4 ms·
what does have a "big claim" that they have "no algorithm" is mastodon, which says so on its joinmastodon.org page and in its instance blurb. which just so obvi
by pxoe 2y ago
what does have a "big claim" that they have "no algorithm" is mastodon, which says so on its joinmastodon.org page and in its instance blurb. which just so obviously could not even possibly be true.
- cuu508 2y agoThe news feed in Mastodon is chronologic, it includes all posts from the accounts you follow (and have not muted).
- Kye 2y agoChronological sorting is an algorithm. You don't hear its dissenters as much, but it's not without issue. It's not always the best way to present things.
- j_maffe 2y agoRepeating my comment here because some people are deliberately stick manning this argument: > In the context of social media, people mean highly optimized algorithms for maximum retention.
- alpaca128 2y agoThere's nothing stopping a platform from being correct both ways by saying "we use no manipulative algorithm" or something along those lines. It may be pedantic to point out that "no algorithm" is wrong, but it is in fact wrong and it's not hard to communicate both clearly and correctly.
- j_maffe 2y agoI agree that not using manipulative algorithms is the best, more nuanced, goal. However, most people would not trust such a statement from a platform with clear conflict of interest in manipulative algorithms. Chronological ordering is simple (and testable) enough that anyone can trust it is not tampered with in any way.
- BlueTemplar 2y agoIt does help a lot that Mastodon is not a platform.
- Kye 2y agoI don't know what "stick manning" is and I don't appreciate the claim I'm doing it deliberately when I don't even know what it is. Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is some insincere agitator who's hip to whatever weird debate shibboleths you've glommed on to. I was simply informing you that: * Chronological is an algorithm * It, like all ways of sorting feeds, has its own controversies
- relaxing 2y agoMaking obtuse, pedantic statements makes you seem like an insincere agitator.
- Kye 2y agoSo let's review. pxoe: points out Mastodon has an algorithm cuu507: says the news feed is chronological me: reasonably inferring this means cuu507 isn't aware this is also an algorithim, I point out that it is, and that chronological feeds are also not without detractors with good arguments. j_maffe: jumps up my ass from out of nowhere for some reason. I replied assuming they were the person I replied to (cuu507) since I don't really notice user names but no, they're just some random person on a mission to spread a quote. I'm clear on things and am sure that I'm being sincere, not being pedantic, not agitating (on purpose), not being obtuse. I don't know what j_maffe's deal is since I said nothing to them before all this.
- relaxing 2y agoEveryone here knows sort of any kind is an algorithm. And everyone knows when we speak of social media algorithms, we refer to the selective boosting or removal of content. It is not helpful or necessary to point any of this out.
- Kye 2y agoIf the person I actually replied to found it unhelpful they can of course say something and we can have a nice, civil conversation about it where we both learn something. There really isn't a polite way to say this, but it needs to be said: no one asked you. Or j_maffe. Neither of you accomplished anything by butting into a sub-sub-thread that didn't involve you and didn't need your antagonism and ill-tempered presumptions about my intent.
- pxoe 2y agoit's not even the follows feed, but suggestions and explore with its sections. like, explore feed of posts is just straight up an algorithmic assembly of posts. (looking at mastodon.social, "the original server") the explore feed has a blurb about "how it ranks posts" which is literally next to their "no algorithms in sight" tagline. do they think their users are stupid? or are they just fine with making such obvious lies?