| ▲ | shrewdcomputer 9 hours ago |
| > With the AI slop being promoted on the major social media platform’s algorithm, I believe we will go back to following real humans. Back to followers, where we decide who we want to see. This is a nice thought but I think it's wrong. If TikTok, Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts have proven anything, it's that people don't want to decide they want to consume. It's cynical but it's what the data has shown time and again works for these platforms. Passive consumption is easier for the user and companies know it keeps us online longer. When you ask people, they will say they want to see who they follow but their behaviour, incentivised by companies, says otherwise. |
|
| ▲ | raincole 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It is funny that people on Hackernews are (acting as if they were) against algorithmic feeds. This very site is one of the trailblazers that found out how much people prefer algorithmic feeds to chronological ones. |
| |
| ▲ | intothemild 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you'll find that people who are against algo-feeds are against that being the only choice. | | |
| ▲ | raincole 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Personally speaking I think the issue is personalized algorithmic feeds. I want the algorithm to analyze spammers' behavior and filter them out for everyone. Not analyzing my behaviors to filter content for me. | | |
| |
| ▲ | andrepd 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In what sense is HN an algorithmic feed? It is neither personalised nor does it have a significant discretionary boost beyond "age" and "upvotes". It's qualitatively a different thing. | | |
| ▲ | akersten 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sort by weighted upvotes vs time decay is an algorithm. You can review the psedocode here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781013 Note that there is also "censorship" (!) - `gag_factor` - even in this free thought paradise. The lesson is that no matter your scale, suppressing certain content is necessary to prevent low quality posts and spam from turning your site into a swamp. Correct, it is not personalized. So we need a different word than 'algorithmic'. People keep saying that word when they want to "ban" a certain kind of math. But they should at least be particular about what they don't like (sort your friends' posts chronologically is also a personalized algorithm, after all..) |
| |
| ▲ | tayo42 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | On its own an algorithmic feed is fine. Automatically give people what they want to see. Like TV without flipping channels. It just turned into something out of control with unintended side effects and immoral goals. |
|
|
| ▲ | nicbou 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Perhaps it's a bit like people preferring snacking to a home-cooked meal. At the end of a long day it's nice to be effortlessly entertained, but you can't have just bite-sized experiences. At some point you need to go deeper, to be creative, to chip in. |
|
| ▲ | A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| << It's cynical but But is it cynical if it is accurate. |
