There’s multiple feeds, which is one of its main features. There’s user created feeds, which are just aggregates of tags and keywords. These are alright, but prone to issues with cross domain terminology. ie, say you want a football/soccer feed and use the word “spurs”, you’ll end up having it filled with basketball and rodeo posts.

The two default feeds are your followed accounts in chronological order, the other is an algorithmic feed. The algorithmic feed is pretty good to be honest. I “disliked” around 20 political posts the first day, and it has seemed to responded fairly quick to that feedback.

The "echo chamber" argument really doesn't speak to me because all I want is a place where I can get timely updates about: people in my research field, pictures of cute dogs, and municipal government activities. The more a website stays laser-focused on my interests, the better.

That makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of the content provided by the recommendation algorithms, as well as human nature. A good recommendation engine, for example, would recognize when someone either likes a broad range of sources politically speaking, or likes a neutral region.

Conversely, it's unclear that a recommendation engine would be able to predict what would be best at "disrupting an echo chamber", and more importantly, when that is desirable, and what "desirable" even means. It's also unclear that the first model is successful at all in disrupting echo chambers, as opposed to exacerbating or amplifying existing positions. I think there's good reasons to think that provocative can be less effective if anything.

I disagree with this: if the only thing you allow to pierce the veil is selected based on engagement metrics you just walk away with a shallow view of your opposition. If anything this may entrench your existing views and give you a false sense of intellectual and/or moral superiority.

You need to “meet people where they are” and the first type of algorithm just doesn’t do that. It just says “conservatives/liberals really like this, so you’re going to be forced to see this too because you show interest in politics”

To give an example: let’s say I’m a small business owner who voted Trump but has some lingering concerns around how tariffs might impact my business. Am I going to be better informed reading some engagement-bait post from liberals talking about how I’m going to get “deservedly” crushed by tariffs or a post from a conservative economist laying out the cold hard facts (both good and bad)?