5 ms·

> It's like watching a goddamn movie with scenes shuffled randomly. It makes no sense. Have you seen Memento? Jokes aside I never understood why twitter does

by vk23 8y ago

> It's like watching a goddamn movie with scenes shuffled randomly. It makes no sense. Have you seen Memento? Jokes aside I never understood why twitter does not allow the user to choose the sort order of the feed. This is a reoccuring theme for social networks (facebook feed, youtube subscriptions etc) so I guess there is some kind of motivation behind it.

setr 8y ago
I imagine the motivation as 1. There's an inherent belief that they know what you want better than you do (this is inherit in any recommendation engine that gives limited ability to manipulate it) 2. Most users, given the option, won't bother changing it anyways 3. You'll use the service regardless of whether they offer it, because network effects
- vk23 8y ago
  1 and maximizing time spend in the app (see sibling comment) seem like a good explaination for this. I'm not sure about 2 but it might be true aswell. > 3. You'll use the service regardless of whether they offer it, because network effects Actually I stopped using Facebook for that reason. The feed just didnt provide any value to me anymore. Also I never really got into Twitter because of it. I don't see the value in following people if I cannot see their posts without hours of scrolling through retweets.
- lbotos 8y ago
  > There's an inherent belief that they know what you want better than you do I think it's actually that they believe they can create an algorithm that will keep you coming back. It clearly works. People want to be entertained, often by their friends, often by things that interest then. This algorithm based on _your input_. You can absolutely manipulate the feed. Search for 12 yoga based people, click on 12 yoga based hashtags, and then watch your feed become yoga-ified for the next few days as the algo adjusts to keep you coming back.
  - setr 8y ago
    >This algorithm based on _your input_. You can absolutely manipulate the feed. You can incidentally manipulate the feed. But its clearly not intentional behavior; the recommender system naturally operates on the belief that you're using the services without considering the recommender system. You can manipulate the system to something specific by breaking that assumption, but all you've done is essentially exploit a bug. Its clearly not a feature. And in a perfect world, the recommendation system would realize you're lying to it, and discard that behavior, and serve you what you really want. your input is expected to be natural consumption of the service, with limited, abstracted forms of feedback, but otherwise without knowledge of the recommender system judging your every move. You don't edit the results, you don't play with ordering, you ideally don't even search too much out of your defined subject range (lest it skew horribly and fuck up all your recommendations, like your yoga example). >I think it's actually that they believe they can create an algorithm that will keep you coming back. It clearly works. But this I agree with; it's a better understanding of what I was trying to get at.
Rjevski 8y ago
These services want to show you cancer - sorry I mean ads - as much as possible, and for that they want you to stay on the app as long as possible. With a sane chronological feed, once you scroll down to the last tweet you remember reading, you know you’re done and can leave the app and do productive things. With a bullshit “algorithmic” feed, you never know when you’ve caught up, and the “fear of missing out” will make you stay there scrolling way longer just in case there’s one tweet somewhere down there you haven’t seen yet - this gives them the opportunity to show you more cancer.
- joncrane 8y ago
  You nailed it. When a company lives or dies by advertising revenue, they are going to optimize for maximum advertising revenue. The pattern with TV is a good case study. I wonder if there will eventually be guidelines about how many ads you can show users and now much screen real estate is allowed to be covered by ads.
  - r3bl 8y ago
    > I wonder if there will eventually be guidelines about how many ads you can show users and now much screen real estate is allowed to be covered by ads. Isn't that kind of what "acceptable ads" programs in adblocks are? (Or, at least, should be?) There are a lot of Adblock Plus users there that basically decided (or got tricked into thinking) that ads that are appropriate are okay to view.
    - Rjevski 8y ago
      The issue with "acceptable" ads is that 1) there is no such thing as "acceptable" shit, and 2) the "acceptable" ads are just as bad (if not worse) than everyone else as far as privacy & stalking are concerned.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    Even if they limit to a reasonable 10% ads or whatever, they'll still manipulate ad sacrifice content quality to maximize total engagement time/content.
opencl 8y ago
Twitter does allow choosing this though. Untick "Show the best Tweets first" in settings and you will get reverse chronological order back.

by vk23 8y ago

setr 8y ago

I imagine the motivation as 1. There's an inherent belief that they know what you want better than you do (this is inherit in any recommendation engine that gives limited ability to manipulate it) 2. Most users, given the option, won't bother changing it anyways 3. You'll use the service regardless of whether they offer it, because network effects

vk23 8y ago
1 and maximizing time spend in the app (see sibling comment) seem like a good explaination for this. I'm not sure about 2 but it might be true aswell. > 3. You'll use the service regardless of whether they offer it, because network effects Actually I stopped using Facebook for that reason. The feed just didnt provide any value to me anymore. Also I never really got into Twitter because of it. I don't see the value in following people if I cannot see their posts without hours of scrolling through retweets.
lbotos 8y ago
> There's an inherent belief that they know what you want better than you do I think it's actually that they believe they can create an algorithm that will keep you coming back. It clearly works. People want to be entertained, often by their friends, often by things that interest then. This algorithm based on _your input_. You can absolutely manipulate the feed. Search for 12 yoga based people, click on 12 yoga based hashtags, and then watch your feed become yoga-ified for the next few days as the algo adjusts to keep you coming back.
- setr 8y ago
  >This algorithm based on _your input_. You can absolutely manipulate the feed. You can incidentally manipulate the feed. But its clearly not intentional behavior; the recommender system naturally operates on the belief that you're using the services without considering the recommender system. You can manipulate the system to something specific by breaking that assumption, but all you've done is essentially exploit a bug. Its clearly not a feature. And in a perfect world, the recommendation system would realize you're lying to it, and discard that behavior, and serve you what you really want. your input is expected to be natural consumption of the service, with limited, abstracted forms of feedback, but otherwise without knowledge of the recommender system judging your every move. You don't edit the results, you don't play with ordering, you ideally don't even search too much out of your defined subject range (lest it skew horribly and fuck up all your recommendations, like your yoga example). >I think it's actually that they believe they can create an algorithm that will keep you coming back. It clearly works. But this I agree with; it's a better understanding of what I was trying to get at.

Rjevski 8y ago

These services want to show you cancer - sorry I mean ads - as much as possible, and for that they want you to stay on the app as long as possible. With a sane chronological feed, once you scroll down to the last tweet you remember reading, you know you’re done and can leave the app and do productive things. With a bullshit “algorithmic” feed, you never know when you’ve caught up, and the “fear of missing out” will make you stay there scrolling way longer just in case there’s one tweet somewhere down there you haven’t seen yet - this gives them the opportunity to show you more cancer.

joncrane 8y ago
You nailed it. When a company lives or dies by advertising revenue, they are going to optimize for maximum advertising revenue. The pattern with TV is a good case study. I wonder if there will eventually be guidelines about how many ads you can show users and now much screen real estate is allowed to be covered by ads.
- r3bl 8y ago
  > I wonder if there will eventually be guidelines about how many ads you can show users and now much screen real estate is allowed to be covered by ads. Isn't that kind of what "acceptable ads" programs in adblocks are? (Or, at least, should be?) There are a lot of Adblock Plus users there that basically decided (or got tricked into thinking) that ads that are appropriate are okay to view.
  - Rjevski 8y ago
    The issue with "acceptable" ads is that 1) there is no such thing as "acceptable" shit, and 2) the "acceptable" ads are just as bad (if not worse) than everyone else as far as privacy & stalking are concerned.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Even if they limit to a reasonable 10% ads or whatever, they'll still manipulate ad sacrifice content quality to maximize total engagement time/content.

opencl 8y ago

Twitter does allow choosing this though. Untick "Show the best Tweets first" in settings and you will get reverse chronological order back.