See title, but for some added detail: I’ve been thinking lately about how one of the stumbling blocks for folks to federated social spaces is the absence of, for lack of a better word, engagement algorithms.
What I mean by engagement algorithms are the different systems corporate social media employs to drive your continued use of their apps/platforms. Choose a few interests/people/communities, see some suggested topics/people/groups to follow. You follow Mad Max, maybe you’d like to follow Furiosa!
Furiosa liked/shared your photo! You viewed this video, here’s another you might like, and another, and another!
These systems tend to do a few things at once, keep your attention, minimize friction to find more to interact with/view, and in turn discourage actively looking beyond them. Depending on how you use them, or in some cases just how they work, you’re almost discouraged from socializing and instead encouraged to doomscroll/perpetually consume as they tend to work more as broadcasting/advertising platforms at a certain point than social platforms.
Remove most of the engagement algorithms and instead have folks socializing as the “engagement algorithm” and some folks tend to seem a little disoriented or lost (which is sometimes the absence of familiar faces tbh, but not always!). Moreover, some just…Never really wanted to socialize much to begin with, so this may not really translate for them to begin with.
What do you think?
I think a better question is why do people think that platforms like Lemmy don’t have algorithms to keep you engaged? Specifically, people will naturally tend toward the things that keep them interested. This means they’ll use the apps that are easiest and the ones with the most engaging feeds. I think a better distinction is that platforms like Lemmy are open so you know exactly what’s happening. It’s more consentual in that sense
I think when people say ”Algorithms", they mean the massive time-sucking behemoths that power the infinite scrolling of Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok, etc.
Platforms like Lemmy have comparatively simple algorithms that can visually amount to "show the highest upvoted posts from the past
xtime, deduct rank byytime, improve rank byzif …”, but these are still algorithms.Yeah, this is why I tried to identify them as engagement algorithms specifically. Lemmy & the like do have algorithms, of course, but they’re both open and not as laser-focused on maximizing user retention/engagement as corporate platforms.
In the case of Mastodon, for instance, there’s not even any additional sorting algorithms like here, it’s a pretty basic chronological feed from those you follow (home), posts of those on your instance (local), and posts from other instances (federated/all).
So I totally get the difference here and I’m not trying to come off as obtuse. But I think what I’m getting at is that these “hyper addictive” style algorithms may arise regardless of what type of platform they are on. This imo will be a result of people naturally migrating towards things they find more interesting and more engaging. For instance imagine how painful it would be to find good content on a YT competitor that has no way to present new content other than chronologically. Like imagine trying to find something cool from all 10 billion videos. It would suck. The average person simply wont put up with that kind of thing. So I think one of the reasons people like these open platforms actually has more to do with their consent. As a user on an open source system you get to chose which implementation. You get to chose which set of algorithms you surround yourself with from across the entire spectrum of “hyper addictive” to “super simple and chronological.” A choice which simply isnt present when their is only one platform for the thing you want (reddit, youtube, facebook, etc)
You didn’t come across that way, tbh! I didn’t respond directly at first 'cause I wasn’t sure how I wanted to respond, and I wanted to give the conversation more time to develop.
I think where I may diverge on this is that I don’t think “hyper addictive” style algorithms may arise regardless of platform type, as they have to be made & tuned by people to have that “hyper addictive” effect. Although I definitely recognize the incentives & inclination to implement them, which I think is what you’re partly suggesting. Similarly, I think that general addictive effects may arise regardless of platform due to the socio-conscious tendencies you refer to in terms of seeking out stimuli, and to seek it out in an easier way.
At the same time, I think that may be part of why it’s harder for some to shake off the platforms with those more highly tuned & focused algorithms, and I also think it may not be as evident as they may take them somewhat for granted…At least when they work to their interests, vs. when they more clearly fail & show you the opposite of what you’re after.
Yea, I totally agree with you here. It will be interesting to see what types of systems people prefer in the long run. Which will have interesting implications as well as provide insight into what people want & need. There’s probably space for people seeking content that more punchy (addictive) at some times and other content which is more long form (educational / niche / community driven)
Lemmy doesn’t have any algo, it just shows all the content chronologically, or am I wrong?
Nope, you can sort by Hot/Top/Active, and also by time.
Well that’s technically an algorithm yes, but not the kind we’re talking about.
I’m sating it because for example mastodon doesn’t do even that. Afaik, it only sorts chronologically.
Lemmy Hot and Active literally are the algorithms being talked about, make my feed the most interesting posts, albeit less complex and malicious.
It’s definitely not. Hot or Active just shows you the popular stuff based on what has objectively the most views or comments in a particular timeframe, simply sorted by amount.
The algorithms on YT, IG or TT take into account who you are based on all the data collected about you, and often serve you stuff that’s gonna make you upset because that’s more likely to get you engaged and keep you on the site longer.
Plus serving you content that’s as short and simple as possible so it’s easier to serve you ads without interrupting your 20min video 5 times, which would make you more likely to make you seek an adblocker.
Totally different beasts, these algorithms.
On Reddit if you wanted to see controversial content, you had to choose it. Big Tech social serve you that by default.
Fwiw in relation to DreamButt’s comment, TKC & Sneezy are correct regarding the types of algorithms present on Lemmy, but in relation to the overall thread topic, you’re correct in what I was aiming to address.
Yea I know what you meant.
Ok, I see where you’re drawing the distinction. There’s a huge difference in the intention of the algorithms, and we’re unlikely to see these on Lemmy.
Thanks for taking the time to re-explain.
What if we made some open algorithms? Say trained AI that you control, rather than some corporation.
Train it to find stuff that’s actually good, rather than good for the company. Or set it to give you lame stuff when you’ve been doomscrolling too long!