no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
5 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
[–] 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So then there's gonna be an option for a strictly chronological timeline?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    No. That’s an algorithm.

    So is filtering to only friends and hiding blocked users.

    So no algo, no feed at all really.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    you just get posts in precisely whateverthefuck order the server ends up pulling them from its database, which isn't an algorithm because obviously that means the Lord himself is deciding the order of your feed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    because these politicians know extremely little about the Internet

    I started participating in online communities in the 2000s. The "social media" we had back then was web forums, organized by topics and sorted chronologically. I was young enough at the time that it is now permanently stored in my brain that that is the normal way the Internet should be like, and everything popularized since then (recommendation algorithms, the idea that we should follow people instead of topics, even the idea that websites shouldn't be specific to certain topics) is a deviation from normalcy.

    I know, rationally, that those deviations from normalcy are now the new normal (even the fediverse is "only" an attempt to improve further on that, not a move toward the Internet of the 2000s), but there is still a part of my brain that doesn't accept this.

    But I very strongly suspect that those politicians, in Australia and elsewhere, who are now trying to regulate the Internet, never posted anything to a traditional web forum, or edited a wiki, or anything like that. To them, "social media" became a thing (at all!) in around 2008 to 2010 when they created Twitter and Facebook accounts in order to communicate with their voters. (Reality check: social media has been a thing since, at the latest, the 1980s, when Usenet was invented.)

    If they don't know that the Internet is not Facebook, then it's unsurprising when they regulate the internet as if it’s all just Facebook, so that all that will be left is Facebook. Sad times we are living in.

  • source
  • parent
  • 3 comments in c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone view that post
    [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Have we seen the birth of No Algo Albo?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The threshold for harm on facebook in particular is already basically non-existent.

    I've reported all kinds of posts, including subtle threats. They're never against community standards.

    This should be pushed, and, later enhanced to be even tougher

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/antisocialmedia@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Engagement algorithms should be opt-in, if they have to exist at all, but this is a good step in the right direction.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    I look forward to this law being weak as shit after it goes through the both houses and the barrier to the fine being stupidly high and any actual fines issued will be appealed to pocket change. Oh wait, 100m is pocket change them when they are making billions a quarter.

    Meta made 60 billion

    Google made 119 billion

  • source