Yes, their algorithms combined with making it social seems to have created mediocrity such that whatever is the most popular (not the most effective or visionary) wins at the detriment of creative authentic original writing/writers, I think.

Their audio feature is a testament that they are not looking at this as a venture of true innovation but to standardize and commercialize themselves in the very internet they vowed they wanted to fix from their origins, their inception mission statement.

There was so much potential there in Medium's mission but it definitely feels like they've lost their way or they never really had it (like maybe they were just faking it the whole time 'til they could nail down what it really was for them). It is a shame if they don't know what they don't know or they don't care and wouldn't know it even if they had it right under their noses. It's like they had the resources, the initial idea and the backing, but not a strong enough vision/visionary who could stay the course or know where they needed to go and rise above.

It's bewildering how they are just building up more droids, literally and figuratively, than enabling and fostering real thought, conversations, leadership, grassroots research, and all the like.

In my opinion, it's a kind of Darwinism and evolution away from our best potential selves--a passive acceptance by the influential and the masses of mediocrity for the sake of popularity or for an unimaginative farce, closing a blind eye, not wanting to be challenged, touting their own greatness while the public believes they are great in ignorant bliss.