3 ms·
Why does this article fail to praise the platforms that do provide non algorithmic feeds (YouTube and Twitter). If the point is more platforms should provide th
by space_fountain 4y ago
Why does this article fail to praise the platforms that do provide non algorithmic feeds (YouTube and Twitter). If the point is more platforms should provide that experience isn’t that contradicted by the YouTube experience where the subscriptions are rarely used.
I think the most interesting point is that maybe if similar investments had gone into tools to curate your own feed it would be of similar quality, but it’s hard to compete with quality and interest signals like people who watch the stuff I watched like this, and as soon as you add that signs you’ve at best built a standard evil recommendation engine with extra levers for the user to control and we all know customization is a great way to ballon the maintenance cost of a feature
- leephillips 4y agoHis comments about Twitter suggest that he’s not too familiar with how to use it. It’s a simple matter to get the non-manipulated list of tweets, to get exactly what you ask for, which he claims is not on offer: https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/ https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/
- hairofadog 4y agoIsn’t YouTube notorious for having one of the most insidious algorithmic feeds, both in terms of driving people to extremist content and serving disturbing content to kids?
- space_fountain 4y agoYouTube has two feeds. A subscriptions feed which a pure chronological feed of people you follow and an algorithmic feed (home). The fact that people don’t use the subscriptions feed very much (and didn’t even when it was the default) is telling
- hairofadog 4y agoAgree, but there’s also the question of what happens if you just let it go to the next video, which I believe is independent of the two things you mention and I think is a bigger part of the problem.