Skip to main content

I've been thinking about the lack of algorithmic* feeds in the #Fediverse and wondering how much that is hurting growth and retention. Big social media spend billions on getting and keeping eyeballs, and algorithmic timelines are a huge part of that.

I think it's right to avoid it, but I worry that will just forever stunt growth. The alternative is human curators, I think, but I have no idea how to make that happen.

*Yes, I know reverse chronological is an algorithm, algo-pedants.

#mastodon

#Mastodon #fediverse
in reply to John Conway

Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan
• •
@John Conway Your whole post hinges on growth being desirable. However, with no profit incentive on the #Fediverse, there's no need for growth either. Commercial social networks spend so much on growth and retention because it's integral to their business model, not in their users' best interest, see the toxic culture fostered on Instagram.
#fediverse @John Conway
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

Tio
Tio
•
100%. Why should "growth" be important anyway? It should be about having a "social" and a "network". To follow what you like, to interact with your friends, and so forth.
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

silverwizard
silverwizard
• •

I think the larger point about people being able to build local networks on the Fediverse, which they can use to create.

I understand that creating on the internet is a major business thing these days, and I don't know if I think it's worth burning down a network for, but I think that it's something to consider.

in reply to silverwizard

Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan
• •
@silverwizard Even through an artist point of view, regular social media algorithms don't do much for them, mostly hiding their content from some of their followers, and increasing exposure inequality by recommending already popular posts/artists.
@silverwizard
in reply to Hypolite Petovan

silverwizard
silverwizard
• •

Sorry, yes, I wasn't saying the algo was good. I believe John's point is that algos drive critical mass of users, which is important for artists &c.

I think John is not fully correct, but I think the lack of stickiness slow things down

in reply to Hypolite Petovan

wakest ⁂
wakest ⁂
• •

I think it might be useful to have more nuance in the terms we use here. One type of growth that I think is important is people being able to keep their *social graph* and that requires a certain *critical mass*

I moved to the fediverse full time and tried for years to bring people here from facebook and the #1 complaint I got was "you are the only one I know that uses it"

a large portion of people use social media to interact with already existing friends not make new ones.

in reply to wakest ⁂

wakest ⁂
wakest ⁂
• •
We don't care about growth for the sake of growth. But social media is only useful if the people you want to interact with are using it. Otherwise its just a place to take notes into the void and thats not much fun for most people...
in reply to John Conway

Mike Taylor 🦕
Mike Taylor 🦕
• •
What you call stunted growth, I call organic growth. People come because someone recommends it, stay because they see things they like, don't leave because it's not toxic. This is all good. Slower growth gives time for server admins to scale up and find funding strategies. Exponential growth gets you where you want to be soon enough, even for a small exponent.
in reply to John Conway

Mike Taylor 🦕
Mike Taylor 🦕
• •
That's fine: it's tourists who joined in the initial burst, and never really engaged. They're free to go.
in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕

John Conway
John Conway
• •
Yea, I'm hoping its a slump after and period of false growth, and real organic growth will return. The truth is though that the Fediverse is just too small for the palaeoart community for example. Growth is needed.
in reply to John Conway

Mike Taylor 🦕
Mike Taylor 🦕
• •
To small for the palaeoart community to *what*? I'm seeing more actual communication between you guys here than I ever did on Twitter.
in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕

John Conway
John Conway
• •
Support an audience that leads to Patreon conversions, book sales, commissions, etc. It's mercenary, but there you are, it's how we make a living.
in reply to John Conway

Mike Taylor 🦕
Mike Taylor 🦕
• •

OK, you're talking here about a broadcast medium?

(Nothing wrong with wanting that, of course; but I think it's a mistake to want THIS to be THAT.)

in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕

John Conway
John Conway
• •
I don't agree that treating it something like a broadcast medium is a mistake. Twitter and Mastodon are *explicitly* asymmetric to allow this, unlike Facebook where the relationships are symmetric.
in reply to John Conway

Mike Taylor 🦕
Mike Taylor 🦕
• •
Interesting. And yet Mastodon is explicitly non-algorithmic. And Facebook's weirdly named concept of "pages" are explicitly asymmetric for just this reason.
in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕

John Conway
John Conway
• •

Yes, Facebook added a specific mechanism for it (because Facebook was trying to be an everything app).

I'm not sure where in this conversation everyone got the idea that I was arguing that algorithmic timelines are a great idea – I explicitly say the opposite in the first post – my point is that Mastodon competes with big social networks, and algorithmic timelines are a competitive advantage for many, many people.

We need to give them something competitive.

in reply to John Conway

Mike Taylor 🦕
Mike Taylor 🦕
• •

What, other than algorithmic timelines, would be competitive?

Also: why would algorithmic timelines delivery you more potential-customer eyeballs than chronological timelines?

in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕

John Conway
John Conway
• •

Algorithmic timelines are actually two things mashed together:

1. A filter, prioritising the most popular posts from the people you follow, which is meant to keep the entertainment value high

2. A recommendation engine, which is meant to aid in discovery

We can probably do without the first. The second gets to the huge discoverability problem on Mastodon. People don't know who to follow or how to find stuff that's interesting to them, and they often give up.

in reply to John Conway

Mike Taylor 🦕
Mike Taylor 🦕
• •

I am certainly 100% in agreement that discovery is very poor.

I think the answer to that is search, but we've already discussed the short-sighted cultural factors that have so far prevented this.

in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕

John Conway
John Conway
• •
I'd like to see search and a recommendation engine API of some sort. The engine would have to be _very_ carefully built though.
in reply to John Conway

Mike Taylor 🦕
Mike Taylor 🦕
• •
I'm not sure what recommendations would get me that searches didn't. But I have no argument against it being tried so long as it's strictly opt-in.
in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕

John Conway
John Conway
• •
You have strong interests and intent. A lot of people just don't, they use social media for light entertainment, and that's fine by me.
in reply to Mike Taylor 🦕

John Conway
John Conway
• •
I'm thinking more of a "StumbleUpon for the fediverse", rather than a "silently alter your feed based on feedback you didn't even realise you were giving".
⇧