I am willing to hear differing opinions on this.
I sometimes see people on Fediverse speak as if there is something inherently wrong about the idea of content sorting and filtering algorithms.
There is a massive amount of content today and limited time. Content algorithms could provide the benefit of helping us sort content based on what we want. The most he urgent news, the most informative articles, the closest friends, etc. This might have some similarities with how Facebook and others do it, but it is not the same. Big social media algorithms have one goal: maximizing their profit. One metric for that is maximizing screen on-time and scrolling.
Personally, I’ve been developing an algorithm to help me sift through the content I get on my RSS reader, as there’s a lot of content I’m uninterested in. This algorithm would save me time, whereas those of Twitter and Facebook maximize my wasted time.
In my opinion, algorithms should be:
- opt-in: off my default, and the user is given a clear choice to change it
- transparent: the algorithm should be transparent about its goals and inner workings
Only with this, can algorithms be good.
What are your thoughts?
Not really my opinion, but there is a reasonable argument to be made about even benevolent algorithms ultimately increasing your engagement with online content and alienate you from your physical surrounding and people near you. Just because you set it up yourself does not mean that it is healthy for you.
Yep. Lemmy feed for example is algorithmic
Not really unless you have a really broad definition of algorithmic. It is just up and downvotes (and personalized subscriptions).
It uses an algorithm to determine score for sorting. What is your definition of algorithm then?
Of course some math is going to be involved, but that is not what people mean when they talk about algorithmic content curation on social media.
In English at least, the algorithms considered socially problematic can be more precisely as “The Algorithm” — capitalised to hint the more specific meaning. But to understand the hint you already need to know the context of the broader conversation around corporate-interest-oriented algorithms.
So, we have an obscure inexplicit grammar that only makes sense if you already know what it means. Not great for bringing new people to the conversation.
I’ve always wished that social media sites would have their algorithm be user customizable through some kind of basic syntax. There could of course be a default - but the user would be able to see what it is, how it works, and be able to customize it to their liking. Of course, this would be complicated, but it’s not like these algorithms don’t already exist. They’re just hidden.
As long as they’re transparent and under user control then timeline algorithms might be ok. However, it would start to become problematic if instance admins could control the timelines of users, and it might become tempting for them to do so for monetization reasons.
Even under user control there would be a temptation for some people to try to SEO against the known algorithms, so that their posts appear preferentially in some people’s timelines, leading to the same set of problems that BigTech has.
