4 ms·

> Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Algorithms only make them worse, not bad. The flaws are there, because

> Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Algorithms only make them worse, not bad. The flaws are there, because people. > Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. No, people buy this content, because they want it, not because it's there. > Social media is meant to be a place where you get updates about the lives of people you follow. Strange claim. Nothing is preventing people from doing exactly this.

grishka 1y ago
> Nothing is preventing people from doing exactly this. I try my best to do this but it's futile. See, even if you don't use the algorithm, the algorithm still uses you. So, for example, you can't just discuss something on Twitter with your followers. Sometimes it would decide to show your tweet to a bunch of random people with the radical version of the views opposite to yours, and you will be forced to use the block button way too damn much. You can't opt out of having your tweets recommended to strangers. Even when that doesn't happen, many of your followers would still miss your posts if you don't appease the algorithm because they would still use the algorithmic feed — whether knowingly or because of all the dark patterns around that setting (it's very hidden, never sticks, or both). So no, the very existence of the algorithmic feed is the problem, it ruins the experience for everyone regardless of whether they use it or not.
- slightwinder 1y ago
  > So, for example, you can't just discuss something on Twitter with your followers. That is a problem with the platform. Nothing is stopping you from changing the platform. You want it to be different, but don't want to use the different that already exists? > Even when that doesn't happen, many of your followers would still miss your posts if you don't appease the algorithm because they would still use the algorithmic feed That's still their own "choice". They decide to use Twitter, and they decide to stay on the algorithmic view. But ok, to be fair, Twitter, and other big networks, are kinda unstable on which view they offer and use by default. Forcing them to give more stable control to the user would be good. But I doubt it would fix anything on the grand scale. > So no, the very existence of the algorithmic feed is the problem The algorithmic feed exists mainly because there is too many content, so you will miss something anyway. Removing it will fix nothing for most people, it will only change what you miss. People have used self-configured algorithms even before social media existed. The demand has always been there. But of course, we could talk about the actual implementation and it's dark leanings.
  - grishka 1y ago
    There usually isn't "too much content" when you only see content from accounts you follow, and especially when there are no logo accounts, only people.
    - slightwinder 1y ago
      That's your personal setting. Many people follow a huge amount of accounts, of which many are just plain people.

grishka 1y ago

> Nothing is preventing people from doing exactly this. I try my best to do this but it's futile. See, even if you don't use the algorithm, the algorithm still uses you. So, for example, you can't just discuss something on Twitter with your followers. Sometimes it would decide to show your tweet to a bunch of random people with the radical version of the views opposite to yours, and you will be forced to use the block button way too damn much. You can't opt out of having your tweets recommended to strangers. Even when that doesn't happen, many of your followers would still miss your posts if you don't appease the algorithm because they would still use the algorithmic feed — whether knowingly or because of all the dark patterns around that setting (it's very hidden, never sticks, or both). So no, the very existence of the algorithmic feed is the problem, it ruins the experience for everyone regardless of whether they use it or not.

slightwinder 1y ago
> So, for example, you can't just discuss something on Twitter with your followers. That is a problem with the platform. Nothing is stopping you from changing the platform. You want it to be different, but don't want to use the different that already exists? > Even when that doesn't happen, many of your followers would still miss your posts if you don't appease the algorithm because they would still use the algorithmic feed That's still their own "choice". They decide to use Twitter, and they decide to stay on the algorithmic view. But ok, to be fair, Twitter, and other big networks, are kinda unstable on which view they offer and use by default. Forcing them to give more stable control to the user would be good. But I doubt it would fix anything on the grand scale. > So no, the very existence of the algorithmic feed is the problem The algorithmic feed exists mainly because there is too many content, so you will miss something anyway. Removing it will fix nothing for most people, it will only change what you miss. People have used self-configured algorithms even before social media existed. The demand has always been there. But of course, we could talk about the actual implementation and it's dark leanings.
- grishka 1y ago
  There usually isn't "too much content" when you only see content from accounts you follow, and especially when there are no logo accounts, only people.
  - slightwinder 1y ago
    That's your personal setting. Many people follow a huge amount of accounts, of which many are just plain people.