My guess is they’ll just make the non-algorithm version intentionally ugly, cumbersome, and boring and with a handy link to get back to the good stuff.
This is a good starting point. I’d rather see controls that let us see what data they’re using and allow us to tune it or turn it off.
Reddit already does this. Just flip from to “new” from any of their other sorting options. Now you just see posts in the order they were posted.
Alstein
4521
Twitter gives the option as well, but it’s hidden, and they used to switch you back randomly as well until a few months ago.
And a pop up on EVERY screen suggesting that you can go back to the good stuff. Probably leveraging dark patterns to try to strong-arm users into going. At the end of the day these companies are ruthless about their engagement metrics and they just want to force people to spend more time on their platforms in any conceivable way. The social media companies didn’t form a dark conspiracy to kill “newest first” views out of a desire to do evil. They all did it based on research which showed that if you curate the feeds to stoke outrage and fear driven discussions amongst like minded individuals then people would stay on the site longer and be more engaged.
In a way, it’s actually more evil I suppose. They aren’t damaging our society as part of some shadowy conspiracy to encourage extremism and accomplish nefarious political goals. They are doing it for a few extra bucks in ad revenue.
Menzo
4523
For sure, but it’s not a new story. Gordon Gekko wasn’t evil - he was just driven entirely by greed.
But how? If they know I like Q stuff and know you don’t read Q stuff, is sort by newest going to give each of us a different list?
antlers
4525
This doesn’t make any sense. Your friends list/followers is supplied by user-specific data tracking, so a non-user-specific Facebook/Twitter makes no sense at all. The only sensible way to implement this is to have it affect only ads, which aside from making Facebook ads much less valuable won’t do much good in cleaning up people’s feeds.
If the only filtering/ordering they apply is “most recent”, that might be doable in a technical sense, but I suspect it will amplify really bad stuff more than whatever is happening now, since I’m sure lots of the complexities in the algorithms are directed at removing bad stuff. Idiots sharing crazy things doesn’t get filtered at all by “most recent,” which is probably why Republicans have signed on for it.
jsnell
4526
Oh, no “until a few months ago” about it. The most recent time it’s happened for me was last week.
CraigM
4527
Like do you not follow how the algorithms work at all?
Any postulation that going to a ‘most recent’ is going to somehow amplify negative content more than now is, well, preposterous.
The algorithms work to maximize engagement. Extreme content, and anger fueled posts drive engagement more than anything else. Ergo they are what the algorithm amplifies most. It is what they push while burying posts of whatever your nieces and nephews are up to. So, no, I find it absurd to think that simple non algorithmic sorting to show most recent posts by your FB Friends would somehow drive more crazy. All evidence and examples show this to be demonstrably untrue.
Menzo
4528
Exactly. If sorting by “new” led to more engagement Facebook would default to that instead of letting the algorithm drive what you see.
I meant easy to mangle the language of the law. I could see it inadvertently outlawing things like “hide posts from this account”. Or even sorting.
If New becomes the default, I’m sure the bad actors will try to flood these services with sockpuppet accounts to keep their content on top.
I don’t think New will become the default. I think Reddit has a really good model. Subscribe to what you like, block what you don’t like, sort by new, popular, rising, etc. AFAIK they don’t use your personal data to push content, and the Top posts are entirely based on user interaction. Yes that led to problems with TheDonald and other shitty subs, but generally they do a good job.
Of course, they’re also the least profitable of the big social media companies because they don’t aggressively monetize their users and sell their data (that I know of)
Alstein
4531
They’re probably going to be better off in the long term though, they have a more sustainable model.
If you can take quarters and not piss off your base, you’re likely to keep getting quarters and not dry up instantly.
Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka, founder of the Something Awful forum, has died.
Responses on the SA forums are as you would expect (Lowtax had to sell the forum after he was revealed to be a domestic abuser because his users rebelled.)
One of the more nuanced (and funnier, if you know your NYC history) responses is this:
KevinC
4533
Oh, wow. Had no idea about him having to sell SA or the reasons for it. 45 years old though? So damn young.
His ex-wife says he shot himself. A judge had just ruled against him in the divorce proceedings the day before. From his ex:
Yesterday I recieved a divorce ruling that would help me and my daughter stay in our home in Canada and allow me to provide a good life for her as well as pay back numerous debts that had accrued during the past two years when I was receiving $350 a month in child support.
In the divorce ruling the judge found that Rich had willfully spent down the martial fund, confirmed his treatment of me was Domestic Violence and put together a plan to pay for the attorney fees etc. He would still retain custody settled on previously in mediation. He was due to get our daughter for Christmas.
An hour later I was contacted by my attorney who informed me that Rich had shot himself earlier in the morning.
KevinC
4535
Oof. All around, just… oof.
Timex
4536
I had no idea Lowtax had become Johnny Knoxville.
Enidigm
4538
Wow. That’s… honestly right.
SA peaked trolling Scientology.
