4 ms·

Repeating my comment here because some people are deliberately stick manning this argument: > In the context of social media, people mean highly optimized algo

Repeating 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 ago
There'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 ago
  I 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 ago
    It does help a lot that Mastodon is not a platform.
Kye 2y ago
I 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 ago
  Making obtuse, pedantic statements makes you seem like an insincere agitator.
  - Kye 2y ago
    So 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 ago
      Everyone 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 ago
        If 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.
        j_maffe 2y ago
        j_maffe here. Sorry if you found this insulting in any way. I wasn't referencing you in particular as several other comments pointed to the very obvious fact that chronological sorting is an algorithm so I was referring to this overarching theme. However, the entire point of a forum is for users to "butt-in" on threads. If you didn't find the reply contributing anything meaningful, you're very much free to not reply. And if you don't like random people replying to your comments, you really shouldn't be using forums. cheers.

Repeating 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 ago

There'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 ago
I 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 ago
  It does help a lot that Mastodon is not a platform.

Kye 2y ago

I 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 ago
Making obtuse, pedantic statements makes you seem like an insincere agitator.
- Kye 2y ago
  So 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 ago
    Everyone 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 ago
      If 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.
      - j_maffe 2y ago
        j_maffe here. Sorry if you found this insulting in any way. I wasn't referencing you in particular as several other comments pointed to the very obvious fact that chronological sorting is an algorithm so I was referring to this overarching theme. However, the entire point of a forum is for users to "butt-in" on threads. If you didn't find the reply contributing anything meaningful, you're very much free to not reply. And if you don't like random people replying to your comments, you really shouldn't be using forums. cheers.