
The No-Algorithms Follow-Up - jseliger
https://inessential.com/2019/07/03/no_algorithms_follow_up
======
TomMckenny
Social media algorithms have produced the worst results recently. But some
outlets like tabloids and AM radio have long embraced outraged hyperbole and
blatant falsehood to attract audiences.

Possibly any motivation beyond a desire to inform damages the message at least
a little. And sometimes annihilates factuality completely.

I would conjecture this is because facts are often subtle, ambiguous, complex
or contradict preconceived notions. So choosing between reality vs
entertainment/outrage portrayed as reality, people tend to prefer the latter.
So anyone maximizing for numbers will be drawn into the latter too. Maybe this
is the human bug referred to in the article.

So current algorithms that maximize engagement are obviously catastrophically
bad and any curation has to be better. But there may yet be undiscovered
(likely non trivial) algorithms that promote calm reality. They just might be
less profitable. As newspapers are less profitable.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
They might be profitable for someone else though.

I'm think ad-blocker combined with spam blocker-tech, build it into your
browser (or Hacker News style aggregator) and automatically choose the best
coverage of a particular story via signals like does it link to the scientific
paper it mentions.

------
xmprt
No algorithm also has the problem of being limited to your own bubble of
curated content. I don't think that's the best thing either although it's a
lot better than optimizing for engagement.

------
kickscondor
I think the problem is not just the algorithm but the presentation as well.
Take the dominant 'news feed' view of your network:

* Posts are each given a fixed area of the feed. They are treated much like a steam of banner adverts.

* Individuals are all crammed in the same feed, as if they are competitors for your attention.

* Individuals who post more frequently will dominate the feed. If you have someone who only posts three times a week - but it is all gold - you'll never see those posts.

Compare this to the days before RSS when you had a list of bookmarks and you
checked up on websites individually. It certainly lacked the convenience of
the news feed - but the reading experience was better in my opinion.

~~~
gumby
Compare it to the “old days” where newspapers ge the size of headlines and
placement. Not sure the uniform size is actually a step backwards.

------
amelius
If the premise of the article is true, then why aren't major newspapers
feeding on anger and rage?

I suspect that the algorithm is not the problem, but the inability to do
proper fact-checking is.

~~~
yoz-y
I think there are several reasons:

\- If your publication starts feeding on anger and outrage you become a
tabloid by definition.

\- There is plenty of negativity going on in there but it’s more subtle.
Remember the whole completely false cycle of “Apple Watch is a failure” news
or the Big Hack story? New York Times published a bollocks article about the
Chinese hospital system with fake translations of witness accounts.

Now I still have more trust in major publications than other outlets but even
those are not that good at or eager to fact check if it makes for a better
story.

