I think most projects pride themselves on not having something like that. It would be hard to create an algorithm that doesn’t create the problems that we know of commercial platforms (echo chambers, biases, and the likes). There used to be simpler algorithms on the platforms but then people got stuck in racist or conspiracy stuff. And then they tried to tweak it and then people started to complain that the platforms are biased. You can’t win. It maybe harder to curate what to follow on your own but at least there is not some algorithm that influences what you see and what you like and what you think.
I think it doesn’t have to be. The crucial thing is that you have the option to simply change instances if you don’t like the algorithm that comes with it. The scholar Katharina Zweig introduced danger-levels of algorithms. The danger level is determined by A.) whether you can easily get an alternative for the given algorithm without investing too much and B.) which has low negative impact in case the algorithm is bad.
She would categorizes curating-algorithms in social media therefore as low as long as there are enough alternatives that you can easily switch to and I would agree with that.
Edit: The categorization was about algorithm-decision-systems but it can be applied for algorithms in general
I doubt you would find an algorithm per instance. The question is what kind of recommendations would like? What is the kind of content you want to push and how do you decide to push it. I am genuinely wondering because even when I used Twitter, I always used the chronological view so I’m wondering what you are missing.
I think most projects pride themselves on not having something like that. It would be hard to create an algorithm that doesn’t create the problems that we know of commercial platforms (echo chambers, biases, and the likes). There used to be simpler algorithms on the platforms but then people got stuck in racist or conspiracy stuff. And then they tried to tweak it and then people started to complain that the platforms are biased. You can’t win. It maybe harder to curate what to follow on your own but at least there is not some algorithm that influences what you see and what you like and what you think.
Ok ok fine. I get it. I still think it would be cool. Maybe some time in the future when the Fediverse is further developed as a whole.
I think it will be pretty much I possible to create an unbiased recommendation algorithm without creating echo chambers.
Do you mean “impossible”?
I think it doesn’t have to be. The crucial thing is that you have the option to simply change instances if you don’t like the algorithm that comes with it. The scholar Katharina Zweig introduced danger-levels of algorithms. The danger level is determined by A.) whether you can easily get an alternative for the given algorithm without investing too much and B.) which has low negative impact in case the algorithm is bad.
She would categorizes curating-algorithms in social media therefore as low as long as there are enough alternatives that you can easily switch to and I would agree with that.
Edit: The categorization was about algorithm-decision-systems but it can be applied for algorithms in general
I doubt you would find an algorithm per instance. The question is what kind of recommendations would like? What is the kind of content you want to push and how do you decide to push it. I am genuinely wondering because even when I used Twitter, I always used the chronological view so I’m wondering what you are missing.