I am willing to hear differing opinions on this.

I sometimes see people on Fediverse speak as if there is something inherently wrong about the idea of content sorting and filtering algorithms.

There is a massive amount of content today and limited time. Content algorithms could provide the benefit of helping us sort content based on what we want. The most he urgent news, the most informative articles, the closest friends, etc. This might have some similarities with how Facebook and others do it, but it is not the same. Big social media algorithms have one goal: maximizing their profit. One metric for that is maximizing screen on-time and scrolling.

Personally, I’ve been developing an algorithm to help me sift through the content I get on my RSS reader, as there’s a lot of content I’m uninterested in. This algorithm would save me time, whereas those of Twitter and Facebook maximize my wasted time.

In my opinion, algorithms should be:

  • opt-in: off my default, and the user is given a clear choice to change it
  • transparent: the algorithm should be transparent about its goals and inner workings

Only with this, can algorithms be good.

What are your thoughts?

    • poVoq@lemmy.ml
      1·
      3 years ago

      Not really unless you have a really broad definition of algorithmic. It is just up and downvotes (and personalized subscriptions).

      • xarvos@lemmy.ml
        0·
        3 years ago

        It uses an algorithm to determine score for sorting. What is your definition of algorithm then?

        • poVoq@lemmy.ml
          2·
          3 years ago

          Of course some math is going to be involved, but that is not what people mean when they talk about algorithmic content curation on social media.