| ▲ | noprocrasted 2 days ago |
| > what is the first video you show them Whatever is latest posted across their followings/subscriptions? |
|
| ▲ | vasco 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| If they just signed up they have no followings or subscriptions. So now what, you need to show accounts to follow first? Thats the same problem as deciding what the first video to show is. How do you decide who they should follow? Or the vision is that you can only have friends as if it's 2005 and you can't discover anything serendipitously? I don't consume any content from my friends on something like tiktok where I'm interested in discovering people that have good content under topics I'm interested in. I don't know who those people are and I want to discover new ones that come up not just follow some already popular accounts. |
| |
| ▲ | hhjinks 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >So now what, you need to show accounts to follow first Youtube won't show you anything at all if you have a new account with watch history turned off. It says something like "turn on watch history and watch videos so we can recommend some for you". | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Undoubtably the change needed here will introduce friction, will reduce viewing time, and society will be better off for it. The whole idea here is to make content consumption more deliberate and mindful rather than just opening the app and veging out to an endless feed of slop. | | |
| ▲ | vasco 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You have a lot of certainties. Say will people in hospital bed for 2 weeks agree with you? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | hug 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless. You can (and should) argue that such a simple algorithm doesn’t “count”, but fundamentally the exact wording of the grandparent post never works, legislatively. Lawyers will lawyer. |
| |
| ▲ | NekkoDroid 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless. The problem always has been "(personalized) opaque algorithms". Time sorted by followers isn't really opaque, nor is "sorted by likes" or whatever. The problem is always pulling in parameters that a users either has no active control over or are so variable they effectively could be random. | |
| ▲ | alkonaut 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can everyone just please stop saying "well ackshually sorting is done with an algorithm" and just assume at least not-idiotic-intent here? No no one will ban "algorithms" or suggests anything of that kind. Yes it's a terrible name. Yes it will be hard to formulate what's allowed and what isn't. But a very simple litmus test is: what are the inputs to the algorithm? users coarse geographic location? Fine AI detected language of the content? Fine global popularity of the video clip? fine user's past behavior: number of videos with similar content they watched? Average number of seconds this particular user usually waits until scrolling further? The pattern is obvious. Personalized algorithms is what's targeted. Let's keep the discussion intelligent. | | |
| ▲ | anjc 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Your litmus test isn't correct and your assumption of personalisation isn't correct either. All of the criteria that you see as fine are controlled under the relevant legislation and are considered personalisation, requiring transparency etc. Furthermore, bills have been brought to EU parliaments that have erroneously attempted to ban all forms of ranking, which would include even the most basic information retrieval algorithms. So it isn't obvious at all what is meant by 'algorithm'. |
| |
| ▲ | xigoi 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s not about whether there is an algorithm, but whether it’s controlled by the user. |
|
