3 ms·

"feed", as used colloquially definitely refers to what OP means. So, by giving a definition OP makes clear which meaning we're talking about. Let's talk about

by luplex 6y ago

"feed", as used colloquially definitely refers to what OP means. So, by giving a definition OP makes clear which meaning we're talking about. Let's talk about the concepts instead! The main problem is that users don't have control over their feeds anymore. Which business models could change that?

rektide 6y ago
The problem with feeds is that feeds are not feeds. If instead of feeds we had feeds, users could apply their own algorithmic agents to help them navigate the feeds they subscribe to. It's an aggregation/vertical control problem. Because big communicative-capitalism commands the means of content creation, content discovery, & content browsing, all mixed together under the vague meaningless "feed" idea, we cant begin to imagine alternatives. If we separate out the content feed from the consuming agent, decouple these systems, we can start to think of different, more pro-user, healthier ways we might approach the feeds we subscribe to. Having everything totalized under one monopoly prevents innovation & exploration of the problem space. It's important to have the ideas separated out: different channels of information are available to us (a "feed" in the classical/accurate sense). The different approaches to going through the subscribed channels ("feeds" in aggregated/consumed/this-article's sense) is where opportunity lies to find a healthy relationship between ignorance & harmful information-addiction. Currently we have no say in that relationship, other than withdrawl.
myWindoonn 6y ago
From this framing, though, there's only a few reasonably moral possibilities. Like, surely the system of "feeds" as described by the author is not good and should be destroyed, right? The only way for users to have control over "feeds" is for them to not get their content from businesses at all.

3 ms·

"feed", as used colloquially definitely refers to what OP means. So, by giving a definition OP makes clear which meaning we're talking about. Let's talk about

by luplex 6y ago

rektide 6y ago
The problem with feeds is that feeds are not feeds. If instead of feeds we had feeds, users could apply their own algorithmic agents to help them navigate the feeds they subscribe to. It's an aggregation/vertical control problem. Because big communicative-capitalism commands the means of content creation, content discovery, & content browsing, all mixed together under the vague meaningless "feed" idea, we cant begin to imagine alternatives. If we separate out the content feed from the consuming agent, decouple these systems, we can start to think of different, more pro-user, healthier ways we might approach the feeds we subscribe to. Having everything totalized under one monopoly prevents innovation & exploration of the problem space. It's important to have the ideas separated out: different channels of information are available to us (a "feed" in the classical/accurate sense). The different approaches to going through the subscribed channels ("feeds" in aggregated/consumed/this-article's sense) is where opportunity lies to find a healthy relationship between ignorance & harmful information-addiction. Currently we have no say in that relationship, other than withdrawl.
myWindoonn 6y ago
From this framing, though, there's only a few reasonably moral possibilities. Like, surely the system of "feeds" as described by the author is not good and should be destroyed, right? The only way for users to have control over "feeds" is for them to not get their content from businesses at all.