4 ms·

A very good thought, but I don't think all feeds are equal. A strictly chronological feed under user control is a wonderful thing. I have that, for example, in

A very good thought, but I don't think all feeds are equal. A strictly chronological feed under user control is a wonderful thing. I have that, for example, in my RSS reader. What sucks is the popularity-contest nature of most feeds. At the top of my Facebook or Twitter or Google News feed is a bunch of stuff that I think is crap, any semi-sensible algorithm could tell that it's crap, it shouldn't be shown to me anywhere. Meanwhile, content from my actual friends or people who I have demonstrated interest in is pushed way down or all the way out. All because of popularity and some very misguided notions of engagement. Bad feeds ruined the internet. I actually do think likes, stars, upvotes, whatever you want to call them are valuable forms of feedback. I like specific reactions - love, laughter, anger - even better. But I do wonder what it would be like if those only went to the poster. If they weren't shown to anyone else, and didn't affect what was shown to anyone else. I suspect that it would make "the feed" a usable model again, instead of the abomination it has become.

chrisco255 7y ago
On your last point, that's more or less how HN works for comments. You can't tell if a comment has been upvoted 20 times or -5 times (until it reaches the negative threshold for fading out). But I agree, that would help.
RickS 7y ago
Agreed. It's not the feed that broke the internet – it's the forced filter. The notion that forced filtration, reprioritization, and chronological rearrangement of content is implicit the idea of information feeds (search, social media, etc) shows how deep the brokenness is baked in. Sometimes the filter is a feature, but sometimes it's not. In the name of convenience, it feels like we've given up our right to choose to see everything and decide for ourselves how to filter.
ssss11 7y ago
Its the capitalism of it.
bcrosby95 7y ago
Or even youtube. The site gives you zero ability to manage your subscriptions in a reasonable fashion so you're best off just watching whatever it thinks you should watch. I've resorted to bookmarks over subscriptions because it's a better user interface than what the site gives me.
sneak 7y ago
You can't prioritize some content without deprioritizing other content, which effectively amounts to censorship. Algorithmic "timelines" (which aren't timelines at all) are one of the biggest mass scams ever perpetrated. It allows giant companies to sit and mediate personal friendships, and extract rent for anyone who wants more reach (even within their existing, opt-in audience). I think daily about ways to get people to stop donating content to these censorship and surveillance platforms. Most people don't run businesses, so they never realize the rent-seeking nature of these jerks.
- onion2k 7y ago
  You can't prioritize some content without deprioritizing other content, which effectively amounts to censorship. This would imply HN "censors" the front page. Of course that's nonsense. Sometimes sorting by an algorithm is just sorting. In the case of HN it's up votes, and in the case of Google it's a basket of hundreds of criteria (including up votes if you think of clicks on results as voting). Google probably does have some "censorship" rules like filtering out illegal content, but I'd be surprised if they're not impartial about everything else.
  - leeoniya 7y ago
    HN's front page is heavily moderated/curated; it is far from being purely vote-based.
  - sneak 7y ago
    > This would imply HN "censors" the front page. That’s precisely what they do. Everyone’s allowed to censor what they wish on their own webpage. I, for example, censor from my own webpage (which otherwise contains a lot of information about me) anything someone could use to physically harm me. The issue comes up when the censorship is used, for example, in DMs or timeline posts between friends (as it is on Facebook and Instagram and Discord), versus one’s own content on a webpage. There’s a difference between moderation and rent-seeking.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > I'd be surprised if they're not impartial about everything else. Assuming impartiality seems awfully optimistic, given both human nature and the fact that Google admits that it is committed to maximizing profit.

chrisco255 7y ago

On your last point, that's more or less how HN works for comments. You can't tell if a comment has been upvoted 20 times or -5 times (until it reaches the negative threshold for fading out). But I agree, that would help.

RickS 7y ago

Agreed. It's not the feed that broke the internet – it's the forced filter. The notion that forced filtration, reprioritization, and chronological rearrangement of content is implicit the idea of information feeds (search, social media, etc) shows how deep the brokenness is baked in. Sometimes the filter is a feature, but sometimes it's not. In the name of convenience, it feels like we've given up our right to choose to see everything and decide for ourselves how to filter.

ssss11 7y ago

Its the capitalism of it.

bcrosby95 7y ago

Or even youtube. The site gives you zero ability to manage your subscriptions in a reasonable fashion so you're best off just watching whatever it thinks you should watch. I've resorted to bookmarks over subscriptions because it's a better user interface than what the site gives me.

sneak 7y ago

You can't prioritize some content without deprioritizing other content, which effectively amounts to censorship. Algorithmic "timelines" (which aren't timelines at all) are one of the biggest mass scams ever perpetrated. It allows giant companies to sit and mediate personal friendships, and extract rent for anyone who wants more reach (even within their existing, opt-in audience). I think daily about ways to get people to stop donating content to these censorship and surveillance platforms. Most people don't run businesses, so they never realize the rent-seeking nature of these jerks.

onion2k 7y ago
You can't prioritize some content without deprioritizing other content, which effectively amounts to censorship. This would imply HN "censors" the front page. Of course that's nonsense. Sometimes sorting by an algorithm is just sorting. In the case of HN it's up votes, and in the case of Google it's a basket of hundreds of criteria (including up votes if you think of clicks on results as voting). Google probably does have some "censorship" rules like filtering out illegal content, but I'd be surprised if they're not impartial about everything else.
- leeoniya 7y ago
  HN's front page is heavily moderated/curated; it is far from being purely vote-based.
- sneak 7y ago
  > This would imply HN "censors" the front page. That’s precisely what they do. Everyone’s allowed to censor what they wish on their own webpage. I, for example, censor from my own webpage (which otherwise contains a lot of information about me) anything someone could use to physically harm me. The issue comes up when the censorship is used, for example, in DMs or timeline posts between friends (as it is on Facebook and Instagram and Discord), versus one’s own content on a webpage. There’s a difference between moderation and rent-seeking.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > I'd be surprised if they're not impartial about everything else. Assuming impartiality seems awfully optimistic, given both human nature and the fact that Google admits that it is committed to maximizing profit.