In general, B. Lorraine is right. But the devil is in the details. And those details made me not renew my subscription.

At that time, I asked Tony Stubblebine on Twitter why I should renew it: “As in Adeles’s song, you gave me a hundred million reasons to walk away. Can you give me one good one to stay?” Tony responded: “If you want to support the authors, stay.”

I felt offended. I consider my writing to be of high professional standard, well above most of the texts Medium recommends to me in the Daily Digest. Instead of seeing a benefit from having one more good writer aboard, the Medium CEO appealed to my charity to support the beginners financially. He did not see a gain for Medium from other writers learning from more experienced writers like me. He did not see value in my writing attracting more sophisticated readers.

B. Lorraine did not address these issues. She suggests that readers’ responses might help to find suitable writing. It could work well for someone seeking a comfortable information bubble. It is against the desires of inquisitive persons who seek valuable information that might not be on the top in the mainstream media.

I avoid giving any feedback to the algorithm so it knows as little as possible about my preferences. This way, I can sense the beat in the community, not reinforce what I already know. I do not care about the subject or point of view; I expect the algorithm to offer well-written and well-researched material. So far, Medium has failed in that regard.