"most liked" won't work. has to be chronological, and manually curated. the way fediverse works. when you make an account somewhere, you can choose to see the local people, or the entire network, but it's all chronological.

There's things like hashtag searches and whatnot, but none of it is algorithms; in the sense we understand it to mean, here, these are not manipulative algorithms designed to keep people on a site and keep ads rolling by.

on the fediverse, there are bots to curate content such as "most liked", one can subscribe to these bots to see such "views" of the feed.

there's absolutely no reason for any of that crap to be built in, other than that's how reddit (and HN) do it.

▲

Groxx 2 days ago | parent [-]

There's a "trending" feed on nearly every implementation including the official Mastodon one (hashtags have their own "trending" too), and chronological definitely fits "an algorithm" imo - it has all the hallmark problems of one, such as encouraging bad behavior (frequent spamming is the most effective strategy to be seen). Lemmy is even further down this path, with "hot", "controversial", "active", etc, and defaults to "algorithmic" sorts for its front page and all comments.

Fediverse absolutely has "algorithms". People generally want them. I agree that it's broadly less user-hostile (I'm very much a fan), but it's very much moving down the same paths as twitter (mastodon), reddit (lemmy), etc.

▲

genewitch 2 days ago | parent [-]

chronological feed nuisances can be blocked or not followed in the first place. It is absolutely not an algorithm by the definition we're all using here.

It is an algorithm on a data structure, but it is not an algorithm to drive ad impressions.

do you see the difference?

this is why people say "Algo" when talking about the latter, and "Algorithm" when talking with other like-minded people about data structures and algorithms.

▲

Groxx 2 days ago | parent [-]

Someone chose "most recent" when implementing "most recent", and then that decision automatically controls what is shown next. They could have chosen "most recently liked" or "most liked" or "minimum MD5 checksum" or "alphabetical" or "most liked in past 24h" or "likes / hours * followers / followee_ratio * poster_birthdate_days_diff(admin_birthday) * tfidf_rank_matching_books_published_in_1885" - all of those would be algorithmic sorts in my book. "Most recent" is just one (among multiple) of the simplest ones to predict the behavior of.

A fully human-curated feed would not be "algorithmic", in contrast. Print newspapers do this, and sometimes online ones to varying degrees, and most blogs. You could even let people build their own (e.g. "boost to my popular feed [at position X/newest/oldest]"). Essentially none do this though, they all choose algorithmic ones of varying complexity - it doesn't make them non-algorithmic to choose a simpler one.

▲

genewitch a day ago | parent [-]

oh, you're a pedant and didn't read what i wrote at all, so i will confer the exact same respect for your thoughts.

	▲	Groxx a day ago \| parent [-]
		Or I just disagree with your premise (there are lots of Bad Influences from chronological sort, and I'm far from the only person who considers it "an algorithm" in the social media sense because of that), and you're looking for reasons to dismiss things you disagree with.