"Black Mirror" has been renewed for a seventh season

@FoxMulderalien: Дело вкуса 🤷‍♀️

@weltkindl: well, objectively, according to estimates, it is even clear that the series does not hold the bar and is sliding... especially season 6.

@mavlytovfagiz: How long ago did the assessments stop being subjective? And what specific ratings are you referring to?

@weltkindl: collective rating on a variety of sites cannot be subjective.
Take at least IMDB ratings, at least Myshows.

@mavlytovfagiz: Yeah. Only here my comment was not about the ratings of Myshows and IMDB, but about my personal opinion based on my own ratings. I thought it was clear from my responses to other comments.

@mavlytovfagiz: from the sum of something only subjective, something objective cannot appear

@Paketik_chaya: and what kind of knowledge do you consider objective?

@mavlytovfagiz: Not amenable to value judgment. And the fact that 150 people negatively evaluated the film, and 4,850 people positively - means that "most liked the film" and not the film turned out to be good." That is, the value judgment of even 5 thousand people remains a value judgment and is not entitled to be called the truth.

@Paketik_chaya: give an example of objective non-evaluative judgment in art.
It is very interesting to find out)

@mavlytovfagiz: That's what I said, that there is no objectivity.

@Paketik_chaya: the estimates themselves may be subjective, but their statistics are objective.
If 4850 people consider a film worthy of a score of 2, and 150 give a score of 5, then the film is statistically objectively considered bad.
If there was no serious outflow of audience on the platform and some series was rated 50,000 people in season 1, and 10,000 in season 6, then the series objectively slipped;

@mavlytovfagiz: what is originally composed of the subjective cannot be objective)
You can have any opinion you want, but I have my own. And what you call statistics is always the usual average. And it shows grades, not quality, which is measured in a completely different way.

@Sachet_chaya: The statistics of a subjective opinion can be objective.

@mavlytovfagiz: No, the quality will not come out of the audience's ratings. At least. The quality is evaluated without emotions and impressions. This has weight in the audience's ratings.

@Paketik_chaya: interest can be assessed, and already from interest it is possible to draw conclusions about whether the series has slipped or not.

@mavlytovfagiz: nevertheless, personal opinion cannot reflect quality. Everyone has their own bar for the label "the rolled-up series".

@Sachet_chaya: I'm not talking about quality, but interest. Everyone has their own bar, but statistically objectively it is possible to assess whether the series has slipped or not according to estimates and the number of ratings.

@mavlytovfagiz: and again, there can be no objective out of the subjective.

@Sachet_chaya: The statistics of a subjective opinion can be objective.

@mavlytovfagiz: No. The subjective average is not a lens.

@Paketik_chaya: the statistics themselves are objective.
If 1,000,000 people watch the series and 100,000 of them are rated at 5, and a year later 200,000 viewers are rated at 3, then statistics objectively indicate that the interest of viewers is falling.

@mavlytovfagiz: I repeat once again: the sum of subjective assessments will not be objectivity. There are subjective assessments and they always remain subjective, whatever you do with them. This is the like/dislike ratio. And there are objective criteria. This ratio is high-quality /low-quality. And people also evaluate it by these criteria, and this is already subjectivity.

In general, there is no impersonal thing from collecting personal opinions

@Sachet_chaya: The collection of statistics itself can be objective, even a subjective opinion, and objective conclusions can be drawn from these data.

@mavlytovfagiz: не может.

@Paketik_chaya: the ratings and the number of ratings and views have a statistical feature and the collection of such data may well be objective.

@mavlytovfagiz: Nope. The collection process may be objective, but it does not solve anything. The result remains subjective because it consists of the subjective. And that's kind of what you want to prevent.

@Sachet_chaya: here. Having collected objective statistical data of subjective assessments, it is possible to draw objective conclusions about the interest of viewers.

If 1,000,000 people watch the series and 100,000 of them are rated at 5, and a year later 200,000 viewers are rated at 3, then statistics objectively indicate that the interest of viewers is falling.

@mavlytovfagiz: but the data is subjective. This means that statistics are subjective = subject to personal opinions. And if it is, then no matter how objective the conclusions are, the data is subjective. Already here, it doesn't fit.

And it all started with quality, not the interest of the audience, you went somewhere to your steppe.

@Sachet_chaya: Statistical data are objective, as they are obtained by collecting statistical signs of subjective assessments and their number.

You were the only one who wrote about the quality, I didn't write about the quality of the series.
And what do you call a high-quality TV series?

We can conclude that the series has slipped or not and the bad or good series is based only on statistical data of audience interest.

If 1,000,000 people watch the series and 100,000 of them are rated at 5, and a year later 200,000 viewers are rated at 3, then statistics objectively indicate that the interest of viewers is falling and the series has slipped, has become worse.

@mavlytovfagiz: yes, when you have already calmed down both...

@olekolegovich: I support it, it seems that we have already gone in the second round) Everything is from the beginning))

@mavlytovfagiz: indeed, as they write above, we are going in the second round. I will not repeat why these data are subjective.

Why are you writing about something else if we're talking about quality? I do not know what I call a high-quality series, there are no general criteria accepted as a standard.

Good - this word refers to those very criteria. This does not follow from the statistics.

So these estimates do not coincide with the criteria)
Unbiased criteria are not estimates on the IMDB, different conclusions follow from them. Sometimes ratings are given without even looking at the product, because of certain facts. Evaluation statistics provide a cross-section of personal opinions. And this inevitably contradicts the conclusions that are drawn based on certain criteria.

In general, there are criteria - the quality is evaluated according to them. The rest is just statistics that do not show quality.

@Paketik_chaya: you were the only one who wrote about the quality of the series, I didn't write about the quality.
You are using the "straw scarecrow" technique of black rhetoric
Let's leave it at that. I wrote everything I wanted to write.

@mavlytovfagiz: I also wrote everything I wanted a long time ago, but you kept saying your own thing. I would like you to analyze the quality of the lowest rated series. Not based on estimates, but based on what is shown. According to the criteria, of course.

@myauser: I won't convince you, everyone has their own. Personally, the sixth season caused me a lot of emotions)

@Paketik_chaya: apparently, I tried the whole 6th season)

@andreyck: thank you, I will)

@andreyck: well, 3 can still be attributed with a stretch

@6o4ka: really, I forgot about this series

@andreyck: бывает))

@andreyck: there are all series one way or another on the subject of the series. You may not like them, but it is wrong to say that they are not in the subject.

@olekolegovich: seriously? Maybe you can tell us exactly what the evil of technology is in the second, fourth and fifth series. And something I didn't understand where and what technological progress is there

@andreyck: the second episode of the last season personally reminded me of the very first episode about the Prime minister and the pig. The episode, which for me is actually the personification of the CHZ, despite the landiness. It is not necessary to tell the episode about megatechnologies of the near future. The maniacs had a fetish in the form of videography, because at that time there were no thrash streams as an alternative. In addition, the second episode continues in some ways the theme of the streaming services of the previous episode. I will not defend the rest of the episodes, I remember them poorly and did not particularly like them.

@andreyck: the second is truecreams (streaming services, netflix); the fourth is paparazzi, the Internet; the fifth is television. In general, the fifth can be interpreted as the influence of television on people prone to schizophrenia or other psychos. diseases, but I'm too lazy to describe in detail now.

Well, stop spreading the fake, as if the Black Mirror is necessarily about science fiction and the future, this has not been the case since the first episode of the first season)

The last season, for the most part, did not come to me. But not because of the allegedly incorrect theme of the series, but simply because of the performance.

@olekolegovich: that's where exactly I said that Black Mirror is about fiction and the future? A series about the impact of technology on our lives. How does the parody or mimicry of trukraim in the second series relate to the topic of the impact of technology on human society? Okay, the person above said that this is a kind of trash streams in the offline era, I don't really agree with this, but it can somehow be adjusted to the subject.
Werewolf, well, paparazzi and what? It might as well have been a private detective. That is, all the influence of technology is what people have learned to take pictures of? What thought did the series broadcast?
About the end of the world, I even wonder what chain of thoughts can turn a deal with demons into the influence of television on schizophrenics

@andreyck: the first and second series are about streaming services, this is a relatively recent technology.

Cameras, the Internet, social networks and other things that accompany celebrities are also technologies. "Just shoot me"
A private detective does not work here in any way.

I have an alternative interpretation of the last series. But it is most likely incorrect because of one detail. It's been a few months since I watched it, now I'll try to remember.
We were shown that the mother of the main character suffered from schizophrenia. This is a hereditary disease, the heroine has a predisposition. She also faces constant discrimination because of her nationality, sees the growing popularity of a nationalist politician. All this creates an alarming atmosphere that stimulates the development of schizophrenia. On TV on some channels they constantly talk about nuclear war, which finally finishes the heroine. She switches to a colorful music channel and goes into escapism.
It is also noticeable here that hallucinations develop gradually, first auditory, then visual - also as usually happens with problems with the head.

@olekolegovich: the idea is clear, but it smacks of LNG

@andreyck: yes, it is. As I said, this is hardly an author's version. It breaks about one detail: the demon told the heroine the name of the daughter of the first man killed (whom she hit with a stone under the bridge). But she only heard the name from real people after.
So either she could know her (for example, they have already visited this shoe store), or the demon is real.

I know, and this is the only series about technology in this season 🫠