Comment by rl3
10 hours ago
>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.
I recommend against putting HN on a pedestal. It just leads to disappointment.
It's true -- I do enjoy this community even though it's failed to serve my every thought with the love that I surely deserve!
Odd reply, but OK. For what it's worth I largely agree with everything else you said.
>>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.
Technically that's true. Thing is, the UI/UX isn't built for long-form content. The platform, interface and algorithm when taken as a whole represent more of a dopamine delivery system heavily biased towards short-form content.
That dynamic in turn ends up being deleterious to cognition to the point it ends up fighting any external factors that which could change user behavior for the better.
In other words the algorithm is part of a larger format, and that format is arguably the real drag. Of course, the algorithm being properly transparent and accountable to its users would certainly help.
I think we're relatively aligned. But you're sharing another chicken & egg problem of whether the algorithm (and engagement with it) is driving the design of the feeds or the other way around.
Arguably, the initial design was a shot in the dark and they're approaching some local maxima with data-driven design trying to improve metrics that we probably all agree aren't the best for our mental health or wellbeing.
Nice chat, apologies if my response was off-putting. It was intended to be self-deprecating humor.
1 reply →