←back to thread

190 points amichail | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.414s | source
Show context
grishka ◴[] No.42195272[source]
> 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?

replies(15): >>42195452 #>>42195484 #>>42195500 #>>42195534 #>>42195550 #>>42195552 #>>42195629 #>>42195648 #>>42195715 #>>42195785 #>>42195811 #>>42195814 #>>42196019 #>>42198305 #>>42198449 #
aeturnum ◴[] No.42195500[source]
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.

replies(5): >>42195575 #>>42195741 #>>42195798 #>>42196527 #>>42196854 #
SoftTalker ◴[] No.42195741[source]
> Many ... people do not have the time to process every social media post from every person they are connected to.

Then they are following too many people. Decades ago, a professor at school quipped "if you can't keep up with your news feed using 'more' to read the spool then you follow too many newsgroups"

replies(3): >>42195870 #>>42196466 #>>42199785 #
aeturnum ◴[] No.42196466[source]
I wholly and completely disagree with this and think it's an unethical belief to hold. If you are under the impression that you are perfectly up to date with every detail of every person in your life you are either deeply misguided or dismissive of the inner lives of folks around you.
replies(2): >>42196829 #>>42197168 #
1. amonith ◴[] No.42196829[source]
Isn't the point of the comment above to not even want to be up to date with every detail of people that are objectively not that important in your personal life? Not to decrease the social media usage because you feel you're up to date but to do it because it's unnatural and pointless?
replies(1): >>42197319 #
2. aeturnum ◴[] No.42197319[source]
I do think the approach of "engaging only in what you can fully take in" is really healthy and sensible and something people should consider. The thing I think is immoral is suggesting that is...the best approach for everyone in all situations. Many people in society simply are not in a position to do that. The president cannot "only engage in what they can fully take in". It's wrong to say that should be the standard applied to everyone - imo.