←back to thread

190 points amichail | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
giancarlostoro ◴[] No.42194385[source]
I really dont understand why we cannot just go back to chronological as a default. This is how I use X/Twitter, and anything else that lets me just go chronological.
replies(15): >>42194402 #>>42194408 #>>42194410 #>>42194418 #>>42194422 #>>42194433 #>>42194454 #>>42194457 #>>42194459 #>>42194481 #>>42194542 #>>42194599 #>>42194719 #>>42194795 #>>42194821 #
sameoldtune ◴[] No.42194402[source]
I agree, but some people use social media to follow 1000s of other users. Some kind of “hot right now” or “high engagement since you last logged on” setting might be nice for them.
replies(1): >>42194442 #
garciasn ◴[] No.42194442[source]
I think it's super interesting you believe the social companies care about what is 'nice for the user' as opposed to what is nice for the advertisers, audience/data brokers, and the investors.

The reason algorithmic ordering is so common is because that's what gives the most runway for advertising, behavior manipulation/tracking, and its downstream financial effects.

replies(4): >>42194470 #>>42194478 #>>42194494 #>>42194935 #
ziddoap ◴[] No.42194478[source]
An experience that is super shitty for the user isn't going to result in any users.

If you are trying to take users away from twitter, you're going to focus on some 'nice for the user' things (or, at least, 'nicer than twitter for the user').

Like most things in life, this isn't a binary choice (user or advertiser). They're going to try to optimize for both, striking a balance.

replies(2): >>42194515 #>>42194521 #
1. notpushkin ◴[] No.42194521[source]
Yes. However, an experience that’s okay for the user but also super addictve will result in a lot of users.