[StanislavPetrov]

It is mind boggling to me how anyone can cry about "the algorithm" on Twitter, either now or in the past, in regards to their own feed. On the very top of your Twitter feed there are two buttons. One says "for you" (which feeds you the algorithm) and the other says "following". Simply clicking on the "following" tab means that you only see Tweets from people you are following, in chronological order, without any algorithm or any interference from Twitter of any kind. How on earth can anyone willingly choose the Twitter algorithm to curate their feed with the "for you" tab and then cry about it?

[add-sub-mul-div]

There's a lot more subtlety to it than just that.

For example, reading the conversation that follows from a single tweet. There's pages of culture war bullshit, spam, AI, paid blue checks that all gets ranked more highly in the replies than what quality discussion there might be.

Another example, let's say you post a tweet. The tweet is shown to others who aren't following the strict chronological timeline of their own followers. The "algorithm" (whatever that is) shows it to people who hate your stance, because that's what drives engagement/revenue, and now your own replies are flooded with shit.

[PaulHoule]

If you read the article they repeat themselves several times saying that they're not just concerned about what he sees in their feed but also what other people see in their feeds.

That is, they want to be able to post things that show vulnerability without having the posts be visible to people who will attack people that show that vulnerability. They want less visibility.

[StanislavPetrov]

I read the article, which is why I included the, "in regards to their own feed" qualifier. Clearly the author of this article has other issues, namely they don't want to engage with trolls or anyone who disagrees with them (in which case the internet is the wrong place for them all together). But the dissatisfaction with the algorithm is a complaint I've come across frequently, thus the comment.

[PaulHoule]

The post interested me because it shows the flip side of the “reply guy” phenomenon; I get accused of this quite a bit, maybe my non-fashionable neurodivergence has something to do with it. But disagree with some people or even comment on something making a point to not draw a moral conclusion, which is particularly triggering for some people, and you usually see an angry rant or two, then a declaration that you’re blocked, and then you are blocked.

For once somebody like this is expressing themselves in a blog and actually expressing themselves. It still seems to me to be a naive position; there is the fight over blocking in Twitter right now where people are claiming they need blocks so that their enemies can’t read their posts but what stops their enemies from making another account? (I guess the block still stops replies though)

If people are that sensitive however they probably should be in a closed space of some kind.