[HN Gopher] Moving away from algorithmic curation
___________________________________________________________________
Moving away from algorithmic curation
Author : ingve
Score : 36 points
Date : 2023-04-25 06:52 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (boredzo.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (boredzo.org)
| vhcr wrote:
| I don't think the problem is algorithmic curation, the problem is
| _bad_ algorithmic curation.
|
| I personally find quite a lot of interesting content on YouTube's
| and Spotify's recommendations.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Specifically, it's algorithms that by design work against the
| user's interest in favor of the company's interest (ads,
| engagement bait, etc).
|
| If the developers of a social network have incentives that are
| more aligned with their users then it would be possible to
| create genuinely useful and interesting algorithmic content
| feeds.
| alwaysbeconsing wrote:
| Seconded; also I don't know exactly what Bandcamp does but I
| often find good new stuff to listen to through their links too.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| This article is missing one important idea - yes, sure avoid
| algorithmic systems when we don't control the algorithm. But what
| I really want is an algorithmic feed option (option being
| important, obviously) on mastodon!
|
| If someone that I have been interacting with a lot had a popular
| post in the last 12 hours that I have not seen, and I have just
| refreshed the feed, I would love for that to be near the top.
|
| That is just one simple user story but I can imagine a wide
| selection of options - controllable percentage of popular posts
| from the rest of your server or the fediverse. Controllable
| percentage of posts marked important by my server admin.
| Controllable percentage of popular posts that people I am
| following have liked, even if I am not following the person.
|
| People really misdirect their grief when they say the problem is
| algorithms. I don't think that's really true! We all have trauma
| and bad memories from corporate-controlled algorithm, because
| that algorithm serves the needs of the corporation. Users get
| turned in to products to serve a for-profit system that sees us
| as tools to be used to extract value. And we all see those
| algorithms and think: "algorithms suck!" Then people make systems
| like mastodon with no algorithm at all - no option for one - and
| people bristle at the idea of an algorithm there even if it is
| optional. But of course it would be optional, it's mastodon!
|
| Imagine if users had a complex panel (with a few easy pre-sets to
| try) for various tunings to the algorithm. I genuinely believe it
| would make mastodon much more useful to a lot of people. I still
| use both twitter and mastodon and one thing that is clear is that
| it is very easy to see popular posts from my friends on twitter.
| Unfortunately there is a lot to dislike about twitter, which is
| why I want to see people change their thinking - what we need are
| algorithms we control! Open source algorithms with lots of
| optional tuning and adjustment and always the ability to disable
| it completely.
|
| There is some discussion of some of these features in the
| mastodon issues page. If any of you want to take a look, maybe
| there is some work you could help with!
|
| https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%...
| sharemywin wrote:
| "It increasingly seems to me that the best things you can do with
| these services--recommendation engines, algorithmic timelines,
| and such--is (1) don't use them when you can help it, and (2) lie
| to them at every opportunity.
|
| Poison the well, and don't drink from it."
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > Poison the well, and don't drink from it.
|
| https://adnauseam.io/ :)
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| I have been loving _newsboat_ ; RSS FTW.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I'll recommend Reeder for those in the Apple ecosystem, it
| syncs via iCloud vs a lot of alternatives using paid services
| for that
| at_a_remove wrote:
| [flagged]
| flangola7 wrote:
| No need to add unnecessary political commentary
| at_a_remove wrote:
| It's already in there. "How do you do this without
| introducing them to fascism, outrage fuel, shock content, or
| other trash?" and "This must include anti-fascism."
|
| If it is in there, it's fair game to respond to.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Perhaps I want what someone else considers "trash" or "shock
| content."
|
| Possibly, but is that what you're getting? Or is the platform
| trying to maximise for engagement over 'content you might be
| interested in'?
|
| We kind of know algorithmic feeds prioritised content that
| generates likes and comments - that's not necessarily or
| 'valuable' (for whoever's definition) content but it tends to
| promote "shock content" _for the sake of shock_ in order to get
| engagement.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-26 23:01 UTC)