Facebook removed the news feed algorithm in an experiment

Post by gfosco » Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

cassianoleal wrote: post #3

darepublic wrote: post #2

Title seems like Facebook bashing but the article is more even keel. Suggest that "Then it gave up" be removed from the post title

That would be editorialising, since that's in the actual article. > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: I don't mind being downvoted, but I would really like to know why that's the case so I can improve how I contribute to the forum.

Post by forgotmypw17 » Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

mzs wrote: post #40

lanerobertlane wrote: post #32

When people argue against the 'news feed algorithm' they mean anything other than a reverse chronological feed of posts from the people they follow. status updates, and interactions between people/pages you both follow. This article mentions that they turned the news feed off but people were still hiding posts from pages they don't follow, which friends had commented on. These shouldn't appear in a news feed that is…

I have no algorithm again, at least until FB decides to break it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29004489

Post by jfengel » Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

asimpletune wrote: post #12

I don’t remember what Facebook had instead of a news feed in 2008, but I do remember thinking Facebook was so cool then. When messenger came out, it was amazing. It was totally normal then to message random people who you thought were cool and just have a conversation. I would even get random chats from Facebook employees. It just seemed so different then than now. I’m just trying to piece together the evolution of F…

Post by pipeline_peak » Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

fsflover wrote: post #35

jjulius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not if the other platform is decentralized... Like all of the other decentralized social media platforms that most people just don't care about? I'd argue that social media has become so polarized that, no matter their views, most people will want some sort of centralized body setting rules that act in their (the user's) interests. >... and doesn't rely on advertising money. People have widely adopted social media b…

> centralized body setting rules that act in their (the user's) interests. Not sure it's possible. Only if you (or your friend) are the admin, you will like the rules. > How is such a platform staying online without charging users or using advertiser money? It's much more secure and reliable (long-term) to have a sustainable small server for friends than to rely on a huge anti-user for-profit company. One could also…

Post by fsflover » Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

pipeline_peak wrote: post #47

fsflover wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> centralized body setting rules that act in their (the user's) interests. Not sure it's possible. Only if you (or your friend) are the admin, you will like the rules. > How is such a platform staying online without charging users or using advertiser money? It's much more secure and reliable (long-term) to have a sustainable small server for friends than to rely on a huge anti-user for-profit company. One could also…

A new social media platform taking off through ad revenue is enough of a lottery, let alone through a paid service. Even if it’s as low as $1 a month, you’re not gonna get average users to join a new social media platform in the name of politics. People want to connect with their friends, that’s all they ever wanted out of these sites.