[Ourgon]

How it works is interesting in itself but it is not the reason why these 'algorithmic feeds' have gained the nefarious reputation they have. The real problem with this type of technology is the way it allows the proprietor of the service to present its users a tailored view of whatever content the service offers. The way this view is tailored depends on what the proprietors' aim is:

Twitter uses algorithmic feeds to present its users with an ideologically driven view of whatever is being discussed, this can easily be seen by reading the first comments on contentious issues where they nearly always push some 'progressive' comments to the front, even when those comments are clearly less popular with users than whatever other comments follow. Comments critical of 'progressive' issues often require one or more extra clicks to be made visible. Sometimes this leads to the first page being devoid of comments, requiring a click to access whatever comments are present where those comments are nearly invariably critical of the 'progressive' issue being discussed. This does not happen when there are positive comments on those 'progressive' issues since these are presented directly on the first page.

TikTok and Youtube also use algorithmic feeds to channel users but their algorithms seem to be tailored to keep users on the site/app for as long as possible.

[transitivebs]

I agree with your sentiments. Just keep in mind that the whole point of this discussion is to move towards more transparency and optionality around how Twitter works.

As you pointed out, not everything is algorithmic. There are definitely human factors at play, but without a more solid understanding of how twitter's algorithmic feed actually works, the discussion will remain hand wavy at best.

Just my 2 cents :)

[cpr]

This was abundantly clear when, e.g., every Trump tweet had the first (always highly negative) replies from a couple of crazy doctor brothers (twins?).

[mikkergp]

I always interpreted this as someone wrote a script and learned to game the algorithm, you think there’s a line of code in there that says trump_replies.unshift(crazy_doctor_brother_tweets) in there somewhere?

[Ourgon]

No, I suspect the algorithm takes into account both the sender as well as the content of the message in deciding which comments to push to the front. Reliably 'progressive' senders - especially those which create more 'progressive' engagement - get extra points, this in combination with a 'progressive' message or one critical of any non-'progressive' message seems to be among the deciding factors in what to push to the front. In the absence of 'progressive' senders and/or content the algorithm probably looks for senders who create more engagement over those who don't, adding an extra click barrier between 'progressive' messages and comments which are critical of such.

Popular non-'progressive' senders - Trump and now Musk being the poster child of such - probably get their own comment manager who makes sure there is always some vitriol waiting no matter the message. This does not scale but the Pareto principle makes that it does not have to since there are not that many of such. The same may be true for popular 'progressive' senders where comment managers may make sure there are supportive comments but this seems to be less clear-cut.