How much are link aggregator platforms struggling with the quality of the "general internet"? - eviltoast

It struck me recently that as the quality of content on the internet has arguably gone to shit, in the form of increasingly frequent ads plastered everywhere, paywalls or superficial/dumb blog posts or mainstream media articles, the basic idea of a link aggregator platform can naturally lose its quality, or struggle to maintain a level of quality, and so lose its appeal.

I think I can see this on lemmy (which is my favourite fediverse platform) to some extent and have probably noticed it on somewhere like hackernews to an extent too. I see a link that has an interesting/important sounding title on an interesting/important topic, then click the link and see an article or web page that maybe is just not worth my time.

I’d be curious how many people upvote a link here without reading the cited article/page?

All of which is sad and speaks to general problems with media today, with AI garbage, of course, probably about to make it worse. But regarding the fediverse and lemmy, I think it maybe raises interesting questions.

Obviously the idea of a link aggregator is to seek out and share “the good stuff”. But maybe talking about where that generally comes from needs to be a more prominent and open question? Or maybe I need to subscribe to fewer news communities? More ambitiously though, maybe, at least over time, it will get more important or valuable to lean into the forum-like or even blog-like aspect of lemmy where it’s increasingly all about the “OC” here, especially as engaging with actual humans with actual personal thoughts gets more and more valuable over time? Could private, maybe even invite-only communities even be of value here?

Thoughts?

  • TechnicalCreative@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Algorithms have become so powerful that for a forum community to form, there are so many hurdles.

    Biggest issue right now are the information “silos” that any algorithm-led social media platform algorithm will choose for you. It’ll show you similar content, but rarely from the same person because there are just so many people posting content online that there’s always a next better thing, a trend to chase. People who chase those trends end up exhausting themselves and replaced by others who are willing to be more different and engaging, until they get burnt out as well.

    I used to follow a few forums, and I loved the mindless scroll of Reddit, but I found myself going back to YouTube or Instagram when I slid further into the doom scroll mentality. Those forums have now gone, due to increasing costs of hosting, and being unable to monetise a community to a sustainable degree. Reddit have understood the value of user attention and platform control to push their ads, got greedy, and locked everything down. Instagram (and meta) are, in my opinion, the leaders in algorithm based social networks, and they drive the trends without being in direct control of them.

    The emotional rollercoaster that I’ve caught myself experiencing, where I get a photo of a friend suggested to me, and I start subconsciously comparing myself, only for the next post to be a soothing, highly targeted video that the algorithm knows I would enjoy and it dulls the emotional impact of the previous post, making me forget about it. The algorithm doesn’t care how you feel, but it knows what will make you engaged.

    My reply became a bit of a rant about algorithms, but that’s where we’re headed. In fact, a friend has a theory that suggests that we’ll be reduced to a burst of quick content blocks. Inputs of little importance, like yes/no questions, because only us, humans, can make those little decisions that will add up to something bigger. When we get exhausted we get our rest and back in the machine we go. What would the bigger thing be? Who knows.

    Gosh look at me, I sound like one of those internet prophets that talk out of their arse.

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So just to make sure I understand where you’re coming from (hope that’s not rude) …

      Algorithmic feeds are so addictive and controlling that active human generated forums/blogs are just unlikely to gain enough momentum to form. And, projecting into the future (with a good dose of dystopia, that’s a trend unlikely to change such that human activity on or consumption of the internet is likely to devolve to an incredibly simple and subjugated form … ??

      • PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I predict in the future, there will be two forms of useful information:

        • code, which can be compiled to do something.
        • books.

        Everything else will be seen as entertainment…and should we not be entertained?

        I wonder if future historians will look at all of us the same way we view Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.

    • PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The algorithm flaw is it only works for as long as the average human poo. So quite literally, these algorithms are poo algorithms, designed to hold our attention for our median bathroom duration. Poo algorithms are relatively powerless–they have no sway over the human mental condition.

      In fact, we should marvel at the unifying element of the poo algorithm, an entire species locked in on a common, unifying experience. The UN could open up sessions with “did you see this while on the shitter?” and we would be better for it.

      /s, sorta.