• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    An algorithm that prioritizes quality (instead of engagement) DOES change it though. Let’s not pretend that all algorithms are the same.

    • Lemdee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Let’s not pretend that all algorithms are the same.

      But if we don’t, how can we act superior to people who use algorithm based platforms? /s

    • moitoi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re pretending what not the same as facts. I can pretend a lot. It’s how I built general statement fitting the majority.

      In fact, it doesn’t work like this. Whatever you use, the quality shrink with the quantity. You will have an equilibrium at some point but even with algorithms targeting quality, it will shrink.

      The algorithms will continually serve something, low are high quality doesn’t matter. If I use an algorithm priorizing high quality content on a poop emoji platform, it will give me poop emoji. What’s matter the most is what is posted. And, you can’t control the quality of the post.

      It’s how mainstream algorithm based social medias actually work. You have farms of content adapting themselves at each algorithm change.

      So, it’s why the quality depends of how difficult it’s to use the social media.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think you’re confusing what the word “algorithm” means. It could be literally anything! You could even write an algorithm that serves you the single most interesting, high quality, perfectly relevant piece of information found on the internet that day.

        Yes obviously mainstream algorithms are designed like you said. But there’s no reason why they have to operate like that.