- Users of social media platforms like Facebook are part of constant marketing experiments
- Because algorithms are driven by AI and machine learning, it’s impossible to know how social media companies are choosing what to show — and not show — different groups of people
- Because there is no “random assignment”, marketers can’t fully tell if one ad might work better than another one.
- In the process, groups of social media users can be excluded from important messages
- Algorithms are so precise, they can target people down to an individual level
This is one area where BlueSky is breaking new ground in an incredible way with user-created feeds.
Meta will never give you this because they want to be in constant control of everything you see. Maybe like 20% things you’ve expressed that you actually want to see.
This not only gives you the power to control what you see but also disincentives creators and marketers from trying to abuse and manipulate the single algorithm. Like, don’t bother, because there isn’t one.
Fedi could learn a lot from them.
I left Facebook because the lack of control, so I’d say Fedi learned.
Fedi learned lots of things, but they haven’t learned about user-generated or shared feeds.
Fedi is ours, so make a PR adding support for it!
Why do so many people assume everyone on the Fediverse is a software developer?
The point I’m trying to make with some snark is: it’s not a static platform, it’s open to all those who are capable to make the change they want. Not to take the fediverse as a single entity.
I’m not sure what I’m understanding that’s markedly different from what we have here in terms of feeds, nor am I sure letting users curate and create their own personal echo chambers is a real “solution.”
If I understand it correctly, only some of the ways of viewing Lemmy content actually have an algorithm behind them (Hot view, for instance) whereas things like Top are… literally just the top posts/comments based on aggregated upvotes/downvotes. New just shows things chronologically from newest to oldest, Old is the opposite of that. Controversial is potentially an algorithm but I’m not deeply sure about that, because it seems like it could be calculated as simply as Top is.
Manipulating things over here is more like making spam accounts and flooding with upvotes/downvotes, which is a problem but hopefully one that gets addressed as development continues.
I also thought Mastodon was just a chronological feed as well. Not a lot to manipulate there?
I’ll be real, I don’t get the hype for Bluesky when it’s venture capital funded (by Blockchain Capital no less) and eventually those VCs are going to want a return on investment. At some point, something will have to be done to produce a profit and won’t that be when the screws start being turned on the users?
Well there’s only a handful of “algorithms” (if you can call them that) in Lemmy, created by the devs, and all of them are very basic. You cannot go and create your own feed and you cannot share that feed with anyone else.
Yes that is the problem. Maybe not for you, but it is for many “normies”.
I agree and was not trying to “hype” BSky. Just pointing out that fedi devs could take a page out of their book.
I still don’t see a difference between choosing who to follow (Mastodon)/choosing what communities to follow (Lemmy)/blocking people-communities-intances you don’t like and “creating your own feed.” To me, all of those things are creating your own feed.
“Creating your own feed” implements algorithms that surfaces content for you, rather than you having to go searching for it. I’ve already explained how Lemmy is different and I don’t know how to be clearer about that.