I spent a lot of my life and money thinking about building better algorithms (over five years).

We have a bit of a chicken / egg problem. Is it the algorithm or is it the preference of the Users which is the problem.

I'd argue the latter.

What I learned which was counter-intuitive was that the vast majority of people aren't interested in thinking hard. This community, in large part, is an exception where many members pride themselves on intellectually challenging material.

That's not the norm. We're not the norm.

My belief that every human was by their nature "curious" and wanting to be engaged deeply was proven false.

This isn't to claim that this is our nature, but when testing with huge populations in the US (specifically), that's not how adults are.

The problem, to me, is deeper and is rooted in our education system and work systems that demand compliance over creativity. Algorithms serve what Users engage with, if the Users were to no longer be interested in ragebait, clickbait, focused on thoughtful content -- the algorithms would adapt.

So changing your feed to show popular posts on the platform instead of just your friends’ Tweets would be expected to shift someone’s intake toward the average of the platform.

All modern social media is pretty toxic to society, so I don't participate. Even HN/Reddit is borderline. Nothing is quite as good as the irc and forum culture of the 2000s where everyone was truly anonymous and almost nobody tied any of their worth to what exchanges they had online.

No away I'm going to let that level of outrage-baiting garbage even so much as flash before my eyes.

The result is underneath any tweet that gets traction you will see countless blue checkmark users either saying something trolling for their side or engagement-baiting.

The people who are more ideologically neutral or not aligned with Musk are completely drowned out below the hundreds of bulk replies of blue checkmarks.

It used to be that if you saw someone, like a tech CEO, take an interesting position you'd have a varied and interesting discussion in the replies. The algorithm would show you replies in particular from people you follow, and often you'd see some productive exchange that actually mattered. Now it's like entirely drivel and you have to scroll through rage bait and engagement slop before getting to the crumbs of meaningful exchange.

It has had a chilling effect on productive intellectual conversation while also accelerating the polarization of the platform by scaring away many people who care about measured conversation.

This sounds like a call to separate the aggregation step from the content. Reasonable enough, but does it really address the root cause? Aren't we just as polarized in a world where there are dozens of aggregators into the same data and everyone picks the one that most indulges their specific predilections for engagement, rage, and clicks?

What does "open" really buy you in this space?

Don't get me wrong, I want this figured out too, and maybe this is a helpful first step on the way to other things, but I'm not quite seeing how it plays out.

That said, the Trending tab does tend to push very heavy MAGA-aligned narrative, in a way that to me just seems comical, but I suppose there must be people that genuinely take it at face value, and maybe that does push people.

Less to do with the article:

The more I think about it, I'm not really even sure why I use X these days, other than the fact that I don't really have much of an in-person social life outside of work. Sometimes it can be enjoyable, but honestly the main takeaway I have is that microblogging as a format is genuinely terrible, and X in particular does seem to just feed the most angry things possible. Maybe it's exciting to try and discuss opinions but it is also simultaneously hardly possible to have a nuanced or careful discussion when you have limited characters, and someone on the other end that just wants to shout over you.

I miss being a kid and going onto some forums like for Scratch or Minecraft or whatever. The internet felt way more fun when it was just making cool things and chatting with people about it. I think the USA sort of felt more that way too, but it's hard to know if that was just my privilege. When I write about X, it uncomfortably parallels to how I would consider how my interactions have evolved with my family and friends in real life.

It just baffles me how different my experience of using the platform is. I literally do not see any news. I'm not entirely convinced that it's Twitter being biased and not just giving each person what they most engage with.

To give an example, the recent protests in Iran where being covered on X but the BBC was silent for weeks before finally covering the story (for a few days).

I gave up on Twitter when everyone I followed kept adding politics. Even if I agreed with it, I just don't want to a marinade in the anger all day.

Because the MSM news stations themselves pick up the stuff from twitter and just add their own spin flavor. A dozen phone videos from random citizens on-site is always quicker than the time CNN/FOX can send a reporter there. On twitter you at least get the raw footage and can judge for yourself before MSM try to turn it political to rage bait you.