the same problem that the &quot;social media promote (bogus) conspiracy theories&quot; item yesterday did.  Slightly recycled comment.<p>Some related concepts:<p>1. Donella Meadows, in Thinking in Systems, notes that an absolute requirement of an effective and healthy system is accurate feedback and information. Media which are indifferent to truth value, or which actively promote distortion (see Robert Proctor&#x27;s term, agnotology), will actively harm the system.<p>2. Celine&#x27;s 2nd law, and inversion. In Robert Anton Wilson&#x27;s Illuminatus! trilogy, a character notes that &quot;accurate information is possible only in a non-punishing situation&quot;. Its inverse is also true: acurate information is only possible when it is accuracy itself and ONLY accuracy which is rewarded. Academic publishing, in which paper output and journal selection is a gateway determinant of professional careers, would be an instance of this. Or the long skew of The Learning Channel from NASA-PBS educational co-production to Honey Boo-Boo broadcaster.<p>3. Paperclip Maximizer. &quot;Don&#x27;t be evil&quot; isn&#x27;t good enough. You&#x27;ve got to actively seek out good. Even a benign maximisation goal will, if not tempered by requirements to provide net benefit, lead to catastrophic results.<p>4. Mancur Olson&#x27;s &quot;The Logic of Collective Action&quot; explains how and why small (but motivated) fringe groups can achieve goals directly opposed to the interests of far larger groups. This explains a great deal of market and political dysfunction.<p>5. A generalisation of Gresham&#x27;s Law leads to the realisation that understanding of complex truths is itself expensive. It&#x27;s also (Dunning-Kruger) beyond the capability of much of the population. This also has some rather dismal implications, though as William Ophuls notes, political theory based on the assumption that all the children can be above average (&quot;the Lake Wobegon effect&quot;) are doomed. You dance with the dunce what brung ya.<p>Amazon here will probably have to create <i>and fund</i> their own review staff <i>if only to vet and validate user-supplied reviews</i>.  As one HN poster here notes, &quot;what is my incentive to provide reviews?&quot;  A <i>good</i> review takes time, experience, is likely to draw flack, and, frankly, often comes from someone with better things to do with their time.<p>Crowdsourcing is useful where data are thin <i>and the crowd is likely to be unbiased</i>.  Where <i>specific expertise</i> is required, Peter Noverg on programming texts, the Google employee who&#x27;s uncovered numerous fraudulent USB-C cables, <i>one</i> qualified reviewer trumps millions who know nothing.  (But you&#x27;ve got to ensure that the qualified reviewer stays both honest and engaged.)<p>More generally:  the Amazon experience seems to be worsening.  Trust is falling to eBay-like levels, if not worse.  Search and discovery are poor, and product quality is all over the map.  Books are one matter -- highly uniform product, simple function.  Expensive kit of various description another.  Among my recent purchases, an LED cabinet lighting system in which local, major chain, and Amazon sources (brick-and-morter and online) failed.  Ikea turned out to have a well-thought-out product line, helpful (though ultimately not quite what I was looking for) information online, and, most importantly, <i>an in-store display in which I could assess, mix, match, and ultimately assemble the system I&#x27;m using and enjoying now.</i>  Twice the price of what I&#x27;d initially specced out, <i>but that system didn&#x27;t work in the least</i>.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plus.google.com&#x2F;104092656004159577193&#x2F;posts&#x2F;chnJ1MzcdhX" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plus.google.com&#x2F;104092656004159577193&#x2F;posts&#x2F;chnJ1Mzc...</a>