The evening ritual is now familiar to millions. A long day ends, the sofa beckons, and the viewer (0) SETTLES in to choose something to watch. Twenty minutes later, she is still scrolling, no closer to a decision, and beginning to suspect that the act of choosing has most of whatever pleasure the evening was meant to contain. This is not the fault of the viewer. Streaming services host catalogues so vast that human judgement cannot meaningfully them unaided. Recommendation algorithms, intended as a , often add a further layer of second-guessing: does this suggestion reflect my taste, or is it simply what the platform is to promote? The result is what psychologists call choice paralysis — a state in which abundance, far from liberating the decision-maker, quietly her. Older generations, who typically had two or three broadcast channels from which to , may recall a counter-intuitive benefit of that scarcity: the decision was made quickly, and the programme enjoyed on its own terms rather than measured against an infinite roster of alternatives. That is not an argument for returning to three channels. It is an argument for accepting that choice architecture matters, and that more is not always with better.