Comment by mandmandam
4 days ago
> It's just that they can't be useful (i.e., designed to optimize for some profitable metric) without causing harm.
That's not the pattern I've seen, as close as you are to it.
I've seen lots of platforms be wildly useful. Digg was good for a while; StumpleUpon, Pinterest, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, Reddit and even Facebook all had periods at the start where they added real value to people's lives.
At some point they start to "optimize for some profitable metric" - and quickly become heinous.
The problem isn't the algorithm; it's that it gets twisted toward profit. And that's basically a tautology - once you start trying to suck money out of the equation for yourself, that juice has to come from somewhere.
I can envision a platform that isn't based on profit being far more useful than harmful - if it can only ward off the manipulations of the yacht class.
Reddit is still extremely valuable if you curate it heavily. My entire feed is my narrow interests and passions (though I still use old.reddit, which helps. The minute that's gone, I probably am too)
> if it can only ward off the manipulations of the yacht class.
The inevitable enshittification of goods and services once they reach a certain level of maturity (i.e., profitability) basically guarantees that the yachted-classes will be involved.
Given this de-facto inevitability, the original premise (that algorithmic content is eventually a bad thing) makes more sense
It's not inevitable though.
Emails, torrents, Mastodon, VLC, Blender, Linux - They're all either solid, or even getting better over time.
Why? Because the capital class were explicitly denied, by design or by principle.
Like with healthcare, transport, post services, housing, and much else, there's simply areas where the public good is too important to give the profit motive too strong a foothold. I believe social media is one of those areas.