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 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)