This idea that "the algorithm" is something you can just "publish" is a pernicious lie told by people like Musk - who knows it isn't true - to the general public who don't know better. The "algorithm" in reality is probably farcical calls to cusotm APIs that no current employees understand well enough to modify which is why Twitter hasn't changed anything in coming up to a decade - which is when all the engineering talent left.
And sure, you can say "Well that's a bad way of designing the algorithm" but then what you're really saying is that you don't want to open source the algorithm at all, you want to re-write the algorithm to satisfy your sense of how the world should work with no evidence it'll actually work.
There is an entire new subfield of ML that is tackling this problem. There are now conferences dedicated to this topic. It is not an easy problem, but it is not impossible.
There are hundreds of researchers working on fairness, interpretability, trust and explainability in ML and a lot of them are working on models much much bigger than what Twitter's feed might involve.
This is a good starting point:
> And sure, you can say "Well that's a bad way of designing the algorithm" but then what you're really saying is that you don't want to open source the algorithm at all, you want to re-write the algorithm to satisfy your sense of how the world should work with no evidence it'll actually work.
You can still open source multiple steaming piles of shit and then let the community improve that so that it is more widely understandable and trusted. See [1] again.
No one said that. You created a straw man and are arguing with it.
This comment says more about you than you think.
So why is that impossible? Mastodon exists. Is Twitter engineering so horrible that they are orders of magnitude worse than Mastodon's engineer quality?