> Algorithmic feeds serve to improve the results such that I am more likely to watch a video that is put in one of those 8 spots compared to if I was just shown

> Algorithmic feeds serve to improve the results such that I am more likely to watch a video that is put in one of those 8 spots compared to if I was just shown trending videos or videos from my subscription box. Right, that's the promise from algorithmic feeds. Sometimes, for some time, it's even the reality! I think there's some middle ground and nuance to be had here, though. I agree that just because there's "an algorithm" doesn't mean it's bad or a worse user experience. Finding interesting videos is a great example. However, I think it's fair to also say that video recommendation algorithms have gotten out of hand. We have a lot of content creators who are influenced in how to make their videos by what is popular. After all, if I make a video that is obviously more successful than another one, that means my audience likes it more, right? What did that video do differently that made it so much more successful? After a long enough time, you end up inadvertently (or intentionally) catering to the whims of the algorithm and not just your audience. So the issue I have with algorithmic feeds isn't that they are outright a bad idea for users. The problem is that it is not just a feature for users. It starts to shape the content on the platform. This can be used to subtly influence content creators to make better content, but without any idea of what goes into these algorithms, we are left to make wild religious guesses. And we have to assume that these algorithms serve the (financial) needs of the companies behind them and their sponsors, first and foremost. If not now, then gradually, by the same feedback loop as happens to the content creators.