GreenEarth is not the First Social Media Algorithm users control.
Long before Facebook, there were email lists and LiveJournal. Both had simple algorithms, that amounted to "give me what I asked for, in chronological order". They were not alone - those are simply the ones I remember because I personally used them.
When FaceBook came out, the term "social media" was redefined to include only services with opaque algorithms designed to maximize profit, such as FaceBook, Twitter, etc. The social media I continued to frequent were no longer considered "social media" by e.g. traditional media - journalists used only the new definition.
But FaceBook, with its succession of harmful algorithms was in fact the new kid in town.
Of course you can argue "just give me what I asked for" does not constitute user control. In that case, I offer you BlueSky, which allows users a choice of algorithm, with more technically inclined users able to roll their own. It's old enough now that GreenEarth is probably more recent - based on this being the first time I've heard of it. But perhaps not, in which case I'll go back to pointing to LiveJournal and just about everything else of its generation.
GreenEarth, with an algorithm designed to reduce polarization, may be a good thing. But will its users get to control anything about it, or will it, like FaceBook, give users whatever is consistent with the service provider's organizational goals? Will its behaviour even be predictable to the average user, or will things simply get black holed - or boosted to the skies - for reasons confusing to their posters, just like FaceBook and all its ilk?
Indeed social media has largely (though not entirely) switched away from reverse chron -- though chron is still always an option. I strongly believe that more complex algorithms have their uses because chron is limited in many ways (no discovery, and the loudest posters get the most attention).
Will GreenEarth's users get to control anything? The intention is to let them control everything! Please let us know if we've fallen short.
I wish GreenEarth lots of luck. I don't "get" the short form post (Twitter et al.) genre well enough to know whether you are calling out the right things, but imagine that you are.
I've tried to use BlueSky, and never stick with it. I never learned to use short form social media, and by the time one appeared that I didn't object to, the "training wheels" had long ago been removed. "Everyone" knows how to use Twitter et al; no need to explain how to use it. Except what I get through naive experiment doesn't do enough for me to encourage me to check back again. Maybe that's all anyone gets, and I just don't happen to like it, or maybe they know something I do not.
The only satisfying or memorable experience I ever got from BlueSky was when I figured out how to read the whole(?) output of a particular poster, who's a real life friend, and had been saying different things on BlueSky than she'd been saying on Discord, which is our usual locus of online interaction.
But that's my deficiency, not yours. It's pretty clear that most online adults get enough from Twitter et al. that they keep coming back to them - even the ill-reputed "X", which Twitter has become. With luck, they'll be happier on GreenEarth.
GreenEarth is not the First Social Media Algorithm users control.
Long before Facebook, there were email lists and LiveJournal. Both had simple algorithms, that amounted to "give me what I asked for, in chronological order". They were not alone - those are simply the ones I remember because I personally used them.
When FaceBook came out, the term "social media" was redefined to include only services with opaque algorithms designed to maximize profit, such as FaceBook, Twitter, etc. The social media I continued to frequent were no longer considered "social media" by e.g. traditional media - journalists used only the new definition.
But FaceBook, with its succession of harmful algorithms was in fact the new kid in town.
Of course you can argue "just give me what I asked for" does not constitute user control. In that case, I offer you BlueSky, which allows users a choice of algorithm, with more technically inclined users able to roll their own. It's old enough now that GreenEarth is probably more recent - based on this being the first time I've heard of it. But perhaps not, in which case I'll go back to pointing to LiveJournal and just about everything else of its generation.
GreenEarth, with an algorithm designed to reduce polarization, may be a good thing. But will its users get to control anything about it, or will it, like FaceBook, give users whatever is consistent with the service provider's organizational goals? Will its behaviour even be predictable to the average user, or will things simply get black holed - or boosted to the skies - for reasons confusing to their posters, just like FaceBook and all its ilk?
Yes, I responded to the headline claim, before starting to read the article and noticing GreenEarth was built on BlueSky.
Frankly, that's commonly how I handle subject lines making non-credible claims. I react to that content first, rather than to the underlying article.
Indeed social media has largely (though not entirely) switched away from reverse chron -- though chron is still always an option. I strongly believe that more complex algorithms have their uses because chron is limited in many ways (no discovery, and the loudest posters get the most attention).
Will GreenEarth's users get to control anything? The intention is to let them control everything! Please let us know if we've fallen short.
I wish GreenEarth lots of luck. I don't "get" the short form post (Twitter et al.) genre well enough to know whether you are calling out the right things, but imagine that you are.
I've tried to use BlueSky, and never stick with it. I never learned to use short form social media, and by the time one appeared that I didn't object to, the "training wheels" had long ago been removed. "Everyone" knows how to use Twitter et al; no need to explain how to use it. Except what I get through naive experiment doesn't do enough for me to encourage me to check back again. Maybe that's all anyone gets, and I just don't happen to like it, or maybe they know something I do not.
The only satisfying or memorable experience I ever got from BlueSky was when I figured out how to read the whole(?) output of a particular poster, who's a real life friend, and had been saying different things on BlueSky than she'd been saying on Discord, which is our usual locus of online interaction.
But that's my deficiency, not yours. It's pretty clear that most online adults get enough from Twitter et al. that they keep coming back to them - even the ill-reputed "X", which Twitter has become. With luck, they'll be happier on GreenEarth.