[shrewdcomputer]

> With the AI slop being promoted on the major social media platform’s algorithm, I believe we will go back to following real humans. Back to followers, where we decide who we want to see.

This is a nice thought but I think it's wrong. If TikTok, Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts have proven anything, it's that people don't want to decide they want to consume. It's cynical but it's what the data has shown time and again works for these platforms. Passive consumption is easier for the user and companies know it keeps us online longer.

When you ask people, they will say they want to see who they follow but their behaviour, incentivised by companies, says otherwise.

[raincole]

It is funny that people on Hackernews are (acting as if they were) against algorithmic feeds. This very site is one of the trailblazers that found out how much people prefer algorithmic feeds to chronological ones.

[intothemild]

I think you'll find that people who are against algo-feeds are against that being the only choice.

[andrepd]

In what sense is HN an algorithmic feed? It is neither personalised nor does it have a significant discretionary boost beyond "age" and "upvotes". It's qualitatively a different thing.

[tayo42]

On its own an algorithmic feed is fine. Automatically give people what they want to see. Like TV without flipping channels.

It just turned into something out of control with unintended side effects and immoral goals.

[nicbou]

Perhaps it's a bit like people preferring snacking to a home-cooked meal. At the end of a long day it's nice to be effortlessly entertained, but you can't have just bite-sized experiences. At some point you need to go deeper, to be creative, to chip in.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< It's cynical but

But is it cynical if it is accurate.