4 ms·

And to be extra clear, "only show posts from people I follow, in chronological order" is an algorithm.

j_maffe 2y ago
I'm sorry but your comment comes across as very pedantic. In the context of social media, people mean highly optimized algorithms for maximum retention.
- flancian 2y ago
  I respectfully disagree, I think it makes sense to stress the distinction. Along the lines of: let's reclaim 'algorithm' from the entities that made the word into a bad thing for so many.
  - famahar 2y ago
    It would be nice to make the term more neutral again. Many people feel like they have no control over the rules of an algorithm they interact with. I like how Bluesky gives complete control back to the user. First step in changing how people feel about the term is showing how it can provide a more pleasant experience and be less of a scary black box.
  - j_maffe 2y ago
    It is indeed a bad thing when the algorithm's objective is to manipulate the end user. It's dangerous and can (and has) lead to abuse. Also, there's no need to "reclaim" anything. I don't think anyone mistakes criticisms of algorithms in social media to the ones doing sorting in Excel.
gary_0 2y ago
We're also using an algorithm right now on HN, to sort comments and posts by freshness, votes, and reply count (plus manual moderation fairy dust sprinkled by dang and friends). Some people have even criticized it or dislike it, because everyone has different criteria for things they want to see. It's easy to forget there's a gray area between "unsorted feed of all posts" and "nothing but insane rage-bait to maximize ad views".
- eru 2y ago
  Funny enough, depending on your exact definition of 'algorithm' either essentially everything you can do on a computer is an algorithm or there some weird and annoying exceptions. For example many definitions include the requirement that an algorithm has to terminate for every input. And I suspect that there are probably some bugs lurking somewhere in the HN codebase that make it go into the occasional infinite loop. So technically it's not an algorithm by definition. (And even weirder, because I just suspect it might have those bugs, but I don't know for sure, I have to admit that I don't know whether HN is powered by an algorithm.) I agree with you that for practical definitions we can go by a definition that's essentially: 'by algorithm we just mean "computer program", but we want to focus on the abstract things it's doing, and not details of the concrete implementation.'
  - j_maffe 2y ago
    In the context of social media, algorithms specifically mean recommendation algorithms that try to curtail the feed for end users. It is much more specific than the abstract definition of algorithms.
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    Using neural networks IMHO falls outside of the definition of an algorithm, because then it becomes something that not even its authors are able to inspect (understand/explain). (Which in some contexts is a legal requirement.)
    - eru 2y ago
      Which definition of algorithm are you using here? The formal definition of algorithm doesn't really require that a human can inspect them, nor understand nor explain, or does it? > (Which in some contexts is a legal requirement.) That's another can of worms. Which contexts are you talking about?
- j_maffe 2y ago
  Yeah this is a more nuanced view that I find quiet true. Any algorithm has emergent properties that can make the resulting feed be healthy to consume or not. The issue is that these objectives simply don't align with the objectives of these companies. HN deliberately tries to avoid this kind of feed which is why it mostly works.
squarefoot 2y ago
That's so true. Could we then use a new word, say malgorithm to denote algorithms that don't work in the interests of users? Just as with we did with malware? btw: The Malgorithm does actually exist, and ironically is the name of a electronic music device that applies bit-crushing (undersampling and/or bit resolution reduction) effect to audio signals, that is, it mostly makes the signal sound worse although it can be used creatively, which however occurs very rarely in pop music.
- lifthrasiir 2y ago
  I think the "user-uncontrolled" or possibly "user-oblivious" algorithm (if you believe that the mere controllability is not enough) is a clear enough term.
kalleboo 2y ago
In common usage, there is a distinction between "an algorithm" and "the algorithm". The latter is often shortened to "the algo".
- lobsterthief 2y ago
  I’ve never heard this before in my 20+ years of software engineering. Perhaps this is within the context of a conversation.
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    Yes this is in the context of normal human beings talking about their lives on social networks, not engineers. Like when people get a random post or video served to them they found interesting they'll say "the algo decided I should see this today" Content creators will discuss what they need to create for "the algo" to like and promote them.

I'm sorry but your comment comes across as very pedantic. In the context of social media, people mean highly optimized algorithms for maximum retention.

flancian 2y ago
I respectfully disagree, I think it makes sense to stress the distinction. Along the lines of: let's reclaim 'algorithm' from the entities that made the word into a bad thing for so many.
- famahar 2y ago
  It would be nice to make the term more neutral again. Many people feel like they have no control over the rules of an algorithm they interact with. I like how Bluesky gives complete control back to the user. First step in changing how people feel about the term is showing how it can provide a more pleasant experience and be less of a scary black box.
- j_maffe 2y ago
  It is indeed a bad thing when the algorithm's objective is to manipulate the end user. It's dangerous and can (and has) lead to abuse. Also, there's no need to "reclaim" anything. I don't think anyone mistakes criticisms of algorithms in social media to the ones doing sorting in Excel.

gary_0 2y ago

We're also using an algorithm right now on HN, to sort comments and posts by freshness, votes, and reply count (plus manual moderation fairy dust sprinkled by dang and friends). Some people have even criticized it or dislike it, because everyone has different criteria for things they want to see. It's easy to forget there's a gray area between "unsorted feed of all posts" and "nothing but insane rage-bait to maximize ad views".

eru 2y ago
Funny enough, depending on your exact definition of 'algorithm' either essentially everything you can do on a computer is an algorithm or there some weird and annoying exceptions. For example many definitions include the requirement that an algorithm has to terminate for every input. And I suspect that there are probably some bugs lurking somewhere in the HN codebase that make it go into the occasional infinite loop. So technically it's not an algorithm by definition. (And even weirder, because I just suspect it might have those bugs, but I don't know for sure, I have to admit that I don't know whether HN is powered by an algorithm.) I agree with you that for practical definitions we can go by a definition that's essentially: 'by algorithm we just mean "computer program", but we want to focus on the abstract things it's doing, and not details of the concrete implementation.'
- j_maffe 2y ago
  In the context of social media, algorithms specifically mean recommendation algorithms that try to curtail the feed for end users. It is much more specific than the abstract definition of algorithms.
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  Using neural networks IMHO falls outside of the definition of an algorithm, because then it becomes something that not even its authors are able to inspect (understand/explain). (Which in some contexts is a legal requirement.)
  - eru 2y ago
    Which definition of algorithm are you using here? The formal definition of algorithm doesn't really require that a human can inspect them, nor understand nor explain, or does it? > (Which in some contexts is a legal requirement.) That's another can of worms. Which contexts are you talking about?
j_maffe 2y ago
Yeah this is a more nuanced view that I find quiet true. Any algorithm has emergent properties that can make the resulting feed be healthy to consume or not. The issue is that these objectives simply don't align with the objectives of these companies. HN deliberately tries to avoid this kind of feed which is why it mostly works.

squarefoot 2y ago

That's so true. Could we then use a new word, say malgorithm to denote algorithms that don't work in the interests of users? Just as with we did with malware? btw: The Malgorithm does actually exist, and ironically is the name of a electronic music device that applies bit-crushing (undersampling and/or bit resolution reduction) effect to audio signals, that is, it mostly makes the signal sound worse although it can be used creatively, which however occurs very rarely in pop music.

lifthrasiir 2y ago
I think the "user-uncontrolled" or possibly "user-oblivious" algorithm (if you believe that the mere controllability is not enough) is a clear enough term.

kalleboo 2y ago

In common usage, there is a distinction between "an algorithm" and "the algorithm". The latter is often shortened to "the algo".

lobsterthief 2y ago
I’ve never heard this before in my 20+ years of software engineering. Perhaps this is within the context of a conversation.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  Yes this is in the context of normal human beings talking about their lives on social networks, not engineers. Like when people get a random post or video served to them they found interesting they'll say "the algo decided I should see this today" Content creators will discuss what they need to create for "the algo" to like and promote them.