4 ms·

Yeah, I generally agree with you. Youtube and Twitter have the same issues, and I think Reddit too. (Does TikTok?) I don't know if the extent is as broad. Or ho

by bo1024 5y ago

Yeah, I generally agree with you. Youtube and Twitter have the same issues, and I think Reddit too. (Does TikTok?) I don't know if the extent is as broad. Or how possible it is to use each platform for its purpose without running into those problems. added: I remember when Facebook switched from showing a chronological timeline to "the algorithm". That turned out to be a monumental paradigm shift.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> (Does TikTok?) Not yet, but give them time :) More generally, social media may be an amplification of crazy people, but it doesn't create the crazy people (pick the side you don't agree with for a definition I guess). Like, all of this stuff is sortof vaguely like what happened when the printing press got invented, and when literacy became more widespread. It's people, rather than technology, driving these changes.
disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> added: I remember when Facebook switched from showing a chronological timeline to "the algorithm". That turned out to be a monumental paradigm shift. So, assume that 10% of your friends are responsible for 90% of the content. Is it really a better experience to see all of their content in your feed rather than some of their content plus some other people?
- dTal 5y ago
  Let's not have a false dichotomy between the "chronological firehose" algorithm and the "maximize engagement" algorithm. The problem you cite could be addressed in many ways. At the very least, you could be transparent about what the algorithm actually is, or even gasp give the user control over it.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    Like, neither of us know what FB's ranking model actually optimises for. I suspect that it's engagement rates, but that's just from a user perspective. > The problem you cite could be addressed in many ways. Can you suggest some?

4 ms·

Yeah, I generally agree with you. Youtube and Twitter have the same issues, and I think Reddit too. (Does TikTok?) I don't know if the extent is as broad. Or ho

by bo1024 5y ago

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> (Does TikTok?) Not yet, but give them time :) More generally, social media may be an amplification of crazy people, but it doesn't create the crazy people (pick the side you don't agree with for a definition I guess). Like, all of this stuff is sortof vaguely like what happened when the printing press got invented, and when literacy became more widespread. It's people, rather than technology, driving these changes.
disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> added: I remember when Facebook switched from showing a chronological timeline to "the algorithm". That turned out to be a monumental paradigm shift. So, assume that 10% of your friends are responsible for 90% of the content. Is it really a better experience to see all of their content in your feed rather than some of their content plus some other people?
- dTal 5y ago
  Let's not have a false dichotomy between the "chronological firehose" algorithm and the "maximize engagement" algorithm. The problem you cite could be addressed in many ways. At the very least, you could be transparent about what the algorithm actually is, or even gasp give the user control over it.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    Like, neither of us know what FB's ranking model actually optimises for. I suspect that it's engagement rates, but that's just from a user perspective. > The problem you cite could be addressed in many ways. Can you suggest some?