The content farmer is the dystopian new journalist, producing online content, typically for a large company, in an attempt to garner more advertising revenue because of the popularity of the topic. Here, the value impartation is done by others (droves, really) via algorithms. Value is thus proportional to popularity, and audience courting is synonymous with it. There is no better example of the darkest, most tautological aspects of accelerated curationism: rather than the simulated democracy (or, at least, simulated beneficence) of curated works being presented as attractive to a potential audience because they have been chosen exclusively and carefully for their value, the value in these content-farmed works lies not in preciousness but in popularity.
Balzer vs. Fiske: How do we achieve a balance of popularity and preciousness? More urgently: If what defines popularity are analytics developed by corporations to make money; how do we understand the contours of preciousness? Who is the arbitrator preciousness? How do they define the contours of preciousness? To what end does this preciousness serve the human actors?