3 ms·

Facebook was actually pretty good when it just showed me my friends posts and nothing else. But when they moved to their 'timeline' and started fiddling with al

Facebook was actually pretty good when it just showed me my friends posts and nothing else. But when they moved to their 'timeline' and started fiddling with algorithms that try to decide what I want to see, they got it all wrong and it became a chore to wade through it all. I don't understand how they think an algorithm can decide better what I want to see than me myself (by adding friend and blocking the ones that irritate me). In the end they lost me as a customer(or... Product :) ) altogether and I assume that's not their end-goal.

barrenko 5y ago
Same with Twitter.
- shafyy 5y ago
  On Twitter you can just switch off the algorithm and see all posts from the accounts you follow in chronological order.
- realusername 5y ago
  Twitter is just an hopeless platform really, the combination of commenting out of context (everything is out of context), low character count, lack of scoping & zero moderation (beside the most illegal stuff) is just a recipe for disaster, you even have external websites to enable you to read threads... Unlike Facebook, I'm not even sure Twitter is fixable.
broeng 5y ago
"You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave!" - Eagles ;-)
IshKebab 5y ago
Yeah Facebook was great back in 2006 when you only really had your friends on there. I think the real downfall was not that they added the timeline, it's that it's impolite to not accept friend requests from e.g. coworkers or relatives that you know but don't really care about. And then you end up with a news feed full of people you don't care about. I think by the time they added "unfollow" options everybody had moved to WhatsApp where conversations are between 15 people you know quite well rather than 300 people you met once. I have no idea how they can fix that, or even how they could have prevented it. Google clearly foresaw that problem with their "circles" feature.
- vrc 5y ago
  Google+ was started in 2010, so Google didn’t “fore”see the problem as much as “see”. I think I banged into the 1500 (1600?) FB friend cap in 2008 or 2009 from the rampant friending, and already started reducing the number and openness of my posts once older and younger relatives started joining in 2006/7ish. The timeline redesign did pour gas on the fire, but the issue of unbridled friending was noticeable far sooner to users and observers.
- sbarre 5y ago
  > it's impolite to not accept friend requests from e.g. coworkers or relatives that you know but don't really care about. This always confuses me. I feel like it's more impolite or disrespectful to be two-faced about this. What's wrong with telling someone, politely, that you try to curate your social media and restrict it to personal friends and family? If they get offended, is that not their fault? Should they not respect your boundaries?
roody15 5y ago
The end goal is money. To make money they sell influence. They control the narrative with these algorithms. My two cents
johnchristopher 5y ago
Micro blogging was super cool. A random feed of micro blogging posts/status that is not random but heavily leans toward resharing led to outrage porn addiction.
- totetsu 5y ago
  For skim readers having troubles parsing the comment. It not about actual porn. Just things that are grotuitously outrageous.
mLuby 5y ago
> they think an algorithm can decide better what I want to see than me myself I agree with your points, except I believe there is a limited role for algorithms that help users discover new things they might like but not know about. I prefer Spotify's approach, where there's a specific area of the app (a "Discover Weekly" playlist) that gets refreshed but not so often that it becomes a dopamine lever. Although that kind of recommendation algorithm can't seem to handle multifaceted "loves rap but also renaissance music" users' tastes very well yet—in that regard Pandora's separate stations were better.
- nobleach 5y ago
  I've never seen an algorithm better than Pandora's recommendations (back around 2011 when I used to listen daily). I found so much music that I still love to this day because of how "smart" that thing was/is.
  - code_duck 5y ago
    YouTube’s used to be really excellent. I discovered so much good music when it seemed to work by automatically cueing songs or videos that other people who enjoyed the current video had enjoyed as well. They seemed to make a change a couple years ago to cue items I had previously watched instead. So now, instead of fresh and interesting items relevant to my tastes, it just plays things I’m already familiar with.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    Agreed. That's probably because of just how much manual work went into it: "Each song [representative of other songs in its group] is analyzed by a musician in a process that takes 20 to 30 minutes per song. Ten percent of songs are analyzed by more than one musician to ensure conformity with the in-house standards and statistical reliability." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Genome_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Genome_Project
  - b3morales 5y ago
    Pandora, if I'm remembering correctly, also has a feature that Spotify lacks, which is to say "I don't like this" for a piece that it chooses. Although I couldn't say how much that influenced its later choices, it feels better as a user to be able to convey it.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> I don't understand how they think an algorithm can decide better what I want to see than me myself Presumably, they don’t think they can decide what you want better than you can. But they think they can decide what will make you engage more, and they’re probably right. The damage is not accidental.

barrenko 5y ago

Same with Twitter.

shafyy 5y ago
On Twitter you can just switch off the algorithm and see all posts from the accounts you follow in chronological order.
realusername 5y ago
Twitter is just an hopeless platform really, the combination of commenting out of context (everything is out of context), low character count, lack of scoping & zero moderation (beside the most illegal stuff) is just a recipe for disaster, you even have external websites to enable you to read threads... Unlike Facebook, I'm not even sure Twitter is fixable.

broeng 5y ago

"You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave!" - Eagles ;-)

IshKebab 5y ago

Yeah Facebook was great back in 2006 when you only really had your friends on there. I think the real downfall was not that they added the timeline, it's that it's impolite to not accept friend requests from e.g. coworkers or relatives that you know but don't really care about. And then you end up with a news feed full of people you don't care about. I think by the time they added "unfollow" options everybody had moved to WhatsApp where conversations are between 15 people you know quite well rather than 300 people you met once. I have no idea how they can fix that, or even how they could have prevented it. Google clearly foresaw that problem with their "circles" feature.

vrc 5y ago
Google+ was started in 2010, so Google didn’t “fore”see the problem as much as “see”. I think I banged into the 1500 (1600?) FB friend cap in 2008 or 2009 from the rampant friending, and already started reducing the number and openness of my posts once older and younger relatives started joining in 2006/7ish. The timeline redesign did pour gas on the fire, but the issue of unbridled friending was noticeable far sooner to users and observers.
sbarre 5y ago
> it's impolite to not accept friend requests from e.g. coworkers or relatives that you know but don't really care about. This always confuses me. I feel like it's more impolite or disrespectful to be two-faced about this. What's wrong with telling someone, politely, that you try to curate your social media and restrict it to personal friends and family? If they get offended, is that not their fault? Should they not respect your boundaries?

roody15 5y ago

The end goal is money. To make money they sell influence. They control the narrative with these algorithms. My two cents

johnchristopher 5y ago

Micro blogging was super cool. A random feed of micro blogging posts/status that is not random but heavily leans toward resharing led to outrage porn addiction.

totetsu 5y ago
For skim readers having troubles parsing the comment. It not about actual porn. Just things that are grotuitously outrageous.

mLuby 5y ago

> they think an algorithm can decide better what I want to see than me myself I agree with your points, except I believe there is a limited role for algorithms that help users discover new things they might like but not know about. I prefer Spotify's approach, where there's a specific area of the app (a "Discover Weekly" playlist) that gets refreshed but not so often that it becomes a dopamine lever. Although that kind of recommendation algorithm can't seem to handle multifaceted "loves rap but also renaissance music" users' tastes very well yet—in that regard Pandora's separate stations were better.

nobleach 5y ago
I've never seen an algorithm better than Pandora's recommendations (back around 2011 when I used to listen daily). I found so much music that I still love to this day because of how "smart" that thing was/is.
- code_duck 5y ago
  YouTube’s used to be really excellent. I discovered so much good music when it seemed to work by automatically cueing songs or videos that other people who enjoyed the current video had enjoyed as well. They seemed to make a change a couple years ago to cue items I had previously watched instead. So now, instead of fresh and interesting items relevant to my tastes, it just plays things I’m already familiar with.
- mLuby 5y ago
  Agreed. That's probably because of just how much manual work went into it: "Each song [representative of other songs in its group] is analyzed by a musician in a process that takes 20 to 30 minutes per song. Ten percent of songs are analyzed by more than one musician to ensure conformity with the in-house standards and statistical reliability." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Genome_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Genome_Project
- b3morales 5y ago
  Pandora, if I'm remembering correctly, also has a feature that Spotify lacks, which is to say "I don't like this" for a piece that it chooses. Although I couldn't say how much that influenced its later choices, it feels better as a user to be able to convey it.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

> I don't understand how they think an algorithm can decide better what I want to see than me myself Presumably, they don’t think they can decide what you want better than you can. But they think they can decide what will make you engage more, and they’re probably right. The damage is not accidental.