Hacker News Reader

> Is it the algorithm or is it the preference of the Users which is the problem. I'd argue the latter.

> Algorithms serve what Users engage with

User engagement isn't actually the same thing as user preference, even though I think many people and companies take the shortcut of equating the two.

People often engage more with things they actually don't like, and which create negative feelings.

These users might score higher on engagement metrics when fed this content, but actually end up leaving the platform or spending less time there, or would at least answer in a survey question that they don't like some or most of the content they are seeing.

This is a major reason I stopped using Threads many months ago. Their algorithm is great at surfacing posts that make me want to chime in with a correction, or click to see the rest of the truncated story. But that doesn't mean I actually liked that experience.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Curious about this. Don't have an angle, just trying to survey your perspective.

You shared: > People often engage more with things they actually don't like, and which create negative feelings.

Do you think this is innate or learned? And, in either case, can it be unlearned.

I think it’s situational.

If you measure which TV shows and movies I watch, that’s a vote of preference.

If you measure which news headlines evoke a comment from me, that’s a measure of engagement but not necessarily preference.

People respond to a lot of things that annoy them, and I think it’s a pretty common human trait. Advertising your business with bright lights and noise can be effective, but we often ban this in our towns and cities because we prefer life without them.

Not OP, but I think most of us have an instinct to correct things that we think are wrong.

I don't think such instincts can be unlearned, but they can be held in check by the realization that naive attempts to fix things can make things worse, including how we feel about ourselves.

This conscious inhibition, however, requires cognitive effort.

> 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.

Algorithms have been adapted; they are successful at their goals. We’ve put some of the smartest people on the planet on this problem for the last 20 years.

Humans are notoriously over-sensitive to threats; we see them where they barely exist, and easily overreact. Modern clickbait excels at presenting mundane information as threatening. Of course this attracts more attention.

Also, loud noises attract more attention than soft noise. This doesn’t mean that humans prefer an environment full of loud noises.

>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.

>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.

Yeah, the way I look at it is product managers and everyone above them in the reporting chain make more money for their respective companies the more they optimize short-form content delivery. Pretty much what you just said.

So, what we're left with is a hyper-optimized content pipeline over the years that's pretty rough to get away from when quite a large number of people are already accustomed and/or addicted. In other words it's really hard to close up Pandora's Box again, but fortunately not impossible.

>Nice chat, apologies if my response was off-putting. It was intended to be self-deprecating humor.

No worries, wasn't sure and didn't want to read into it wrong. Wasn't trying to be snarky on my end. Cheers.

It is not the norm here either.