I feel like transparent and open algorithms should be the way to go. For example, in the Lemmy documentation, I can find the exact math that is used to rank posts in Scaled sorting.
Perhaps an even better aporoach may lie in letting the users customize the factors determining ranking and how much they affect it.
Algorithms are not universally good and helpful. They should be designed to boost engagement only in that they serve to find content you wouldn’t be able to see otherwise, not to boost engagement at all costs by feeding you things they think you will click on. It’s an important distinction.
Maybe I’m missing something. I understand and agree with the concept of limiting or eliminating our reliance on algorithms for content recommendations. This seems like a different issue though, is it not?
Kind of surprised this is the take. Algorithms in general, just sorting by highest to lowest or whatever common problem that needs to be solved, aren’t bad. “Algorithm” has become a dirty word mostly because of the stuff pushing short-form content over long-form content, outrage that generates engagement over something you would enjoy that doesn’t enrage you enough to make you type fifty paragraphs and keep coming back to fight in the comments, etc. So I agree with the literal statement that algorithms aren’t always bad.
But as for what you meant, I’m super surprised at all the people who want an algorithm to feed them content. I looked for the stuff I was interested in, subscribed, and am happy. When I run out of content I either log off and do something else or go seek out stuff I’m kind of interested in. I am just really wary of asking for algorithms back because I really don’t want the Fediverse to become another place catered towards outrage porn for max engagement. I really want users to have options if this is implemented, so as not to force this algorithm on users like myself who like the “chronological order of stuff you purposely followed only” algorithm. And for that option to not be taken away from me in an effort to “drive growth!” and all that.
ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 2 weeks ago
So lost in anti-big tech social media that they forgot that algorithms are actually good and helpful!
Coelacanth@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
That’s kind of a trend on the Fediverse to be honest. Mastodon has the same problem with their chronological-only feed.
coldsideofyourpillow@lemmy.cafe 1 week ago
I feel like transparent and open algorithms should be the way to go. For example, in the Lemmy documentation, I can find the exact math that is used to rank posts in
Scaledsorting.Perhaps an even better aporoach may lie in letting the users customize the factors determining ranking and how much they affect it.
Dil@is.hardlywork.ing 1 week ago
What I loved about twitter was the algorithim at its peak before musk bought it
Supervisor194@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Algorithms are not universally good and helpful. They should be designed to boost engagement only in that they serve to find content you wouldn’t be able to see otherwise, not to boost engagement at all costs by feeding you things they think you will click on. It’s an important distinction.
technomad@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Maybe I’m missing something. I understand and agree with the concept of limiting or eliminating our reliance on algorithms for content recommendations. This seems like a different issue though, is it not?
Elevator7009sAlt@ani.social 1 week ago
Kind of surprised this is the take. Algorithms in general, just sorting by highest to lowest or whatever common problem that needs to be solved, aren’t bad. “Algorithm” has become a dirty word mostly because of the stuff pushing short-form content over long-form content, outrage that generates engagement over something you would enjoy that doesn’t enrage you enough to make you type fifty paragraphs and keep coming back to fight in the comments, etc. So I agree with the literal statement that algorithms aren’t always bad.
But as for what you meant, I’m super surprised at all the people who want an algorithm to feed them content. I looked for the stuff I was interested in, subscribed, and am happy. When I run out of content I either log off and do something else or go seek out stuff I’m kind of interested in. I am just really wary of asking for algorithms back because I really don’t want the Fediverse to become another place catered towards outrage porn for max engagement. I really want users to have options if this is implemented, so as not to force this algorithm on users like myself who like the “chronological order of stuff you purposely followed only” algorithm. And for that option to not be taken away from me in an effort to “drive growth!” and all that.