Bluesky is ushering in a pick-your-own algorithm era of social media

> The use of algorithms to filter information has become the norm because chronologically presenting information from followers creates a confusing morass for the average user to process.

Can't disagree more. Call me old-fashioned but I hate any algorithms at all meddling with what I see. If I follow someone, I want to see their posts, all of them, without exceptions. If I don't follow someone, I only want to see their posts if they were knowingly reposted by someone who I do follow. If I want some posts filtered from my feed, I'll set up word filters myself, thank you very much.

It's a recurring theme in the modern IT industry that "the average user" can't be trusted to take their own responsibility. It's sometimes taken as an indisputable truth, even. Why does this keep happening? What can I do to put an end to this?

It's true, of course, that the "chronological timeline" is an obvious and straightforward default, but I think you are being unfair to the position you are critiquing.

Many (90%+ I would say but the exact proportion doesn't matter for this) people do not have the time to process every social media post from every person they are connected to. They are only going to see N "posts" (videos, texts, questions, etc) per time unit (day / week / bathroom break). It is 100% genuinely and obviously worse to, if someone only sees...3 posts on your social network for those posts to be [someone complaining about commute, breakfast photo, angry election post] as opposed to [wedding announcement, request for a resource the user has, a close friend sharing something exciting that the user hasn't seen]. Telling users that you are showing them less interesting stuff because "they happened in chronological order" is a bad answer.

Of course social media companies do a bad job at this! They push high-conflict high-engagement content into our feeds because it makes them more money. But I think the problem of "there is a lot going on and you would like a machine to help you prioritize how to process things" is genuinely one of the pressing problems of our age and I get so frustrated when people downplay it. There is more stuff happening in my social world than I have time to fully process - that's just true. I am not interesting in living such a small life that I have time to fully engage with every single happening - I would like a machine to help me.

I genuinely don't understand the desire to engage with so many folks on such a superficial level.

Like - if the only way you're going to know about someone's wedding is from a social feed... you aren't friends with that person, you're just acquaintances.

Most folks do a great job at informing you of the things that are relevant in your relationship with that person when you... talk to them.

> I am not interesting in living such a small life that I have time to fully engage with every single happening - I would like a machine to help me.

You think that life is small... but I think yours is utterly dehumanizing. You aren't interested in engaging with individuals, you seem to just want their life's highlights thrown at you repetitively until you've burned yourself out on them, like slamming the oxytocin button for your brain without actually doing anything nearly so drab as actually talking to someone.

---

I think my reaction to your comment is driven by your idea that friendships and human interactions are formed over big events (like weddings or exciting happenings). I'd argue fairly strongly that they're driven instead by precisely the small, boring, daily things you're not at all interested in: Commutes. Meals. Emotional responses to small things (politics or not).

I find it distasteful to think you're friends with someone when you only give a shit about the big exciting news they have to share. That's not friendship, it's a weird twisted form of paparazzi/voyeurism. You don't want to know them, you just want their life's highlights presented to you...

---

Emotional response aside - Hard disagree on

> It is 100% genuinely and obviously worse to, if someone only sees...3 posts on your social network for those posts to be [someone complaining about commute, breakfast photo, angry election post] as opposed to [wedding announcement, request for a resource the user has, a close friend sharing something exciting that the user hasn't seen]. Telling users that you are showing them less interesting stuff because "they happened in chronological order" is a bad answer.