3 ms·
I don't even think twitter issue is "the algorithm", but the UI itself. The issues is not even bubbles, there is nothing wrong with bubbles, we even celebrate
by Kuinox 5y ago
I don't even think twitter issue is "the algorithm", but the UI itself.
The issues is not even bubbles, there is nothing wrong with bubbles, we even celebrate healthy bubbles thats bring fun, odd topics, etc.
The issue is bubble shiftings to extremes with nothing to moderate it.
As the bubble become more and more extreme, and showing their behavior in public, the behavior become "normal" and allows it to become even more extreme.
Getting rid of the "trending" block, with something else, like "trending tag within people you follow" would get rid of this normalisation of extreme behavior.
Then you need moderation.
Seeking engagement is not necessarly evil.
GitHub increased engagement, and it lead to more cooperation in the open source software, that's a plus for everyone.
The issue of a lot of social networks, is they want engagement, even if it cause addiction.
I think twitter social network "model" is salvagable in something healty, but it needs a lot of changes.
- pc86 5y agoI use the Minimal Twitter extension to remove everything. I have a chronological twitter feet with no ads and no suggestions. I go in maybe 2-3 times a day for 5-10 minutes, scroll down and like/respond as desired, then leave once I recognize the tweets from last time (or I get bored). I'd be happy to pay $1 or $2/mo for this directly from Twitter, but until that's an option I don't feel remotely bad removing my sliver of ad revenue from their bottom line.
- Nextgrid 5y agoThe UI is like that because of the above commenter's point - the business model itself. It's not that Twitter isn't technically capable of tweaking the UI or giving you more settings to customize your experience, it's that giving you those settings would mean you use them against their own business model. > Seeking engagement is not necessarly evil. GitHub increased engagement [...] At this point it really depends on what you mean by "engagement". GitHub's definition of "engagement" is definitely not the same as Twitter's. Technically, Twitter's goal is not "engagement" but "time spent looking at ads". It just so happens that "engagement" is a very good proxy for that. In Twitter's case, increasing "engagement" is definitely evil. I also don't believe GitHub's goal is to increase engagement. Their goal is ultimately to deliver features useful to their paying customers - companies that build software, where as Twitter's (and any other ad-supported service's) goal is to serve more ad impressions (or at least make advertisers believe they do).
- Kuinox 5y agoTwitter, and GitHub goal is not "time spent looking at ads" or "deliver feature" but "make money". I bet/hope that if Musk succeed in taking over twitter, he will implement a patreon style subscription, there is a lot of money there thats twitter leave on the table.
- sangnoir 5y ago> he will implement a patreon style subscription, there is a lot of money there thats twitter leave on the table I don't think that's any better than the current scheme; infact, it could be worse becasue the current ad system has centralized control which can check on extremist echo-chambers. I suspect Patreon-style funding will increase polarization[1], with the "content-creators" optimizing for what brings in the most money, not necessarily their thoughtful ideas. 1. With a side of increased brigading, coordinated harassment,doxxing and swatting; but that'll be the price of "free" speech.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]